“We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not”

Good one - a corollary of the principle that ‘the Sabbath is made for Man, not Man for the Sabbath’. IMHO, you can insert a few other things in the place of ‘Sabbath’: Tradition, Mass, Scripture.

I like to remember the story of the Kakure Kirisitan, the Hidden Christians of Japan, who kept the faith for 300 YEARS without priests, sacraments, the Mass or even a bible; yet when the Catholic church attached to the French embassy opened in the late 19th Cent., they slowly, shyly, started trickling in, finally able to live openly the faith of their ancestors.

It is the work of the Holy Spirit

Thank you, Fr. Wade. Yes, the Holy Spirit does not abandon His children because they are ignorant and living out in a remote jungle. And also, ignorant people are saved because others pray for them.

A wise priest recently said there are no longer any Catholic colleges and universities in the U S.  Sadly, this fact is true.  It is a destructive fragmented Catholic sense that allows ‘diversities and tolerances’  to be introduced to the mind of the students beginning in kindergarten.  Tim Drake of NCR has reported that ‘Catholic’ students have less fidelity to the Faith when graduating a ‘Catholic’ college or university than when they entered.

C.S. Lewis, at the end of the Narnia chronicles summarizes it beautifully.  I am paraphrasing, but when a young man found himself in ‘the new world’ and Aslan welcomes him as one of his own, the young man is incredulous that Aslan could accept him. Afterall, he had worshipped Tash and searched for ‘Truth’ through and in the worship of (a false God)Tash.  Aslan tells him that whenever he sought the ‘Truth’, he was really seeking him who is the truth and in searching for him, he showed himself of one of his own.

And was it not Blessed JOhn Paul II who in one of the encyclicals, says that all good that we think and do comes from Christ, though we may not know it.

That sent a wave of protest through the liberal ‘Christian’ world but Hindus believe the same thing and no one said they were arrogant or exclusive.

Christians believe that the good that we do is only possible with the help of God’s grace through his HOly Spirit.  The Spirit blows where it will, as yesterday’s first scripture reading shows us with the Roman Cornelius and his family.

Besides the demise of the Catholic university, there are also few Catholic businesses anymore. Aquinas and More Catholic Goods www.aquinasandmore.com is one business I frequent because of its Catholic policies—such as not buying anything from China. Ever. They also run a couple of authentic affiliate sites, such as www.firstcommunionstories, where people can post stories about their reception of the Sacrament, and it also focuses on the Mass and the Eucharist. I think they are even having a contest right now.I believe we can work on rebuilding a Catholic culture if we support schools, businesses, etc who are firmly, unapologetically, and authentically Catholic.

It is important to note that Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition are not two halves of Revelation. Each contains the fullness of Gods revelation. If Scripture is all you have access to, it is enough.

The RCC may teach “it is possible for non-Catholics, and indeed, non-Christians to be saved” but that is not what Scripture teaches. Acts 4:12 says otherwise.

Acts 4:12 does not disagree with this teaching. The souls of the unchurched which are saved are still saved by our Lord Jesus Christ

Erik,

God can do as he pleases. Thus it is possible that God may save the ignorant. If it pleases God Almighty to show mercy to one who does not know his beloved Son, will you stand before him and point to a single verse of scripture (out of context) and demand that this man be given up for doom?

#Joe: “A wise priest recently said there are no longer any Catholic colleges and universities in the U S.  Sadly, this fact is true.”  Almost, perhaps, but not quite, as a visit to Ave Maria University (or several other newer and fully faithful Catholic colleges) would convince you and the wise priest.

Erik:
I think you’re misinterpreting Acts 4:12. It does not say non-Catholics and non-Christians can’t be saved - it says “there is no salvation THROUGH ANYONE ELSE , NOR IS THERE ANY OTHER NAME (other than Jesus)—- BY WHICH WE ARE TO BE SAVED. In their culture, at the time that Luke wrote Acts, salvation was often attributed to the emperor (American Bible footnotes). Peter is simply saying that won’t work.

That’s a cute parable your friend came up with. Does your evangelical friend know that there are only Bibles available to find their ways to remote villages because the Church (we can argue another day about what we mean by ‘the Church’!) defined and preserved the Bible into the present day? And why does it have to be a Bible? Why not a priest with a good memory but no Bible? Why not an educated layman with the sacrament of baptism but no Bible (like the Japanese community mentioned above)? Note: that has actually happened in human history, unlike (to our knowledge) her remote village).

You’re very kind to your evangelical interlocutor (note: I would be too, if in direct communication with her). Fact is, her question and her example reveal a mind that is severly bound by the unwarranted identification of the Bible with the Gospel. And I really can’t figure out how that identification gets planted in people’s brains. It certainly isn’t in Scripture.

Paul:  I helped pay for the building of AVE MARIA University and have since regretted it when I discovered the Ecclesial Advisor for Ave Maria University is Vienna archbishop, Christoph Cardinal Schönborn who in (July 2008) bestowed a Pontifical decoration upon an Austrian socialist politician who has been leading in promoting abortion.    The Order of St. Gregory is the fourth highest award for merits regarding the Roman-Catholic Church given to Renate Brauner who is a well-known defender of abortion.   

The inaugural brief states that it is intended for “gentlemen of proven loyalty to the Holy See” who “are deemed worthy to be honoured by a public expression of esteem on the part of the Holy See”. 

This was not his first time Schönborn bestowed this noble award to a pro-abort.  How does he remain as advisor to Ave Maria University?  Why have no corrections been made? 

David, Jeremy, Priscilla,
Lets see how Scripture works out Acts 4:12. Here is how Acts 4:12 is applied in Acts 16:30-31:
30 And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved?
31 But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Notice that Paul is very specific about the way of salvation. He does not say any way will do. Only way will do as is taught here. Jesus also taught the same thing in John 14:6.
Romans 10:8-10 is also very specific and exclusive:
8 But what does it say? “ The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

There is no other way than this. This is why Jesus commanded to preach the gospel to all the world. Belief in the gospel is the only means of salvation.

@Joe, I know nothing of the circumstances you describe, but if you regard the actions of one (not the) ecclesial advisor, in Vienna in 2008 to be grounds for denying that AMU in Florida in 2012 is a Catholic university, despite its rating by First Things as THE most Catholic university in the U.S., I see now why you think there are none.  Do you have similar objections to calling Thomas Aquinas College or Franciscan University of Steubenville Catholic?  Are they all in the same boat as Georgetown or Fordham?

Erik:
There is no contradiction here—in each instance that you quote, the message of Jesus was available and being taught. We are referring to those who have not had this advantage. There are many people on this earth who have never heard of Jesus. Does that mean they go to hell?? Of course not! How about babies who die at, or shortly after, birth? And what about the babies who die through the horror of abortion? The quote from Romans in Mark’s article (above) answers the question about people who have not had the opportunity to learn about Jesus. Mark’s comments after that quote are further assurance of that. And as he says, God can do what he wants!!

The reader’s question is a good one, but what the evangelical reader doesn’t understand is that if a person has no access to the sacraments, that’s not the same thing as having access but not availing oneself of them. There were plenty of missionary countries in the past (including ours) where one priest might serve vast territories. And of course there are plenty of places in the world like that now. We believe that is okay. But according to many Protestant and Evangelical groups, having a Bible and reading it for oneself is necessary. What is that poor tribe to do if it doesn’t have a Bible, or if none of them can read the Bible? To me, that is a far sadder scenario. “Sola Scriptura” can only make sense in a literate society, but Christianity is far older than societies in which most people were literate or could own books.

L have always had a problem with the alibi, invincible ignorance, as a criteria in salvation in context with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  It seems only fair that if Christ died for all, everyone should have the option to accept or reject Him. How God administers that, who in this life can say for sure? The Catholic Church makes no attempt to do so. The new Mass translation from for all to many brings up a question.  Was the change to many made because Jesus actually died to redeem only those who accept Him? To be a practicing Catholic is obviously the best course for salvation.

