It’s a subject I’ve addressed in these pages more than once. Catholics MUST evangelize those of other faiths with a desire to convert them. “Dialogue” alone, without the intent of winning converts, is useless. In January, I wrote about my own experiences as a Catholic missionary, and how rare that missionary spirit is today:
Religious indifference — the idea that usually takes shape under the deception that people all religious faiths are on a shared journey to salvation — has become alarmingly commonplace among the Catholic clergy. So much so that it comes as a shock when we hear a priest, bishop, or pope say something which indicates to the hearer that conversion to Catholicism is of the utmost importance. It is much more likely that we’ll hear apologies for the historical fact that Catholic missionaries brought the saving faith of their Church to the indigenous peoples of various lands, often at the cost of their own lives.
I’ve written before on why we can’t be indifferent to indifferentism. Eric Sammons has discussed one of the most important missing components of effective evangelization. We talk constantly in these pages about the importance of good liturgy, of reverence, of authentic devotion, and spiritual warfare.
At the heart of it all, though, is one simple question: do you believe that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation?
If you can’t answer that question with a resounding, “Yes!”, you can’t be an effective missionary. If you don’t have a conviction that Christ established ONE Church for the purpose of transmitting the sacraments and thereby offering access to the graces necessary for heaven, you will never have the courage to share that treasure with others. If you believe that people are probably “just fine where they are” and never even give them a reason to consider Catholicism, you may be unwittingly neglecting your role as the person God sent to invite them to a life of eternal happiness.
It appears that our Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI agrees. In a story released this afternoon, we learn that today, he has broken his customary silence to address an important topic:
On March 16, speaking publicly on a rare occasion, Pope Benedict XVI gave an interview to Avvenire, the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, in which he spoke of a “two-sided deep crisis” the Church is facing in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The report has already hit Germany courtesy of Vaticanist Guiseppe Nardi, of the German Catholic news website Katholisches.info.
Pope Benedict reminds us of the formerly indispensable Catholic conviction of the possibility of the loss of eternal salvation, or that people go to hell:
The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation.
He also speaks of a “profound evolution of Dogma” with respect to the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. This purported change of dogma has led, in the pope’s eyes, to a loss of the missionary zeal in the Church – “any motivation for a future missionary commitment was removed.” Pope Benedict asks the piercing question that arose after this palpable change of attitude of the Church: “Why you should try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” As to the other consequences of this new attitude in the Church, the Catholics themselves, in Benedict’s eyes, were less attached to their Faith: If there are those who can save their souls with other means, “why should the the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” asked the pope. And he concludes: “But if Faith and Salvation are not any more interdependent, even Faith becomes less motivating.”
Pope Benedict also refutes both the idea of the “anonymous Christian” as developed by Karl Rahner, as well as the indifferentist idea that all religions are equally valuable and helpful to attain eternal life. He says: “Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in its own way, would be ways of salvation and, in this sense, must be considered equivalent in their effects.”
Considering how strongly the indifferentist program figures into the current pontificate, could this be considered, even obliquely, a criticism of a sitting pope by his still-living predecessor? It is impossible to say that this was Benedict’s intention, but the words he uses — and the truth behind them — speak for themselves.
Benedict, you stepped down because you could no longer justify your dupicity in the church’s sex scandal. You CHOSE to step down so now… Have the dignity to SHUT UP.
You are jumping to conclusions.
Good grief, go wear a hair shirt or something… Your true Shepard knew all about THE scandal of the century… Speaking of orphans, since our church is against birth control of any sort, why don’t you spend your free time (of which you seem to have a good deal of) organizing homes for all the unwanted births; someone has to take care of all these unwanted children of God.
I’m not a fan of how you showed up here and started taking pot-shots at our other guests. Tone down the scathing responses, please, or find somewhere else to comment.
Oh I’m so sorry… I did not know it was an EXCLUSIVE club. Facts are facts and if you prefer to call them “pot shots,” feel free. That is a lot more “ecumenical” on my part then you seem to be able to handle.
In case you were unaware, WE the Catholic People are the church. If you felt my forte is these so called “shots” try this one; I think you would love Malta in perpetual servitude to BURKE!!
YES that was a bit “harsh” but so is the (your) implication that criticism is ALWAYS a negative occurrence. Sometimes one just has to spiritually beat a guy over the head to make a point amidst all this (your) self righteousness.
