← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 12717 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-03-12
2004-03-12 12:16 | User Profile
This appeared in the 12 March 2004 [URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22902&vm_id=64]Catholic Exchange[/URL].
Walter
Dear Catholic Exchange:
Hi. I'm a Protestant Christian and travelling minister who doesn't oppose Catholicism but does not embrace some of the teachings. That's not why I am writing. I've e-mailed to ask you if it is believed by Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and Traditional Catholics that if one is not a member of one of the Catholic denoninations then he will not be born again. Is it a teaching if one is not of a Catholic denomination then he is unsaved or not born again?
My teaching is that Catholics, Protestants, Episcopalians, Muslims, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, pagans, Jews, and atheists must be born again to be saved. Does this stance agree with Catholicism?
I believe that one must abandon paganism, Jehovah's Witness, Mormonism, atheism or whatever, after he is born again. I was e-mailed recently by some Catholics who told me that there is no hope of being saved unless I am part of a Catholic congregation. I would say that church membership is meaningless and being born again is a must.
Jeremy
Dear Jeremy:
You ask a number of questions and I can't speak to them all.
For instance, I can't speak to Eastern Orthodox ideas because I'm not EO. As to "Traditional" Catholics, there are two basic meanings to this term. One refers to Catholics who are in communion with and obedient to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and who happen to prefer older forms of piety such as the Latin Mass. Another meaning is "reactionary dissenters and schismatics" who reject the magisterial teaching of the Church (particularly of Vatican II and of our current pope). I can't speak for this latter group either, since I am a Catholic in communion with and obedient to both this pope and the teaching of Vatican II (as well as the other councils).
That said, let me address your first question, "Is it a teaching if one is not of a Catholic denomination then he is unsaved or not born again?"
No. On the contrary, any Christian who is validly baptized, no matter what denomination he belongs to, is regarded by the Church as being in real, albeit imperfect, communion with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The normative way in which we are born again, according to Scripture, is through sacramental baptism. But since baptism is administered by Christ through the words and actions of a human agent, it does not matter if a Catholic or a priest does it. A validly baptized Presbyterian is united with Christ and therefore with his body, the Church.
Obviously, things are complicated by the fact that people are divided from the Catholic communion in various ways and degrees. They are further complicated by the fact that the Church does not teach a "once saved, always saved" doctrine. We believe in the possibility of radical rejection of grace and in the possibility of persisting in that till death. So even a Catholic can choose hell after baptism. But the central fact, everything else being equal, is that a Protestant is united with the Catholic Church in baptism (and often in many other ways as well, since most Protestants believe the bulk of what the Church teaches concerning the person and work of Jesus).
It sounds as if the people who e-mailed you were part of a reactionary dissenting sect of Catholics who teach, contrary to the Church, that only those in visible communion with the Church can be saved. The Church rejects this notion.
At the same time, the Church never ceases to call all people to full communion. For the reality is, it is impossible to separate the Church from being born again and call the former unimportant and the latter crucial. Both are crucial. To be born again is to not only be united with Christ the Head, but with his Body as well. Bodies are not invisible and therefore the Church is not either. The Church is the Body of Christ and in it the fullness of Christ's revelation subsists. That is the basic claim the Church makes and it needs to be considered. In its own way, it is as shocking as the claims Christ made about Himself, and for the same reason: it is a divine institution founded by a divine person.
Thanks for writing!
Mark Shea Senior Content Editor Catholic Exchange
2004-03-12 14:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]This appeared in the 12 March 2004 [URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22902&vm_id=64]Catholic Exchange[/URL].
No. On the contrary, any Christian who is validly baptized, no matter what denomination he belongs to, is regarded by the Church as being in real, albeit imperfect, communion with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The normative way in which we are born again, according to Scripture, is through sacramental baptism. But since baptism is administered by Christ through the words and actions of a human agent, it does not matter if a Catholic or a priest does it. A validly baptized Presbyterian is united with Christ and therefore with his body, the Church. [/QUOTE]
Walter,
I'm a bit confused on this man's perspective. If what he says is true, why bother becoming a Catholic at all? Just go to whatever church you happen to like and you'll be fine.
(I'm taking the Catholic position here for the sake of discussion.)
-
2004-03-12 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Walter,
I'm a bit confused on this man's perspective. If what he says is true, why bother becoming a Catholic at all? Just go to whatever church you happen to like and you'll be fine.
(I'm taking the Catholic position here for the sake of discussion.)