Wyoming Catholic College can also be added to the Good Catholic College/University List.

I don’t think Jesus died for everyone.  Is that not why we now say at Mass that Jesus died for “many”?  There is but one way to the Father, and that is through Jesus the Christ.  Jesus said He will never lose even one soul given to Him by His Father.  In the case of a baby, still-born, aborted, or an infant, or child below the age of reason, God has mercy, because God is love.  But for everyone else - the Holy Spirit calls whomever He calls, like the wind, that blows where it will.  No one can know the mind of God.

With the Internet and even those little audio-books where the Bible is heard in native languages, it’s getting nearly impossible not to have heard about Jesus.  There may be a few places.

But with radio and missionaries, the Good News of Jesus (the Great Commission) is being spread far and wide, and it is being accepted in countries that are more “humble” than ours, and other developed nations, that seem to need God less.

Jesus said He would come back, after everyone had indeed heard about His having lived, died, risen, and His coming again.

Was the change to many made because Jesus actually died to redeem only those who accept Him?

No.  Limited atonement is a Calvinist doctrine, not a Catholic one.

CCC 605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”

One of the most sinister aspects of the debased and Protestantized “traditionalism” that has grown up in reaction to the Council is the odious tendency of many Traditionalists to try to figure out as many ways as possible to limit the love, mercy, and grace of God far beyond what the Church actually teaches.  We are not universalists, automatically granting heaven to all without regard to a person’s openness to grace.  But neither are we Calvinists, laboring to make sure as few people as possible are saved.

This gets to the heart of the issue. How is a Roman Catholic saved? What must a Catholic do to gain heaven?

Erik, I think a Roman Catholic is saved in the same way as anyone else:
be they Catholic, pagan, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or Agnostic-

It is when they hear the Gospel, the Good News that Jesus, the Son of God, lived, died, rose and ascended into Heaven, the spotless Lamb of God who satisfied the wrath of a holy God, on our behalf, so we, as guilty sinners, have had our sin debt, paid in full.

GRACE - God’s Righteousness At Christ’s Expense.  We are sinners.  The penalty for sin is death, meaning eternal separation from God. 

First, we admit we are sinners, & we need help, we cannot save ourselves.
Our “best” work to a holy God is bad.  We just cannot help ourselves.  And if we can’t help ourselves, we can’t help anyone else either.  But God Himself, provided a way for us to be in a right relationship with Him.

It was Jesus, who came in the fullness of time, to fulfill the law, and to show that the prophets were correct about His coming.  Even on the Cross, every bit of prophecy was fulfilled, 100%, until He said, “It is finished.” 

Secondly, when we realize the huge gift we have been given, by faith in Christ, and by faith alone, we WANT to please our Father in Heaven, as did Jesus, who showed us obedience, and in His case, it was obedience, unto death.  It’s not “works”, it’s obedience, because we love God.

Thirdly, we believe Jesus and take Him at His word, that because He lives, we will “live” also, in a new body, after our physical death.

When we believe all the above, then we WANT to spread the Good News of salvation to others, that is available for all.  It is written that God does not want anyone to perish.  However, many people do indeed perish.
Faith, for Catholics, and for everyone else, comes by hearing, & hearing, by the word of God, the holy Scriptures, Old and New Testament.

We are saved by our Faith (which is a free gift from God = His Grace), making us “Justified”, which is a legal term.  Meaning no penalty is to be paid.  Jesus paid the price.

Then we become “Sanctified”, set apart for His service, in thought and deed, living more like Jesus, as we live out our lives, be it 10 minutes after we are justified, or 100 years later.  Sanctification is a process.

St. James wrote that faith without works is dead.  So our works is the fruit, the visible evidence of having been justified (saved). Glorification comes after our natural death, and when we are in Heaven, with the whole Communion of Saints, Jesus, and the Father. 

Mark Shea – When was the last time you spoke to a traditional Catholic priest?  It appears that you have never taken the time to understand that traditional Catholics believe in the indefectibility of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Her teachings are ‘immutable and always remain the same’.  It is impossible for Holy Mother Church to contradict her own teachings.  A case in point:  the Vatican II Council document “Lumen Gentium “states that the Church subsists IN, rather than IS.  This implies that the true Church subsists in other religious bodies.  That’s a serious contradiction to Sacred Tradition.  Here is one reference to ponder on how is Truth established and how it cannot change in subsequent generations:  http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Sep/sep05str.htm

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in <em>the whole world</em, for a testimony to all nations: and then shall the consummation come.” Mt 24:14
Is it being preached today? If so, who is doing it? As others have noted, if it’s done from a Catholic pulpit, what of those not near one?

Paul and Fidelio:  If any of these universities or colleges are allowing a celebration of the People of God by a presbyter who serves a meal on a table and allows others and also the presbyter to put the host in hands, that’s a definite sign of a protestanized version of the Catholic Mass absent of any and all necessary grace.  If Quo Primum is contradicted on campus, it is not Catholic.

Terah James,
Can a pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or Agnostic be saved without hearing the gospel and believing in it?

Another reason why I am a Catholic.

Thank you for addressing my question, Mark.  Your quote explains why for many is selected. I assure you I am not in the Calvinist camp.  Except for the question, the rest of my observation seems reasonable.

Christ only died for the elect. If Christ’s death is applicable to everyone then there would be no hell. Hell is about punishment for sin and if Christ paid the price for everyone there is need for hell.

No.  No one can be saved without hearing the Gospel and believing it, being convicted of sin, and turning from prior ways, to God.  That is what pleases Him, and what seals us with the Holy Spirit. 

All of God’s “elect” will have heard the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus.  God knows how many hairs are on our heads, and no one will be overlooked.  All the elect will have heard His voice.  If today you hear His voice, harden not your hearts.  Be we pagan, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or Agnostic. 

It is harder for apostates (those that heard the Gospel, and enjoyed it for a while, until they turned to false teaching - like mainline Protestant denominations that embrace ungodly behaviors) to accept God’s teaching, than it is for someone that has never heard it before, and who is hurting, such as those in 3rd world countries, that are persecuted or impoverished.

That is why God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, through prophets, warned the Israelites to stay focused on what they were taught, directly by God, in Deuteronomy.  We are all wise to heed that advice too, although we are no longer under the law.  We are under His Love, having been sealed and kept for Jesus, to live with Him forever.

Erik,
God sends his invitation to everyone, but many elect to remain in darkness.  Predestination is bogus.  God made us free to choose Him.

Joe- about your mention of Vatican II: over the weekend, I read a link from a Vatican news source that announced an elderly (93 year old) priest that was in charge of assembling Vatican II material, said that a ton of material is yet to be compiled. 

It was not comforting because it make me wonder if we have all the critical thinking that was behind that council, and if we can even come to a determination about the consensus of the clerics that were there. 

This is why, more and more, I am coming to rely on Scripture, and the first thing I ask myself about verses is: “What does this say?”  The second thing I ask is, “Can this be taken literally?”  And if not, then, what is the most logical way it should be taken. 

While not all Scripture is written to us, it is all written for us, like it’s wise for us all to look at the instruction God gave in Deuteronomy, the message being: trust and obey Him.

Craig,
If predestination is bogus then what did Paul mean in Ephesians 1:4-5?

Terah James,
Is there any false teachings in the RCC?

Craig Roberts-

We were all dead in our sin, prior to being quickened by the Holy Spirit.  We were not just sick.  We were dead.  Stone dead.  Dead people cannot do anything by themselves, but be dead.

Erik,
It means that God willed that we be saved.  But we have a free will and can refuse to co-operate with his plan.

Think about it this way:  God is just.  In order for somebody to be culpable of sin and worthy of damnation, they must have made a free choice to do evil.  If they were not free to choose they could not be justly condemned.  Predestination makes God an un-just and cruel creator that makes some men just for the purpose of torturing them in eternity.  Heaven forbid.

