What we got he-ah is a flamin' Rule 3 violation.

PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS AND THE SENSUS CATHOLICUS
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, MD
“The wise man will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets...”
Ecclesiastes 39: 1-5
It is generally assumed that there is no room within Christianity for accepting the concept of Sanatana Dharma, or what in the west has been called philosophia perennis or priscorium. This Sophia perennis, to use a phrase preferred by Wolfgang Smith holds that certain metaphysical truths, and hence access to a knowledge of the divine, have always been available throughout history and are to be found within the framework of every valid religious tradition.
First of all it should be clear that such a concept in no way contradicts the principle Extra eclesia nulla salus - that outside the Church there is no salvation. If one understands this principle in the way the Church has always understood it, one accepts the fact that there are individuals who, as Saint Pius X put it, belong to the soul of the Church. Such individuals are “invincibly ignorant” of the manifest Church, and certainly before the coming of Christ, the ark of salvation had to take other forms.
It is also necessary to consider history, not as a progressive advance from primitive times to the present “enlightened” era but more realistically as a continuous degeneration from a former golden age. Adam’s fall from paradise is a paradigm for understanding the present situation. God did not abandon His creation and Adam found regeneration, and is indeed considered by the Church to be a saint. In ancient days, saving revelation, in accordance with man’s more “direct” apprehension of truth, was appropriately more “simple. With each succeeding “fall,” God provided more stringent requirements for man to follow if he sought to reverse the process of degeneration, until the time of Moses when the rules required encompassed every aspect of life. This is well reflected in the Sacrifice of Abel, followed by that of Abraham, and finally by that established through the medium of Moses. Yet throughout all this we have the Sacrifice of Melchisedech, renewed once again in Christ.
Such an attitude is not a carte blanche for every religion that comes down the pike. If salvation is possible outside of the formal structure of the Church, as must have been the case at least before the coming of Christ, one must remember that one cannot be saved by error. It is Truth alone that saves. And so it follows that salvation comes to us by the Divine Logos which Logos exists and existed from the beginning of time, for “in the beginning was the Word.” [1]
The early Church fathers were faced with the plethora of old religious forms which were degenerate in the extreme. They followed one of two courses. They either declared that Christianity had the fullness of the Truth and that therefore there was no need to look elsewhere, or they held that all truth, no matter where it was found, belonged to the integrity of the Faith, and was therefore to be accepted, absorbed, and embraced. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, quoting St. Ambrose, “all truth, no matter where it is found, has the Holy Spirit for its author.” In a similar manner, St. Jerome all but adopted the Buddha’s life story and Christianized it as we have in the hagiographical account of.St Josephat.
Catholic Saints have recognized this reality throughout the centuries. St. Justus referred to Heraclitus as “a Christian before Christ,” and Eckhart spoke of an ancient sage in the following terms: “One of our most ancient philosophers who found the truth long, long before God’s birth ere ever there was a Christian faith at all as it is now.” St. Thomas of Villenova taught the same doctrine: “Our religion is from the beginning of the world. A great Christian was Abraham; a great Christian was Moses; so also David and all the patriarchs. They adored the same God, believed the same mysteries and expected the same resurrection and judgment. They had the same precepts, manners, affections, desires, thoughts, and modes of life; so that if you saw Abraham, and Moses, and David with Peter and Andrew and Augustine and Jerome, you would observe, in all essential things, a perfect identity.”[2] One could multiply such quotations but such serves no purpose as long as the principles are understood.
Against this we seemingly have Augustine’s retraction which he wrote at the end of his life in an attempt to correct any misunderstanding that his works might lead to. This Retraction runs as follows: “The very thing that is now called the Christian religion was not wanting among the ancients from the beginning of the human race, until Christ came in the flesh, after which the true religion, which had already existed, began to be called ‘Christian.’[3]
A closer examination of this retraction however requires an understanding of its reference. The earlier statement occurs in a passage of De Vera Religione (X.19) wherein Augustine explains that “the soul, crushed by the sins which envelope it, would be unable to rise towards the divine realities unless there was found within the human sphere something which would allow man to rise from the earthly life, and to renew in himself the image of God. For this reason God, in his infinite mercy, has established a temporal means by which men may be recalled to their original perfection, and by which God comes to the help of each particular individual and of the human race.” St. Augustine then adds: “That is in our times the Christian religion, to know and to follow which is the most secure and certain salvation.”
In passing it should be noted that Augustine speaks of the “human race,” and not just of the Jewish religion with which of course Christianity has a very close connections. Again, St Justin stated: “God is the Word of whom the whole human race are partakers, and those who lived according to Reason are Christians even though accounted atheists.” He included in these, not only Heraclitus, but also Socrates and Abraham.
It was this last sentence that Augustine wished to clarify, explaining that in his retraction he had made use of the term “Christian religion” but had failed to express the reality which lies behind the name. To quote him again, “It is said according to this name, not in accord with the thing itself, of which is the name.” . To make this even clearer Augustine adds: “When, in fact, following the resurrection and ascension into heaven, the Apostles began to preach and many persons came to believe, it was among the people of Antioch - so it is written - that the disciples were first called Christians. This is the reason why I said, ‘That is in our times the Christian religion’; not because in earlier times it did not exist, but because in later times this name was accepted.”
And so it is that it is possible for a Catholic to hold to the position usually described as “perennial or universal philosophy.” The only requirement is that he hold to it as a Catholic who accepts all the teachings of the Church as encompassed in the traditional Magisterium, and this for the simple reason that if one steps outside the Magisterium and entertains one’s own personal opinion as being “true,” one contradicts all that the sanatana dharma holds sacred.[4]
All this has little to do with the false ecumenism that seems to pervade the atmosphere in our days, an ecumenism that would accept not only Protestantism, but every new age deviation imaginable on - as Vatican II puts it - “on an equal footing.” This ecumenical outreach often extends itself to Eastern religions where those responsible have little true knowledge and understanding. For example, many will speak of the Trinity in Hinduism as being represented by the exclamation of sat chit ananda - which is perhaps best translated as being, knowledge and bliss - names of God equivalent in Islam to qudrah, hikmah and rahmah.. The Hindu Trinity of Powers consists of the solar Father above, a fiery Son on earth (whence he ascends to heaven), and the Gale of their common spiration. St. Frances of Sales warned against those who speak of other religions without adequate knowledge, and indeed, even for those familiar with their own theological terminology (which is rare among current scholars), would have difficulty in understanding ways of expression foreign to their intellectual world.[5]
And so it is that we as faithful Christians can, and indeed must accept the idea of a sophia perennis. Wisdom has always been there, it is Christ, the Word made flesh who opens the door and the Church which gives us access to it.
II
An important consequence follows from the above principles. If there is indeed truths to be found in other religions, these truths may serve to clarify some of the obscurities we encounter within our own. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, they can become “extrinsic and probable proofs” of the truths of Christianity. With this in mind, I offer in what follows a study by Ananda Coomaraswamy on a passage in Isaiah: “there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom and of understanding...”
THE TREE OF JESSE AND ORIENTAL PARALLELS[6]
The chapter on this subject in Arthur Watson’s admirable and long awaited monograph on the Early Iconography of the Tree of Jesse (Oxford, 1934) is of particular interest. Let me say in the first place that although the formula appears rather suddenly in Christian art in the eleventh century, I have no wish to demonstrate or even to argue for an Indian or otherwise specifically Oriental origin at that time, my view being rather that we have a single example of the many close parallels between mediaeval Christian and Oriental thought and symbolism which are best understood by an ultimate derivation of both from a common source (of which our earliest knowledge is, perhaps, Sumerian); diversities of formulation representing as it were the dialects of one spiritual tradition common to humanity[7]. From this point of views there is no difficulty in assimilating Isaiah XI, 1-3 to the Vedic texts cited in my Tree of Jesse and Indian Parallels or Sources” (Art Bulletin, Vol. XI)[8] without suggesting any derivation of one text from the other. In just the same way Exodus XIV corresponds to Rg. Veda III, 33 and VII, 18 (in both cases the chosen people cross the Waters in chariots, the waters lending themselves to easy passage, while the enemy attempting to follow is destroyed by the returning torrent); and Genesis, 1, 2 especially as understood by some mediaeval writers, e.g. Ulrich Emngelberti “the Spirit of God moves over the Waters warming (fovens) and forming all things,[9] with Aitareya Aranyaka, II, 4, 3 “He glowed upon the Waters and from the Waters that were set aglow a form was born,” and ib. II, 2, 1, “He who glows is the Spiritus.” Parallels of this sort could be indefinitely multiplied and cannot be accidental.
