Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation

                                            Historical context

There is also the question of the historical context of the dogma. To whom were the Councils and Popes directing the teaching "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? To every single person formally outside the Church? Or to those who obstinately reject the Church when exposed to the Gospel? Is it reasonable to assume that the Councils and Pontiffs were talking about the Mongol in Asia who was entirely ignorant of the Gospel, and where the Church was not? Is this not a dogma that is, by its very *nature*, a teaching that depends on the culpability of the person?- John Pacecho

Lionel:

To whom was the dogma on Hell directed ? Do you see Hell in a historical context for certain time periods? And what about the belief in the Trinity which is older than the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

John Pacecho

5. Necessity of denying baptism by desire and baptism by blood

"And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, 'Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!' But the other answered, and rebuking him said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.' And he was saying, 'Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!" And He said to him, 'Truly I say to you , today you shall be with Me in Paradise'" (Luke 23:39-43).

Lionel:

We do not deny the baptism of desire or blood. They are not defacto exceptions to the dogma. If the Church declares a person a martyr we accept it. It does not contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation which says all need to convert for salvation.

John Pacecho

This is the case from Scripture for baptism by blood. The good thief, who likely did not receive water baptism before his death, asked for forgiveness from Jesus and was promised eternal life. His faith in Christ through his own blood sufficed for eternal glory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church again affirms the Tradition of the Church on this point:

"The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament" [because] "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by his sacraments." (1258-1257)

Lionel:

The Catechism does not say that the baptism of desire or blood are exceptions to the dogma or that we know and can judge explicit cases on earth. We accept the possibility of salvation with the baptism of desire etc and this does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

John Pacecho

"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, CAN BE SAVED. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (1260)

Apparently, the rigorists choose not to accept the current Catechism teaching on the subject.

Lionel:

They accept the baptism of desire etc as a possibility under certain conditions and certain circumstances and that it is known only to God.So they are in agreement with the Catechism and Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation.

John Pacecho

In regards to the interpretation offered on the conversion of the Good Thief, they point out that the using of the Good Thief (or the Holy Innocents) as examples of Baptism of Blood is not valid. The rigorist position holds that they died before the foundation of the Catholic Church at Pentecost, and therefore before the sacrament of Baptism became obligatory.

Lionel:

It is true that all who died before the Resurrection had to wait for the coming of the Saviour to go to Heaven.

However being saved with the baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma nor to Vatican Council II (AG 7)

John Pacecho

Yet, this begs the questions: does God give us more or less graces under the New Covenant? Is it to be seriously considered that God would be so merciful before the establishment of the Church at Pentecost (which is itself arguable) with the Good Thief, but would not be so merciful with some poor slob afterwards?

Lionel:

There could be no salvation, no going to eternity in Heaven without the Sacrifice of the Saviour Jesus Christ.

John Pacecho

6. The Rigorist train of thought

The rigorists demand that formal and explicit membership in the Church is necessary for salvation.

Lionel:

This is stated in the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is also the message of Dominus Iesus 20 and other magisterial documents.

John Pacecho

Question 1: For a baptized Catholic, is it absolutely necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist as commanded by Jesus in John 6:53?

Lionel:

For a baptized Catholic who can receive the Eucharist there is the necessity of receiving the Eucharist if it is available (Necessity of means).

John Pacecho

Question 2: If a baptized Catholic falls into mortal sin and is on the way to visit a priest to receive formal absolution but dies beforehand, will he go to hell?
Lionel:
It is God who will judge. So these exceptional cases known only to God are not exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.
John Pacecho

If the answer to those questions is in the affirmative, then the rigorist position again contradicts Catholic teaching.

Lionel:
There are no defacto exceptions known there is no contradiction of the rigorist position.

The Church has said Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for salvation. It means a person can go to Heaven even before he or she reaches the age for receiving the Eucharist. On the other hand a person who receives the Eucharist, if he commits a mortal sin, is on the way to Hell even though he was regularly receiving the Eucharist.

John Pacecho

If the answer to those questions is in the negative, then it is inconsistent for the rigorists to hold to their position on formal membership since all three questions are 'formal' in nature.

Lionel:

Formal membership means that the minimum requirement  for salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Then there are moral and faith conditions which are also important for salvation.

John Pacecho

7. Limbo

The Council of Florence (1438 A.D.) taught that "the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell". This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (1274 A.D.). These are the claims that the Rigorists put forward to support their position. This is the teaching of the Council, but it is not a universal condemnation of people who are not formally part of the Church. This is clarified later at the Council of Trent (1564 A.D.): "In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Catholic theologians distinguish between two types of punishment "poena damni", the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and "poena sensus", the pain of the senses. Many of the Church Fathers are of the opinion that those unbaptized infants dying in a state of original sin suffer from "poena damni" only, and Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), who the rigorists cite as supporting their doctrine, actually favoured this view. Hence, theologians have proposed that there is a special place or state for the children dying without baptism which they call 'limbu puerorum', ubiquitously known as 'children's limbo'. Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.

Lionel:

All adults need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. Infants and the insane we will leave to the mercy of God.

John Pacecho

8. Aborted babies

It follows therefore that the rigorist position does not allow salvation for aborted babies.

Lionel:

The rigorist interpretation of the Church Councils, the popes, the saints and Vatican Council II refer to adults.

John Pacecho

The notion of 'Baptism of Blood', they claim, is itself a mere fallible and undefined speculation. It cannot apply in this case, since aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor even for virtue. Moreover, they are dying precisely for the lack of virtue on the part of their parents, for loss of Faith on the part of their murderers, and against the precepts of Jesus Christ; and the infants involved have no will either to accept or reject this, morally or otherwise.

Aborted babies, then, are not even allowed a chance at salvation? This does not square with God's justice. Original sin keeps people from heaven - it does not necessarily condemn them to eternal damnation. Jesus said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:5). He did not condemn them to hell - that was reserved for those who disbelieve (Cf. Mark 16:16), which is a act of sin not a state of sin.

Lionel:

Original Sin also applies to babies however we do not know what Limbo is like and can only hope that it is more like Heaven and less like Hell.

The International Theological Commission study of this issue was that we can only hope and we do not know for sure.So  they did not reject Limbo.
-Lionel Andrades
http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Ultra-Traditionalism/Articles/TheQuestionOfSalvationOutsideTheChurch.aspx

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Whether they know it or not non Catholics with the stain of Original Sin on their soul and mortal sins committed in that state and without the Sacraments outside of which there is no salvation, are all oriented to Hell
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/whether-they-know-it-or-not-non.html
 
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
When one is clear that all those saved are explicit only in Heaven it is not difficult to affirm ‘the formal necessity of belonging to the Church’.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-one-is-clear-that-all-those-saved.html
 
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Ultra Traditonalists in accord with Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/ultra-traditonalists-in-accord-with.html