Erik - I’m not going to go there (regarding false teachings).  At least in terms of morals, officially taught, Catholics have not gone apostate, as have almost all mainline Protestants.  No wonder reformed and God-loving members of those mainline churches have jumped ship.  Luther would not recognize what he began, if he were to see it today. 

It is high time for all like-minded, God-loving Christians (and Orthodox Jews, with blinders about Jesus) to get on the same page, and speak up for God-honoring morals in our country. 

I’m keeping peripheral teachings aside.  Fellow Christians can quibble about those, until the cows come home.  Keep the main thing, the main thing.  The Main Thing - is Jesus.  “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to His Cross I cling.”

TJ,
God can raise the dead.  That’s why Jesus came.  So that we may have life.  But we can refuse to believe in Christ and condemn ourselves.

Terah James,
I can understand you not wanting to “go there” in regards to false teachings. If you continue to study the Scripture and compare it to the teachings of the RCC you will find yourself in a quandary. You think there are false teachings in Protestant churches wait until you study what your church has come up with. They have nothing on Protestants.

Terah James, we have a Teaching Authority within Holy Mother Church that is without blemish (to claim differently would be to claim Jesus Christ gave us a Church that falsifies truth.  Run from those who oppose and contradict Sacred Tradition.  Creatures do not have the mindset to interpret Sacred Scripture correctly on their own.  We must look to the Divine assistance granted to the Magisterium.  We are on solid ground when we follow the infallible/ex cathedra pronouncements handed on.

The Council of Trent infallably taught, “without… faith no-one was ever justified.”  Our Lord proclaimed, “he that doth not believe, is already judged”  And again, “he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (Jn 3:36).”  To which St. Augustin adds: “He has not said, ‘The wrath of God comes to him’ but, ‘The wrath of God abides on him.’ All that are born mortals have the wrath of God with them. What wrath of God? That wrath which Adam first received.”—Tractates on John.  Pope Pius XII taught, “‘Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith…”  As we all know, there is no salvation outside of the Church.  The Catechism of Trent adss, “Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments.” The 1891 Baltimore Catechism adds, “It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, PROVIDED that person:
1. Has been validly baptized.”

And let’s not forget the infallible teaching, “[T]he holy Roman church…firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino , 1441. 17th Ecumenical Council of Florence).”

AMEN!! JR - St. Thomas said, “The lips of the priest* shall keep knowledge ...”  *( not to be confused with presbyters, for they have abandoned truth )

Wow… this thread certainly seems to be really exuding a lot of LOVE and KNOWLEDGE.

So… I thought a little *basic* reading might be helpful:

[The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church.]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

[It is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church. Yet, as the Holy Office pointed out in condemning L. Feeney (DS 3866) we must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private interpretation.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT

[A recent study by Gustave Thils, “Pour une theologie de structure planetaire,” has pointed out some new possibilities for the solution of the vexing and long-standing problem, the salvation of those who are or seem to be outside the Church.

The question is difficult, because salvation requires not only a supernatural faith in God who requites justly, and adherence to the moral code, so far as the person knows it, but even membership in the Church. Not a few Fathers of the Church, and even Popes and Councils, have insisted on this requirement of membership.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

[St Paul urges (Romans 3:29):“Is He the God only of the Jews? Is He not also the God of the gentiles? Yes, He is the God of the gentiles.”

Paul means that if God had made salvation depend on keeping the Mosaic law, then all who did not know of it would go to hell. But Paul knows God is not like that, is not a cruel monster. So Paul insists that God has provided for the salvation of non-Jews too. How? Paul says it is by faith that they can be saved.]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/PAGAN.HTM

Joe,
How many ex cathedra pronouncements has your church proclaimed? Its quite shocking.

I just have to wonder how likely it is that a tribe so remote from modern life as to not even have a Catholic church anywhere nearby would also be full of people who were educated, literate, and could thus read the Bible. I have never heard of such a case. More common historically, and now in primitive areas, is a Catholic church which administers the sacraments as a way to reach all people, even those who aren’t scholarly. God isn’t an intellectual snob who only saves those who can read; would any reasonable person suggest He couldn’t save the millions of people who were Christians in the centuries when most of the population was illiterate?

Mark’s answer was correct and charitable, but I find that it is dangerous for people to make up silly hypothetical scenarios, like the question above, that have never actually happened.  This story might be harmless, but another woman who made up an imaginary sob story was Margaret Sanger—she wrote of a poor victimized woman who was actually an amalgamation of several women and several “possible scenarios,” and thus Planned Parenthood was born. Perhaps people should work with actual data. 

@JR Valid baptism includes baptism of desire and of blood, not just the ordinary means of sacramental baptism. To phrase Mr Shea’s affirmation rhetorically, dare you suggest God is bound by his sacraments? No: rather, those to whom He has deigned to give knowledge of the sacraments are bound by them. Not the tribes of the Amazon or others who either lack access to the sacraments or knowledge of their saving power. God is all-merciful as well as all-just, and the Church is *by the grace of God* more encompassing than her visible institution.

@Joe As a junior at Thomas Aquinas College, I can assure you that we attend Mass either in the Extraordinary Form or in the Ordinary Form in the typical Latin. We receive the Eucharist on our knees at the hands of the priest. As an insider I can assure you that our liturgy has not been Protestantized.

@Erik If you study early Church history you’ll see that it was the RCC’s ecumenical councils that formalized and codified the canon of Scripture, and that it is on her authority alone that one can assert Scripture’s divine inspiration. Also, Terah James means well but is a bit cloudy on the use of the word “predestination”—for what she refers to is Calvinistic double predestination. God does not predestine people to hell. Rather, God simply prepares all of the faithful on earth for eternal life with His grace, for it is by His merciful grace alone that we are saved. This is what Paul refers to in his epistles; this is the predestination St Augustine writes of in his anti-Pelagian treatises.

@Maria I think it is a valid point—one should not universalize from the extremes—but it is also true that there are Amazonian tribes and African peoples (to take the few examples that come to my coddled Western mind) that have never heard the Gospel preached nor received a single sacrament. And yet, by the grace of a loving God who desires all men to be saved, the gates of heaven are not closed to them.

Scaevola,
We know what the canon of the NT is not because there was some inherent power or authority that made the canon inspired-inerrant but that they relied on a number of tests that were used to determine what the canon was. It was a process of discovery.

May I inquire into what these tests consisted of? And by whom were they performed? Are these tests reproducible, demonstrative and falsifiable? If so, why are there so many who prima facie reject their divine inspiration?

Terah,

Out of curiosity, are you a Catholic?  I am led to ask, because the way that you are interpreting the Bible’s teaching on salvation (justification by faith alone, with the believer never being able to lose his/her salvation) is not Catholic at all but is very much in line with the Protestant Reformation. 
I was a Protestant myself, and a former Catholic, for several years,and I believed that the Bible teaches the ideas that you are voicing here.  However, upon deeper study of Scripture and church history, I learned that my Protestant pastors were understanding James 2:14-24, and many, many other Biblical passages, to mean something other than what they actually say. 
St. James explicitly states that man is *not* justified by faith alone.  Moreover (contrary to what many Protestants assert), James does *not* tell us that works are simply the evidence of our already having been justified by faith alone. 
St. Paul also tells us in Romans that if we do not *continue* in God’s kindness (trusting in Him and obeying Him), we will be cut off, just as the unbelieving, disobedient Israelites were cut off by God.  This is what the Bible teaches, and it is what the Catholic Church, which wrote and put together the New Testament (as inspired and guided by God), teaches.

Christopher,
James and Paul are using justification in 2 different senses. Paul in Romans 3:21- 5:1 is using justification in the sense of being justified by faith before God. James using justification in being justified by works before men. It is the works that show a man saved but the works do not make a man saved.

Slam dunk!
Game, point, and match!