Certain of the problems can be very profitably envisaged from this point of view. We hold for example that the Vedic Tree proceeding from the navel of Varuna (deity preeminently of the waters), the Mahabharata conception of the Birth of Brahma (and corresponding iconography, the lotus rising from the navel of Narayana, who rests in and upon the Waters), and the Bazaklik representation (in which the lotus-Tree rises directly from the Waters)[10] are all true parallels of the Tree of Jesse, which presents an analogous range of variations and if none of the latter (unless possibly Watson’s Pl. II, which in any case exhibits “the tree as having a deeper root than Jesse himself”) shows the Waters, the same applies to the Burmese representation (Watson’s Pl.. XXXIX) and some others where there is no express indication of the underlying Waters. Needless to say that the Waters stand for potentiality as distinguished from act, and it makes little difference whether the roots of the Tree are represented as outspread in the Waters themselves, or in a Ground, whether anthropomorphic or otherwise, that rests upon or in the Waters; in either case, both Ground and Waters are to be understood. The variety in formulation in this respect appears already in the Rg.Veda; in I, 182, 7 “the Tree stands in the midst of the Flood” (this corresponds to the Haoma-tree that is in the midst of Vourukasha, where the kar-fish swims, in Zoroastrian tradition, Bundahis XVIII, Yusna XLII, 4, etc.); in I, 24, 7 “its Ground is above,” its oriflames or branches tending downwards, upari budhna here, and urdhva mula in Katha Up., VI, 1 corresponding to Boccacio’s “Genealogical Tree of the Gods” in celum versa, radice cited by Watson, p. 45, and to the Zohar passage at the beginning of the section Beha Alotheka, “Now the Tree of Life extends from above downwards, and it is the Sun which illuminates all.” Again in the Gupta representation at Deogarth the stem of the lotus that supports Brahma is not directly connected with the navel of Narayana,. But rises behind him, and this often happens in the representations of the Tree of Jesse. Still, the connection of the root with the navel is, even correct formulation, and this will be evident, if we reflect that the “stem” after all represents the fruition of the “seed” of Jesse, as is especially evident when the Tree becomes a veritable genealogy, and that the navel according to all ancient traditions both Western and Eastern is the progenitive center and a center in every sense of the word, and as such the starting point of manifestation.
The common significance of the aOcci3ental and Oriental trees becomes most evident when we recall that the rose and the lotus are equivalent symbols, and observe that the Christian virga, often hermeneutically assimilated to “virgo,” is identified with the Virgin as being the ground of the divine manifestation, just as in Oriental art the lotus is the earth or ground of any such manifestation. When in Western art there are doves on the branches (as in the Dijon MS. Illustration cited by Kingsley Porter, Art Bulletin, VII, p. 10, Note 2, cf. the mosaic cross in the fault of the apse of S. Clemente in Rome, where the doves are set in the shaft and arms of the cross which rises from a flower provided with proliferating branches like those of the Jesse Tree) this corresponds exactly to Rg. Veda, I, 164, 21 “There the Fairwings (angels) chant their share of aeviternity,” Brhadaranyaka Up., IV, 3,2 where “The Swan, the Golden Person, by the Spirit wards His lower nest,” and Dante, Paradiso, XVIII, 110, “power that is form unto the nests.”
Enough has been said, I think, to prove that the fundamental ideologies underlying the Eastern and Western representations are the same; and where borrowing is improbable, and independent origin unlikely because of the complexity of the symbol itself, the theory of an ultimately common source can hardly be avoided. Mr., Watson remarks that “The difficulty in establishing a relationship between Oriental trees and the Tree of Jesse is that, although we may find striking parallels, it is difficult or impossible to demonstrate connecting links” (p. 65). The same difficulty presents itself if we try to connect Isaiah XI, i-3 with the late mediaeval iconography by documentary links. As to this, we can only say with Andrae (? Berlin 1933, p. 66) that in fact “a formal symbol can remain alive not only for millennia, but...it can spring into life again after an interruption of thousands of years”; and add that, while a symbol as such can survive mechanically in traditional arts for an indefinite period, the transmission of sybols together with that of their metaphysical significance belongs for the most part to oral and initiatory teachings which by their very nature leave no documentary traces; and it is just because of this that symbols and their interpretation so often seem to emerge or reemerge simultaneously at some given moment or in some given place as if from nowhere. In the present case it is not impossible that the transmission of a doctrine of the Tree of Jesse had taken place in Kabbalistic circles; the Zohar (e.g. Vo. V, pp. 203,221; in the Simon and Sperling version) is often most informative as to the Tree of Life or Tres of Life and Death, and that the former is above the latter may be compared with the Bazaklik representation, in which the lotus grounds of the mundane and heavenly levels of being are distinguished by position in the same sense.
The present note is not a review of Watson’s monograph and cannot pretend to do justice to it as a whole. Nevertheless, in connection with the Chapter entitled “References in Literature to Relevant Imagery,” it seems worth while to cite from St. Bernard, De Adventu Domini, II, 4 “From these passages I think it now manifest what is the stem proceeding from the root of Jesse, and what is the flower on which reposeth the Holy Spirit. For the Virgin Mother of God is the stem, her Son the flower... O Virgin! Stem of the highest, to what a summit thou liftest on high thy holiness! Even to Him that sitteth on the throne, even to the Lord in His majesty.... O true tree... O true tree of life, which alone was worthy to bear the fruit of salvation!” As St. Bernard died A.D. 1153, and the passages cited being taken from a sermon suggest that the theme cannot have been one altogether unfamiliar when the sermon was preached, the text is undoubtedly pertinent to the problem of the iconography; and one may suspect that a thorough search of the patristic literature would yield more material of the same sort. An although of later date, reference may be made to Ecklhart’s sermon No. LXI in the Evans version, in which he says “Our philosophers teach that the sun draws the flowers out of the roots through the stem, timelessly wellnigh and too subtly for any eye to follow... Jesse means a fire and a burning; it signifies the ground of divine love and also the ground of the soul. Out of this ground the rod grows, i.e. in the purest and highest; it shoots up out of this virgin soil at the breaking forth of the Son. Upon the rod opens a flower, the flower of the Holy Ghost.” That “Jesse means a fire” evidently rests upon some hermeneutic etymology, and one would like to know its source; in any case, there results an assimilation to the Burning Bush, which is a form of the Tree of Life, and for which there are also Oriental parallels. I may be noted that in the Vysehred MS (Watson, p. 83) the rubus igneus of Moses virgula Aaron, porta clausa of Ezekiel, and virgula Jessa are shown on two contiguous pages, and as Watson comments “It is clear that these four subjects have been put together on account of a community of significance.”
ã R Coomaraswamy, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] If it is argued that Christ’s descent into “hell” allowed for their salvation, this is only to say that all salvation comes through the Word, which is indeed Christ. As St. Clement of Alexandria taught, Christ himself is Wisdom, and that it was his working that showed itself in the [Old Testament] prophets., and that the same wisdom was taught to the Apostles while He was present in the flesh. Jean Borella puts it well: Christianity being the religion ofChrist, is by that very fact the religion of Gnosis (Wisdom) Incarnate, since the Word is the Gnosis of the Father. Now this Gnosis Incarnate is also the preeminent spiritual way: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”Jean Borella, The Gnosis with a True Name in The Secret of the Christian Way. SUNY, 2001T
[2] De. Nat. Virg. Mar. III
[3] This material is taken from an article by Stephen Cross entitled St. Augustine and the perennial Philosophy published in Avaloka, Vol VI, Nos 1&2, 1992 (ISBN0890-5541)
[4] The question of the “infallible” nature of the Magisterium has currently been called into question. However, as Leo XIII stated, for the Magisterium to contradict itself is to declare that Christ has taught error,. Clearly however, one can point to many statements with seemingly Magisterial authority currently being promulgated that contradicts prior Magisterial teachings. I discuss this in some detail in an article on my web page Coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com.
[5] These failings are by no means limited to Christianity. Moslems frequently accuse Christianity of being polytheistic because of their belief in the Trinity, and Hinduism is frequently described as such which is in fact absurd.
[6] Originally published in Parnassus, Vol. VI, No. 8, January, 1935.pp. 18-19.(Slightly edited)
[7] As an example of this AKC offers the following in a footnote. Natya Sastra, II, 5 (Indian 4th Century) “All the activities of the angels, whether at home in their own places or abroad in the breaths of life, are intellectually emanated; those of men are put forth by conscious effort; therefore it is that the works to be done by men are defined in detail,” with (1) Plotinus, Enneads, IVC, 3, 18 “Souls in the Supreme operate without reasoning... all their acts must fall into place by sheer force of their nature,” (2) Gregory, Moral. II, “Angels do not go abroad in such a manner as to lose the delights of inward contemplation,” (3) St. Thomas, Sum Theol.,m I. Q. 112 a. 1. Ad 3 “We give ourselves to action through the sensitive faculties, the action of angel, on the contrary regulates his exterior actions by the intellectual operation alone, “ (4) Eckhart I, 5, “Man requires many instruments for his external works; much preparation is needed ere he can bring them forth as he has imagined them... More exalted are the angels, who need less means for their works and have fewer images.”
[8] In the Mahabharata (ii, 272, 44 and xii, 207, 13) “As soon as that Eternal Being [Narayana] concentrated thought upon a New Creation of the Universe a lotus flower immediately came into existence from His navel and the four-faced Brahma came forth from that navel-lotus.” Narayana is the supreme deity of the later Vedic period and is effectively identical with Brahma. Bearing this in mind, we can recognize the tradition already in the Rg. Veda (x, 82, 5): “Prior to the sky, prior to this earth, prior to the living gods, what is that germ which the waters held first and in which all the gods existed? The waters held that same germ in which all the gods exist/or find themselves; on the navel of the Unborn stood that in which all beings stood.” Further, in the Athara Veda (x, 7, 38) we have a description of Brahma as “a great Yaksa” in the midst of creation, lying upon the sea in penance, therein are set whatever gods there are, like the branches of a tre round about a trunk.” The conception of a tree of life rooted in Brahma recurs also in the Katha Upanishad (vi,1): “This eternal fig tree! That [root] is indeed the Pure. That is Brahma.” It occurs again in a somewhat different way in the Bhagavad Gita (xv, 1-3). That our tree of life, in which all beings are set, should be rooted in a naval, whether of Brahma, Narayana, or Jesse is significant.
[9] De Pulchro, part of the Summa de Bono, see Gramann in Sitz. Bayer, Akad. Wiss. Phil. Kl., 1926 Abb. 5, p. 82. Ulrich Engelbert of Strassbrg died A.D. 1277
[10] It is worth nothing that the two dragons kn otted about the “waist” of the fasces, vajra, or “thunderbolt” which in the Bazaklik representation divides the upper from the lower range (and corresponds to the Vedic skamba and Gnostic sthauros that at once divides and connects Heaven and Earth) are reminiscent of the paired dragons or nagas that guard the Tree of Life in a well-known Indus Valley seal, often reproduced, e.g. in my History of Indian and Indonesian Art, Fig. 6, cf Fig 243 in Grunwedel’s Altbuddhistische Kultstatten in Chinesich-Turkistan. Parallels in Greek mythology will readily suggest themselves.

