Friday, December 02, 2005
RATZINGER ON SALVATION
Check out the passages from Ratzinger's book INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY:
here and here. He really does say that the Church is not necessary for salvation.
Then look at item 14 from UBI PRIMUM, the Encyclical of Pope Leo XII, 1984, which says:
Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
And check out this statement from the Council of Florence, 1442:
It 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.
If Benedict wants to make this sort of change from the Tradition, he has to do a whole lot more than make a casual statement in an audience. He has to write an encyclical defending this 180 flip-flop with something that at least sounds plausible, or de facto he is scrapping our appeal to Tradition as a part of our faith. Not even a pope can do that.
Is he trying to say that he believes they were wrong? Should we expect an apology next? If they were wrong, on what do we base a belief that he is right?
Blogger credit to Novus Ordo Watch.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
==============================================
Correction:
Then look at item 14 from UBI PRIMUM, the Encyclical of Pope Leo XII, 1984, which says:
The date in that sentence should have read "1824".