Scaevola, you said “as an insider I can assure you that our liturgy has not been Protestantized”.  The Novus Ordo Missae said on a table is protestanized; it is humanly contrived by six protestants and approved by Paul VI.  The Latin Mass offered in the same chapel has changes to it that contradict what was promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V.  The presbyter must also say the Novus Ordo Missae and is very often poorly prepared in Latin.  The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to “Quo Primum” is not recognized by the USCCB.  Traditional Catholic priests who will not say the new mass are not allowed to say the Traditional Latin Mass in any of their churches.  I am not an SSPXer.  Will you be discussing this in your classes?

Eric, you asked how many ex cathedra pronouncements by Holy Mother Church.  To my knowledge no one has counted the many pronouncements on faith and morals that must form our Catholic conscience, that Catholics must believe handed on by the Teaching Authority, the Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.

@Scaevola: of course there are remote peoples with no access to the Bible or the sacraments.  There are also remote people who are illiterate and yet have a Catholic church thanks to missionaries at some point in history. However, I have never heard of a remote, primitive people having no church, but being literate and able to read and have time to digest the whole Bible.  It is unlikely that if a group is so isolated from the world that they never had a mission near them or even heard of church, that they also somehow had access to education.  It is usually the other way around (church yes, but can’t read) or as you said, sometimes there is no church either. Of course God can save these people, just like He could save the hypothetical group the reader posed in Mark’s post—if such a group existed, which they likely don’t.  My point was simply that since there has never been and likely isn’t any case of a primitive remote group that also can read the Bible, it is unwise to become distraught over this “possible scenario.”. It is a strawman argument essentially; a very unlikely scenario, that someone is letting block them from accepting the Catholic church. It seems bad, to me, to let an irrational hypothetical situation make or break one’s opinion of Christ’s true church!

One thing is absolutely certain:

Whatever they practice as a result of reading that Bible, it won’t look anything like Protestantism. Because Protestantism comes to ‘The Word’ with as many, if not more, intellectual and cultural presuppositions than the Catholic, by definition, owing to ‘Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism’. (See Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture)

Joe,
There has been only 2 ex cathedra pronouncements by your church.

Erik, The Roman Catholic Church has many more ex cathedra pronouncements than two.  Only two ex cathedra pronouncements is taught by the modernists’ who seek a one world order church.  Grasping ‘infallibility’ is necessary to understand why we are bound by all that is promulgated in matters of faith and morals by The Chair of Peter, Christ’s representative on earth.
“… the First Vatican Council remind us that the Pope is the one essential person in the Catholic Church’s exercise of her property of Infallibility.
As Ludwig Ott, STD, explains in his comprehensive dogmatic theology book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
“The possessors of infallibility are:
A) The Pope: The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
B) The whole episcopate: The totality of the bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful. The bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in their dioceses, in moral unity with the Pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals. The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with ‘divine and catholic faith.’”
http://www.cmri.org/97prog6.htm

Joe,
I’m just going by what one of the finest RC apologists has written. Here is what he wrote:

“Robert Sungenis: In fact, most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma. There have been only two definite instances of the exercise of papal infallibility. The first was in 1870 when the doctrine of papal infallibility was decreed as a doctrine in itself, and the second was in 1950 when the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was decreed. Every other teaching by the popes, past and present, has never been officially defined as an excathedra, infallible, and irreformable teaching. Of course, the Church could go back and analyze various teachings of past popes in order to decide whether one or the other was teaching infallibly on a given issue, but she has never done so, and thus there is no list of infallible papal teachings.”

Eric, you might not be on solid ground when you follow what lay theologians claim.  Robert Sungenis has not been given an infallible spirit.  “When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority on faith and morals as the visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent upon the consent of the Church and is irreformable”.  (taken from the Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon. S.J.)  Stay with the writings directly from the Vicar of Christ and approved Councils and one will not go astray from Holy Mother Church.

Joe, Erik:

Neither of you knows what you are talking about and both of you are off topic.  The subject is not, yet again, Trad obsessions with the liturgy.  Nor is it Count the Ex Cathedra definitions.  Stay on topic or I will boot you.  This is your only warning.

Mark, In response to your notice to “boot” Eric and I off in the discussion of “what Rome has spoken has been settled” is a sensitive issue because many prefer to make up their own minds on ‘what is truth’ and how to conduct their lives.  Souls are at great risk not understanding its importance.  Humanities’ hope, confidence and trust must hinge on ‘it’ or calamity and chaoes will reign.  What is your fear?

@Maria I see your point, and I concede it. :) I guess I misunderstood. You’re right—if they are advanced to the point of a written language, then it’s very likely that they’ve had the Gospel preached to them.

@Paul Rodden You rock.

@Joe First, our three chaplains are not “very poorly prepared in Latin”. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information here. Each one of them seems very comfortable celebrating in Latin. Second, papal approval is enough for me. There is nothing doctrinally problematic with the Ordinary Rite—all the essentials are maintained, even if the theological focus isn’t as clearly defined as the Extraordinary Rite’s (which is what I think you mean when you refer to Pius V’s bull?) I would suppose the reason that the USCCB may not recognize the Extraordinary Rite (though I would love a citation) would be that the Ordinary Rite was authorized by a pope, Paul VI, equal in authority to Pius V. Finally, I would suppose that a question such as this would fall under our theology course…however, as the great majority of Catholics here, faculty and students, fully recognizes the validity of the Ordinary Rite, and because the question doesn’t come up in any of the theological works we read (not even in the encyclicals in the curriculum I think), I highly doubt such a question would come up on the table. This sort of thing is really not the focus of the education anyway.

Scaevola, go here for explanations of why the new mass fabricated by protestants changed the way people pray and in turn changed what people believe:  http://www.doctrinaliturgica.com/

I see nothing in the Ordinary Rite itself that can of itself be condemned. You would be going against the Pope himself to deny its validity, and all the problems that are found in the Church seem just as easily to be failings on the part of the teachers who did/do not understand true theology or are actively trying to suppress it as (putatively) on the part of the Mass itself. However, I will now defer to Mr Shea, who I realize posted before me.

Scaevola, Have you read:  Tumultuous Times, sbn=0971506108.. by Fathers Francisco Radecki, Dominic Radecki?

No, but knowing that the motives of the authors is to show that the Church of today is not the true Catholic Church, I doubt I will any time soon. My faith tells me that the Church of today is the exact same one as the Church before Vatican II, with the exact same teachings as what Christ preached and the Apostles made known to the world, with a valid liturgy and a valid pope. Further, I believe Jesus’ words in Scripture hold true, that he would be with us till the end of the age. I cannot give credence to the opinions of those who deny the Catholic Church’s existence qua Catholic Church, to those who would, like Protestants and divorcees, divide what God has united and made one. (After all, the division even among sedevacantists is telling—you shall know them by their fruits.) I am through arguing this point.

Scaevola - I object to your using “Protestant” with such a broad brush, making everyone that is not Catholic into a villain, against the church and Jesus.  Not every non-Catholic is a divorce-loving pagan, whose aim it is to cause division.  I am a Catholic convert.  I was raised non-Catholic Christian.  It offends me to read your post, impling my mother, father and the rest of my family have bad intentions, when in reality, they are God honoring Evangelicals, more “Catholic” than many Catholics I’ve met since I converted.  My family is Pro-Life. They work to protect traditional marriage.  They are charitable, engaging those that disagree with them about doctrines peripheral to the faith.  You need to examine your conscience, and see if those things could be said about you.

@Terah James I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to impute bad intentions to Protestants today. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority of Protestants today 1) are not Protestants because they have actively rejected the Church, but rather because that is how they were raised; and 2) are good people (and many times better Catholics than those who profess to be). I apologize for coming off as callous and uncharitable. The Protestants I had in mind were more those who founded their respective denominations in opposition to the true faith—Luther, Zwingli, Wesley et al. These are the Protestants directly comparable to sedevacantists, who have also broken from the true faith by holding it to a “higher” standard. Even here, I do not presume to read the minds of these who broke away—I’m sure that most who break away do so with good intent, to save the Church and not to destroy it—rather, I only judge the act of breaking away as the error it is.