Game > Set > Match:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/06050...
Pope: Interreligious prayer meetings are needed even more today
By John Thavis
Catholic News Service
ASSISI, Italy (CNS) -- On the 20th anniversary of the first interreligious prayer meeting in Assisi, Pope Benedict XVI said the initiative had been a "prophetic" way for various faiths to witness against conflict and war.
The pope said such gatherings were needed even more today, when younger generations of all faiths must learn that prayer "does not divide, but unites" and that religion must never be used as an excuse for violence.
The pope made his comments in a message Sept. 4 to the 20th Interreligious Prayer Meeting for Peace in Assisi, Italy. Sponsored by the Sant'Egidio Community, the two-day encounter brought together more than 150 representatives of various world religions.
The pope's message offered a strong endorsement of the interfaith meetings that began in Assisi in 1986, surprising some observers. Vittorio Messori, a well-known Italian Catholic writer, had reported that as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope had strong doubts about the 1986 meeting and felt it emphasized spectacle over faith.
But in his message, Pope Benedict said Pope John Paul II had correctly perceived the value of having leaders of different faiths gather to send a message that true religion builds bridges and has nothing to do with violence.
"His invitation for a choral witness to peace served to clarify, without any possibility of misunderstanding, that religion can only be a source of peace," he said.
The 1986 meeting and those that followed have also highlighted the importance of prayer in changing human hearts and helping to clear the often difficult path to peace, the pope said.
"We need this 'education to peace' more than ever, especially looking at the new generations," the pope said.
"Many young people in areas of the world marked by conflict are educated in sentiments of hatred and vengeance, in ideological contexts that cultivate the seeds of ancient animosities and prepare hearts for future violence," he said.
The pope addressed bluntly the accusation, aired in some conservative church circles, that the Assisi meeting represented an injudicious blending of different faith elements and prayer expressions.
He noted that 20 years ago Pope John Paul emphasized that the religious leaders had not come together to seek a religious consensus or "negotiate" their faith convictions. Pope Benedict said the policy chosen in 1986, which continues today, is for the various religions to pray in their own distinct way even as they gather to witness in the same place. In this way, confusion is avoided, he said.
"The convergence of diverse representatives should not give the impression of a concession to that relativism which negates the very meaning of truth and the possibility of taking it in," he said.
The pope also offered a historical perspective on the 20 years that have followed the first interreligious prayer meeting. He said the fall of European communism and the promise of a more cooperative globalized economy generated hope for a new era of peace.
"Unfortunately, this dream of peace did not come true. On the contrary, the third millennium opened with scenarios of terrorism and violence that show no sign of dissolving," he said.
He said the fact that many conflicts today occur along regional geopolitical fault lines may give the impression that religious differences themselves constitute elements of instability or a threat to peace.
That only gives added relevance to the interreligious prayer meetings for peace, he said.
END

