The Identity of God.

[robrecht]

Yes, it speaks to an 'Age of Reason,' but that does not address the issue.

There is an important issue that you have failed to address. Yes, the Vatican II makes statements that some characteristics, elements and attributes Salvation may exist in churches and religions outside the One True Church, but nowhere does it say that those out side the One True Church may be saved. The only long standing exceptions remain salvation for those that are ignorant because of no fault of their own. The basic Doctrine of 'There is no Salvation outside the Church' still stands.

Where specifically does it say those outside the One True Church may be saved?

Please note, again . . .

Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church

it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

© Copyright Original Source

This is not an issue that I have failed to address because up until now I have merely been correcting your misrepresentation and misunderstanding of current Catholic doctrine. Your question here does not necessarily address the issue in a helpful manner because it begs the question of what is meant by 'the One True Church'. You should look at the variety of meanings of church, especially in the writings of Origen, to understand the original meaning of the phrase, as opposed to the meaning that it acquired subsequently in an understanding that is no longer taught by the Church. Current teaching, since Vatican II, prefers to use broader language such as the People of God and the various ways in which people may be understood to be part of or related to the People of God. Likewise, the phrase 'those who are ignorant because of no fault of their own' is rich in meaning and should not be too narrowly defined and discarded as only speaking of infants, those who have no knowledge of the church, and those who are mentally ill or incapacitated. But, nonetheless, to answer your question in the problematic language that you prefer to use, where is specifically said that those outside the One True Church may be saved, you need look no further than your own quoted diocesan level tract: "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."

[robrecht]

... I do not believe it did. Please cite the specific place where it says this.

You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

[robrecht]

A more explicit description of this church doctrine is provided here, with appropriate citations:

Source: How did Vatican II develop the teaching �No Salvation outside the Church�? Presentation by David Sch�tz

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church, which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it [LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5].

© Copyright Original Source

Yes. All of this is ultimately based on Lumen Gentium 14 and, as noted, the phrase has been significantly nuanced, addressing those within the Church. This section of the document is not to be misunderstood as attempting to express the current teaching of the Church on the relation to the People of God of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, nonreligious, and atheists, which is found in Lumen Gentium 15-16

[shunyadragon]

You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. All of this is ultimately based on Lumen Gentium 14 and, as noted, the phrase has been significantly nuanced,

Disagree, there is no indication that the phrasr has been 'significantly' nuanced. There has been clarification and interpretation to consider specific grounds for salvation outside the One True Church, and some allowance of 'elements, attributes, and characteristics of Salvation in churches and religions outside the church, but nothing that would indicate that there is Salvation outside the One True Church.

Your side stepping the clear and specific meaning Lumen Gentium 14. You have failed to cite anthing that would indicate that the 'nuanced' meaning would allow Salvation outside the Roman Church.

. . . addressing those within the Church. This section of the document is not to be misunderstood as attempting to express the current teaching of the Church on the relation to the People of God of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, nonreligious, and atheists, which is found in Lumen Gentium 15-16

Here is where you are appealing to wishful thinking and a high fog index to support your argument without any specific reference. The reference is clear and specific. THERE IS NOT SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Lumen Gentium 15-16 does not help your case. You have to cite your sources and explain your case based on these sources, not just make claims. These references you cite explain that there are elements, characteristics and attributes of Salvation in other churches and religions outside the One True Church. There is absolutely nothing in 15 and 16 that considers Salvation outside the Church. There are references to who may be included in the 'Plan of Salvation,' and those who have no knowledge of the Church, but (14) is specifically clear and without equivocation as to who may be 'Saved.' Those who knowingly believe in Heresy, and schisms of Christianity are not Saved.

My references are specific and unequivocal as to the fact that there is No Salvation Outside the Church. You are avoiding and trying to go around these references.

[robrecht]

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

Exactly what claim are you claiming I made?

[robrecht]

Disagree, there is no indication that the phrasr has been 'significantly' nuanced.

There has been clarification and interpretation to consider specific grounds for salvation outside the One True Church, and some allowance of 'elements, attributes, and characteristics of Salvation in churches and religions outside the church, but nothing that would indicate that there is Salvation outside the One True Church.

Your side stepping the clear and specific meaning Lumen Gentium 14. You have failed to cite anthing that would indicate that the 'nuanced' meaning would allow Salvation outside the Roman Church.

Nonsense. I quoted your own source back to you, even 'though its level of authority should not be exaggerated: "it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."

Here is where you are appealing to wishful thinking and a high fog index to support your argument without any specific reference. The reference is clear and specific. THERE IS NOT SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH. Lumen Gentium 15-16 does not help your case. You have to cite your sources and explain your case based on these sources, not just make claims. These references you cite explain that there are elements, characteristics and attributes of Salvation in other churches and religions outside the One True. There is absolutely nothing in 15 and 16 that considers Salvation outside the Church.

My references are specific and unequivocal as to the fact that there is No Salvation Outside the Church. You are avoiding and trying to go around these references.

Nonsense. I believe you are the one playing with words and not recognizing changes in nuance and interpretation. I have never denied or evaded the teaching of the Church in Lumen Gentium 14, but it should not be confused as addressing the same questions and people as are addressed in Lumen Gentium 15-16. Nor should one ignore the reinterpretation of the phrase as used in Lumen Gentium 14, recovering its original meaning, a reinterpretation that you want to minimize.

[shunyadragon]

Exactly what claim are you claiming I made?

Here

By the way, I hope you now realize, even if you will not admit it, that the document you linked to is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today".