My mention of divorce may have been somewhat glib, but I was simply trying to draw a likeness between those who work to divide the Church and those who work to divide their marriage. Both are dividing a thing that God has made one, and both err in trying to do so (as well as fail on a spiritual level, for no man can truly divide a sacramental marriage or the mystical Body of Christ). I wasn’t trying to imply that all Protestants are in favor of divorce, for that is demonstrably not the case.

In fine, I apologize for not being clear, Terah James, and I’m very happy to hear that your family is so strong in the faith. Would that more Catholics could follow their good example.

Scaevola, You say you’ve not read “Tumultuous Times” yet you recklessly claim to know their motive.  Strange, indeed!  Christ instituted His Church at the time He personally taught His Apostles.  They handed on what is to be safeguarded and revealed with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.  Today a Nine-Day Novena begins in preparation for the Feast of Pentecost.  We just celebrated the Ascension of Our Lord.  This feast is a foretelling of the Divine assistance of the Holy Ghost to come.  St. Cyprian said, “He who does not have the Church for a Mother, cannot have God for a Father”.  Christ established One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not churches and denominations to pick and choose at personal desire.  How quickly you compromise.

@Joe I don’t see any compromise on my part. I fully agree with all that you just asserted. But I deny the validity of the argument of those who claim that the HS left the Church, that Benedict XVI is not the pope, that the OR is not a valid Mass. It is sedevacantism which makes for itself its own denominations (and there are several splinter groups—it’s not a united front) and “picks and chooses” what to believe in “at personal desire”—ie, in regard liturgy and Pope.

Scaevola,  you said, “It is sedevacantism which makes for itself its own denominations (and there are several splinter groups—it’s not a united front) and “picks and chooses” what to believe in “at personal desire”—ie, in regard liturgy and Pope”.  And your most humble “opinion”——- is based upon “What?”  Be very careful now in your explanation.

Scripture and reason. Christ said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. He further said that He would remain with His Church until the end of the world. Also, there is the line about there being one flock, one shepherd.

Reason tells me that the Church is true which has apostolic succession and teachings that have remained the same from the beginning. The Catholic Church today has apostolic succession, and has the same doctrine that the early Church had. Therefore, the Catholic Church today is the true church.

Further, those who divide themselves from this Church, the Catholic Church, have chosen to deny some part of the truth found within Her. Sedevacantists have divided themselves from the Church; thus sedevacantists deny some part of the truth of the Faith.

If there is to be one flock, one shepherd, then which splinter group would be the true Church? Deny the Catholic Church’s divine authority—and by Catholic Church I mean the visible institution that is held (if not practiced) by over a billion people, with Benedict as its head—and one chooses sand for his faith’s foundation instead of that foundation of rock, the Rock of Peter.

Scaevola,  you said, “Sedevacantists have divided themselves from the Church; thus sedevacantists deny some part of the truth of the Faith”.  You have contrite answers without substantiation.  Now, you have a right to ‘your opinion’….However, can you explain what part of the truth taught by the Holy Roman Catholic Church have the sedevacantists denied?

Joe, I waited a couple days to reply because I think I was getting a bit emotional in my argument. I hope you know that I am trying to follow Christ and be charitable in this debate. I know (or at least am assuming) you are debating with me for the same reason. I apologize if I came off as angry or insensitive before, or if I do later. :)

In my previous post, I stated that I believe the Catholic Church to be that institution that has valid apostolic succession and the same doctrines as were taught originally by Christ and His apostles. On the matter of doctrine, I see sedevacantist websites arguing “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” and interpreting that without charity or regard for God’s mercy, making it “Extra Ecclesiam visibiliam nulla salus”. The Church’s official stance, however, is that it is those who have been granted the gift of faith that are bound by the sacraments—not God. God can grace whomever He pleases, in accord with His perfect plan for all creation, and He desires that all be saved. So I’m pretty sure this is what I had in mind concerning doctrinal errors.

But that’s rather a side point…my main objection was that sedevacantism states that since the popes of Vatican II the chair of Peter has been held by antipopes and heretics. I suppose I have never seen a credible reason to suppose that a) the popes and cardinals were not originally validly ordained and b) that the conclaves that elected these supposed antipopes did so illicitly or invalidly. In the rite of election, what went wrong to invalidate the decision? If it is the manifest heresy of the papal choices, what is this manifest heresy? What doctrinal errors did these men hold before their election, and did they teach them from the chair after ascending to the throne? How can these errors be manifest if the vast majority of Catholic bishops and laity accepted their validity? Is not a proof of their validity the fact that they were rejected by worldly Catholics and those who operated under a “hermeneutic of rupture”?

I guess I had a similar question about the liturgy…I’ve never seen a concrete example of heresy in the OR. Sure, there are deemphases of certain doctrinal matters, and new prayers were composed for certain parts, but none of this is to say that any is in direct violation of Church teaching. It seems to me that there is perhaps a difference in degree of goodness between the ER and the OR, but not of kind. And placing the blame of poor catechesis in the faithful at the foot of the OR seems problematic too. Any deemphases in doctrine found in the newrite could easily be made up for by good catechists who know the faith. However, the tumult of a new ecumenical council allowed for any dissident to claim to speak for the Church “in the spirit of Vatican II”, and this is the reason that we have such problems in the laity.

Scaevola -———I’ve not found anything in the sedevacantist position that contradicts what Sacred Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church has handed on.  However, when I view the changed mass, the changed liturgies, the changed canon laws, the changed sacraments, the removal of many disciplines as well as the demolishing of altars, altar rails, statues, suppressed devotions to Our Blessed Mother, music with a swing and a beat at the novus ordo missae said on a table with the presbyter stripped of priestly garments facing the people who took no “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” per the new ordination rite, using female Eucharistic handlers and female altar servers, allowing unconsecrated hands to put the host into hands, and the new evangelization not having a missionary spirit nor call to convert because truth is shared with those who deny papal infallibility and/or the Vicar of Christ, that’s when I connected and discovered that it is no longer the same church that “IS” but a new denomination that ‘subsists IN’ the church, per actual words of the periti at Vatican II Council as explained in the document, Lumen gentium para. 8.

Wait, what in the rites of the Mass, the Sacraments and the changing of canon laws and disciplines contradicts revealed truth and doctrine? I still have no reason to see why any of these changes are changes in the essential nature of the Church—they seem more like a refresh, a cleaning-house. The other examples are all examples of poor catechesis, poor teaching, the act of sinful and wicked teachers (or poor and ignorant ones, which is not much better for a teacher of the Faith).

Joe, this question came to mind, reading your last post: would you have become a Lutheran in the 1500s in response to the rampant clerical abuse? Bishops, priests, monks and nuns living absolutely depraved and dissolute lives, with no pretense of functioning as the representatives of God that their vows (and, for the hierarchy, the sacramental seal) make them to be? Would you have rejected the pope then, seeing him the father of multiple children—with multiple women? Would the political maneuvering of the Borgias have caused you to sacrifice the Church? I think you would have a pretty iron-clad defense for breaking away—all sorts of disciplines were being sacrificed by the highest clergymen on the altar of hedonism and selfishness. Your position as a breakaway would be understandable—but you’d be just as wrong as Luther.

And is it not a dangerous heresy to deny God’s omnipotence and all-merciful nature and to deny that one can be a member of the Church without being a member of the visible institution? Namely, can’t God save those who haven’t heard His gospel through no fault of their own?

NB My first q should be “What *modifications* in the rites of the Mass, etc., contradicts revealed truth and doctrine?”