Read the biographies -- there are many to choose from.

The reasons for Pope John Paul II's canonization will be a long life of heroic virtue and fidelity to the Church, an unprecedented (in both quantity and quality) contribution to the Church's understanding of, and teaching on, marriage and the family, and an untiring and uncompromising witness to the Cross of Christ.

John,
As a fellow layman with some theological training, I would suggest that you do a more careful side-by-side reading, for starters. Often times, for instance, terms are capable of more than one interpretation, and they may not be used in precisely the same manner. Other times sentences are lifted out of a document out of context.
Our faith is full of paradoxes, or apparent paradoxes, and it is frequently the case that two truths seemingly at odds with each other can, and must, peacefully co-exist. That is why, for example, the same Magisterium that issues Ut unum sint can also issue Dominum Iesus. I have seen many crazy interpretations of each of these documents that simply contradict the conclusions in the other. That ought to be a clue that you're not understanding one or the other (or both) correctly.
The lack of careful reading and/or rash judgments about what people are saying accounts for probably 99% of the apparent conflicts in this situation (that number is somewhat arbitrary, but I would guess that it is close, perhaps even understated).
Second, whether or not the second person is the Pope makes all the difference in the world. The Pope has the power (under canon law and tradition) to determine what is heretical or not.
If something had infallibly been declared heretical previously, you can bet that no subsequent Pope has contradicted it. If it were not infallible, the Pope has every right to change it. (Although prudence usually governs the manner in which they do so.) And so the answer to your question would be "no" he is not a heretic, even if you do think there is a direct conflict.
Simply put, in interpreting magisterial texts and judging the Vicar of Christ, a little humility will go a long way.

Brother
As a layperson with some theological background, you as a clergy possibly can answer if a man-Pope or not professes or teaches previously taught subjects some of which are or were before V2 deemed heresy-is that person a heretic? I ask you that question as you should know the answer better than I, and should that person be followed
As a side note to Assissi-I do recall reading that every Jewish attendee demanded that all crucifixes in their rooms or where they were to congregate be covered up. Would a pope do likewise when he enters a temple or as Pope B16 did at WYD where he prayed with the Jews for their messiah to come?

I want to see a list of arguements as to how our late Pontiff is going to be cannonized.
Wikipedia has a good description of the process.
As to "how" -- the five year waiting period was waived a month after his death. His life of heroic virtue (emphasis on heroic) and constant fidelity to the Church will soon result in the title "Venerable." At least one miracle is being investigated that would lead to beatification, and a second miracle will lead to canonization.
And for good measure, some time thereafter he will be proclaimed a Doctor of the Church based on his prolific body of writing, particularly his Theology of the Body.

Jimmy,
I think you are too harsh on Islam, terrorism, the trek from Medinah to Mecca, and historical military conquest and animosities notwithstanding.
I would suggest at least (a) book by author/philospher/professor (at George Washington University) SEYYED HOSSEIN NASR
He is BRILLIANT, his book KNOWLEDGE AND THE SACRED and also his Book THE HEART OF ISLAM.
I am NOT Muslim. Nor an apologist. I analogize Islam and Mormonism and even some aspects of Protestantism generally. Islam is an Arian heresy (some famous historian agrees with this and there is a qoute to insert) HOWEVER, Islam does hold some truth and has done some good things.
The similiarites with Christianity and the truth of the foundational religion of Judaism are:
1. MONOTHEISM (and not this Protestant Jack Chick track that Allah is the Moon god--I went to Mass in an Orthodox church and Catholic Eastern Churches in backwater Syria and the name for God in the Mass is Allah)
Muslims believe in God, the One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and in their case Ishmael.
2. The attributes and nature of God are similiar and are not all harsh such as al-Raheem, and merciful and just etc.
3. PRAYER: The pillars of belief are much simpler than are Nicene or Athanasian creed However the requirement of prayer (the blaspehmous or at least incorrect statement that Mohammad is the prophet) are the same theological supplication to divine authority.
Facing east (which our altars do at least historically), to prostrate (Martin Luther prostrated himself), to recognize the Greatness and Unity of God.
4. Pilgrimage, the Hajj to Mecca for Muslims and while not compulsory or a unitary destination, Pilgrimage in Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental non Orthodox alleged Monosphytes Assyrians, Copts, Aremenians ALL have Pilgramage and holy sites.
5. Fasting, a pillar in Islam and a requirement by Canon Law in Latin Rite Catholicism and a practice even amoung Protestants for prayer, preparation for prayer and even deeper analysis and practice in aesthetic theology.
6. Links between Sufism, the Jesus Prayer in the Easter Rite (Catholic and Orthodox) and the Hechastic movement as well as links between Sufism and Monastic (Desert Fathers) even though Islam does not have a monastic class, Christian monks are highly revered in Islam and a Christian monk recognized the uniqueness of Mohammad.
7. Alms to the poor, tax (zakat) and Christian and (Old Testament) Jewish tithing. For institutions of social service. Islam is not a low culture of animists living in a jungle (who still deserve respect, have wisdom, etc) but Islam gave us Aristotle to Aquinas.
8. Kisme is not universally practiced as there are different theological schools of thought in Islam and there is no magisterium (similiar to predestination and Calvisinism)
9. Islam under the millet system and the Turks was arguably more tolerant than Christians in the same period.
10. High culture and medicine, algebra, circulatory system, astronomy (lunar and solar), Jewish culture and promotion of thought including Maimonedes, and translation and finding of Aristotle that found it's way to the desk of Aquinas.
11. Conservative social values on abortion, homosexuality, freedom of parents on religion and schooling, excesses of a secular and scientific materialistic society.
12. Islam theoretically, and throughout much of it's history had tolerance for AL KITABEE (transliterated so forgive spelling but translated to people of the Book), today is actually worse, but in history there was more freedom for Chritians in Muslim lands than vice versa and for Jews, many who had top government positions, the reverse is not true.
Islam also theoretically holds Jesus in High esteem although like Arian heretics only as prophet and perhaps the Hebrew but not universal messiah.
13. An honor for Mary (Maryam) in the Quran including the Virgin birth, and if you go to Ephesus in Turkey you will see Muslim devotees and qoutes from the Quran in the chapel. Some Islamic sects like Alowites (the religion of Hafez and Bashir al Assad that actually has more gnostic and Babylonian roots that Orthodox Islam)has a higher devotion among some (and some Sufi orders have the same) where Jesus is higher on the spiritual pyramid than Mohammad and their are mystical rites that have meditations on Jesus and/or Mary.
14. The reality of Islam is not going away, and while it is agressive in many guises and perhaps inherently, and violence may be necessary at least at times to fight back, there has to be a tolerance and ability to live together with Islam and dialogue as human beings and as Monotheists as children of the same One God,
15. Jews certainly and perhaps biologically, genetically and certainly spiritually covenentally are children of Abraham, by extension Christians too are spiritual descendants of Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant which would be better explained as expanded upon rather than broken by Jesus, Similarily, Muslims, at least through Arabs claim a genetic and literal, blood relationship to Abraham through Ishmael and a spiritual covenant with the One God through Abraham and an acceptance (even if flawed and in error)of the Abrahamic convenant spiritually and through Mohammad and belief. There has to be a recognition of this reality.