Some of us are from Jersey bro, if you catch my drift… It’s not just the home of Princeton, It’s also the home of the BASILICA of the Sacred Heart in Newark, the city where I was born and attended Catholic Prep. We calls ’em like we sees ’em.
I can articulate with the best but there are certain instances where I feel compelled, almost propelled to project, even interject a bit of whimsy… In other words CHILL OUT.
It is an exclusive club, and I’m the bouncer. I’m busy, so I sometimes do a lousy job of it, but one thing I ask of our guests (whom I expect to have strong opinions on just about everything) is at least the pretense of civility.
You’re welcome here if you can avoid frenetically colliding with all you encounter. So I’ll repeat the warning: lose the histrionics, or get lost.
Thanks for the complement!! What, did you think I was going to do ? Go hang myself due to your silly self?
My original response was much more articulate but it was “excommunicated.”
There are tons (that’s a heavy weight) of addresses WE can access mr. Exclusive.
No, I entertained the faint hope that you might realize your lack of social graces was showing. As I said, though, it was faint.
See ya.
Are you by any chance a sedevacantist?
Of fit the love of the Christ on the cross!
What I am is a human being who was taught through 16 yrs. of Catholic Education that of all the gifts, CHARITY & GOOD WILL are paramount.
Honestly, you sound like an Evangelical in reverse (Sola fide). Open up your heart to the world, not dogna.
I smell a troll.
Well well, how DROLL of you. I am a Catholic with 16 yrs. of education in our faith, as I previously have had to say over and over (boring).
Sorry if the Jesuits taught me to think for myself in ALL matters, especially in the healthy questioning of the church.
Before you go all dogmatic, let me spare you the words I can almost hear boiling in your brain… I am sure the word “Jesuit” is heating up that water in your brain since I am also sure that you will be wanting to lecture me on the “legitimacy” of Francis. Am I correct? If not “mea culpa” bro (?).
Birth control is responsible for the destruction of the family, which is the building block of communities, countries, and the world. If 16 years of “Catholic education” did not teach you that, then there’s a big problem with Catholic education.
Oh for the love of God… The one thing the church has are scholars who are more than capable of translations… What is your point? A bad translation?
First I was pointing an objective fact; then I qualified my remark by the second sentence in my post. I don’t what the problem is (unless – this is the Net, after all – you don’t understand English).
Have there been bad translations of Church texts ? Certainly – case in point: the pre-2012 ICEL translation of the 1969 Missal. Have there been distortions of what Benedict XVI has said ? Certainly – the reporting of the 2006 Regensburg Address is just one example. Misquotation and mistranslation of Popes, their utterances, and Church documents are all too common – this has been a problem since the 1970s at least.
Well, let me and others enlighten you then. John Paul II was a politician and his agenda was to denounce communism REGARDLESS of, and in lieu of ANY other concern. Cardinal Raz knew of the sex abuses if the church and brought this knowledge to John Paul, who then swept it aside (bring that more than a few if those who brought big cash to the church were guilty in said crimes).
He seems to have been overwhelmed by his conscience in this matter and simply put, FOLDED.
Does that sink in?
Poor you then. Could you go on knowing that you could have saved children from abuse and did not act in time or insist that these actions stop?
It is my guess, and I DO believe this in a minute, that you seem to be the type that would push abuse aside for “the greater good.”
As I said, poor you.
He had the ENTIRE conservative Curia and “big wigs” like Burke on his side; who forced him?
Correct… HE resigned.
These comments are well thought out and point out the watershed difference between hysterical evangelicals (who are found of calling us idolaters at best) and our Holy Mother Church. Salvation by scripture ALONE will never be the credo of Peter’s Church and we must NEVER give up the solid notion that we, as Catholics, must care for others and FREELY live the best lives we can. This may sound overly simplified but FREE WILL is a sacred mystery to me; good deeds are of worth. Adhereance to scripture is a worthy pursuit but it can not be the sole way we approach the world… As I learned as a child… God gives crosses to those that can bear them. It is our DUTY to care for others above any duty to indoctrinate anyone to a narrow way of thought. Luther did expose many of the abuses of the church and then proceeded to dismantle and edit the very scripture by which he professed we should live. Go figure!
Ho hum… Is this the Middle Ages? That is the same excuse used to when non-catholic children were baptized “in fear of death” and then torn from the bosom of their families. Limbo has been put in limbo or have you not heard?