Also, I thought that “subsists in” means “has its particular existence in”, meaning that the way the Body of Christ has its actual existence on earth is the Catholic Church. Whatever it is, I think it should be noted that the term “subsistence” is a philosophical term with a precise meaning. It’s not a term used in contrast to “is”, in other words. I’m going off of my John Damascene here…

Scaevola,    “The essentials” of the Mass according to Quo Primum written by Pope St. Pius V were changed.  This new order mass as formerly designed by Martin Luther is a humanly designed mass reintroduced by 6 protestants to be a man centered not a God centered offering. The assembly is served a meal and no longer participates in a Sacrificial Offering.  The new theology of the mass created a new design for the interior and exterior of the churches. The laity now dress in sporty attire; they are no longer in awe of a Mighty God, are noisy especially before and after the “celebration of the people”.  The Tabernacle once required to be in the center and prominently placed on the altar is now an embarrassment, and so delegated to be hidden.  The once required Christ Crucified Cross was replaced with the cosmic resurrected Christ cross.  To accommodate the non-Catholics and the doubtful, statues and images are not to interfere with the entertainment of the presbyter and the music ministry.  Fresh inventions introduced are always falsehoods without exception.  These are only a few of the changes that caused an exodus of thousands of people.  You need more?

Scaevola,    “It is those two little words, “subsists in” that changed everything.

In Mystici Corporis (1943) and again in Humani Generis (1950), His Holiness Pope Pius XII once and again upheld and reiterated the consistent dogma held by the Church from Her very beginning, namely that the Mystical Body of Christ IS one and the same as that visible institution that he himself ruled as Christ’s Vicar.

  That teaching is contained in those encyclicals, not as a mere passing remark, but as a teaching carefully and explicitly expounded upon. He makes it abundantly and explicitly clear that they are to be totally, absolutely, and exclusively identified with each other, necessarily and intrinsically equal and identical in scope and boundaries. He also makes it clear that this Mystical Body of Christ and visible institutional Catholic Church he rules is itself alone the means or conduit of God’s salvation to humankind.

No salvation can be obtained from anywhere outside it. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Thus is the eternal teaching of the Church. It is dogma and to teach otherwise would be heresy”.

Again, concerning the Mass I haven’t heard a single solid specific essential that is changed. Are the words of consecration changed so that what is offered is not a sacrifice? Does the Mass not follow the same liturgical pattern it always has, even with updated and somewhat changed (but not heretical) prayers? The OR is most certainly a sacrifice, the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the same sacrifice of the Last Supper, the same sacrifice of the Tridentine rite. “Hoc est enim corpus meum.” That’s not a Protestant sentiment, that’s Catholic truth, God-centered, and “man-centered” only insofar as God Himself became man and sacrificed Himself for us.

All the other examples you’ve given are important, but they are all accidental to the Mass itself. The beauty of the church in which Mass is offered at most will affect the quality of the devotion of a Mass-goer. But the words of consecration aren’t somehow invalidated by being said inside a massively ugly church. Having Christ’s tabernacle off to the side in a normal church is a travesty, but does not invalidate a Mass. Dressing immodestly or even simply carelessly shows a lack of respect or good catechesis on the mass-goer’s part, but it in no ways invalidates the Mass itself. Having an inadequate cross in the sanctuary doesn’t mean that one has an inadequate sacrifice at the altar. (Also, at this point you grievously generalize; I’ve participated in Mass at a good number of churches, and the great majority had crucifixes—portrayals of Christ Crucified, not “cosmic resurrection” Christ.) The lack of good music and statues and images is, again, completely irrelevant to the question of the validity of the OR.

The reason all of these things are beside the point? They are all accidents. And no matter how poor they are they are not determinative of the genuineness and validity of the rite itself. At most they show that “Catholic” teachers were extremely effective in taking advantage of the laity in the 60s through the 80s and beyond, such that people don’t understand the truth of the faith. To be frank, you have not presented a shred of evidence that the present sorry state of the Church is the fault of the OR itself and not of those who abuse it, nor that the OR is itself not a true Mass. I see a lot of correlation. But that’s all.

Joe, maybe the question I asked in my earlier comment was offensive, but if it was would you let me know so I can apologize? If not, then would you say whether you would have rejected the visible hierarchy of the Church in the 1500s?

Further, one would not want to say that the Church exists in the same way in both Heaven and earth. They are two different spiritual realms, one within time and one without it, one made of fallen men and the other composed of the blessed and the holy angels, one looking through a mirror darkly and receiving grace through the sacraments and the other face to face directly participating in the divine nature. So to say that the Church has its particular existence on earth as the visible structure of the Catholic Church is not a heresy, it’s being careful with one’s language. One would likewise say that the Church in heaven subsists in the Beatific Vision or something along those lines.

And you are right about this difficult doctrine of salvation. For one can only be saved by being a member of the Church, which membership is gained through the sacrament of Baptism which cleanses the soul of original sin. But there are other ways to be baptized than through the ordinary sacramental means—and the important one here is baptism of desire, which constitutes an act of perfect contrition and a desire to become a member of Christ’s Church, either explicitly or implicitly. John in his first epistle says that everyone who loves is of God—and it is not only the visible Catholics in this world who are capable of true love. Those who, were they granted knowledge of Christ’s Church, would wish to join it, are truly members of His mystical body, as much as you or I are.

Such people are NOT saved without the Church, let it be known. *It is only through the Church that such baptism is possible.* It is only through the Church that Christ has opened the floodgates of grace and charity to the world. God saves the invincibly ignorant through His visible Church without them being visibly members of it. And this is not a contradiction of Pius XII’s words, for nowhere in what you’ve quoted (I’ve unfortunately not had the opportunity to study most of the encyclicals with any depth) does the Holy Father state that one must be a member of the visible Church through sacramental baptism, nor does he ever say that it is impossible for the visible Church to be the means of salvation for those who are not visibly part of her.

Dang that’s a lot. I hope it’s not overwhelming!

Scaevola,
Do you think baptisms in Protestant churches are valid?

Scaevola,
If the consecrations were according to the rubrics of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, would Unconsecrated hands be allowed to touch the host and placed in the palm of hands and given to non Catholics simply because they requested it?
“Transubstantiation” is the Mystery of Faith and said during the time of consecration.  Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again are not mysteries, they are facts of Faith
Some protestant baptisms are legitimate.  They are determined individually.
Yes, you got too wide in your comments and questions.  One issue at a time, please and no apologies are necessary except to Our Lord according to conscience.
“Tumultuous Times” by the Fathers Radecki is highly recommended.
Our Blessed Mother gives us the best view of the vanity of human greatness. 

@Alvin If the baptism is done with flowing water with the Trinitarian formula then yes, the baptism is valid, and the baptized becomes a member of the Catholic Church (though no one present at such a baptism would likely acknowledge that fact).
—
@Joe That “mystery of faith” you quote is not found within the typical Latin. That was an error with the translation (a poor paraphrase), not with the OR itself.
-
That a thing is a fact does not prevent it from being a mystery. It’s a fact that God is Three in One, and it’s a fact that Christ is fully God and fully man. And yet they are mysteries—how can such things be? It’s beyond our reason to know the cause of such realities.
-
Further, it seems to me that the mystery is not simply the Transubstantiation, which is granted a great mystery indeed. It seems better that the mystery here referenced is the purpose for transubstantiation, that for which the transubstantiation became necessary—namely, that Christ sacrificed Himself for us and thereby defeated death, opened the gates of Heaven, and granted men to become partakers in the divine nature. And this is what the (proper) memorial acclamations proclaim.
-
Your first point? Yeah it’s improper. (I hate receiving from the hand myself, it seems irreverent.) But that has no bearing on whether that which is received in the hand is truly Christ’s body and blood.

Btw non-Catholics receiving is not only improper, but scandalous and sacrilegious. Just to be clear.

Are non-Catholics unworthy to receive the Eucharist?

Someone please correct me, if I’m wrong, but I believe it is only improper for a non-Catholic to receive Communion if they do it knowingly, and they knowingly do not believe it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

If they receive Communion without understanding they ought not to, or they believe they’re doing a good thing, understanding it is the Body and Blood of Christ, then it is not scandalous nor sacrilegious, I think.

It’s only at certain special Masses that announcements are made to come up and receive a blessing if, for any reason, one is not predisposed to receiving Communion.