Rob, apparently you are incorrect about the kissing all gifts thing. This is part of some Arabic cultures, but evidently not Iraq, which is reaching into the part of the Islamic world that is more Persian than Arab. JPII may not have known this though.
For more see Jimmy's excellent post on the subject here:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/0...

To Anon:
Pope John Paul II was given a copy of the Qur'an when he was visiting the Chaldean Patriarch in Iraq some years ago. Traditionalists and Fundamentalist Protestants like to use the picture to slam JPII, but he was really just being courteous for a gift. It is practice in the Middle East to kiss everything, even objects given to you as a gift.
The Chaldean Patriarch who has to deal with the Muslims on a daily basis said he was not offended by JPII kissing the Qur'an -- and neither am I.
Get over it!

John,
You appear to be drawing a fine line here that I'm missing. Vatican II proclaims heresies, but is not heretical? Pope John Paul II "repeats" and "expands upon" heresies, but is not a heretic?

Matt,
You are correct. I was thinking of Bernard Fellay, not Fr. Feeney. You are correct that Fr. Feeney was reconciled and should not be referred to as a schismatic in the present tense.

JR-I would never say a council or even a person was heretical as that would be calumny
What I am is as a good many Catholic-Confused as to what to believe

Br. Cadfael:
"Are Fr. Feeney and Archbishop Lefebvre schismatics?
Yes."
I believe Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, and subsequently reconciled. One might infer schism in a non-juridical sense from his disobedience, but his ultimate reconcilliation, shouldn't allow him to be branded as such in the present tense.
Abp. LeFebvre is a difficult case, it pains me to agree with your assesment because of the degree of sincerity in which he believed he was doing the right thing, but I must. Still hoping and praying for him nonetheless.

Are Fr. Feeney and Archbishop Lefebvre schismatics?
Yes.
Would Pope Eugene have Feeney and Marcel Lefebvre burning in hell for eternity?
Without a doubt, Pope Eugene would be hoping and praying for their salvation.
or are they excused because they were following their consciences and believed what they were doing was right?
Following a poorly formed conscience does not excuse the wrongness of their actions, although it may certainly affect their culpability for doing so.

J.R.,
You are correct. Although I did not intend to do so with my inarticulate post, I do not have the power nor the desire to excommunicate anyone.
I honestly have no idea whether John holds himself out to be a practicing Catholic or not; whether he is a member of a schismatic sect or not. But at the vary least, openly maintaining that the Holy Father is a heretic, and that the last Ecumenical Council is heretical, seems to me at some level to be tantamount to placing oneself outside of communion with the Catholic Church. But again, I have no idea what the canonical penalties for that would be, and do not intend to speak to those.
I do question, however, your analysis that these are venial sins. There is much more involved here than a simple failure to religiously consent to non-infallible teachings. (And I am not sure that such failure would necessarily always be venial, in any event.) Again, I suspect that openly calling the Holy Father a heretic and the last Ecumenical Council heretical could be considered objectively grave matters.

John
I never said [the documents of Vatican II are] heretical, if i did I am sorry
This paragraph clearly means that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, a heresy of Vatican II that pope John
How do you reconcile these statements of yours? Do you refer in the first case to the mortal sin of rejecting infallible teaching in the first case and the venial sin of refusing religious consent to non-infallible Magisterial teachings? Yet you have made it clear you are very comfortable doing the latter.
Brother Cadfael, until John makes clear that he rejects a binding dogma of the Faith or adheres to a schismatic sect I don't think it is wise to state that he is outside the Church, even if he is openly committing venial sin.

John,
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, in an ex cathedra statement stated:
"The 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 Church before the end of their lives ..."
For what it is worth (and since you seem to assume the contrary), I am sure that neither Pope Benedict XVI nor Pope John Paul II would disagree with Pope Eugene IV's statement.
In any event, it is certainly not contradicted by anything you have cited.

"The 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 Church before the end of their lives ..."
"Joined in what way?" would be a question I'd want to look into.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, in an ex cathedra statement stated:
PLEASE CITE, and How do we know it was ex cathedra?
Are the subsequent pronouncements of Eugene's successor John Paull II NOT ex cathedra?
Are they contradictory?
Should we believe one teaching and not another?

John,
This paragraph clearly means that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, a heresy of Vatican II that pope John Paul II has repeated and expanded upon countless times.
Thank you for clarifying for all of us that you stand outside the Catholic Church. I wouldn't want anyone to think that what you were spewing bore any resemblance to authentic Catholic teaching.