-[/QUOTE] I think that perspective you mention is the current humanist/PC line most churches are buying into these days. The relaxed attitude of "it doesn't matter what church" will end up being applied to Christianity itself...insert their rules in place of God's word. Even now, some fighting over what God's word is and churches are lax in accepting multiple translations of the Bible, Apochrypha, etc. I heard a pastor say Jews were all saved because they were just being as God made them.
Humanism is fairly easy to sniff out, because it puts praising people in place of praising God. Most politicians, tyrants, etc. are a good example of wanting to be godlike and advocating Humanistic beliefs, such as political correctness.
2004-03-12 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I think that perspective you mention is the current humanist/PC line most churches are buying into these days. The relaxed attitude of "it doesn't matter what church" will end up being applied to Christianity itself...insert their rules in place of God's word. [/QUOTE]
I know what you mean, but I don't think that's what Mark Shea is saying. By the way, Shea is a convert to Catholicism from an Evangelical denomination, and he wrote a very good book about his reasons for converting called [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879738510/qid=1079109345/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1_xs_stripbooks_i1_xgl14/104-9238917-9415940?v=glance&s=books]"By What Authority"[/URL], which is one of the best and most readable treatments of the subject I've ever come across.
The point is that the Creed proclaims "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Since baptism is the thing, and since laymen are authorized to perform the sacrament of baptism, then all real baptisms are of salvific effect regardless of whether they're performed in union with Rome or not.
I think that's all he's saying. Obviously, Catholics make claims to having the fullness of the Faith that Protestants lack, and so naturally if one accepts that then one would be a Catholic and participate in the life of the Church.
If you read the book linked above, you'll see that Mark Shea retains his Evangelical fervor, and is no relativist.
The point is that all the baptized are saved, and are my brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of our inocomplete communion.
Walter
2004-03-12 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I think that perspective you mention is the current humanist/PC line most churches are buying into these days. The relaxed attitude of "it doesn't matter what church" will end up being applied to Christianity itself...insert their rules in place of God's word. Even now, some fighting over what God's word is and churches are lax in accepting multiple translations of the Bible, Apochrypha, etc. I heard a pastor say Jews were all saved because they were just being as God made them.
Humanism is fairly easy to sniff out, because it puts praising people in place of praising God. Most politicians, tyrants, etc. are a good example of wanting to be godlike and advocating Humanistic beliefs, such as political correctness.[/QUOTE]
My statement to Walter was partially rhetorical. I think each branch of Christianity has its own claims of authenticity, the Orthodox Church is no different. The hardline traditionalist Orthodox will tell anyone point blank that the Orthodox Church is the only legitament Christian Church - the Catholics are schismatic heretics and the Protestants their misguided stepchildren. Of course, this can be carried on even further within Orthodoxy as we have the super, super traditionalists who consider almost any deviation from 1,000 AD Orthodox practice to be heresy. However, I think all branches and denominations experience thses kinds of internal factions.
My own position would be criticized by the ecumenicists as too traditional and by the super traditionalists as ecumenical subversion - I chose the Orthodox Church because I think its the authentic Christian Church, but that doesn't mean its the only path to salvation, only the best path. I'm perfectly aware that each will have his own opinion as each must seek the truth as he sees it. After all, who am I but a lousy sinner. Someday we'll know who was right.
-
2004-03-13 19:52 | User Profile
I agree with the view that while there is salvation outside the church, theres no salvation outside of Christ.
2004-03-14 16:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=perun1201]I agree with the view that while there is salvation outside the church, theres no salvation outside of Christ.[/QUOTE]
Good grief, such open heresy! I expected more from you ;) Remember that [I]Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus[/I] is an infallibly declared dogma :)
As for non-Catholic baptism, the correct Catholic teaching on the subject is that they are valid but they have no benefit outside of the Catholic Church and are non-salvic unless the person joins in communion with the Holy See.
The question was a source of contention between St Cyprian and Pope St Stephen II, Cyprian even denounced the pope as a "[I]publican and a heathen[/I]"!. Cyprian argued that those who had been baptised by a heretical congregation would have to be re-baptised on converting to Catholicism. Pope St Stephen II countered that baptisms performed correctly outside the Church were perfectly valid, but that they would have no benefit unless the person embraced the Catholic Church, because after all - [I]Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus[/I] ;)
As it is, the Church ruled that Stephen had been correct
2004-03-14 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aquinas]Good grief, such open heresy! I expected more from you ;) Remember that [I]Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus[/I] is an infallibly declared dogma :)[/QUOTE]
It's great to have you here!
How do you see the matter in terms of this Article of the Catechism:
[QUOTE]1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. [B]Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated[/B].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]1246 "Every person not yet baptized and only such a person is able to be baptized."[/QUOTE]
The Catechism holds that a valid baptism is possible even when the person administering it is himself unbaptized, provided of course that the requisite intent is present. It would seem to follow that since Protestant baptisms are presumably valid and that baptism may not be repeated, that no repeat is allowed.
