Paramedic Girl Is 100% Correct
As usual
My good buddy, Paramedic Girl, recently posted the correct Church Teaching concerning Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church, there is no salvation).
Well, it seems my goomba-ette is taking some flak for her bad manners in actually posting infallible Church Teaching. So to prove that chivalry isn't dead (not that PMG could ever need saving from the likes of me. She handles herself well!), I'm posting the following; BTW, can you guess what Council this is from?
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Is this from the Council of Trent? Noooooo...
The Council of Hippo? Noooooo...
The Council of Florence? Nooooo....
Give up?
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's from The Second Vatican Council ~ DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH ~ Chapter II ~ Paragraph 14
This should come as quite a shock to the Roman Protestants who think that The Catholic Church didn't even exist until 1962. Also, The Dogmatic Constitution of V2 was one of the VERY few portions of that particular council that were binding upon pain of sin. The vast majority of V2 is simply non-binding.
As usual
My good buddy, Paramedic Girl, recently posted the correct Church Teaching concerning Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside The Church, there is no salvation).
Well, it seems my goomba-ette is taking some flak for her bad manners in actually posting infallible Church Teaching. So to prove that chivalry isn't dead (not that PMG could ever need saving from the likes of me. She handles herself well!), I'm posting the following; BTW, can you guess what Council this is from?
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Is this from the Council of Trent? Noooooo...
The Council of Hippo? Noooooo...
The Council of Florence? Nooooo....
Give up?
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's from The Second Vatican Council ~ DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH ~ Chapter II ~ Paragraph 14
This should come as quite a shock to the Roman Protestants who think that The Catholic Church didn't even exist until 1962. Also, The Dogmatic Constitution of V2 was one of the VERY few portions of that particular council that were binding upon pain of sin. The vast majority of V2 is simply non-binding.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
9:31 PM
21 Comments:
Oh...just to change the subject.
Father Brockman of St. Pats Fayetteville has just been appointed vicar-general of the Diocese. Any thoughts?
Hmm...
Good Caveman, my reading puts the stress on a different part of that last sentence:
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Seems to me that the document is more emphasizing that *if you KNOW* the Church to be the True Church and refuse to enter, or if you leave, then you're in deep doo-doo.
But I could be wrong. In any event, I'm still glad that I 'got greased' last Saturday... :-)
Happy Easter!
I'm glad you pointed out that the Second Vatican Council reaffirmed the doctrine of "Outside the Church, there is no Salvation." I'm sure that comes as a big surprise to all those ecumenists out there.
Of course "Out of the Church, no salvation"... but the key phrase (get-out clause) is "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ"...
Ignorance could be considered bliss...
;-)
People who, through no fault of their own, do not have the gift of faith but have lived as good a life as they can, are saved through the merits of the Church (whether they like it or not!!)
Simon Peter,
As of a couple of years back, St. Patricks was listed as one of the "top gay-friendly" parishes in the United States. (http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2005/12/brokeback-parishes-yeah-i-stole-title.html)
Hopefully, that wasn't under Fr. Brockman's watch.
Kasia,
First off.... WELCOME ABOARD!!!!
Secondly, Mac hit the nail right on the head. What Mac described was something called "invincable ignorance". And The Church has always maintained that if someone, through no fault of their own, is ignorant (or never had the Truths of Christ's Church correctly taught to them), they can still attain salvation.
Even what PMG posted concerning the Council of Florence: ...professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church... shows that in order to remain "outside" of something, one must be aware of it to begin with.
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Let me take off my kid gloves and go bare knuckled with the Vir Spelunkae.
I contend that the overwhelming majority of Protestants don't believe that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ.
I contend that the overwhelming majority of Protestants don't believe that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ.
Dear Tony,
So?
The Church has taught for 2,000 years that anyone who knowingly, willingly and intelligently refutes Christ's Church cannot attain salvation. Has The Church been wrong all along?
Wow, timely post.
A family member, who has been co-habitating for the past year, just formally defected (letter to bishop and baptismal record marked) so she can get married outside (in April rain, no less)and have it be considered a "valid" marriage so her practicing Catholic relatives may attend w/o formally cooperating in evil.
ugh.
I don't want to go to the wedding.