To the unknown poster-you and the council fathers clearly do not know your church history, or think it only began with JPII!
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, "Cantate Domino," 1441, in an ex cathedra statement stated:
"The 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 Church before the end of their lives ..."
But what does Vatican II teach? In its decree on ecumenism it teaches that non-Catholics bear witness to Christ by shedding their blood.
Unitatis redintegratio:
"On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood."
This paragraph clearly means that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, a heresy of Vatican II that pope John Paul II has repeated and expanded upon countless times.
pope John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint May 25, 1995:
"The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation."
This is clearly a defection, no matter how one tries to twist the words and hence pastoral as is the entire council for that matter

Call to Action was started in Detroit, and Fr Hardon founded Call to Holiness in direct response to that organization. Where din abounds, grace abounds all the more....
There are some rays of hope, though. One parish that I frequent for Mass and Sacarament of Penance has been blessed with an abundance of vocations - a newly ordained priest this Spring, and seven current seminarians. The simple reason: fidelity. So many young families. At one mass I attended, there were probably 20 altar boys assisting. There are a handful of similar parishes, but none with such a high number of seminarians.

Perhaps the key is that the young liberals are not motivated but the young orthodox are. That and reform in the seminaries might account for the good priests, and in any case has promise.
It also may well be that a higher percentage of us 20 somethings and teens are faithful, orthodox Catholics than our parents generation. That is not the same as the whole generation turning to orthodoxy, but it is a start.

Well, the folks at Voice of the Faithful(sic) have been complaining that the young priests being ordained these days are so...orthodox. They bemoan the fact that these priests will be their pastors in 10 or 15 years.

I think Call to Action started in Detroit, if I remember right.
The baby-boomer heretics are getting old, but when they are gone so will living memory of the pre-Vatican II and pre-"Novus Ordo" days. I think that will be a loss.
Also, I think there is some exaduration about how orthodox the "JPII" generation is. In my experience (and it may be different outside the Northeast US) most young people dissent just as much, its just that they don't care enough to be active in the Church. Also, in our generation there is massive ignorence that the older generations did not have (to the same extent). They don't believe in orthodox Catholicism not because they personally rejected it but because they have been raised liberal Catholic and know nothing else. When you start quoting Magisterial teachings like it is authoritative and settles the matter they look at you like you have three heads, then blow you off as a religious conservative (aka Satanist). This opposed to baby-boomer and older who generally respectfully disagree with you and will try to start an intelligent debate. At least that is my experience.

I just glanced at their website, Larry. Same old tired heresies.
This might raise your spirits. A few years ago (also in Detroit, I believe) there was a Call To Action conference(which had competition from a Call To Holiness conference, which dwarfed Call to Action). Most of the Call To Action people were over 60. The heretics are getting old and dying. Just hang in a few more years. And pray for them.

Things in the Archdiocese of Detroit aren't going very well - I just read a flyer announcing that Robert Blair Kaiser is coming to Michigan in mid-October to give two talks, sponsored by a group called "Elephant in the Living Room". I'd provide links, but I'm too disappointed and angry to type straight. But you can go elephantsinthelivingroom.com if you want to see for yourself.
Fr John Hardon once said that the seeds of dissent were sown in the Archdiocese of Detroit. I think he was right.

J.R.,
I thought inexcusable was too strong, but no, I don't think that position is unorthodox. (I don't agree with you on this one, but I am certainly not the standard for orthodoxy.)
On your second point, I personally have found the Vatican II documents to be fairly well written for the most part, and I would argue that they have made "clear" that some points are not as clear as amateur theologians (such as myself) might otherwise have taken them to be. I would tend to argue that's a good thing, for the most part. But I think I hear what you're saying, and you're certainly not alone.

I agree with you that it is certainly not heretical, but "inexcusably confusing" and "reversing the development of doctrine"?
It is my personal opinion that many statements of Vatican II are intentionally vague so as to avoid offending anyone or to get a document passed when a stronger statement would have had too much opposition. Perhaps the word "inexcusable" is too strong, but I do think it was a mistake, just like I think previous councils that delared a Crusade were mistakes and like I think some earlier statements about the necessity of being Catholic for salvation, without giving any qualification about invicible ignorance of baptism of desire, were mistakes. Or like I agree with then-Cardinal Ratzinger that some of Gaudium et Spes is Pelagian, understanding that to mean taking too positive a view of man and ignoring the absolute necessity of grace for any good works, not taking it to mean the documant is actually heretical. In all cases I refer mainly to what is not said than what is said. I don't think this attitude is unorthodox. If you have Magisterial teaching saying this kind of criticism is discouraged or even forbidden I would very much like to see it and be corrected.
By reversing the development of doctrine, I meant that the fairly steady progress of making doctine more clear and philisophically precise, and the clearing up of debates, was fairly uniquely reversed in the latter 20th century, where deliberate vagueness made Catholic doctrine less clear and opened up debates that had long been closed. Of course if interpreted in light of previous documents there is no loss of clarity, but since people tend to look to the most recent Magisterial teachings as the most important guidance from the Church, superseding (in a purely practical sense) older teachings (as they should be able to if the development of doctrine were continuing heathily), the lack of clarity or reiteration of old doctrins does cause problems.

Matt,
Agreed.

Tim:
"sacred knowledge in other religions". Please define for me "sacred knowledge", and cite support for such a suggestion. "Nostra Aetate" suggests there is truth in other religions, I don't believe it suggests there is "sacred knowledge" or divine revelation outside of the natural law and what they have in the Old Testament (the Jews specifically), or what they might borrow from the Old and/or New Testaments.
Br. Cadfael: Telling someone they are "going to Hell unless they become Catholic" in those 7 words is pretty much illegitimate (unless maybe it works), explaining heaven, hell, and the necessity for joining the one Church of Jesus Christ in order to avoid the pains of hell and recieve the joys of heaven in as many words as necessary to make the person understand, is legitimate, and could be done as an exhortation. The key element of legitimate evangelism is to get the Gospel message across and aid the conversion, the Gospel message is full of exhortation.

JR
I never said heretical, if i did I am sorry
And I disagree totally with what the good Brother said as they documents are not asking us to wish for the One Catholic Church -why should one wish for something that already exists?
Does anyone remember their basic catechism- the 4 Marks of the church is that she must be
One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic
Is she still "one" with different masses and customs followed not even from country to country but from church to church!
Apostolic-is what was handed down still being adhered to?
Catholic-Ecumenism gone mad? Assisi?
Lets be very clear-these documents must have been written by lawyers as they are so vague and sad that they have caused huge problems for the church. If they were clear, we would not have half of the problems the church has today or even be discussing this on a blog as such.
A return to Orthodoxy and standardization with a Holy reverent Mass is the only answer. Lex Orandi Lex Credendi is very applicable

J.R.,
I agreed with you until I got to: That makes it inexcusably confusing and has done a lot of harm, basically reversing the development of doctrine, but it is not heretical.
I agree with you that it is certainly not heretical, but "inexcusably confusing" and "reversing the development of doctrine"?

John,
The difference between you and I is that I accept all Magisterial teaching as authoritative, not just the parts I like. Nothing you have quoted from Vatican II and after is contradictory to what you quoted from before Vatican II. JPII and B16 were talking about the fact that all those baptized into the Catholic Church (in other words all those validly baptized) are not always in full communion and adherence to the Church. The older quotes identify the ["Roman"] Catholic Church as the that true Church. It is true both to say the Catholic Church subsists in the Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.
The problem is Vatican II seems intentionally to have been vague on this point (and others). That makes it inexcusably confusing and has done a lot of harm, basically reversing the development of doctrine, but it is not heretical.