This passage makes it explicit that you're still in the Church even if you're baptized outside communion with Rome:
[QUOTE]1277 Baptism is birth into the new life in Christ. In accordance with the Lord's will, it is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself, which we enter by Baptism.[/QUOTE]
Faith is all that's required to be baptized, anyone with the proper intention can perform the ritual, baptism even under such circumstances brings one into the Church, and under no circumstances is it to be repeated.
I think that the point is that while there is no salvation outside the Church, people of good will have a chance to be in the Church without knowing it, or maybe better to say that they're in but not fully in.
Here's the clincher:
[QUOTE]838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." [B]Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."[/B] [U][I][B]With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist[/B][/I][/U]."[/QUOTE]
Wild Bill & Perun, please note italicized immediately above.
I would be most interested in your comments. Are you formally schooled in the Faith (unlike me, a mere autodidact).
Walter
2004-03-14 20:50 | User Profile
Thank you, sir. Very kind of you :)
No, unfortunately I am not formerly schooled in the faith and therefore I speak with no authority other than that of a Catholic who seeks the most orthodox interpretation of the Faith, I do try to base my opinions of what seems to be the constsitent teaching of the Church though.
Just out of interest, which catechism does that come from? As a Traditional Catholic, I'm usually skeptical of anything post-Vatcian II. Anyway, with regards to not repeating the baptism - that seems to be correct (actually it takes for granted that the baptism has been made in the name of the Holy Trinity). That is the position that Pope St Stephen II took and the Church later confirmed that his was the correct opinion. However, the passage has not mentioned that baptism would be neccesary again if one was baptised incorrectly, as Pope Pelagius II stated to Bishop Gaudentius:
"[I]If any people living in your Worship's neighborhood, avow that they have been baptized in the name of the Lord only, without any hesitation baptize them again in the name of the Blessed Trinity, when they come in quest of the Catholic Faith."[/I]
Didymus, too, says (De Spir. Sanct.): [I]"If indeed there be such a one with a mind so foreign to faith as to baptize while omitting one of the aforesaid names[/I]," viz. of the three Persons, "[I]he baptizes invalidly[/I]."
However, I do not agree with your interpretation of this passage that those who are baptised out-with the Church are still somehow within it. What the passage is saying is that if the person has been baptised outside the Church, but in all other respects the baptism was performed in an acceptable manner, then the person would still have the character of the rite imprinted on them. However, until such time as the enter into communion with the Catholic Church, God's grace will not flow from it. In other words it is as if all the outward facets of the sacrament have been laid properly, all that remains is for the candidate to enter into Christ's Church. Therefore, no re-baptism is required. However, it does not mean that the person was within the Church prior to their conversion.
Also, I do not believe a person can be within the Church without knowing it. Today's heirarchy seem to favour a very loose and liberal interpretation of Baptism of Desire, which is more or less heretical. Baptism of Desire was not belived in by all theolognas, and even those who did restricted it to a very limited sense.
On the contrary, the Council of Trent declared the following dogmas -
[I]If any one saith that baptism is OPTIONAL, THAT IS, NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION; let him be anathema[/I]
and
[I]If any one saith, that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ, ââ¬ÅUnless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghostââ¬Â; let him be anathema[/I]
Well, let me know what you think, Walter. I must admit, this seems like one of the more high-brow and civilised forums around :thumbsup:
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It's great to have you here!
How do you see the matter in terms of this Article of the Catechism:
The Catechism holds that a valid baptism is possible even when the person administering it is himself unbaptized, provided of course that the requisite intent is present. It would seem to follow that since Protestant baptisms are presumably valid and that baptism may not be repeated, that no repeat is allowed.
This passage makes it explicit that you're still in the Church even if you're baptized outside communion with Rome:
Faith is all that's required to be baptized, anyone with the proper intention can perform the ritual, baptism even under such circumstances brings one into the Church, and under no circumstances is it to be repeated.
I think that the point is that while there is no salvation outside the Church, people of good will have a chance to be in the Church without knowing it, or maybe better to say that they're in but not fully in.
I would be most interested in your comments. Are you formally schooled in the Faith (unlike me, a mere autodidact).
Walter[/QUOTE]
2004-03-15 06:22 | User Profile
Aquinas, thanks for your kind reply.
The Catechism is indeed the one JPII approved over a decade ago.
You can find it online (with handy search engine) [URL=http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html]HERE[/URL].
Walter