Righteous Pagans and Uncertainty of Salvation

In response to my criticism of Mr. Sungenis' defense of 'baptism of desire', the host suggested that I consider Romans 2:14-16:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

and 1 Timothy 2:4

[God, our Saviour] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Moreover, he asked a few questions, such as:

"What is the meaning of EENS? Or better stated, what should EENS mean for Catholics? Are card-carrying Catholics the only ones saved? Is God’s will to save (1 Tim. 2:4) limited to those who sit in the pew each Sunday at a Catholic Mass? Though the Church’s role is integral to salvation as the only venue of (grace) salvation to the world, must one be a "formal member" to be saved?Or can those, who through no fault of their own, who 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 achieve eternal salvation?"

"Do you consider yourself what is generally known (though it may be a veritable misnomer) as a Feeneyite?"

and

"Again, isn’t the personal relationship very important? Furthermore, does the Church dictate to us who is saved and who is not saved?"

Here is my response:

I would not use Romans 2:14-16 as another 'alternative gate' to salvation. Haydock patristic commentary clearly sees the conscience-driven actions of the pagans as 'dispositions' that allow God to give them 'some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says S. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc.' So here are the righteous pagans, who should be clearly distinguished from those listed in verse 12 'whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law' and Haydock explains that their guilt consists of acting 'against their reason and conscience'.

I'd like to stop at verse 12 a bit to explain my take. No, I'm not a Feeneyite since I did not gain insight into the dogma of the EENS from Fr. Feeney but from the Council of Florence. At the Council, Eugene IV not only made the famous statement:"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 also expounded the reason in the next line:

"the unity of this 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 productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"

Please note that "only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation". My concern is that the idea of 'baptism of desire' points to extraordinary means of salvation at the expense of the ordinary means,i.e. sacraments. While Fr. Feeney focused on the importance of baptism, I think the key issue is the other sacraments, in particular the Communion and penance.

In another discussion I brought up another quote from Pope Eugene IV, which elucidates the necessity of sacramental penance for salvation:Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439, ex cathedra: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to Hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

From the above we may infer that, while baptism takes away the stain of original sin, valid confession is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.

I'm not a Feeneyite, nor am I a Jansenist, since I do acknowledge the Church's teaching on the validity of an act of perfect contrition, the availability of grace for the true seekers of God, and the fact that invincible grace need not damn anyone. I will quote Bishop Hay who in 1787 wrote the following in his book "Sincere Christian" on the topic of invincible ignorance:

"Q. 14. But can none who are in heresy, and in invincible ignorance of the Truth be saved?A. God forbid we should say so! All the above reasons only prove that if they live and die in that state they will not be saved, and that according to the present providence they cannot be saved? but the great God is able to take them out of that state, to cure even their ignorance though invincible to them tin their present situation, to bring them to the knowledge of the True Faith, and to the communion of His Holy Church, and in consequence of that to salvation; and we further add, that if He be pleased, of his infinite mercy, to save any who are at present in invincible ignorance of the Truth, in order to act consistently with Himself, and with His Holy Word [for, indeed, God is bound by His Word; God cannot deceive us], He will undoubtedly bring them to the union of His Holy Church for that purpose, before they die."

This agrees perfectly with Romans 2:14-16. Haydock quotes John Chrysostom who believed that the righteous pagans would be granted supernatural graces NOT TO be left in invincible ignorance. Cornelius was a good example: St. Peter realized that "God is no respecter of persons but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34-35) This shows that the Holy Spirit works outside the visible confines of the Church, against Quesnel, Baius and Jansenius. However, note Peter's conclusion--"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 10:47-48). Should I add that Peter needed the revelation from the Holy Ghost through Cornelius to see that pagans, despite being Jewish proselytes--'God-fearing'--should not be denied baptism if they DESIRED one?

Do I need to go into detail in 1 Timothy 2:4? It's not necessary to resort to the argument ad absurdum as to God's will only for those attending the Mass. Again, the EENS is not about the predestination--yes, God wills all to be saved, and Jesus' work applies to all, but as Haydock comments on this verse, the obstacle is not with God, but with people: "if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost" (p. 1566).

I'm not a theologian, just a layman, but just by browsing a traditional dogmatic theology manual, I noticed that the 'graces' to which Haydock refers must be so-called gratia excitans which should lead one to the recognition of sin and doing well. However, one cannot be saved without supernatural SANCTIFYING grace, which is a state! How do we receive sanctifying grace--in the Church through the absolution of mortal sins in the sacrament of penance, available through a valid priest and 'effective' only in the Catholic Church.The above brings me to the favorite charge against the EENS--that it leads to the judgment on the non-Catholics' damnation. We both know that we are not to judge, but we know what the ordinary means of salvation are since they have been used by the saints, and there are only canonized saints in the Catholic Church!

True, the Church does not tell us who is not saved--except it passes a judgment on heresy and schism through excommunication and it recognizes the saints. This is done for our own good so that we would know which way to take.

No-one knows when the Lord returns, yet we are repeatedly admonished to 'be ready'. No-one knows the number of the saved, yet we are told that 'many are called but few are chosen'. I once raised in a forum the issue of charity--since we know that as Catholics we are going to enter into heaven with greatest difficulty, and this only through application of the sacraments and assistance of the saints, how will those outside manage? Should we not alert them to the possibility of damnation, just as we should consider this. The greatest, Moses, David, St. Peter and St. Paul trembled about their salvation--contrary to impious Calvin who spoke of the assurance of perseverance of the saints! Contrary to him speaks Martin von Cochem in "Four Last Things" in the chapter on 'The Number of the Saved' (page 216 of Benziger Edition of 1899):

"Since there are so many adversaries who assail us, adversaries so crafty, so strong, so fierce, who can deem himself sure of victory? It is little short of a miracle if one escapes the clutches of foes so numerous and so formidable. Who can hope in his own strength to triumph over them? We must needs acknowledge that all who have overcome the evil enemy, the evil world, and their own evil proclivities, have been strengthened by God with his special assistance. Hence we see how toilsome and laborious work it is to win heaven; and we learn the truth of Our Lord's words, when He said 'The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away'"

Now, does this picture correspond to Mr. Sungenis' concept of a believer even unaware of being saved? How are we to believe that sacraments can be dispensed with in the process of 'crucifying our selves'? Since when 'the world' has become a safe place where the righteous may grow untarnished by the temptations? This certainly does not square with the apostolic teaching since St. Peter's first sermon in which he left no alternative to the fellow Jews but to repent and be baptized.

Hence I see no point in weakening the traditional teaching of the importance of sacraments to the spiritual life by conceding that 'somehow' it's possible to grow in relationship with God and not be called into the communion with the Catholic Church. Any cases, please?