"You should all read more HANS URS VON BALTHASAR"
What, and why? I'm a busy guy.

Debating over the precise contours of the "Baptism of Desire" and "invincible ignorance" often devolves into a debate between those who favor a narrow, even cramped, understanding of these teachings and those who favor an expansive, potentially universalist, understanding. The truth is the Church has never taught precise definitions because the Holy Ghost has presumably not revealed them to Her. I have always considered this yet another of God's mercies insomuch as this uncertainty enjoins us to vigorously evangelize while granting us the gift of hope for friends and loved ones who live good and righteous lives but for whatever reason do not "know" that the Church was divinely established by Christ. Anyone who attaches more precise definitions than those taught by the Church are being presumptuous.

From the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 8:
"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.'"

Tim J.,
If a Catholic (with the Sacraments, the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church) can be lost (which is certain), then won't someone WITHOUT these things be lost that much more easily? If I fear hell for myself, shouldn't I fear hell more for those outside the Church?
He with the most gifts should be most afraid.

John,
At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ - the universal Catholic Church - does not yet exist!
Neither Vatican II nor the Holy Father teaches that the Catholic Church does not yet exist.
All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ.
No, it is not.
That being said Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to condemn this awful statement of Vatican II.
Neither Pope Clement VI nor Pope Leo XIII condemned any statement of Vatican II. Indeed, it would have been difficult to do so, since Vatican II took place after their deaths.

This WAS a post about a liberal dissident group.
Some apparently think that the entire post-conciliar Church is a dissident group.
I have only this to say on the subject of Who Is Going To Hell-
I won't presume that any individual is going to hell, but I won't presume, either, that as a Catholic, I am assured of getting to heaven. If angels can end up in hell (and I can't help but think of that passage from the Revelation, where the dragon's tail sweeps a third of the stars from the sky), then any of us might do the same. We have only to make our souls an intolerable dwelling place to the Holy Spirit.
It is for a reason that Mortal Sin is called Mortal Sin.
If a Catholic (with the Sacraments, the Scriptures and the teaching of the Church) can be lost (which is certain), then won't someone WITHOUT these things be lost that much more easily? If I fear hell for myself, shouldn't I fear hell more for those outside the Church?
It's a dark world, but as Catholics we at least have a torch.
We shouldn't become complacent about the plight of others who have to deal with the darkness on their own by telling ourselves "Well, I heard that fellow is in possession of a wet matchbook, so he may get on well enough.".

Anonymous,
One does not necessarily follow from the other.
But the fact that non-Christians who are invincibly ignorant may be saved is, of course, well-established. As is the fact that such salvation occurs through a communion, however imperfect, with the Church.

The teachings during and After Vatican II are clearly not the same as what was taught earlier, as the council fathers make it clear that we are NOT the One true church and only "subsist"
In Unitatis Redintegratio - the Decree on Ecumenism it is stated:
"Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God."
At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? So what is Vatican II talking about then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ - the universal Catholic Church - does not yet exist! For those who doubt that Vatican II was here denying that the Catholic Church exists we will quote pope John Paul II's own interpretation of this passage.
John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics:"When we pray together, we do so with the longing 'that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God' (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.)."
Further quotes:Unitatis redintegratio :
"Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings."
Here in the same decree on ecumenism, Vatican II denies that the Church of Christ is fully Catholic! Then how can one even say the Apostles Creed: "I believe in... the holy Catholic Church." You would have to say, "I believe in the not fully Catholic Church."
"Cardinal" Joseph Ratzinger, On Vatican II's teaching on the Church: "Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church..."
Therefore, if Vatican II's decree on ecumenism denies that the Roman Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ (which it does) by longing for such a Church to exist, it follows logically that Vatican II would also teach that"the Church" (i.e., the universal Catholic Church) is not able to fully realize its "Catholicity/Universality", due to "divisions among Christians." In other words, according to the clear teaching of Vatican II, divisions among the countless Protestant sects, Eastern Schismatic sects and the Roman Catholic Church prevent the universal Church (of which we are all members according to Vatican II) from realizing fully its Catholicity (universality).
All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ.
That being said Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to condemn this awful statement of Vatican II.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351:
"We ask: In the first place, whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of THIS SAME ROMAN CHURCH, WHICH ONE ALONE IS CATHOLIC, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church."
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM."

Justin,
Salvation of pre-Christians to note that salvation "outside" the Church is possible (the Church, the Word in particular) pre-existed time, and thus it is not outside the Church.
I don't mean to be offensive, but if you would write in complete sentences it might help others, or at least me, understand what you are saying.

Salvation of pre-Christians to note that salvation "outside" the Church is possible (the Church, the Word in particular) pre-existed time, and thus it is not outside the Church.
Matt, I am NOT talking about gnosticism in the heretical sense (all gnosis means is the word for knowledge nothing bad per se). I am talking about NATURAL LAW that Aristotle and Aquinas both state can be ascertained not only through logic and deduction but also is inscribed in the hearts of men as Aquinas and Plato state, and that reflection and meditation (not personal revelation)can help discern some of this truth which has been clouded by original sin and other sins. There is inherehent and intuitive knowledge that is not personal revelation and is outside Israel and "outside" the Church. There is sacred knowledge in other religions, salvation is not possible outside the Church, but how one is outside the Church is what the question is. "outside" and "church" are the words that can be interpreted.

Justin,
the idea that one can be saved "outside" the Church (or rather not know he is inside the Church) is NOT new nor is it post Vatican II
Nor is salvation "outside the Church" legitimate or taught by Vatican II. One cannot be saved outside the Church because union with the Body of Christ is the very means by which we are saved.
I admit I could not read all of your post, but the vast majority of it seemed to deal with the salvation of pre-Christians. I don't see the relevance to this discussion.

Matt,
In response to my post suggesting we should exhort protestants and others to visibly join the Catholic Church, you suggested that I was confusing evangelism with prosetylisation. Did you misunderstand the meaning of "exhort", and think I meant some sort of illegitimate form of evangelization?
It has little to do, as I see it, with a dictionary definition of "exhort." I have seen Catholics "evangelize" by "exhorting" their non-Catholic friends to join the Catholic Church because they are going to hell if they do not do so.
While that type of "exhortation" is certainly within your statement, it is not necessarily what you intended. Thus, my apology in the last post.
I also do not know what you mean by "legitimate" and "illegitimate." The above would be a good example of proselytization, and not evangelization, in my estimation.