Most visitors do not read the missal contents, spelling out Communion requirements, so outside of a special announcement, or someone telling them, Communion may be received, sincerely by that person, without knowledge of it having been improper procedure.  Motives are important. If the motives are pure, it makes all the difference in the world.

Alvin - the question is not that a non-Catholic is “unworthy”, rather the question is, “Do they understand what they are doing, and do they believe Catholic Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ?”  Catholics are, fortunately, very reverent in how we consider Communion.  Mass is a gathering of the entire Communion of Saints, (on earth and in Heaven) for worship of our Heavenly Father and Jesus, the Risen Lamb.

Somewhere in the Bible, it’s written that some people “slept” and were sick, due to not treating “the breaking of the bread” properly.  I forgot where it is, but the New Testament considers Communion very important, as do we.

But not all non-Catholics feel that way about it. In Acts of the Apostles, the early church placed high value on “the breaking of the bread”, even taking it to shut ins and those in prison, as we Catholics do now.

@Alvin I’m not sure where your questions are going. Help a fellow out?
@Terah James I agree, one cannot sin unless one intends to sin. I was simply talking about the act itself, which is a sinful act in itself, contrary to the law of God’s Church—the Body of Christ is dishonored when received by one who doesn’t realize it truly is God Himself, even if the one dishonoring it does not intend such irreverence. And if a known Protestant receives Communion, it has the potential to cause scandal among those who know he is a Protestant—again without the Protestant in question intending to cause scandal.

For a legitimate Consecration of the Eucharist, the matter, form (correct words) and intention must be according to the rubrics of the Mass or it is a mock consecration absent of grace.  A legitimately Consecrated Host is never handled by unworthy hands.  It is only the Priest who can put the Body and the Blood of Christ on the tongue and never in the palm of hands. 
http://www.dailycatholic.org/holymas4.htm
Furthermore, a holy relic(s) must be in place on the altar with Christ on the Cross.

And you’re saying, Joe, that no OR Masses are done on altars with a crucifix and relics, and that it is actually impossible for a consecrated host to ever touch the hands of someone not consecrated? Granted, these abuses do happen. I have never denied that there have been great abuses of the Mass and of Christ’s holy body and blood. But you still haven’t shown that it’s the rite itself that is to blame. At a proper OR Mass, the matter and form are present and the intent is proper, and such disciplines are followed. At an improper OR Mass, the ones to blame are the priests and the catechists who have failed in their responsibility, and also the slothful among the laity.

Scaevola - The new mass imposed upon Catholics is “The Work Of Human Hands” (see book by Fr. Anthony Cekada).  There are countless errors and most especially in the Consecration of the Eucharist.  The permissive ‘loosening up’ attitude in the consecratory words by the presbyter has led to morality no longer be measured by the unchanging teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. 
But then consider that this “new mass” is said in the church that “subsists in” and not in the Church that “IS”.  Therefore to subsist in another is not significant from the many other religions and beliefs following the lead of Marin Luther, the new evangelization and the ‘ecumenical’ spirit that one church or faith is just as good as another.  The Holy Roman Catholic Church priesthood takes no part in the church that subsists in.

I’m afraid, Joe, that you haven’t offered me any solid evidence for your assertions. None of the errors you have offered as evidence show that the nature of the OR Mass isn’t the re-presentation of Christ’s eternal saving sacrifice. There is true and valid and licit matter, form, minister and intent in the OR Mass, potentially if not actually in every case.
-
Also, I’ve already argued that to say “subsists in” is to be more precise than to say “is”. It shows that the Catholic Church is the particular way that the Body of Christ exists on Earth. It is not a denial that the Catholic Church *is* the Church. It’s just a recognition that the Church in heaven exists in a different way. You’re free to interpret Vatican II how you want, but if I’m to take you seriously you can’t just ignore what I’ve said.

Scaevola - Not only have I referenced that the meaning of SUBSISTS IN means that the Church of Christ is, according to Lumen Gentium, NOT ANY LONGER just the Catholic Church but that it exists in other churches and that contradicts a basic doctrince that Christ established only one Church with Four Marks - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.  Of course you should investigate the books, “Tumultuous Times” by Frs. Radecki and “Made By Human Hands” (the novus ordo missae)  by Fr. A. Cekada.  If these aren’t enough, here are more for you:
Atila S. Guimarães is a brilliant Brazilian author, and his masterpieces are In the Murky Waters of Vatican II and Animus Delendi I and II (Desire to Destroy.  All these books are detailed and fully documented.  I truly wish these books did not have to be written and the information was not true, but one cannot hide one’s head in the sand and fight reality.  It has been made clear that what has been formally and Supremely condemned has now been made acceptable and permissible as has always been acceptable and permissible in the many humanly fabricated denominations that exist. 

You can assert that my interpretation of “subsists in” is wrong. But please be aware that saying that I’m wrong in my reading is not the same as demonstrating that I’m wrong in my reading. I argued from reason and the way that St John Damascene use the term “subsistence” to show how it is not necessary that you read Lumen Gentium to speak heretically. To say the Church subsists in the Catholic Church on earth is *in no way* to say that it also subsists in other churches on earth too. That’s a false conclusion. Show me through reason (and not through simply citing authors who begin with the premise that the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church) that the Catholic Church today lacks the marks of being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic and I will be satisfied.
-
What is true, however, is that some men can be saved, though not members of the visible structure of the Church, insofar as they possess some part of the Truth (which is one, as it is from God and is God) and seek to live a life in accord with the truth. This salvation comes ONLY through the visible Catholic Church, however, for it is through Her sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross which is re-presented at every Mass, that God has allowed grace to enter the world. Note well that this *in no way* contradicts a nuanced understanding of “extra ecclesiam”. And there’s nothing wrong with nuance.
-
This, though, is certain in my mind. The many sedevacantist splinter groups show no unity. And they lack the visible structure of the Church, having rejected the Pope. And they have no principle for fixing this problem, because the Church’s hierarchy are all heretics, and without the hierarchy one can have no pope. I can’t see a gnostic invisible union of True Believers, lacking the visible marks of the Church and a legitimate single head, being the answer for whatever problems the Church may have.

Scaevola, I did not say it, Rome said it and that settled it:

(the following is copied text)

It is those two little words, “subsists in,” in the eighth paragraph that changed everything. What do they mean? In Mystici Corporis (1943) and again in Humani Generis (1950), His Holiness Pope Pius XII once and again upheld and reiterated the consistent dogma held by the Church from Her very beginning, namely that the Mystical Body of Christ IS one and the same as that visible institution that he himself ruled as Christ’s Vicar.
That teaching is contained in those encyclicals, not as a mere passing remark, but as a teaching carefully and explicitly expounded upon. He makes it abundantly and explicitly clear that they are to be totally, absolutely, and exclusively identified with each other, necessarily and intrinsically equal and identical in scope and boundaries. He also makes it clear that this Mystical Body of Christ and visible institutional Catholic Church he rules is itself alone the means or conduit of God’s salvation to humankind. No salvation can be obtained from anywhere outside it. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Thus is the eternal teaching of the Church. It is dogma and to teach otherwise would be heresy.

Scaevola,  Rome said it, that settled in it in regards to unworthy hands and touching the Host:

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

And nothing I have said concerning “subsists in” contradicts that. Salvation comes only through the Church. I fully admit that.

Scaevola.  read this very carefully.  Once again I’m sorry these things needed to be written and BTW, this site, to my knowledge, is not prepared by sedevacantists.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Sep/sep05str.htm

Scaevola, the Vatican II L. G. document states that the church now subsists IN the Church and no longer IS the One visible Holy Roman Catholic church because truth is to be discovered in other denominations and practices.  THAT’S HERETICAL! That is saying thte gates of Hell prevailed and is accepted.

This also opened the flood gates for the participation in other prayer groups and services, allowed non-Catholics to receive communion without becoming a novus ordo Catholic, turned against the missionary spirt, no longer prays for conversion of the Jews and Muslims and no longer seeks to convert claiming one can be saved where they are. 
All heretical.