She traded an invalid marriage and fornication for heresy. Knowingly. I explained it all to her, but she refused to get married INSIDE (even canon law will permit a marriage in a protestant church).
So yes, tomorrow when I *must* (stupid family politics now that it's "valid") go for a pre-wedding party I can congratulate her on going to hell (in my thoughts, 8 yrs ago I would have said it aloud).
PS: I vaguely remember Dominus Iesus from apologetics class and no salvation outside the Church.
Simon-Peter, I don't know anything about Fr. Brockman, but even if said gay-friendliness occurred under his watch, there is something to be said for keeping a troublemaker close at hand.
If I hear something, I'll let y'all know.
Well, you are quoting Vatican II. Unless you're claiming that Vatican II is a less authoritative council than the others, it seems that the wording is very clear.
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ...
This might leave out our separated bretheren who deny Christ's Church in good faith.
I'm not saying they're all saved (as I'm not saying all Catholics are saved) but they might not be damned.
our separated bretheren who deny Christ's Church in good faith
Tony,
How in the world can someone DENY Christ's Church "in good faith"? That rates right up there with "I've got good reasons as to why I won't quit shooting-up heroin".
Tony, mi amigo... if someone is in a state of invincable ignorance, that's one thing. But if someone knowingly, willingly and intelligently refutes Christ's Church, that a completely different story.
And what I stated isn't anything new, it's what The Church has taught since day one.
Heheheh... we could be really charitable and say that adherence to Anglicanism isn't an intelligent response, and so they're in a state of invincible ignorance...
(but our separated brethren might not concede this point!!)
;-)
Like my view on ecumenism: Hey, I'm really in favour of ecumenism... absolutely ANYONE can become Catholic!!
Thanks for posting about this...I added her blog to my links!
Two thoughts:
1) Valid Trinitarian baptism on an infant makes the infant a Catholic, whether his parents or "ecclesial community" agrees or no. So you could say that there are a lot of Catholics out there who are not in a deliberate state of heresy. Their culpability is diminished greatly.
2) One must be careful not to find oneself in the Feeneyite error, which interprets the statement from the Council of Florence to exclude even Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, both of which have always been recognized by the Church.
From Mac:
Like my view on ecumenism: Hey, I'm really in favour of ecumenism... absolutely ANYONE can become Catholic!!
I lOVE that response!! Best one I've heard to counter the heresy of ecumenism.
Tony, mi amigo... if someone is in a state of invincable ignorance, that's one thing. But if someone knowingly, willingly and intelligently refutes Christ's Church, that a completely different story.
Indeed. But invincible ignorance would include someone who was taught from birth that Christ's Church was the Whore of Babalon, wouldn't it?
Tony,
I'd say they'd fall into the category of I.I.
Like I said... "intelligently" refites Christ's Church.
And with that said, if said individual is touched by the Holy Ghost, and they choose to refuse that particular Grace, I'd say that they were no longer in the state of I.I.
Like I said... "intelligently" refites Christ's Church.
Agreed :)
Well, according to the Diocesan Website:
Fr. Brockman was ordained to the priesthood in 1990. His first assignment was as parochial vicar of St. Patrick Church for two years. He then served as parochial vicar at St. Thomas More Church in Chapel Hill from 1992-93, followed by one year at Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Raleigh. In 1994, he was appointed pastor of St. Luke Church in Raleigh, where he served until 2002. For the next two years Fr. Brockman studied in Rome, where he received a Licentiate in Canon Law. Upon his return to the Diocese, he was appointed pastor of St. Patrick Church.
This would seem to indicate he took up his post sometime in 2004/5. I guess the question would be wether he inherited a dodgy parish or not.Still...it just blows my mind...
Okay, I just checked the archived bulletins on St Pats website, and he was definately in place by September 2004.
Oh, and he was appointed Adjutant Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Raleigh under Father Jerry Sherba, so this looks like continuity and shuffling.On the other hand the Diocesan website, says he takes over from MicahelShugrue, who was appointed in 2002, still more shuffling. I don't get it. Sherba or Shugrue. In anycase...
yawn.
Father Ned Schlesinger the new Diocesan Vocations director has been assigned to our parish, so this will be interesting.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home