Br. Cadfael:
In response to my post suggesting we should exhort protestants and others to visibly join the Catholic Church, you suggested that I was confusing evangelism with prosetylisation. Did you misunderstand the meaning of "exhort", and think I meant some sort of illegitimate form of evangelization?
Justin: God created all men, and embedded in our soul certain knowledge of Him, this is the natural law. Speculating about some sort of supernatural revelation outside of the the Canonical Bible, or approved Catholic mystics, isn't prudent, for it implies that the Catholic Church is not the way of salvation for all, that some are supposed to find salvation elsewhere. This is contrary to the constant teachings of the Church, which says that only a perfect love of God, and invincible ignorance could excuse one from not finding the Church, and through Her, Christ.
The search for "sacred knowldege" (gnosticism) resulting in some sort of deification or salvation is not consistent with Christianity.
As far as various fathers, and notably St. Thomas' respect for the ancient pagan philosophers, that respect for their understanding did not extend to any declaration of their salvation, or damnation. In fact, the Church does not speak of anyone's damnation, and avoids speaking of anyone's salvation save for the saints of the Church, who are all visible members of the Church, or Her precursor the nation of Israel (the Old Testament fathers).

the idea that one can be saved "outside" the Church (or rather not know he is inside the Church) is NOT new nor is it post Vatican II
READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
Also, it is NOT new to respect non-Christian or non-Jewish or non-Monotheistic philosophy, even pagan philosophy which has serious error it is
Saint Justin Martyr (that all truth comes from God)(and yes it was pre-Christian but certainly contemporary with Judaism) it is not some modern, progressive, goofy Jesuit, post Vatican II 1960's and 70s Catholicism it is very ancient Catholicsm
It is NOT syncretic, ecclectic, Assisi, 1980s but serious Medeival bishops and theologians.
Plato believed in transmigration of souls (reincarnation). Socrates (called a saint by some) may have had quasi-homosexual pedophilia practices which were common at the time. Even Aristotle justified slavery, and thought women were vastly unequal to men (Plato was far more egalitarian). Pythagoras also believed in reincarnation and overemphasized mathematics. The mathematics interplay is interesting in Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle forms the logical concepts for Aquinas and "modern" canon law and theology. Was Aristotle saved? Was Plato saved? Plato may have known the Pentateuch. Was Socrates saved? Is Pythagoras in hell? This is not the view of Clement of Alexandria nor St. Jerome. Many of the early Church fathers/elders studied and respected Aristotle and even more so Plato and Socrates, and many had huge influence form Plato (the Aristotle influence did not really come until Aquinas--who got the texts from Muslims) These seminaries, and theological discussions centered around Greek philosophy (and Roman and Zoarastianism (remember the Magi who visited baby Jesus--are they in Hell/they were not Jewish nor Christian and according to Marco Polo their graves in Tehran BUT Zoarasitians with dualism etc)as well as Mystery religions) again not borrowing for the sake of borrowing or not recognizing the truth of the Logos but ALL truth is from God and that we are not afraid of truth and there was much truth in the ancient world outside of revelation from Sacred Scripture to the Hebrews.
This idea that from 33AD to 196something that all other religions were heretics, or that there is no wisdom or anything to learn in any other cultures (culture and religion are almost interchangeable according to Catholic Harvard Historian Dawson), or that so called Monosphytes or schismatics were not allowed at Vatican Councils is all nonsense.
As a brief sidenote, Lutherans were invited to the Council of Trent. So were Copts (who did not accept possibly for political reasons the Council of Chalcedon) Actually, the Coptic patriarch was called Prestyr John even after he was corrected, this was not Copts in union with Rome (although there was that possibility, and briefly they were Latin rite during Portuguese intervention which caused a revolt)these Copts participated, were invited, and were not in full union with Rome.
Agostino Steuco was a bishop and the Vatican librarian in the late 1400s and early 1500s. He was an Augustinian and the expert on ancient and specifically semitic languages for at least one Pope during this time (possibly others)
Steuco had a book called Philosophia Perennis (remember that he had access to the "secret" books and ancient texts and was a student and teacher of Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, and Cuneform, what was known of Hielogryphs, and even Akkadian script) which to him was none other than the Philosophia Priscorium but under a new appellation. Steuco asserted, and did more than implied (was a bishop, THE Vatican librarian, a regarded theologian, was never NEVER condemnded nor excommunicated although certainly criticized) he asserted that wisdom was originally of a divine origin (what the Eastern Rite Catholics call Sophia--the reason that Emporer Justinian made the Hagia Sophia Church in Constantinople--the Holy Wisdom, sometimes by analogy Mary, the Seat of Wisdom, the Wisdom of God, but yet in a feminine form at least by gender of words) this knowledge of a divine origin, a sacred knowledge handed to God to Adam which, for most human beings was gradually forgotten (even pst the fall) and turned into a dream surviving only and most fully in the prisca theologia. This true religion and philosophy, whose goal is theosis (the word is used more commonly in Eastern Catholic circles) and theologia. This religion or philosophy, whose goal is theosis and and attainment of sacred knowldege, the true theology through spirituality the science of God (through Jesus Christ and his Church not through direct gnosticism), but believed to have existed from the beginning of human history (even before the Covenant with Abraham or the revelation at Sinai), certainly before Christianity and the incarnation of God as Jesus (true God and true Man)BUT/AND this sacred knowledge/revelation is "outside" the "Church" and "Biblical revelation" as that this sacred knowledge IS attainable through either the historical expressions of truth in VARIOUS traditions OR by intellectual intuition and "philisophical" contemplation (a la Aristotle). He was most criticized NOT mainly by sectarian interpretations of Catholic Christianity of which he was a biship and theologian BUT from/by the prevalent humanism of the Renaissance at that time. There were others but not as Orthodox (at that time) such as Nicholas of Cusa (in his De pace fidei which I reject as too syncretic), Ficino, and Pico della Mirandola (who had dabbled in the so called Christian Kabbalah) Certainly there is some heterodoxy here BUT not with Agostino Steuco (not to say he is perfect either)
IS Orthodox and his ideas make sense.
There was monotheistic ideas in Egypt (before King Tut), and even Babylon, even Pat Robertson in his interesting tape on the names of God recognizes a monotheistic name and concept in China, some American Indian religions had a monotheistic concept, a separate Creator, and not just a Pantheistic or polytheistic notion as assumed or with some other American Indians (although not pantheistic there are panetheistic (with an extra e) or potentially panetheistic) Let alone all the great things from Plato and Aristotle (Truth, self sacrifice, from Plato a sense of the supernatural and afterlife, from Aristotle the idea that it is logical to have a Prime mover and the logical probability of Creation ex-nilhio--different than most Greek mythology and cosmology at the time)
God could well be working in ancient Egyptians, American Indians, or anyone else at anytime (including after the time and space of the Word becoming flesh)
God created a specific Church, and a specific way to worship, and physically becomes bread and wine and humbles himself in bread and wine, BUT God can also operate as He sees fit, and can save as He wants because he brings to the Church and we may not always know it, that does not mean we do not Evangelize or Prostelytize (don't care about the semantics both are good) We do want to convert. BUT our conversion of others or the lack thereof does not exclude them necessarily from Paradise, not does it not mean that they do not have any Sacred Knowledge.