Joe,
Why pray for a Jew or a Muslim to be converted when the catechism teaches at 847: “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

  Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

As you can see there is no belief in Christ that would be necessary for salvation. All one needs is to be sincere.

@Alvin That is the baptism of desire, which has been made possible through Christ’s saving sacrifice which bestows its grace through the Church. Such people would desire to become Catholic were they shown its beliefs. Just to clarify. :)
-
@Joe Wait, are you saying that there is no truth to be found at all except in the Catholic faith? Because that’s manifestly false. Any recognition of a supreme being is more true than atheism, for there is truly a something above man which created all things. A belief in a personal God is more true than a belief in the Force or whatever New Agers believe. Belief that there is only one personal God is more true than believing there are multiple ones. Belief that this personal God revealed Himself to the Israelites is more true than believing He didn’t. Believing that He fulfilled His promises to the Jewish people through Christ is more true than believing He didn’t. And finally, believing that the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, is the church Christ founded is more true than believing that all one needs is the Bible—for the Catholic Church contains, as a divine institution, the fullness of truth. One can possess varying degrees of truth—truth tempered by falsehoods—but the fullness of truth is found within the Catholic Church alone.
-
Further, all truth comes from God. Insofar as any man possesses some part of truth, that man has received it from God, as a grace, a freely given gift. There is nothing heretical in saying that God may grace a man with some part truth and the desire for it, by means of the sacrifice of Christ, without that man ever becoming a Catholic in the visible, sacramental sense. What I have been continually asserting is “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, just as you have. But I am merely drawing out the fact that this doctrine allows for the firmly orthodox and in-no-way-heretical doctrine of baptism of desire (and baptism of blood).
-
On subsistence: The dailycatholic.org page you quoted speaks of “subsisting in” as a non-exclusive relationship. Namely, that the Body of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church makes the claim that it is not exclusively the Catholic Church that subsists in the Body of Christ. I agree. This cannot include non-Catholic faiths, says reason, otherwise the Church’s ecumenical council would be teaching something false.
-
**Instead of jumping to the conclusion that the Church is no longer the Church and the Pope is no longer the Pope, we should do our best to interpret the words of the Council such that no heresy is found. This is an application of St Augustine’s rule of charity for the interpretation of Scripture (and, as it is fitting, other inspired documents).**
-
St Bellarmine’s definition of the Church: “A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth”. Note the “on earth”. The Body of Christ does not exist in the same way on Heaven as it does on earth. In heaven God needs no papal representative, nor are the sacraments necessary. My point: On earth, the Catholic Church IS the Body of Christ. However, simply speaking, it isn’t solely the Body of Christ, for Christ’s Mystical Body has a heavenly subsistence too. You see what I did there? I excluded non-Catholic faiths, to maintain orthodoxy, and showed that one can still see that the Church is the earthly subsistence of the Body of Christ.
-
Finally, all those abuses you mentioned are that: abuses. They say everything about the abusers, and nothing about what is abused. People haven’t stopped using knives even though many have been killed by them, and people still listen to music even though we’re subjected to the likes of modern pop singers. These things you point out are truly abuses and heresies—but they are not the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Scaevola,
With the baptism of desire doctrine there is no need to evangelize for a RC. No explicit faith in Christ is required.

Scaevola, The Holy Roman Catholic Church with the Four Marks of One and Holy and Catholic and Apostolic does not subsist in any other but is its own entity.  It needs no other; it has the “total truth” contrary to modernistic evolved view points unhinged to Sacred Tradition.  My points are not about abuse, (all though I could point you to the many, many abuses in the novus ordo missae).  My points are about what has been spoken by Rome and what Catholics are to believe has been spoiled with changes contrary to the True Faith. 
Catholics do not go outside of Holy Mother Church to discover even partials of Truth, nor does Holy Mother Church teach to pray and worship with those who renounce Her Teachings.  This is basic Catholicism.
One steps out in the true Catholic Faith, and only than does reason follow.  To put reason before a Catholic conscience and Catholic sense is correctly formed is dangerous.  Likewise, to turn our backs on the Sacred Traditional promulgations against modernistic views is dangerous.  We are called to convert not appease those outside of Holy Mother Church.  They are heretics who reject the True Church Christ established.  For their salvation (and only God knows the heart) they must accept the Catholic Apostolic Faith.
Christ personally instructed His Apostles to go and teach all nations; they who reject you reject me.  Christ personally taught His Apostles to baptize all nations.  The Catholic Church is universal.  The Vicar of Christ is responsible for all Christians and the Catholic Church maintains her missionary spirit.  No, it is not acceptable to be the best Buddhist or the best Lutheran or the best Moslem.  Catholics are obliged to pray for conversions to Holy Mother Church.
Yes, truth comes from God and He established the One Apostolic Church to be His personal representative on earth, to safe guard all He revealed to the Apostles, and to lead and direct all souls in order to achieve a Good and Final End.  Catholics submit to the infallible spirit of the Vicar of Christ.
The discussion is getting too wide and it’s better to stay focused on why the Catholic Church does not ‘subsist in’ nor is subordinate to, nor was established to need any other belief system. 

Lumen gentium, para 27;  ..moved beyond Mystici Corporis, the Mystical Body of Christ encyclical by Pope Pius XII, June 29,1943, and all previous Roman Catholic teaching by refusing to identify the Roman Catholic Church of Christ, stating instead that the CHURCH of Christ ‘subsisted in’ the Roman Catholic Church, and not that it simply ‘was’ the Roman Catholic Church.  Separated brethren was to become widely used, meaning a false type of unity and relationship with protestants and it began a changed course of approaching those outside the Catholic Church.  It reversed a 400-year condemnation of the protestant churches. 
The Catholic Church does not make mistakes on faith and moral teachings.  L.G. errs because it opposes what was and is to be safe guarded.

Joe. Please, help me out. You’re not listening to my argument. I see your point—“the Church cannot subsist in the Catholic Church, because that means it subsists in other earthly institutions too.” But that is not the only interpretation. Don’t take it up as if it is. There are other interpretations—**like the one I have offered you several times**—that show how this passage of LG is completely within orthodox bounds (viz., two subsistences of the Church—in Heaven and on earth). You’re taking a conclusion—that the Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church—and seeking evidence to back that up. The **proper** method of inquiry is to do what you stated yourself—take Holy Mother Church as your starting point AND THEN reasoning about its truth. You assume that post-Vat II Church is false, when you should be assuming it’s true and trying to interpret her words accordingly.
-
Here is a helpful, fully-cited argument for why sedevacantism is a heresy in regard to the perpetuity of Peter: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sedevacantism.html
-
I am going to be away from the computer for the next two months or so. Let me close this debate with this. Remember that Peter is the perpetual Rock upon which the Church is founded, and the principle of the Church’s unity and visibility. Without a visible Pope you have no visible Church, and you would thus make Christ a liar. All the sedevacantist position has to offer is division, politics, Pharasaical bickering and a Gnostic attitude—and no visible Pope. The truth is not in it. You would be better served putting your mind to understanding what the Church truly teaches instead of brushing it off with a glib accusation of heresy.

@Alvin It is a vastly more certain path to truth to be a baptized member of the Catholic Church than to leave things up to chance and the unlikely capacity for a man to overcome the inclinations of his fallen soul. Baptism of desire is definitely the exception in this broken world, not the rule. If we truly love our neighbors, we do well to give them the surest and fullest truth possible through evangelization and baptism.
-
God wants us to baptize. He doesn’t want us to leave it to Him. It is He who saves through His Church in the baptism of desire, granted. But there is a reason He gave us the Sacrament and closed Matthew so powerfully.

Scaevola,  The Roman Catholic Church exists in this current age. 

When I discovered the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, I discovered that the gates of hell prevailed elsewhere, but not against the Roman Catholic Church as promised. The Traditional Tridentine Latin Mass provides all needed proof and defense of the existence of Christ’s Church.
May Our Blessed Mother be with you in a special way during these next two months.  To Jesus through Mary!