You prove to me that I am correct in being very very weary of giving a voice to untrained “deacons” who push extreme and unmerciful self views. You would do better to join the ranks of Opus Dei than grab at a self absorbed, self gratifying title… dDeacon Al
LionelAndrades,
Below, I have posted the full text of what Pope Emeritus Benedict said in the interview section referred to regarding the Anonymous Christian. I am still trying to work through what he said on my own trying to see if he fully rejected the anonymous Christian or if he was seeking to clarify that salvation only comes through Christ even if one does not fully know Christ. I appreciated your answer above and wondered if the full text changes your interpretation of what the pope emeritus meant versus what the reporter wrote (and if so, how)?
Thank you very much!
“Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it. I will mention here two: first, the well-known thesis of the anonymous Christians of Karl Rahner. He sustains that the basic, essential act at the basis of Christian existence, decisive for salvation, in the transcendental structure of our consciousness, consists in the opening to the entirely Other, toward unity with God. The Christian faith would in this view cause to rise to consciousness what is structural in man as such. So when a man accepts himself in his essential being, he fulfills the essence of being a Christian without knowing what it is in a conceptual way. The Christian, therefore, coincides with the human and, in this sense, every man who accepts himself is a Christian even if he does not know it. It is true that this theory is fascinating, but it reduces Christianity itself to a pure conscious presentation of what a human being is in himself and therefore overlooks the drama of change and renewal that is central to Christianity. Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in their own way, would be ways of salvation and in this sense, in their effects must be considered equivalent. The critique of religion of the kind exercised in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in the early Church is essentially more realistic, more concrete and true in its examination of the various religions. Such a simplistic reception is not proportional to the magnitude of the issue.”
disqus-YZ
Below, I have posted the full text of what Pope Emeritus Benedict said in the interview section referred to regarding the Anonymous Christian. I am still trying to work through what he said on my own trying to see if he fully rejected the anonymous Christian or if he was seeking to clarify that salvation only comes through Christ even if one does not fully know Christ.
Lionel: This is not the issue. Here he refers to a hypothetical issue. It is theoretical.Speculative.The issue is does every one need to be a formal member of the Church for salvation? This was rejected by Fr.Rahner since he accepted salvation outside the Church. So did Fr.Ratzinger. Their new theology was based on salvation outside
the Church. There were exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.
So since there were exceptions it mean someone could be saved in another religion.He would be saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846). So we have the Anonymous Christian according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church approved by Cardinal Ratzinger
and Cardinal Schonborn.
_______________________________
I appreciated your answer above and wondered if the full text changes your interpretation of what the pope emeritus meant versus what the reporter wrote (and if so, how)?
Lionel:It does not change what I wrote above.
_______________________________
Thank you very much!
“Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to
save oneself without it.
Lionel: ‘With the opportunity to save oneself without it’?! He considers it a possibility.
_____________________________
I will mention here two: first, the well-known thesis of the anonymous Christians of Karl Rahner.
Lionel: Which is based on ‘the opportunity to save oneself without being a formal member of the Church’ and is part of the new theology incorporated in CCC 846 and 1257.
____________________________
He sustains that the basic, essential act at the basis of Christian existence, decisive for salvation, in the transcendental structure of our
consciousness, consists in the opening to the entirely Other, toward unity with God. The Christian faith would in this view cause to rise to
consciousness what is structural in man as such.
So when a man accepts himself in his essential being, he fulfills the essence of being a Christian without knowing what it is in a conceptual
way. The Christian, therefore, coincides with the human and, in this sense, every man who accepts himself is a Christian even if he does
not know it.
Lionel: The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says outside the Church there is no salvation. Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 mentions schismatics ( Orthodox Christians) and heretics
( Protestants) being on the way to Hell. They believe in God and even
believe in Christ.
_______________________________
It is true that this theory is fascinating,but it reduces Christianity itself to a pure conscious presentation of what a human being is in himself and therefore overlooks the drama of change and renewal that is
central to Christianity.
Lionel: Words.The real issue is that there is no known salvation outside the Church.
So there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.
______________________________
Even less acceptable is the solution proposed by the pluralistic theories of religion, for which all religions, each in their own way, would be ways of salvation and in this sense, in their effects must be considered equivalent.
Lionel: The International Theological Commission in a theological paper titled Christianity and the World Religions supports a theology of
religions. It was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.
This was possible since there is salvation outside the Church for Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria ( Ex-President,ITC).
______________________________
The critique of religion of the kind exercised in the Old Testament, in the New Testament and in the early Church is essentially more realistic, more concrete and true in its examination of the various religions.
Such a simplistic reception is not proportional to the magnitude of the issue.”
Lionel: I don’t know what he is referring to here.
-Lionel Andrades
Thank you, Lionel! Your replies clarifying this for me are all very interesting. My knee jerk response would simply have been to reply with CCC 847. Thank you again!
Yes and it was understood that 1) that this was a theoretical, hypothetical case (common knowledge) and 2) it would be followed with the baptism of water in the Church in a manenr known only to God.
The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 assumed 1) that the hypothetical case was explicit and that 2) this explicit case was an objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
This is how the liberal theologians then started interpreting Pius IX and others who mentioned invincible ignorance and the desire for the baptism of water by a catechumen who dies before receiving it.
Since the theologians considered these hypothetical cases as being explicit they mentioned them in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) with reference to orthodox passages which support EENS( all need faith and baptism).They really should not be there. Since they are invisible cases and so irrelevant to EENS.
Then they also inserted so many hypothetical cases in Vatican Council as if they were exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation (LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc.
Cardinal Ratzinger accepted that there were explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS and so there is a reference to being saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1992).They should not have been mentioned in the Catechism.He needed to clarify that these cases were hypothetical and so were not exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. He did not do this.
To assume hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to EENS is Cushingism for me. Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted EENS as a Cushingite.He also interpreted Vatican Council II as a Cushingite.
For me there are no explicit exceptions to EENS.This is Feeneyism. I interpret EENS as a Feeneynite. I also interpret Vatican Council II as a Feeneyite.
For Cardinal Ratzinger LG 16 refers to a known exception to the dogma EENS since it is visible and objecively seen for him ( Cushingism). For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case. So it is not an exception to EENS.
So for me Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) does not contradict EENS ( Feeneyite).
For Pope Benedict Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) contradicts EENs ( Feeneyite).
So Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus was written with the theology of Cushingism. This was a flaw.
He also did not tell Archbishop Lefebvre that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism. The Archbishop and the SSPX bishops were rejecting Cushingite Vatican Council II.
-Lionel
This is a good infallible reason to belong to the Church indeed, Deacon_Augustine. In light of our current Catechism, clarification on who the papal bull was directed is in order to see the unity of Church teaching over time, Specifically, paragraphs 846 and 847 note that “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” and that “this affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. The purpose of the Council of Florence was pastoral. It was trying to bring back lost sheep. An important key to reading this document is to look at the order of the categories listed. Pagans are listed first. They have received none of the message of salvation. The Jews have received only part of the message, that of the Old Testament. Third are the heretics who, although having received the complete message of salvation, seem to have lost some of it by way of a conscious separation from the Church. The fourth group is the one to whom the document is primarily directed, the schismatics. They have deliberately cut themselves off from the Church by a complete break from its head, the Pope. It was hoped at the time that the strongly worded statement would bring the separated Eastern Churches back into unity with Rome. As for the first two categories of people who barely (if at all) know Christ or what the Church teaches, practicing Catholics continue to besent on the mission of spreading the good news everywhere (using words if needed).
TROLL REPORT:
You’ll get no quarrel from me, I can’t even say the name of the Polish pope. I’m part Pole so skip calling me a racist any of you out there!
It didn’t hurt enough that St, John XXIII had to share his sainthood with “you know who”… no…he had to share it with the knowledge that cash was more important to “him” then the actions of one Marcial Marciel.
I’m 62 yrs. old and, no matter how techno savy I try to be, I am often met with new termanology. Since I was called a “troll” by someone doing deep breathing exercises (he could “smell” me through that Internet it seems) and since I was sure he was not calling me a Viking,, I dug into Google.
It seems I am a person that goes “off topic” and interjects my opinions for self aggrandizement; usually annoyed myself with such behavior, here I took pride.
One can NEVER go off topic about a topic that must ALWAYS be in topic… Abuse. That would be like saying that Jews should stop interjecting the noble notion of NEVER AGAIN.
Attitudes toward dogna in a modernist world should, in my humble view, always contain a “nod” to just what did happen and how WE let it happen.
The interjection is intercessional and who is anyone to write an intercedent off? The Christ, as the Budda knows best!
AH MEN.
BRAVO!! Finally a real point is made.
“FREE WILL” is what seperates us from the Reformation. Is “Radz” a Protestant then?