www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No salvation outside the church

Dear Jason,


Your identification of my alleged preoccupation is predictably incorrect and your understanding of it is singularly limited by your endeavor with limited access to my considerations. It seems sensible to me that since I'm not the author of your references, Unam Sanctam & the decree of the council of Florence even Augustine might argue there is no burden of proof on my shoulders. They seemed relative to the discussion, hence their introduction. I will yield Ray K's judgment regarding their relevance.

In retrospect, even the learned Alex and Anthony Dragani have been intellectually honest enough to understand and admit that history has shown that the concept of no salvation outside of the church was a motivating factor in many of Rome's actions. Relevant to this forum and the discussion at hand, it was a well known element in the establishment and implementation of the unia. As such it was received and is still understood as a great insult and the unia's advancement was and is opposed. I use the word unia here understanding some of the correct implications.

Be at peace with me, I'm not your enemy.

Dear Alex,

Ante- \An"te-\ ([a^]n"t[-e]-). A Latin preposition and prefix; akin to Gr. 'anti`, Skr. anti, Goth. and-, anda- (only in comp.), AS. and-, ond-, (only in comp.: cf. Answer, Along), G. ant-, ent- (in comp.). The Latin ante is generally used in the sense of before, in regard to position, order, or time, and the Gr. 'anti` in that of opposite, or in the place of.

Actually I'm somewhat aware of the western development of theology. In a simple and effective way because it requires a small and easy movement into the heart facilitated by the presence of children in the subject matter, we have seen in the Communion for children of BC in RC churches discussion a simple and profound example of the ramifications that Latin Catholic parents can vicariously understand relative to the development of the"age of reason".

Addressing on our parallel thread author and agreed by me as "tremendously thoughtful" RayK, who has been hot on the trail in the past, I submit the words of Saint Hesychios the Priest who has written:

(It is written: 'Not everyone who says to Me: "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father' (Matthew 7:21). The will of the Father is indicated in the words: 'You who love the Lord, hate evil' (ps. 97:10) Hence we should both pray the Prayer of Jesus Christ and hate our evil thoughts. In this way we do God's will.)

Trusting in God's great Love and Mercy for us all,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear francis...

It can be a hard thing to understand so I am not saying that you have fault here. �Providence� must be understood first in a philosophical and theological sense. A spiritual (of the mind) sense.

Follow this logic.

(Under the heading of Providence in the CCC�)

[308] �The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: �

Q: What do we call it when God acts (operates) as first cause in and through creatures?
A: We call it Providence.

God acting = Providence.
Providence = God acting.

God (Providence) is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes.
Providence (God) is the first cause which operates in and through secondary causes.

God IS Providence.
Providence IS God.

We tend to habitually think of God as a �thing� (which can be at rest and not be acting). But that is not correct. God IS the ACT of God. He is his own act. Just as existence is not a thing but an act.

Existence is the - act - of existing. It is not a thing - but an act.

The name he gave to Moses was �I AM� which is the sort English translation for words which mean �I am what I shall become� - not to be understood in a final way but to be understood as the act of existing itself - always in action - always be-coming. Not a thing - but an act. Always in the act of be-coming.

Providence is not just an uplifting devotion - it is a fact - it is reality - in fact it is the only reality that really exists. We can rightly call Providence - reality itself. We just do not generally think of reality as being a person.

Providence IS the Resurrected Jesus Christ (John 1:1). The Logos (in Greek) and the Word (in Old Testament language). �and the Word (Logos) - was - God.� John identifies the Resurrected Jesus Christ as the same �thing� as Providence (�through him all things come to-be�).

You are very right - some people can imagine that they are following Providence and they are really not and they are under misunderstandings. And this is tied to the next thing�

>I think this concept has been mostly abused and misunderstood today.
Yes.. Absolutely true. It has been regulated to something much smaller than it should be and hardly any clergy speaks about it or teaches it - so the result is that the faithful really do not know much about it at all. This leaves the door wide open for abuse and being mislead - certain �personality cults� abuse it and set it against the church. I am not one of those.

My understanding of Providence is Thomist and Suma Theologica.

In that light it is impossible for there to be a contradiction between Providence - and - Church doctrines and sacraments. Because the doctrines and sacraments flow directly from Providence. The doctrines of the church - reflect - reality. In the case of the sacerements that ARE the reality. The only possibility that there be a dichotomy between them is if person misunderstand either one or the other.

In Eastern theology Providence is spoken of by the concept of God�s �uncreated energies�.