You responded:

You are asking for me to cite where the document you provided says that it is not "an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today". Thanks for this wonderfully amusing way to begin my day! I'm pretty sure that the document does not say anywhere that it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today. But, just because it does not say it is not an accepted infallible document of the Roman Church today does not mean that it is therefore an infallible document of the Roman Church today! The great majority of all documents that exist in the world, virtually all of them, those which do not expressly deny being current infallible documents of the Roman Church, are nonetheless not thereby to be considered current infallible documents of the Roman Church.

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

[shunyadragon]

"it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church."

Correct, those ignorant of the One True Church of no fault of their own may be saved. Please give specific citations where others then these souls may be saved. Still waiting . . .

Nonsense. I believe you are the one playing with words and not recognizing changes in nuance and interpretation. I have never denied or evaded the teaching of the Church in Lumen Gentium 14, but it should not be confused as addressing the same questions and people as are addressed in Lumen Gentium 15-16. Nor should one ignore the reinterpretation of the phrase as used in Lumen Gentium 14, recovering its original meaning, a reinterpretation that you want to minimize.

You have not as of yet cited anywhere in contemporary documents where those that have full knowledge of the Roman Church and maintain a heretical or schismatic choice are saved, i.e. Protestants and Muslims. I have given my citations and they are clear and specific. Still waiting . . .

[robrecht]

Correct, those ignorant of the One True Church of no fault of their own may be saved. Please give specific citations where others then these souls may be saved. Still waiting . . .

You have not as of yet cited anywhere in contemporary documents where those that have full knowledge of the Roman Church and maintain a heretical or schismatic choice are saved, i.e. Protestants and Muslims. I have given my citations and they are clear and specific. Still waiting . . .

I've already pointed out to that you too narrowly restrict the phraseology regarding 'those who through no fault of their own ...'. I pointed you long ago to Lumen Gentium, and specifically to LG 15-16 that clearly speaks of Jews, Protestants, Muslims, other religious believers, and atheists. Your citations were initially quite poor and when you finally cited some good sources they clearly do not imply what you seem to think they do.

Here is the status questionis as far as I see it:


So I asked you to quote your sources of current church teaching that these people, by far most of the people in the world, cannot be saved? You have continually failed to cite current Catholic teaching as saying that Protestants, let alone Jews, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists must join the Catholic Church in order to be saved. Nor have you been able to cite current Catholic teaching as saying that the only allowance for salvation outside the church is limited to those who have no knowledge of the One True Church, and those below the age of consent or otherwise not able to comprehend God and the One True Church (ie, the mentally ill or incapacitated).

I cited for you the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, you cited a Wikipedia article (#20) and an anonymous document from the Our Lady of the Rosary Library (#s 29, 30, more on that later), a tract (#33), another Wikipedia article referencing statements from 1854 and 1863 (#35), and then finally got around to citing something from my link to Lumen Gentiumextra ecclesiam null salus

[shunyadragon]

More from Vatican II

Source: http://www.staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm

Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church. Not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as knowing it and rejecting it. As Vatican II put it "Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity no. 7). Their conflicting thoughts would excuse them if they truly sought God but were unaware of this requirement.

© Copyright Original Source

You would be committing a mortal sin by deluding others that 'schism' with knowledge of ones obligation to the One True Church remaining outside the church is a mortal sin

[robrecht]

Here

You responded:

You made a claim, and did not back it up. The above represents circular double talk.

It is still not clear what claim you are claiming I made. But here is my take on your attempts to avoid taking responsibility for your poor sourcing (see above)


The Accepted Infallible Document of the Church Today?
I asked you to quote your sources for this being current teaching, which you claimed to have already done. Eventually, in #s 29-30, you quoted your document entitled, of the Roman Church todayA Ray of Hope Before SundowningWith the Morning Comes No Dawn

[robrecht]

More from Vatican II

Source: http://www.staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm

Their conflicting thoughts would accuse them if they suspected but ignored the fact that God required them to be members of His Church. Not wanting to know the truth is just as bad as knowing it and rejecting it. As Vatican II put it "Hence, those cannot be saved, who knowing that the Catholic Church was founded through Jesus Christ, by God, as something necessary, still refuse to enter it or remain in it" (Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity no. 7). Their conflicting thoughts would excuse them if they truly sought God but were unaware of this requirement.

© Copyright Original Source

You would be committing a mortal sin by deluding others that 'schism' with knowledge of ones obligation to the One True Church remaining outside the church is a mortal sin

Seriously, Mr. StayCatholic Shuny? Are you going to try and make the case that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists all know and believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God as something necessary for salvation but nonetheless refuse to enter it?

[shunyadragon]

Seriously, Mr. StayCatholic Shuny? Are you going to try and make the case that Jews, Protestants, Muslims, members of other religions, and atheists all know and believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God as something necessary for salvation but nonetheless refuse to enter it?

[shunyadragon]

It is still not clear what claim you are claiming I made. But here is my take on your attempts to avoid taking responsibility for your poor sourcing (see above)




The Accepted Infallible Document of the Church Today?
I asked you to quote your sources for this being current teaching, which you claimed to have already done. Eventually, in #s 29-30, you quoted your document entitled, of the Roman Church todayA Ray of Hope Before SundowningWith the Morning Comes No Dawn

I responded with clear and specific references in the Vatican II and the Lumen Gentium (14) that the doctrine remains intact as an infallible document of the Roman Chursh, which I do not consider 'Catholic' because I am a heretic.