But as I say, proper teaching regarding Providence has gone the way of the three stages of the spirutal life, real contemplative prayer, St John of the Cross - and so many spritual masters of the East and West. Almoost forgotten or terribly misunderstood. Sadly - clergy has 'moved out' and fanatics have moved 'in'.

As to the question of - if God has or is calling every human person to the Catholic church - I will leave that for another time. One must make a diffrence between the church triumphant and the church militant. Not making that diffrence has cause much trouble regarding some doctrines.

-ray

A good priest once put it to me this way...

The Catholic church has been assigned to spread the gospel. That is our job. But from that we should not automatically assume that He is calling everyone to be a Catholic - he really has not told us that and - if he has not told us that then it is none of our business. He does not tell us everything that is on his mind. All we know is that we Catholics are to preach the gospel in words and deeds - period. Will any non-Catholics be saved? Well we know some will - he has told us that. Will all Catholics be saved - well we know not all Catholics will be saved - he has told us that too. All the rest is his business - and not ours. We just do what we are told to do. Even Catholics have free will - and can reject God. So just do what he told you to do and leave the rest to him.

-ray

Dear Ray,

I'm reminded of the words of St. Serafim

"Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew,

Ok. *sigh* how DO I get myself in these situations? All right, without being argumenative I would like to ask the following: since the statement in question (in Unam Sanctam) is a quote from Aquinas, why should we not also import along with it St Thomas's teaching on invincible ignorance? Here are a few quotes I got from this website: St Thomas [ic.net]

a) "Unbelief by way of pure negation" (infidelitas secundum negationem puram) in case a man may "be called an unbeliever merely because he has not the faith" "in those who have heard nothing about the faith"; this Unbelief is not a sin -and

b) "Unbelief by way of opposition to the faith" (infidelitas secundum contrarietatem ad fidem) when "a man refuses to hear the faith" (S.Th II II, 10,1 c); this Unbelief is a sin.

The fact that "unbelief by way of pure negation" is not a sin, is not only a Thomist concept, but it's also a verity of faith: St. Pius V condemned the proposition Infidelitas pure negativa in his quibus Christus non est predicatus peccatum est (D +1068) (=Purely negative unbelief, in those whom Christ was not preached to, is a sin).

In fact St. Thomas teaches that "Nobody would believe if he doesn't see he must believe" (non enim crederet nisi videret ea esse credenda - S.Th., II II, q. 1, a. 4 ad 2).

The prayer of Cornelius was a false worship, but it has been made a good prayer by faith; an implicit faith:

S Th. II II q. 10 a. 4 ad 3 (in some editions ad 4)

With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.

Now I am not claiming to be as learned as other members of this board, as I am certain is true, so naturally your breadth of knowledge is going to be greater than mine. That said I ask the following:

It seems to me that if there are questionable quotes, particularly those which claim infallibility, then it is up to the Magisterium to synchronize current teaching with the apparently contradictory statement. In the illustration I give above I think there is a real possibility of interpreting Unam Sanctam in a manner consistent with contemporary teaching without doing violence to the text.

I am sorry for my tone Matthew in my previous post. I do that sometimes and I will try to do better.

Yours

Jason B.

Dear Jason,

I suppose any violence of importation is a question of compatibility with the text since invincible ignorance could be construed as circumstantial and could move the matter quickly into the realm of predestination. It seems to me with that reasoning anything can be imported into anything with even a thread of compatibility or even an opposite position and alter the text accordingly. Violence to the text could be minimized with words as well. I suppose that you could then adjust any statement by adding or subtracting to it to validate a current position through a developmental mindset. You could then develop a notion into infinity with many understandable and not so understandable vacillations. The problem is it would never stop and then there is no finality even with the final statements proclaimed by men. Hence there would ultimately be a violation of conscience. Not good. Is truth subject to our understanding of it? Create whatever you want within a statement for as long as a mind can think from one generation to the next. But we know from scripture that there will be a final judgment.

Don't worry about getting yourself in these situations just avoid them for I must say I'm not comfortable engaging in a debate on the matter for it has been about 25 years since I read Aquinas, and I don't think it would matter anyway, we could just keep going back and forth. As you can see I could fall for that easily. You develop it this way I develop it that way even while trying to be truthful I hope. Anything can be argued or manipulated by the minds of men as they try to create a perception of truth from words or actually discern the truth in a situation depending on thier dispositions, but the truth matters and so do our words. So perhaps it is best for us and others if we terminate the discussion. I will await your response, perhaps you will remain silent and ponder the matter and send me a private email sometime in the future.

These message boards are becoming quite a temptation for me again, pride is a big one for me, as such I have quite a bit of work to do and am trying to heed the advise of St. Serafim

"Save yourself and thousands around you will be saved."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin