Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus

Using the Dogma of EENS To Evangelize the Non-Catholics

2007-07-31T15:40:00.000-07:00

Following Cardinal Levada's example when he commented that the recent document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was not actually meant to be read so widely outside the Catholic Church, I would follow a similar principle when applying the dogma of Outside the Church There Is No Salvation. To my mind, we as Catholics should sort out our understanding as to WHAT saves us in the Catholic faith and WHAT makes the Catholic Church 'a safe haven of salvation'. On the other hand, in our discussions with those outside the Church, we should definitely focus on the problems in salvation in various non-Catholic religions and stress that only the Catholic Church has the fulness of means of salvation.

Even if many believe that desire for entry into the Catholic Church could be effective for salvation, they themselves must admit that such a situation would not apply to those who are presented the clear arguments as to the insufficiency of their non-Catholic religions and the fulness of the Catholic faith and means of grace. Those would not be 'invincibly ignorant' any more.

So while sorting out the meaning of the dogma of Outside the Church There Is No Salvation is important for strengthening the faith of Catholics, the pastoral application is about another issue: what keeps the non-Catholics from seeing the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith.

I am not going to give up on a number of points that are very relevant for this issue:

a. as I tried to indicate in the discussion of Session VI of Trent and following St. Paul in the Letter to Romans, God IS NOT the one to keep people from coming to the Catholic Church--the Holy Ghost has been promised to drive the Church's mission.

b. many have rightly implied that we Catholics may be the source of scandal to our non-Catholic neighbors and friends, and thus would be guilty of keeping them from entering the Kingdom. This danger is in my estimation far greater than the excessive zeal in bringing home the need for returning to the Faith. It probably goes without saying that if more Catholics took their faith seriously, more non-Catholics would take this proposition seriously. I live in Europe and the fact that in countries like France or Britain, the number of conversions to Islam exceeds that of conversions to Catholicism is telling--the Moslems are certainly far more serious than Catholics or Protestants about the duties of their faith.

c. finally, the issue seems a bit misplaced altogether. Prior to the 'Spirit' of Vatican II, the danger of hell was a common concern of preachers in the Catholic Church--and many saints converted hundreds, if not thousands of listeners (including many lukewarm Catholics) by stressing the seriousness of eternal separation from God. I'm not proposing that any lay Catholic should suddenly turn into a preacher--the opposite, I'm suggesting that the whole process needs to start, as with Augustine, in our own hearts. Once we take hell seriously, others will take notice of our changed lives.

From that perspective, the real question is not "am I in or out" but "am I on the road to heaven or hell". As Trent stated, reiterating hundreds of years of Tradition, penitence is both necessary before baptism and for fallen Catholics who need sacramental penance. And if we should concentrate on any line from Session VI of the Council of Trent in our discussions with non-Catholics, why don't we notice this all-important call to all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic: "Do penance!"

Does Council of Trent teach desire apart from baptism?

2007-07-31T14:47:00.001-07:00

Why do so many Catholics keep on stressing the extraordinary ways of joining the Church instead of concentrating on the beautiful teaching on the gift of Catholic faith that our merciful God is willing to give to all those who sincerely desire it. Some claim that the 'doctrine' of baptism of desire has been proclaimed in the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, where in Chapter IV the clause 'or the desire thereof' appears in the discussion on the manner of justification. Here I will argue that Chapter IV supports the literal reading of the necessity of membership in the Church and full unity in the Catholic faith when seen in the context of the entire Decree on Justification.

The text of the Session is available at: http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

I will try to discuss the context of the statement by referring to the declarations that precede and follow that phrase. As a lay Catholic, I may blunder, and will welcome any correction if I misinterpret particular passages or the entire Session altogether.

The Purpose of the Decree on Justification

The Decree on Justification clearly addresses the erroneous Protestant doctrines which on the one hand separate the believer's justification from his or her sanctification and on the other hand twist the dogma of application of Christ's merits to our salvation. Chapter III explains that while Christ died for all, not everyone applies His sacrifice for their salvation: "though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated". So this is the context in which the Council talks of the "translation ... to the state of grace" in Chapter IV--it thus does not refer to the entire humanity (for whom Christ died) but only to those who apply the merits of His death.

Who are those that the Council terms as "us" in the sentence from Chapter III--"hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins." Obviously, the faithful and not the entire world!

Notice the expression "remission of sins"--this is what the sacrament of baptism does--not only with regard to the original sin but also all the personal sins.

The Manner of Justification

Chapter IV opens up with the transitional phrase "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation...". So Chapter IV no longer defines what justification is (which was discussed in Chapter III), but goes on to specify the necessary condition for obtaining it. "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

It is important to notice that the text clearly distinguishes the time "since the promulgation of the Gospel" from the period before. In the pre-Gospel period, following the natural law was accepted by God, but the Gospel introduced a new requirement--baptism.

Desire for Baptism As A Disposition Necessary for Justification

Chapter VI specifically enumerates the dispositions of the soul that those who would like to be justified need to demonstrate. Interestingly the list does not end with the desire for baptism alone but with the resolution to 'begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God'. Here is the entire sequence of required dispositions:

"Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God."

It is worth noting that the Council of Trent has nowhere indicated that it contemplated the cases in which catechumens died before receiving baptism. Instead, this Chapter shows a natural course of events in the life of a catechumen, requiring that even at an early stage the future member of the faithful resolves to undertake all the Christian's obligations.

It is moreover striking that Chapter VI continues the 'as it is written' emphasis on the requirement to receive the sacrament of baptism from Chapter IV by citing two Scriptural references in a row:

"Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"

The fact that Chapter IV ought to be seen as part of the usual process of catechumenate rather than open the way for 'extraordinary ways of salvation' can be confirmed in Chapter VII, which repeats Chapter VI's sequence on the dispositions in the context of the catechumen's reception of the sacrament of baptism:

"For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen's beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The Council uses the ancient liturgical tradition to illustrate its declaration that faith does not originate in man and is not credited for salvation (as the Protestants wrongly believe), but is a gift conferred by the Church at the sacrament of baptism.

Does the text of the Session indicate anywhere that God would not reward the desire for baptism with actual baptism and its effects (remission of sins and granting sanctifying grace)? No, on the contrary as we can read throughout the Session indications that sacraments are to be administered to all who desire them by necessity of means and that they are efficacious:

"Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

"no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments" (Chapter IX)

"Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity." (Chapter VII)

Concluding, there is no reason to doubt God's will for us to be saved; the only obstacle is our resistance to the Holy Ghost. For that reason, the Council of Trent opposes the Calvinist doctrine of perseverance of the saints and assurance of personal salvation, warning that "each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."

Thus, on this reading of Session VI in its entirety, we certainly must not judge on either anyone else's or even our own salvation. The reason being that we cannot read our own (let alone others') hearts to know if we have removed all the obstacles to the infusion of God's sanctifying grace.

Extrasacramental Salvation? Dr. Norris on the 'Outdated Ecclesiology' of the Tridentine Rite

2007-07-31T06:08:00.000-07:00

To illustrate concerns about stretching the idea of 'non-sacramental entry into the Church', here is a bunch of illuminating statements made by a professor at the University of Dallas and a contributor to Texas Catholic Online, Dr. John Norris. See the site:

http://culbreath.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/texas-catholic-on-the-tlm/

Dr. Norris joined the chorus of those afraid that the Catholic-Jewish dialog might be jeopardized by the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the Jewish nation in the Tridentine mass. In that context, he made the following argument on the superiority of post-Conciliar understanding of the Church:

"There is no call for their conversion to the church in order to receive God’s salvation, but for them to grow in fidelity to the covenant with they God they already share. Here we see one of the definite disadvantages of the Tridentine rite, that it reflects certain theological trends that are no longer sponsored by the magisterium, but which have been rightly consigned to the dust-bin of the church’s less-than-inspired history. Again, prudential use of the Tridentine rite should only be encouraged within a catechesis which is fully in accord with the current magisterial teaching of the church and not sponsored by an incomplete and outdated ecclesiology."

When confronted with charges of heresy, Dr. Norris reaffirmed his novel interpretation of the Vatican II ecclesiology:

Post no. 14: "The point I wish to make is that the Second Vatican Council made clear that sacramental membership in the Roman Church is not necessary for salvation. Therefore, Jews do not need to convert to the Roman Catholic Church to be saved."

Dr. Norris then proceeds to use the word 'subsistit in' to arrive at this conclusion that while Jews need to convert to Jesus Christ, they need not to convert to the Catholic Church.

How is that? Speaking in the context of the post-Vatican II 'Catholic-Jewish dialog', Norris notes

"[T]he Church still maintains that salvation comes from Christ and Christ alone, and it is encountered in his Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church."

What is amazing that despite the clear teaching of Pius XII that the Roman Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ (see my previous post), Dr. Norris distinguishes between the two. In the end he is facing a 'theological conundrum' as he himself admits:

"In the post-conciliar period, the Church does face a complicated theological conundrum, how to explain how Christ and the Church are absolutely necessary for salvation, and yet how God’s loving grace in Christ saves those outside the sacramental institution of the Church."

I'd like to know if Dr. Norris got it all right about Vatican II or is seriously confused about the Catholic dogma. In any case, my favorite will be his reference to pre-Vatican II theology as "an incomplete and outdated ecclesiology"!

The Magisterium Has Spoken on The Necessity of Membership in the Body of the Church: Analysis of Pius XII's Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi

2007-07-30T00:09:00.001-07:00

I was recently asked to do my homework and seek the 'living magisterium' on the topic of baptism of desire (BOD). I consulted all the encyclicals I could find on the subject of the past two centuries, starting with Leo XII's Ubi Primum of 1824 and concluding with Pius XII's Ad Apostolum Principis of 1958 .

The advocates of BOD all talk about context, so I will comply and try to demonstrate that the context of one of the encyclicals that they love to quote (Pius XII's Mystici corporis Christi of 1943) favors the literal reading of EENS. I have decided to quote extensively so as to demonstrate the spirit of the document and the author's intentions.

The entire encyclical can be found online at:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

I encourage all readers to read the whole text, although to forestall the charges of twisting the Pope's words, I usually quote several sentences or even whole paragraphs (#).

The Identity of the Church

Pius XII's encyclical Mystici corporis Christi calls in #3 the Church to be "the only haven of salvation". In #5 Pius XII "trusts" that those who are "without the fold of the Church" will be guided by "divine grace" to "share in the same union and charity". Does that latter statement refer to some 'imperfect union' that Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio referred to? No, it speaks of the Pope's wish for those "without the fold" to become members of the Catholic Church. The encyclical speaks of this later.

#13 leaves no doubt that the Church of Christ IS the Roman Catholic Church, which IS the mystical Body of Jesus Christ:

"If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church -- we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ'"

The Manner of Entry into the Church

#18 speaks clearly of the way one joins and remains united with the Church:

"the Savior of mankind out of His infinite goodness has provided in a wonderful way for His Mystical Body, endowing it with the Sacraments, so that, as though by an uninterrupted series of graces, its members should be sustained from birth to death"

and

"Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments."

#22 reaffirms the above:

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

And this is reiterated in another sentence from the section:

"As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith."

Note "THE true Christian community", "ONE Baptism".

Pius XII stresses the fact that the sacrament of Baptism is the way of entry into the Church in #27: "He also determined that through Baptism [27] those who should believe would be incorporated in the Body of the Church". The footnote to this quote refers the reader to ... John 3:5 so we are back to water baptism.

The fact that we are "united" to the Body of the Church through the sacrament of Baptism is brought out very clearly in #30:

"He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ."

Who Is Outside the Church?

Pius XII reasserts Council of Florence's teaching on who is OUTSIDE the Church in #23:

"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy."

Ergo schism, heresy or apostasy 'severs' a man from the Body of the Church so that converts from Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicanism or Calvinism (let alone Islam or Judaism) have to 'abjure' errors and repeat the entire profession of faith.

Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church

But then one might say that those not members of the Body of the Church could be united to its soul. However, this document defines the soul of the Church in #57:

"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body. This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum Illud in these words: 'Let it suffice to say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her soul.'"

And the Holy Ghost 'perfects' the members of the Body as we read in #77:

"This communication of the Spirit of Christ is the channel through which all the gifts, powers, and extraordinary graces found superabundantly in the Head as in their source flow into all the members of the Church, and are perfected daily in them according to the place they hold in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ."

Call on Non-Catholics to Join the Church

So what is the conclusion that Pius XII makes:#91?

"[N]othing more glorious, nothing nobler, nothing surely more honorable can be imagined than to belong to the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, in which we become members of one Body as venerable as it is unique; are guided by one supreme Head; are filled with one divine Spirit; are nourished during our earthly exile by one doctrine and one heavenly Bread, until at last we enter into the one, unending blessedness of heaven."

But what about those 'outside the fold'? Should they remain where they are? No, Pius XII in his fatherly charity makes this appeal to us, members of the Body:

#96:"And first of all let us imitate the breath of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one Body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another [184] as members of the same Body, rejoicing in the glory of the other members and sharing in their suffering, [185] but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not YET joined to us in the Body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation."

Notice that the Pope makes a link between 'joining the Body of the Church' and 'eternal salvation' and that those 'outside' are called to join as they are not YET members of the Body.

Notice further how in #102 Pius XII stresses that when 'enlightened by the truth of the Gospel' the non-Catholics can return to the 'fold of the Church':

"We must earnestly desire that this united prayer may embrace in the same ardent charity both those who, not yet enlightened by the truth of the Gospel, are still without the fold of the Church, and those who, on account of regrettable schism, are separated from Us, who though unworthy, represent the person of Jesus Christ on earth."

Staying Outside the Church Is Not A Safe Option

I hope that by now we can see Pius XII's intention and the context of the much-abused quote from #103, referring to those who "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer". We will actually see that the quote is followed by Pius XII's plea that the non-Catholics "enter into Catholic unity". I think it is clear that Pius XII is far from assuming that non-Catholics are safe where they are with regard to their salvation:#103:

"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. [194] Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," [195] and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. [196] For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic God of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. [197] Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home."

Sacramental Baptism and Desire for It Required

Could Pius XII refer to the deathbed conversions invisible to the world, or does he encourage public return to the Faith through either sacramental baptism or abjuration of heresy? The above paragraph is followed by the following words in #104:

"Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe. [198] Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians [199] who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" [200] is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will." [201] Therefore whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See, [202] that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act."

Clearly, the references are to the sacramental baptism as only a water baptism could be forced. Pius XII follows earlier popes (E.g. Benedict XIV, Denz. 1481) in condemning forced baptism or conversion--thus, ironically showing that the convert's DESIRE for sacrament is indispensable for the sacrament itself. In this regard, I think Pius XII fully validates the term 'baptism of desire' as he opposes 'forced baptism' lacking the element of 'desire'.

The Magisterium Has Spoken from which There Is No Appeal to the Fathers or Theologians

Pius XII did not write the encyclical to open the possibilities for investigating all types of 'unknown ways' of entering the Church. In his later encyclical "Humani Generis" he noted that the definitions of the boundaries and structure of the Church were under fire in his time:

#18: "What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."

Where did this assault come from? Actually, 'Catholic' theologians as we read in the warning of Pius XII in #21 of Humani Generis (Denz. 2314):

"This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been DEFINED by the Church."
Many defenders of the BOD claim that literal reading of the EENS dogma is not "the sense in which the Church HAS UNDERSTOOD the term". However, Pius XII reminds us of the hierarchy of sources--in case the common consent of theologians clashes with the papal encyclicals or conciliar DEFINITIONS, the latter are to be used.

What I'm only asserting by this lengthy illustration with a key papal encyclical on the Church is that the faithful have a recourse to the solid teaching of the magisterium on the subject and it is not wise to follow many theologians who come up with hypotheses even if those are based on an impressive list of the Fathers if the magisterium HAS SPOKEN on the subject.

Pius XII has recognized the problem that the clear teaching on the Body of the Church has been made obscure by modern theologians, both non-Catholic and Catholic.

Mystici corporis Christi, #8: "But the chief reason for Our present exposition of this sublime doctrine is Our solicitude for the souls entrusted to Us. Much indeed has been written on this subject; and we know that many today are turning with greater zest to a study which delights and nourishes Christian piety. (...) Nevertheless, while We can derive legitimate joy from these considerations, We must confess that grave errors with regard to this doctrine are being spread among those outside the true Church, and that among the faithful, also, inaccurate or thoroughly false ideas are being disseminated which turn minds aside from the straight path of truth."

Would Pius XII express his 'solicitude for the souls entrusted' to the Pope by stressing that there are ways to be saved outside the Catholic Church? Why did He then affirm on many occasions in the space of one encyclical the importance of membership of the Body of the Church for salvation?

Let's be of the same spirit as Pius XII was. I welcome all corrections as to the possible mistakes I may have made reading this encyclical.

Obligation of Lay Catholics to Spread the 'Light of Undefiled Faith' (Leo XIII)

In case some of BOD advocates jump at me as a layman for appealing to a papal encyclical to reassert the established dogma, I'll resort to the defense that another encyclical, Sapientiae christianae' by Leo XIII, offers. Firstly, the lay faithful are encouraged to propagate the Faith as well:

#16: "All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.''[16] Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play."

Secondly, the only safe way for the lay Catholics to ward off errors is not make direct references to the Fathers, or to the Scripture itself, but rather to papal pronouncements on how to interpret the above. So asserts Leo XIII in the same encyclical (#24):

"Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live."

Personally, I must admit I was impressed with the defense that the Magisterium provides us, lay Catholics, so that we know 'what it is necessary to do, and to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation'. It appears that a single encyclical of Pius XII provides very strong defense for the 'undefiled faith'.

Pius IX and Rev Muller: Modern Assault on the Ancient Dogma

2007-07-25T05:12:00.000-07:00

The dogma Extra ecclessiam nulla sallus has been under siege since the onset of modernism that was condemned in the Syllabus of errors of Pius IX, issued in 164. Under the heading "Indifferentism, Latitudinarianism" the following statements were condemned:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

Rev. Michael Muller attached the following preface to his book The Catholic Dogma with the reminder that it must be read. The book was published in New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago: BENZIGER BROTHERS-Printers to the Holy Apostolic See. Permissu Superiorum. Copyright, 1888, by Elias Frederick Schauer.

Here is the greater part of it--the entire text may be found at:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Catholic_Dogma/Preface.html

It must be remembered that every Catholic dogma is a revealed truth that has always been held by the Fathers of the Church from the beginning and must, therefore, be interpreted, not according to modern opinions and latitudinarian principles, but according to the faith of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church; and therefore Vincent of Lerins says:

"A true Catholic is he who loves the truth revealed by God, who loves the Church, the Body of Christ, who esteems religion, the Catholic faith, higher than any human authority, talents, eloquence, and philosophy; all this he holds in contempt, and remains firm and unshaken in the faith which, he knows, has always from the beginning been held by the Catholic Church; and if he notices that any one, no, matter who he may be, interprets a dogma in a manner different from that of the Fathers of the Church, he understands that God permits such an interpretation to be made, not for the good of religion, but as a temptation, according to the words of St. Paul: ‘For there must be also heresies; that they also, who are reproved, may be made manifest among you.’ (I Cor. xi. 19) ‘And indeed, no sooner are novel opinions proclaimed, than it becomes manifest what kind of a Catholic a man is:’ (Commonit.) Hence, as St. Augustine says, ‘a theologian who is humble, will never teach anything as true Catholic doctrine, unless he is perfectly certain of the truth which he asserts, and proves it from Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church.’ Those who have learned theology well,’ says St. Basil, will not allow one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed. They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defence.’

"They will propose each dogma, especially the all-important dogma, "out of the Church there is No salvation," in the words of the Church and explain it as she understands it; they are most careful not to weaken in the least the meaning of this great dogma, by the way of proposing or explaining it. Why does not St. Paul say: if any one preach to you a Gospel contrary to that instead of beside that which. we have preached to you? ‘It is,’ says St. John Chrysostom, ‘to show us that one is accursed who even indirectly weakens the least truth of the Gospel.’ (Cornelius a Lapide in Epist. ad Gal. I. 8)"

"As there is," says Pius IX., "but one God the Father, one Christ his Son, one Holy Ghost, so there is also only one divinely revealed truth, only one divine faith - the beginning of man's salvation and the foundation of all justification, by which (faith) the just man lives, and without which it is impossible to please God and to be admitted to the Communion of his children; and there is but one true, holy, Catholic, Roman Church and divine teaching Authority, (cathedra) founded upon Peter by the living voice of the Lord, out of which (Church) there is neither the TRUE FAITH nor ETERNAL SALVATION, since no one, can have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his Mother." (Encycl. Letter, March 17, 1856.)

"The Holy Ghost," says St. Augustine, "is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church, what the human soul is to the human body. It is by the soul that each member of the body lives and acts. In like manner, it is by the Holy Ghost that the just man lives and acts. As the soul does not follow a member which is cut off from the body, so, in like manner, does the Holy Ghost not follow a member which has been justly cut off from the Body of Christ. He, therefore, who wishes to obtain life everlasting, must remain vivified by the Holy Ghost; and in order to remain vivified by the Holy Ghost we must keep charity, love the truth, and desire unity." (Serm. 267.) "Therefore no one can find life everlasting except in the Catholic Church." (Serm. ad Caesarenses) "Where unity is wanting, there can be no divine charity. Hence it is that divine charity can be kept only in the Catholic Church." (Contr. lit. Petil., lib. ii., cap. 77.) Now, as no one can obtain salvation without having the spirit of Christ, or divine charity, and as this spirit or divine virtue, which is called the soul of the Church, is kept only in the unity of the Church, it is evident that out of the Church there is positively no salvation.

It must be remembered that every dogma is exclusive, and admits of no interpretation contrary to that which it has received from the beginning. To every dogma, therefore, may be added what Pius IX. added to the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "Wherefore, if any persons - which God forbid - shall presume.to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined, let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church."

"Let those, therefore," says Vincent of Lerins, "who have not learned theology well, learn it better; let them try to understand of each dogma as much as they are able, and let them believe what they are not able to understand; let them remember the words of St. Paul: ‘If any one shall teach you anything besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.’ (Ephes. i. 9.) Dediscant bene quod didicerant non bene; et ex toto Ecclesiae dogmate quod intellectu capi potest capiant, quod non potest credant. O Timothee, depositum custodi, devitans prophanas vocum novitates. Si quis vobis annuntiaverit..praeterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit. (Commonit.) "It is according to this Catholic and apostolic spirit that we have endeavored to explain our religion, and especially the great dogma "Out of the Catholic Church there is positively no salvation." But our explanation, it seems, is too Catholic for some individuals, because we have not admitted into it any modern opinions and latitudinarian principles. Believing, therefore, that "they would do a service to God" and to their fellowmen, especially to their separated brethren, they have, through the Buffalo Catholic Union and Times, made known that we have misrepresented Catholic belief concerning the dogma "Out of the Church there is no salvation."

The Right Reverend George Hay, Bishop of Edinburgh,, Scotland, who, when yet a Protestant, took the vow to do all he could to extirpate Popery, wrote a treatise entitled "An Inquiry whether Salvation can be had without true faith and out of the Communion of the Church of Christ." In this treatise, the pious and very learned Prelate of the Church proves most clearly that "out of the true Church no one can be saved," and adds "that it is only of late that that loose way of thinking and speaking about the necessity of true faith, and of being in communion with the Church of Christ, has appeared among the members of the Church, and that this is one of the strongest grounds of its condemnation. It is a novelty, it is a new doctrine; it was unheard of from the beginning; nay, it is directly opposed to the uniform doctrine of all the great lights of the Church in all former ages. It is, therefore; a matter of surprise that anybody should call this point in question; that indeed this can only be accounted for from the general spirit of dissipation and disregard for all religion, which so universally prevails now-a-days; for the first authors of the so-called reformation, and some of their most candid followers, seeing the strong proofs from Scripture for this point, and not finding the smallest foundation in the Sacred Writings to support the contrary, have solemnly acknowledged it, however much it made against themselves; for the Protestant Church of Scotland, in her Confession of Faith, agreed upon by the divines of Westminister, approved by the General Assembly in the year 1646, and ratified by Act of Parliament in 1649, in the chapter on the Church speaks thus, "The visible Church, which is also Catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." (Confession of Faith chap. xxv.)

"But their predecessors in the preceding century, when the Presbyterian religion first began in Scotland, speak no less clearly on the same subject; for in their Confession of Faith, authorized by Parliament in the year 1560, ‘ as a doctrine grounded upon the infallible word of God,’ they speak thus, Article xvi.: ‘As we believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so we do most constantly believe, that from the beginning there hath been, and now is, and to the end of the world shall be one Kirk - that is to say, one company and multitude of men, chosen by God, who rightly worship and embrace him by true faith in Jesus Christ;. . . which Kirk is Catholic - that is, universal; because it containeth the elect of all ages, etc.: out of which Kirk there is neither life nor eternal felicity: and therefore we utterly abhor the blasphemy of them that affirm that men who live according to equity and justice shall be saved, what religion so-ever they have professed.’ This confession of the original Kirk of Scotland was reprinted and published in Glasgow in the year 1771, from which this passage is taken. Calvin himself confesses the same truth, in these words, speaking of the visible Church: ‘Out of its bosom,’ says he, ‘no remission of sins, no salvation is to be hoped for, according to Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekiel; . . . so that it is always highly pernicious to depart from the Church;’ and this he affirms in his Institutions themselves, B. iv., c: 1, § 4.

We shall add one testimony more, which is particularly strong;.it is of Dr. Pearson, a Bishop of the Church of England, in his exposition of the Creed, edit. 1669, where he says, ‘The necessity of believing the Catholic Church appeared, first, in this, that Christ hath appointed it as the only way to eternal life. We read at the first, Acts ii. 47, "That the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved:" and what was then daily done hath been done since continually. Christ never appointed two ways to heaven; nor did he build a Church to save some, and make another institution for other men's salvation (Acts iv. 10): "There is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, but the name of Jesus;" and that name is not otherwise given under heaven than in the Church. As none were saved from the deluge but such as were within the ark of Noe, framed for their reception by the command of God; as none of the first-born of Egypt lived but such as were within those habitations whose door-posts were sprinkled with blood, by the appointment of God, for their preservation; as none of the inhabitants of Jericho could escape the fire or sword, but such as were within the house of Rahab, for whose protection a covenant was made; - so NONE shall ever escape the eternal wrath of God who belong not to the Church of God.’ Behold how far the force of truth prevailed among the most eminent members of the Reformation before latitudinarian principles had crept in among them!

"It is true, indeed, that, though the founders of these Churches, convinced by the repeated and evident testimonies of the Word of God, professed this truth, and inserted it in the public standards of their religion, yet their posterity now disclaim it, and accuse the Catholic Church of being uncharitable for holding it; but this only shows their inconsistency, and proves that they are devoid of all certainty in what they believe; for if it was a divine truth, when these religions were founded, that out of the true Church, and without the Catholic faith, there is no salvation, it must be so still; and if their first founders were mistaken on this point, what security can their followers now have for any other thing they taught? But the Catholic Church, always consistent and uniform in her doctrine, always preserving the words once put in her mouth by her Divine Master, at all times and in all ages has believed and taught the same doctrine as a truth revealed by God, that ‘out of the true Church of Christ, and without his true faith, there is there is no possibility of salvation;’ and the most authentic public testimony of her enemies proves that this is the doctrine of Jesus, and of his holy Gospel, whatever private persons, from selfish and interested motives, may say to the contrary.

‘What a reproach must this be before the judgment-seat of God to those members of the Church of Christ who call in question or seek to invalidate this great and fundamental truth, the very fence and barrier of the true religion; which is so repeatedly declared by God in his Holy Scriptures, professed by the Church of Christ in all ages, attested in the strongest terms by the most eminent lights of Christianity, and candidly acknowledged by the most celebrated writers and divines of the Reformation! Will not every attempt to weaken the importance of this divine truth be considered by the great God as betraying his cause and the interests of his holy faith? and will those who do so be able to plead even their favorite invincible ignorance in their own defence before him?’ (From Sincere Christian, American Edition.)

But let us hear a greater Authority speaking, on this all-important subject.
In his Encyclical Letters, dated Dec. 8, 1849; Dec.. 8, 1864; and Aug. 10, 1863, and in his Allocution on Dec. 9, 1854: Pope Pius IX. says: -

"It is not without sorrow that we have learned another not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several parts of Catholic countries, and has been imbibed by many Catholics, who are of opinion that all those who are not at all members of the true Church of Christ, can be saved: Hence they often discuss the question concerning the future fate and condition of those who die without having professed the Catholic faith, and give the most frivolous reasons in support of their wicked opinion . . . . .

"It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside of the Apostolic, Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it, will perish in the deluge...."We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error, which has been imbibed by certain Catholics, who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of our Lord, (Matt. xviii. 17 ; Mark xvi. 16; Luke x. 16; John iii. 18) as also from the words of St. Paul, (II. Tim. Iii. 11) and of St. Peter (II. Peter. ii. 1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch.

"We therefore again reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and every one of these perverse opinions and doctrines, and it is our absolute will and command that all sons of the Catholic Church shall hold them as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned. It belongs to our Apostolic office to rouse your Episcopal zeal and watchfulness to do all in your power to banish from the minds of the people such impious and pernicious opinions, which lead to indifference of religion, which we behold spreading more and more, to the ruin of souls. Oppose all your energy and zeal to these errors and employ zealous priests to impugn and annihilate them, and to impress very deeply upon the minds and hearts of the faithful the great dogma of our most holy religion, that salvation can be had only in the Catholic faith. Often exhort the clergy and the faithful to give thanks to God for the great gift of the Catholic faith."

Now is it not something very shocking to see such condemned errors and perverse opinions proclaimed as Catholic doctrine in a Catholic newspaper, and in books written and recently published by Catholics?

We have, therefore, deemed it our duty to make a strong, vigorous, and uncompromising presentation of the great and fundamental truth, the very fence and barrier of the true religion, "OUT OF THE CHURCH THERE IS POSITIVELY NO SALVATION," against those soft, weak, timid, liberalizing Catholics who labor to explain away all the points of Catholic faith offensive to non-Catholics, and to make it appear that there is no question of life and death, of heaven and hell, involved in the differences between us and Protestants.

Not to free your neighbor from religious errors, says Pope Leo, when it is in your power to do so, is to show to be in error yourself, and "therefore," says Pope Gregory, "he whose duty it is to correct his neighbor when he is in fault, and yet omits to make the correction, makes himself guilty of the faults of his neighbor."

"Indeed," says Pope Innocent III. of those whose duty it is to keep the deposit of faith pure and undefiled, "not to oppose erroneous doctrine is to approve of it, and not to defend at all true doctrine is to suppress it."

Rev Muller: Pius IX and Bp Hay on EENS and Liberal Catholics

2007-07-25T05:03:00.000-07:00

In an Allocution held by Pius IX. on Dec. 9, 1854, His Holiness says: “It is not without sorrow that we have learned another, not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several parts of Catholic countries, and has been imbibed by many Catholics, who are of opinion that those who are not at all members of the true Church of Christ can be saved. Hence they often discuss the question concerning the future fate and condition of those who die without having professed the Catholic faith, and give the most frivolous reasons in support of their wicked opinion . . . . .

"It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it, will perish in the deluge."

In his Encyclical Letter, dated Aug. 10, 1863, Pope Pius IX. says: "I must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error in which certain Catholics are living, who are of opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Christ: "If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." Matt. xiii. 17; "He that believeth not, shall be condemned." Mark, xvi. 16; "He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me." Luke, x. 16; “He that doth not believe, is already judged." John, iii. 18; “It is of faith that, as there is but one God, so also there is but one faith, and one baptism. To go beyond this in our inquiries is to be impious." (Allocution, Dec. 9, 1854.)

On the 18th of June, 1871, Pope Pius IX., in replying to a French deputation headed by the Bishop of Nevers, spoke as follows: “My children, my words must express to you what I have in my heart. That which afflicts your country, and prevents it from meriting the blessings of God, is the mixture of principles I will speak out, and not hold my peace. That which I fear is not the Commune of Paris, those miserable men, those real demons of hell, roaming upon the face of the earth—no, not the Commune of Paris; that which I fear is liberal Catholicism . . . . I have said so more than forty times, and I repeat it to you now, through the love that I bear you. The real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavors to unite two principles, as repugnant to each other as fire and water. My children, I conjure you to abstain from those doctrines which are destroying you . . . . if this error be not stopped, it will lead to the ruin of religion and of France."

In a brief, dated July the 9th, 1871, to Mgr. Segur, the Holy Father says: “It is not only the infidel sects who are conspiring against the Church and Society that the Holy See has often reproved, but also those men who, granting that they act in good faith and with upright intentions, yet err in caressing liberal doctrines."

On July 28, 1873, his Holiness thus expressed himself: "The members of the Catholic Society of Quimper certainly run no risk of being turned away from their obedience to the Apostolic See by the writings and efforts of the declared enemies of the Church; but they may glide down the incline of those so-called liberal opinions which have been adopted by many Catholics, otherwise honest and pious, who, by the influence of their religious character, may easily exercise a powerful ascendancy over men, and lead them to very pernicious opinions. Tell, therefore, the members of the Catholic, Society that, on the numerous occasions on which we have censured those who hold liberal opinions, we did not mean those who hate the Church, whom it would have been useless to reprove, but those whom we have just described. Those men preserve and foster the hidden poison of liberal principles, which they sucked as the milk of their education, pretending that those principles are not infected with malice, and cannot interfere with religion; so they instil this poison into men's minds, and propagate the germs of those perturbations by which the world has for a long time been vexed."

Our faith, to be pleasing to God, must be sound; and according to the declaration of the Vatican Council, our faith is sound when we avoid not only open heresy, but also diligently shun, and in our hearts dissent from, those errors which approach it more or less closely, and religiously observe those constitutions and decrees whereby such evil opinions, either directly or indirectly, have been proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See. (Vatican Council, Canon iv.), as, for instance, "Opinions leaning to naturalism, or rationalism, whose sum and purpose is to uproot Christian institutions, and establish in society the rule of man, placing God out of consideration. An entire profession of Catholicity is by no means consistent with these opinions. Likewise, it is not lawful to follow one rule in private life, another in public life, namely, so that the authority of the Church may be observed in private life, and disregarded in public life. That would be to unite virtue and vice, and make man conflict with himself, when, on the contrary, he ought to be consistent with himself, and in nothing, no sort of life, depart from Christianity." (Leo XIII, Encycl. 1, Nov. 1885.)

In other words, it is not lawful to be a liberal Catholic, and it is far worse to be a liberal minded priest. It is the duty of all philosophers (far more so of all priests) who desire to remain, sons of the Church, and of all philosophy, to assert nothing contrary to the teachings of the Church, and to retract all such things when the Church shall so admonish. The opinion which teaches the contrary, we pronounce and declare altogether erroneous and in the highest degree injurious to the faith of the Church, and her authority." (Litterae Pii IX. "Gravissimas inter,” ad Archiep. Monac. et Freising. Dec. 1862.)

A priest, therefore, who defends Liberalism, is in opposition to the teachings of the Church, and cannot remain a son of the Church.

A Liberal Catholic, then, is no true Catholic. The word Catholic is no vain and empty word. To be a true Catholic means to hold most firmly all those truths which Christ and his Apostles have taught, which the Catholic Church has always proclaimed, which the Saints have professed, which the Popes and Councils have defined, and which the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have defended. He who denies but one of those truths, or hesitates to receive one of them, is not a Catholic. He claims to exercise the right of private judgement in regard to the doctrine of Christ, and therefore he is a heretic.

The true Catholic knows and believes that there can be no compromise between God and the devil, between truth and error, between orthodox faith and heresy, between divine and human faith, between true and false Christianity, between Catholics and Protestants. St. Paul, the Apostle, spoke freely and told the truth plainly from out of his prison walls; it was because he was no compromiser. St. Peter spoke freely, plainly, and forcibly before the ancients, saying that it is better to obey God than men; it was because he was no compromiser. The Apostle St. Andrew proclaimed the plain truth from the wood of the cross; it was because he was no compromiser. St. Stephen, the first martyr, was no compromiser. When accused of being a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, he, in his turn, accused his enemies of being the murderers of Christ. All the holy martyrs of the Church were no compromisers. Being charged by the heathens with the folly of worshipping and following a crucified God, they, in their turn, charged the heathens with the impiety of worshipping creatures and following the devil.

Why was our Holy Father, Pope Pius IX., and why is still our Holy father, Leo XIII., a prisoner? It is because neither the one nor the other could be a compromiser. Why were in Germany so many bishops and priests exiled or in prison? It is because they were no compromisers. Why was the Catholic Church persecuted in Germany and other parts of the world? It is because God, by means of persecution, purifies his Church, from liberal or compromising Catholics. And as there are so many liberal Catholics in this country, persecution must come to separate them from the Church. Those compromising Catholics, said a well-known convert in Detroit, Mich., have kept me out of the Church for twenty years, until at last I met a good, conscientious, and learned priest, who taught me plainly that, if I wished to save my soul, I must become a member of Christ's Body—the Catholic Church—in order to become united to her head—Jesus Christ—from whom sanctifying grace will then flow upon your soul and prepare it for life everlasting.

“Undoubtedly," says Bishop Hay, "it is praiseworthy to show all indulgence and condescension to those who are without, and to behave towards them with all lenity and mildness.

"But to betray the truth with any such view must be a grievous crime, and highly prejudicial to both parties. Experience, in fact, shows that the loose way of thinking and speaking, which some members of the true Church have of late adopted, is productive of the worst consequences, both to themselves and to those whom they desire to favor.

"(1.) Those who are separated from the Church of Christ well know that she constantly professes, as an article of her creed, that, without the true faith, and out of her communion, there is no salvation. When, therefore, they see the members of that Church talking doubtfully on this point, seeming to question the truth of the doctrine, and even alleging pretexts and excuses to explain it away, what can they think? What effect must this have upon their minds? Must it not tend to extinguish any desire of enquiring after the truth which God may have given them, and to shut their hearts against any such good thought? Self-love never fails eagerly to lay hold of everything that favors its wishes; and if once they find this truth called in question, even by those who profess to believe it, they will consider it as a mere school dispute, and think no more about the matter.

"(2.) This way of thinking and speaking naturally tends to extinguish all zeal for the salvation of souls in the hearts of those who adopt it; for whilst they persuade themselves that there is a possibility of salvation for those who die in a false faith, and out of the Church of Christ, self love will easily incline them not to give themselves any trouble about their conversion; nay, it has sometimes even gone so far as to make some think it more advisable not to endeavor to undeceive them, lest it should change their present excusable ignorance, as they call it, into a culpable obstinacy; not reflecting that, by their pious and zealous endeavors, they may be brought to the knowledge of the truth and save their souls, whereas, through their uncharitable neglect, they may be deprived of so great a happiness. Woe to the world, indeed, if the first preachers of Christianity had been of such unchristian sentiments!

“(3.) It is no less prejudicial to the members of the Church themselves to embrace such ways of thinking: for it cannot fail to cool their zeal and esteem for religion, to make them more careless of preserving their faith, ready for worldly motives to expose it to danger, and in time of temptation to forsake it entirely. In fact, if a man be thoroughly persuaded of the truth of his holy religion, and of the necessity of being a member of the Church of Christ, how is it possible he should ever expose himself to any occasion of losing so great a treasure, or for any worldly fear or favor to abandon it? Since experience shows, then, that many, for some trifling worldly advantage, do expose themselves to such danger, by going to places where they cannot practise their religion, but find every inducement to leave it, or, by engaging in employments inconsistent with their duty, expose their children to the same dangerous occasions, this can arise only from a. want of a just idea of the importance of their religion; and, upon a strict examination, it is always found that some degree or other of the above latitudinarian sentiments is the radical cause.

"(4.) Besides, if a person once begin to hesitate about the importance of his religion, what esteem or regard can he have for the laws, rules, or practices of it! Self-love, always attentive to its own satisfaction, will soon tell him that, if it be not absolutely necessary to be of that religion, much less necessary must it be to submit to all its regulations; hence liberties are taken in practice, the commands of the Church are despised, the exercises of devotion are neglected, and a shadow of religion introduced under the show of liberal sentiments, to the destruction of all solid virtue and piety."

Rev Muller: To Believe As the Fathers Believed

2007-07-25T04:49:00.000-07:00

Let us mark well: To assert that acts of divine faith, hope, and charity are possible out of the Catholic Church is a direct denial of the article of faith: There is positively no salvation out of the Catholic Church; for, on account of these acts, God unites himself with the soul in time and eternity. If these acts, then, were possible out of the Catholic Church, there would be salvation out of the Catholic Church, to say which is a direct denial of the above article of faith, and therefore the assertion is heretical.

"A theologian," says St. Augustine, “who is humble, will never teach anything as true Catholic doctrine, unless he is perfectly sure of the truth which he asserts. If he is corrected in anything in which he erred, he thanks for the correction, because his only desire is to know the truth." (Epist. ad S. Hier. 73 n. 1.)

He hates novelties—Animus ab omni novitate alienus et antiquitatis amans. What he tries to assert and to defend is the pure doctrine of faith contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition. True Catholic doctrine, says Tertullian, is easily distinguished from false doctrine by the following rule: "Manifestetur id esse dominicum et verum, quod sit prius traditum; id autem extraneum et falsum, quod sit posterius immissum." (Lib. de Praescrip. cap. 31. Ed. Rig. 1675, p. 213.) A doctrine which has been taught and believed from the beginning is true Catholic doctrine; but any other doctrine is false.

Hence St. Paul admonishes St. Timothy, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (Chapt. vi. 20.)
"Vocum, id est, dogmatum, rerum, sententiarum novitates, quae sunt vetustati et antiquitati contrariae, quae si recipiantur, necesse est ut fides beatorum Patrum, aut tota, aut certe magna ex parte violetur. (Vincentius Lirinensis, Commonit., cap. 24.)

What has been believed by all the faithful at all times and everywhere, is truly Catholic doctrine. Any doctrines that are either wholly or at least very much opposed to the faith of the holy Fathers of the Church, are novel teachings, which are to be avoided. The article of faith reads not, "Out of the soul of the Church there is no salvation;" it reads, "Out of the Church (consisting of Body and Soul) there is positively no salvation for any one."
Hence rest assured that, as no one will let you have a precious article for counterfeit money, neither will Almighty God let you have heaven for serving him in a counterfeit religion by which he is greatly insulted and which he has most strictly forbidden, and which St. Paul and the Church have most solemnly accursed.

Such is, and such has always been the faith of the Church. It would be endless to collect all the testimonies of the Fathers of the Church on this subject. Let a few suffice, as a sample of the whole. St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and disciple of the Apostles, in his Epistle to the Philadelphians, says: "Those who make a separation shall not inherit the kingdom of God." St. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, and martyr in the second age, says: "The Church is the gate of life, but all the others are thieves and robbers, and therefore to be avoided." (De Haer., lib. i. c. 3.)

St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, and martyr about the middle of the third age, says, "The house of God is but one, and no one can have salvation but in the Church." (Epist. 62, alias 4.) And in his book on the unity of the Church, he says: "He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was out of the ark of Noe, then he who is out of the Church may also escape." So much for these most primitive fathers.

In the fourth century, St. Chrysostom speaks thus: "We know that salvation belongs to the Church ALONE, and that no one can partake of Christ, nor be saved, out of the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith." (Hom. i. in Pasch.)

St. Augustine, in the same age, says: "The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ; the Holy Ghost gives life to no one who is out of this body." (Epist. 185, § 50, Edit. Bened.) And in another place, "Salvation no one can have but in the Catholic Church. Out of the Catholic Church he may have anything but salvation. He may have honor, he may have baptism, he may have the Gospel, he may both believe and preach in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but he can find salvation nowhere but in the Catholic Church." (Serm. ad. Caesariens. de Emerit.) Again, "In the Catholic Church," says he, "there are both good and bad. But those that are separated from her, as long as their opinions are opposite to hers, cannot be good. For though the conversation of some of them appears commendable, yet their very separation from the Church makes them bad, according to that of our Saviour (Luke, xi. 23), `He that is not with me is against is against me; and he that gathers not with me scattereth.'" —(Epist. 209, ad Feliciam.)

"Let a heretic," says St. Augustine, "confess Christ before men and shed his blood for his confession, it avails nothing to his salvation; for, thought he confessed Christ, he was put to death out of the Church." This is very true; any one who is put to death out of the Church could not have divine charity, for St. Paul says: "If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 3.)

"Out of the Church there is no salvation;" Who can deny it? And therefore, whatever truths of the Church are held, out of the Church they avail nothing unto salvation. Those who are separated from the unity of the Church are not with Christ, but are against him, and he that gathereth not with him, scattereth. (Matt. xii. 30.) (Contra Donatistas.)

Lactantius, another great light of the fourth age, says: "It is the Catholic Church only which retains the true worship. This Church is the fountain of truth, it is the house of faith, it is the temple of God. If any one either comes not into this Church, or departs from it, his eternal salvation is desperate. No one must flatter himself obstinately, for his soul and salvation are at stake. "—(Divin. Instit., lib. iv., c. 30.)

St. Fulgentius, in the sixth century, speaks thus: "Hold most firmly, and without the least doubt, that neither any heretic or schismatic whosoever, who is baptized out of the Catholic Church, can partake at all of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he be not restored to the Catholic Church and incorporated therein." (Lib. de Fid., c. 37.) According to the first Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, the last of the articles which a Bishop-Elect is to be asked before his ordination is: "i>Credatne quod extra Ecclesiam nullus salvetur." Whether he believes that no one can be saved out of the Church.

We repeat the words of St. Alphonsus:—

"How grateful, then," he says "ought we to be to God for the gift of the true faith. How great is not the number of infidels, heretics, and schismatics. The world is full of them, and, if they die out of the Church, they will all be condemned, except infants who die after baptism." (Catech. first command., No. 10 and 19.) Because, as St. Augustine says, where there is no divine faith, there can be no divine charity, and where there is no divine charity, there can be no justifying or sanctifying grace, and to die without being in sanctifying grace is to be lost forever. (Lib. I. Serm. Dom. in monte, cap. v.)

All the Fathers of the Church have never hesitated to pronounce all those forever lost who die out of the Roman Catholic Church. “He who has not the Church for his mother," says St. Cyprian, “cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say that, “as all who were not in the ark of Noe perished in the waters of the Deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church." St. Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A. D. 410, say: “Who-soever is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.” Therefore, says St. Augustine, “a Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ (the Church). For, if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ; if not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by his Spirit." (Tract. xxvii. in Joan., n. 6, Col. 1992, tom. iii.)

“To an enlightened Catholic," says Brownson, "there is something very shocking in the supposition that the article of faith, ‘out of the Church positively no one can be saved,’ should be only generally true, and therefore not an article of faith. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever. If men could come to Christ and be saved without the Church, or union with Christ in the Church, she would not be Catholic, and it would be false to call her the ‘One, Holy, Catholic Church,' as in the Creed."

“The Church is called Catholic," says the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “because all who desire eternal salvation must embrace and cling to her, like those who entered the ark, to escape perishing in the flood.”
Hence any one who explains away the dogma of exclusive salvation, denies, in principle, the Catholicity of the Church and the faith she holds and teaches.

Of every dogma of the Church is true what Pope Pius IX. has declared of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, namely: "wherefore, if any persons—which God forbid—shall presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined, let them know that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck in faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church." And in the definition of the dogma of the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff it is said: “But if any one—which God may avert!—presume to contradict this our definition, let him be anathema."

We must believe the truths of faith, not on account of human reasons, which are given in support and corroboration of any article of faith, but on account of the divine authority, which has revealed the articles of faith and proposes them for our belief by the Church. Any one who believes these articles only on account of human reasons, says St. Gregory, has no merit of his faith. (Homil. 26 in Evang.) The truths of the Gospel have been revealed by God, not to be understood, but to be believed. So, when we know that our Lord Jesus Christ has taught something and proposes it for our belief by his Church, we have to believe it most firmly and without the least doubt.

Rev Muller On Salvation of Those Protestants Who Are Not Guilty of Sin of Heresy

2007-07-25T04:15:00.000-07:00

Not guilty of the sin of heresy are all those who, without any fault of theirs, were brought up in a sect of Protestantism, and who never had an opportunity of knowing better. This class of Protestants are called invincibly or inculpably ignorant of the true religion, or material heretics.

Now, let us see what the Rev. Alfred Young, a Paulist Father of New York, says of material heretics, in an article which he had published in the Buffalo Union and Times on March 22, 1888. He says: "He was baptized in his infancy, and was then a Catholic child as good as any other Catholic child." -- This is quite correct, and if be had died before he came to the use of reason, he would have gone straight to heaven.

But, after he had come to the years of understanding, he was brought up in heresy; but, according to his statement, he was only a material, not a formal heretic.

It can hardly be doubted that, amongst Protestants, many are only material heretics. Reiffenstuel gives this as his opinion regarding great numbers amongst the mass of heretics. The same is the opinion of Lacroix, and several other authors cited by him, with regard to the Protestants of Germany; and what is true of them is equally true of Protestants in other countries. "Some of them," he says, "are so simple, or so prejudiced by the teaching of their ministers, that they are persuaded of the truth of their own religion, and at the same time so sincere and conscientious, that, if they knew it to be false, they would at once embrace ours. Such as these are not formal, but only material heretics; and that there are many such is testified by numbers of confessors in Germany and authors of the greatest experience."

"What is most deplorable in their case," says Lacroix, "is that, should they fall into any other mortal sin, as may very easily happen to such persons, (because without special grace it is impossible to keep the commandments,) they are deprived of the grace of the principal sacraments, and are commonly lost, not on account of material heresy, but on account of other sins they have committed, and from which they are not freed by the sacrament of penance, which does not exist amongst them; nor by an act of contrition or perfect charity, which they commonly do not attend to, or think of eliciting (to say nothing of the very great difficulty such men would have in doing so, thinking they are justified by faith alone and trust in Christ; and by this accursed confidence they are miserably lost." (Lacroix, Lib. ii. n. 94.)

It is well to distinguish here between two classes of Protestants.

The first is that of those who either live among Catholics or have Catholics living in the same country with them; who know there are such persons, and often hear of them. The second regards those who have no such knowledge, and who seldom or never hear Catholics spoken of, except in a false and odious light.

We read in Holy Scripture that Almighty God, at different times, scattered the Jews among the heathen and performed great miracles in favor of his chosen people. He thus wished the Gentiles to come to the knowledge of the true God. In like manner, Almighty God has scattered the Roman Catholics, the children of his Church, among the heathens of our time and the Protestants. He has never failed to perform miracles in the Catholic Church. Who has not heard of the many great miracles performed in France, and elsewhere, by the use of the miraculous water of Lourdes? Who has not witnessed the wonderful protection of the Catholic Church? Who has not read the truths of the Catholic Church, even in Protestant newspapers? Who has not heard of the conversion of so many wealthy and learned Protestants to the Catholic Church? The Lord, who wishes that all should come to the knowledge of the true religion, makes use of these and other means to cause doubts to arise in the souls of those who are separated from his Church. Hence it is, as Bishop Hay says, next to the impossible for those Protestants who live among Catholics to be in a state of invincible ignorance.

Such doubts as to their salvation in Protestantism are, for our separated brethren, a great grace, as Almighty God, by these doubts, begins to lead them to the way of salvation, by obliging them to seek in all sincerity for light and instruction. But those who do not heed these doubts remain culpably erroneous in a matter of the greatest importance; and to die in this state is to die in the state of reprobation; it is to be lost forever through one's own fault, as we have seen above.

But let us remember here, that "it is a mistake," as Bishop Hay well says, "to suppose that a formal doubt is necessary to render one's ignorance of his duty voluntary and culpable; it is enough that there be sufficient reason for doubting, though from his unjust prejudices, obstinacy, pride, or other evil dispositions of the heart, he hinder these reasons from exciting a formal doubt in his mind. Saul had no doubt when he offered sacrifice before the prophet Samuel came; on the contrary, he was persuaded that he had the strongest reasons for doing so, yet he was condemned for that very action, and himself and his family rejected by Almighty God. The Jews believed that they were acting well when they put our Saviour to death; nay, their high priest declared in full council that it was expedient for the good and safety of the nation that they should do so. They were grossly mistaken, indeed, and sadly ignorant of their duty; but their ignorance was culpable, and they were severely condemned for what they did, though it was done in ignorance. And, indeed, all who act from a false and erroneous conscience are highly blamable for having such a conscience, though they have never entertained any formal doubt. Nay, their not having such a doubt when they have just and solid grounds for doubting, rather renders them the more guilty, because it shows greater corruption of the heart, greater depravity of disposition. A person brought up in a false faith, which the Scriptures calls sects of perdition, doctrines of devils, perverse things, lies, and hypocrisy—and who has heard of the true Church of Christ, which condemns all these sects, and sees their divisions and dissensions—has always before his eyes the strongest reason to doubt the safety of his own state. If he makes any examination with sincere dispositions of heart, he must be convinced that he is in the wrong; and the more he examines, the more clearly will he see it, —for this plain reason, that it is simply impossible that false doctrine, lies, and hypocrisy should ever be supported by solid arguments sufficient to satisfy a reasonable person, who sincerely seeks the truth and begs light from God to direct him in the search. Hence, if such a person never doubt, but go on, as is supposed, bona fide, in his own way, notwithstanding the strong grounds of doubt which he daily has before his eyes, this evidently shows either that he is supinely negligent in the concern of his soul, or that his heart is totally blinded by passion and prejudice. There were many such persons among the Jews and heathens in the time if the apostles, who, notwithstanding the splendid light of truth which these holy preachers everywhere displayed, and which was the most powerful reason for leading them to doubt of their superstitions, were so far from having such doubts, that they thought by killing the apostles they did God a service. Whence did this arise? St. Paul himself informs us. "We renounce,” says he, "the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the Word of God, but, by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Here he describes the strange light of the truth which he preached; yet this light was hidden to great numbers, and he immediately gives the reason: "And if our Gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine upon them." (II. Cor. iv. 2.) Behold the real cause of their incredulity: they are so enslaved to the things of this world by the depravity of their heart, and the devil so blinds them, that they cannot see the light; but ignorance arising from such depraved dispositions is a guilty, a voluntary ignorance, and therefore never can excuse them.

If this kind of material heretics, then, are lost, they are not lost on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of the grievous sins that they committed against their conscience. "For whosoever have sinned without the law," says St. Paul, "shall perish without the law." (Rom. ii. 10.) The great Apostle wishes to say: Those of the heathens who do not know anything of the Christian Law, but sin against the natural Law, their conscience, will be lost, not on account of the sin of infidelity; which was no sin for those who were invincibly ignorant of the Christian Law, but on account of the great sin which they committed against the voice of' God speaking to them by their conscience. The same must be said of those Protestants who are inculpably ignorant of the Catholic religion, but sin grievously against their conscience.

"God," says St. Thomas, "enlightens every man who comes into the world, and produces in all mankind the light of nature and of grace, as the sun does the light which imparts color and animation to all objects. But if any obstacle prevented its rays from falling on a certain object, would you attribute that defect to the sun? Or if you closed up all your windows and made your room quite dark, could you say the sun is the cause of that darkness? It is the same with the man who, by grievous sins, closes the eyes of his understanding to the light of heaven; for he is then enveloped in profound obscurity and walks in moral darkness. A scholar, who wishes to learn a more sublime science or doctrine, must have a brighter and more comprehensive conception, in order to understand clearly his master. In like manner, man, in order to be more capable of receiving divine inspirations, must have a particular disposition for them. "The Lord God hath opened my ear, and I do not resist, neither do I withdraw from Him.' (Isai. i. 5.) Hence all vices are contrary to the gifts of the Holy Ghost, because they are in opposition to divine inspiration; and they are also contrary both to God and to reason, for reason receives its lights and inspirations from God. Therefore he who grievously offends God, and is, on this account, not enlightened to know and believe the truths of salvation, must blame himself for his spiritual misfortune and punishment. Of these St. Paul says: In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them. (Cor. iv. 4.) `Blind the heart of this people, and shut their ears and eyes.' (Isai. vi. 10.)"

Be it also remembered that the light of faith is withheld from those Protestants who resemble the Pharisees. "They form to themselves," says Bishop Hay, "a great idea of their good works, not observing the vast difference there is between natural good moral actions, and supernatural Christian good works, which alone will bring a man to heaven. However corrupted our nature is by sin, yet there are few or none of the seed of Adam, who have not certain good natural dispositions, some being more inclined to one virtue, some to another. Thus some are of a humane, benevolent disposition; some tender-hearted and compassionate towards others in distress; some just and upright in their dealings; some temperate and sober; some mild and patient; some also have natural feelings of devotion, and of reverence for the Supreme Being. Now, all such good natural dispositions of themselves are far from being Christian virtues, and are altogether incapable of bringing a man to heaven. They indeed make him who has them agreeable to men, and procure him esteem and regard from those with whom he lives; but they are of no avail before God with regard to eternity. To be convinced of this, we need only observe that good natural dispositions of this kind are found in Mahometans, Jews, and heathens, as well as among Christians; yet no Christian can suppose that a Mahometan, Jew, or heathen, who dies in that state, will obtain the kingdom of heaven by means of these virtues.

The Pharisees, among the people of God, were remarkable for many such virtues; they had a great veneration for the law of God; they made open profession of piety and devotion; gave large alms to the poor; fasted and prayed much; were assiduous in all the public observances of religion; were remarkable for their strict observance of the Sabbath, and had an abhorrence of all profanation of the holy name of God; yet Jesus Christ himself expressly declares: "Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. v. 20.) We are told that one of their number went up to the temple to pray, who was, in the eyes of the world, a very good man, led an innocent life, free from those grosser crimes which are so common among men, fasted twice a week, and gave tithes of all he possessed; yet Christ himself assures us that he was condemned in the sight of God. All this proves that none of the above good dispositions of nature are capable in themselves of bringing any man to heaven. And the reason is, because “there is no other name given to men under heaven by which we can be saved, but the name of Jesus only," (Acts iv. 10); therefore, no good works whatsoever, performed through the good dispositions of nature only, can ever be crowned by God with eternal happiness. To obtain this glorious reward, our good works must be sanctified by the blood of Jesus, and become Christian virtues.

Now, if we search the Holy Scriptures, we find two conditions absolutely required to make our good works agreeable to God, and conducive to our salvation. First, that we be united to Jesus Christ by true faith, which is the root and foundation of all Christian virtues; for St. Paul expressly says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God." (Heb. xi. 6.). Observe the word impossible; he does not say it is difficult, but that it is impossible. Let, therefore, a man have ever so many good natural dispositions, and be as charitable, devout, and mortified as the Pharisees were, yet if he have not true faith in Jesus Christ, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. They refused to believe in him, and therefore all their works were good for nothing as to their salvation; and unless our righteousness exceed theirs in this point, as Christ himself assures us, we shall never enter into his heavenly kingdom.

But even true faith itself, however necessary, is not sufficient alone to make our good works available to salvation; for it is necessary, in the second place, that we be in charity with God, in his friendship and grace, without which even true faith itself will never save us. To be convinced of this, let us only give ear to St. Paul, who says, “Though I should have all faith, so as to remove mountains, though I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, though I should give my body to be burnt, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (I Cor. xiii. 2.) So that, let a man be ever so peaceable, regular, inoffensive, and religious in his way, charitable to the poor, and what else you please, yet if he have not the true faith of Jesus Christ, and be not in charity with God, all his apparent virtues go for nothing; it is impossible for him to please God by them; and if he live and die in that state, they will profit him nothing.

Hence it is manifest that those who die in a false religion, however unexceptionable may be their moral conduct in the eyes of men, yet, as they have not the true faith in Christ, and are not in charity with him, they are not in the way of salvation; for nothing can avail us in Christ but “faith that works by charity." (Gal. v. 6.)

Rev Muller on Pius IX and Invincible Ignorance

2007-07-25T03:47:00.000-07:00

Rev. Muller goes on in section 8 of Chapter 5 of The Catholic Dogma to prove that invincible ignorance is not a means of salvation, and while it does not damn someone, it does not save one either:

"But, suppose," some one will say, "a person, in his inculpable ignorance, believes that he is on the right road to heaven, though he is not a Catholic; he tries his best to live up to the dictates of his conscience. Now, should he die in that state of belief, he would, it seems, be condemned without his fault. We can understand that God is not bound to give heaven to anybody, but, as he is just, he certainly cannot condemn anybody without his fault."

Whatever question may be made still in regard to the great truth in question is sufficiently answered in the explanation already given of this great truth. For the sake of greater clearness, however, we will answer a few more questions. In the answers to these questions we shall be obliged to repeat what has already been said.

Now, as to the question just proposed, we answer with St. Thomas and St. Augustine: "There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and `to whomsoever God gives his grace he gives it out of divine mercy; and to whomsoever he does not give it, he refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin, as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii. art. v.) "And the ignorance of those things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have is without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins," says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)

Moreover, a person who wants to go East, but, by an innocent mistake, gets on a train going West, will, as soon as he finds out his mistake, get off at the next station, and take a train that goes East. In like manner, a person who walked on a road that he, in his inculpable ignorance, believed was the true road to heaven, must leave that road, as soon as he finds out his mistake, and inquire for the true road to heaven. God, in his infinite mercy, will not fail to make him find out, in due time, the true road to heaven, if he corresponds to his grace. Hence we asked the following question in our Familiar Explanation:

"What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity to know better?

To this question we give the following answer: "Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in his infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas.)

S. O. remarks about this answer, "that the author is not theologically correct, for no one will ever be punished through, by, or because of inculpable ignorance." In these words, S. O. impudently imputes to us what we never have asserted, namely, that a man will be damned on account of his inculpable ignorance." From the fact that a person tries to live up to the dictates of his conscience, and cannot sin against the true religion on account of being invincibly ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, making thus invincible ignorance a means of salvation. This conclusion is contra "latius hos quam praemissae." To give an example. The Rev. Nicholas Russo, S. J., professor of philosophy in Boston College, says in his book, The true Religion and its dogmas:—

"This good faith being supposed, we say that such a Christian (he means a baptized Protestant) is in a way a member of the Catholic Church. Ignorance alone is the cause of his not acknowledging the authority of his true mother. The Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger; she calls him her child; she presses him to her maternal heart; through other hands she prepares him to shine in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian; invincible ignorance will, before the tribunal of the just God, ensure the pardon of his errors against faith; and, if nothing else be wanting, heaven will be, his home for eternity." We have already sufficiently refuted these false assertions, and we have quoted them, not for the purpose of refuting them, but for the purpose of denying emphatically what follows after these false assertions, namely: "i>This is the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX.. In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: "It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it."

Now, in which of these words of Pope Pius IX. is any of the above false assertions of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., sanctioned? In which words does Pius IX. say that a Protestant in good faith is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? Does not Pius IX. teach quite the contrary in the following words, which the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., quotes pp. 163-166?

"Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church—which, from the days of Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, has ever exercised, by its lawful pastors, and still does exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord—will easily satisfy himself that none of these societies, singly nor all together, are in any way or form that one Catholic Church which our Lord founded and built, and which he chose should be; and that he cannot by any means say that these societies are members or parts of that Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity...

"Let all those, then, who do not profess the unity and truth of the Catholic Church, avail themselves of the opportunity of this (Vatican) Council, in which the Catholic Church, to which their forefathers belonged, affords a new proof of her close unity and her invincible vitality, and let them satisfy the longings of their hearts, and liberate themselves from that state in which they cannot have any assurance of their own salvation. Let them unceasingly offer fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he will throw down the wall of separation, that he will scatter the darkness of error, and that he will lead them back to the Holy Mother Church, in whose bosom their fathers found the salutary pastures of life, in whom alone the whole doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed."

Now does not Pius IX. say in these words, very plainly and distinctly, that the members of all other religious societies are visibly separated from Catholic unity; that in this state of separation they cannot have salvation; that by fervent prayer, they should beseech God to throw down the wall of separation, to scatter the darkness of error, and lead them to the Mother Church, in which alone salvation is found." And in his Allocution to the Cardinals held Dec. 17, 1847, Pius IX. says: "i>Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her Bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep, and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ's command . . . . . . We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to THIS ONLY ROAD OF TRUTH AND SALVATION." Now does not Pius IX. teach most clearly in these words that the ignorant cannot be saved by their ignorance, but that, in order to be saved, they must come to the only road of truth and salvation, which is the Roman Catholic Church?

Again, does not Pius IX. most emphatically declare, in the words quoted above by the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., that "It is indeed of faith, that NO ONE can be saved out of the Apostolic Roman Church?" How, then, we ask, can the Rev. N. Russo, S. J. say in truth, that a Protestant in good faith, such as he described, is in a way a member of the Catholic Church? that the Catholic Church does not look upon him as wholly a stranger? that she calls him her child, presses him to her maternal heart, prepares him, through other hands, to shine in the kingdom of God? that the profession of a creed different from the true one will not, of itself, bar the gates of heaven before this Christian, etc.? How can this professor of philosophy at the Boston College assert all this, whilst Pius IX teaches the very contrary? And mark especially the scandalous assertion of the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., namely: "This our opinion is the doctrine which has received the sanction of our late Pope Pius IX." To prove his scandalous assertion, he quotes the following words of Pius IX: "It is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it." If, in these words, Pius IX. says what no one calls in question, that invincible ignorance of the true religion excuses a Protestant from the sin of heresy, does Pius IX. thereby teach that such invincibly ignorance saves such a Protestant? Does he teach that invincible ignorance supplies all that is necessary for salvation—all that you can have only in the true faith? How could the Professor of philosophy at the Jesuit College in Boston draw such a false and scandalous conclusion from premises in which it is not contained? Pius IX. has, on many occasions, condemned such liberal opinions. Read his Allocution to the Cardinals, held Dec. 17, 1847, in which he expresses his indignation against all those who had said that he had sanctioned such perverse opinions. "In our times," says he, "many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently—we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us."

Mark well, Pius IX. uttered these solemn words against "certain men," whom he calls the enemies of the Catholic Faith,—he means liberal minded Catholics and priests, as is evident from other Allocutions, in which he says that he has condemned not less than forty times their perverse opinions about religion. Is it not, for instance, a perverse and monstrous opinion, when the Rev. N. Russo, S. J., says: "The spiritual element (of the Church) comprises all the graces and virtues that are the foundation of the spiritual life; it includes the gifts of the Holy Ghost; in other words, it is what theologians call the soul of the Church. (Now follows the monstrous opinion) This mysterious soul is not limited by the bounds of the exterior organization (of the Church); it can go far beyond; exist even in the midst of schism and heresy unconsciously professed, and bind to our Lord hearts that are connected by no exterior ties with the visible Body of the Church. This union with the soul of the Church is essential to salvation; so essential that without it none can be saved. But the necessity of belonging likewise to the Body of the Church, though a real one, may in certain cases offer no obstacle to salvation. This happens whenever invincible ignorance so shrouds a man's intellectual vision, that he ceases to be responsible before God for the light which he does not see"? The refutation of this monstrous opinion is sufficiently given in all we have said before. The very Allocution of Pius IX., from which the Rev. N. Russo quotes, is a direct condemnation of such monstrous opinions. (See Preface)

Now these modern would-be theologians are not ashamed to assure us most solemnly that their opinions are the doctrine held by almost all theologians, and yet they cannot quote one proof from Holy Scripture, or from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, to give the least support to their opinions.

The Rev. N. Russo and S. O. seem not to see the difference between saying: Inculpable ignorance will not save a man, and inculpable ignorance will not damn a man. Each assertion is correct, and yet there is a great difference between the two. It will be an act of charity to enlighten them on the point in question.

Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of sanctifying grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Saviour, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. "Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.) It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation.

But if we say that inculpable ignorance cannot save a man, we thereby do not say that invincible ignorance damns a man. Far from it. To say, invincible ignorance is no means of salvation, is one thing; and to say, invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation is another. To maintain the latter, would be wrong, for inculpable ignorance of the fundamental principles of faith excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy; because such invincible ignorance, being only a simple involuntary privation, is no sin.

Hence Pius IX. said "that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault."

Rev. Muller: Proofs that There Is No Salvation out of the Catholic Church for Those Who Die Without Being United to Her

2007-07-25T03:18:00.000-07:00

Rev. Muller continues his exposition in Chapter V of The Catholic Dogma:

Christ has solemnly declared that only those will be saved, who have done God's will on earth, as explained, not by private interpretation, but by the infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

"Not every one," says Christ, "who saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. vii. 21.)

The will of the heavenly Father is that all men hear and believe his Son, Jesus Christ.

"This is my well beloved Son. Him you shall hear."

Now, Jesus Christ said to his Apostles and to all their lawful successors:

"He that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him, the heavenly Father, that sent me."

Now all those who do not listen to Jesus Christ speaking to them through St. Peter and the Apostles, in their lawful successors, despise God the Father; they do not do his will, and therefore heaven will never be theirs.

What non-Catholic engages a servant who tells him:

"I will serve you on condition that you give me three hundred dollars a month and let me serve you according to my will, not according to yours"?

How, then, could God the Father admit one into his Kingdom, who has always refused to do his will, - who, instead of learning to do the will of God, the full doctrine of Christ, through the Catholic Church, was himself his own teacher, his own lawgiver, his own judge, in all religious matters!

"Go and teach all nations: teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned."

Our divine Saviour says:

"No one can come to the Father, except through me."

If we then wish to enter heaven, we must be united to Christ--to his body, which is the Church, as St. Paul says. Therefore, out of the Church there is no salvation.

Again Jesus Christ says:

"Whoever will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican," a great sinner. Therefore, out of the Church there is no salvation.

Holy Scripture says:

"The Lord added daily to the Church such as should be saved." (Acts, ii. 47.)

Therefore the Apostles believed and the holy Scriptures teach that there is no salvation out of the Church.

Hence the Fathers of the Church never hesitated to pronounce all those forever lost who die out of the Roman Catholic Church: "He who has not the Church for his mother," says St. Cyprian, "cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say that, "as all who were not in the ark of Noe perished in the waters of the Deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church."

St. Augustine and the other bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A. D. 410, say:

"Whosoever is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Therefore, says St. Augustine, "a Christian ought to fear nothing so much as to be separated from the body of Christ (the Church). For, if he be separated from the body of Christ, he is not a member of Christ; if not a member of Christ, he is not quickened by his Spirit." (Tract. xxvii. in Joan., n. 6, col. 1992, tom. iii.)

"In our times," says Pius IX., "many of the enemies of the Catholic faith direct their efforts toward placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite of late, we shudder to say it, certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind, as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us." (Allocution to the Cardinals, held on Dec. 17, 1847.)

We may also add here that Pope Leo XIII., in his Encyclical Letter to the Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria, teaches, as Pastor of the Universal Church, that "submission to the Pope is necessary to salvation."

"How grateful then," says St. Alphonsus, "ought we to be to God for the gift of the true faith. How great is not the number of infidels, heretics, and schismatics. The world is full of them, and, if they die out of the Church, they will all be condemned, except infants who die after baptism." (Catech. first command. No. 10 and 19.) Because, as St.Augustine says, where there is no divine faith, there can be no divine charity, and where there is no divine charity, there can be no justifying or sanctifying grace, and to die without being in sanctifying grace, is to be lost forever. ( Lib. I. Serm. Dom. in monte, cap. V.)

This faith, as we have already seen, the Church teaches very plainly in the profession of faith which she requires converts to make before they are received into the Church; the very first article reads as follows:

"I, N. N., having before my eyes the holy Gospel which I touch with my hand, and knowing that no one can be saved without that faith which the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church holds, believes and teaches, against which I grieve that I have greatly erred," etc.

So it is evident that there is no salvation out of the Church.

Rev Muller: Catholic Faith Necessary for Salvation

2007-07-25T02:58:00.000-07:00

Debating errors is useful, but drinking from the fountain of Tradition is truly essential. This post opens a series of excerpts from the book The Catholic Dogma by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R. The whole publication is available at:

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/The_Catholic_Dogma/index.html

Here is a note on the author, published on the blog Semper Fidelis:
http://ecceagnusdei.blogspot.com/2005/08/questions-and-answers-on-salvation-by.html

Many people today are unaware of Father Michael Muller. Father Muller was regarded as one of the finest and most widely read theologians during the nineteenth century. He wrote powerful books such as "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" (Tan) and was known as a strong defender of the dogma that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Father Muller simply didn't write down his thoughts and submit them for public consumption. He carefully did his homework and, as a skilled theologian, made sure his writings were in line with what the Church has always taught through her two sacred sources, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. As a matter of fact, Father Muller submitted his writings to two Redemptorist theologians and to his religious superiors before publication!

Here is a portion from Chapter II, entitled "The Infallible and Only True Guide to Heaven", discussing what faith is required for salvation:

Hence it has always been, from the beginning, absolutely necessary for salvation to know, by divine faith, God as the Creator of heaven and earth and the eternal Rewarder of the good and the wicked, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, and consequently the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity; "For he that cometh to God," says St. Paul, "must believe that he is, and is a rewarder of those who seek him." (Heb. xi. 6.) Upon these words of the great Apostle, Cornelius a Lapide comments as follows:

"The knowledge of God acquired from the contemplation of the world teaches only that God is the Author of the world and of all natural blessings, and that only these natural goods can be obtained and asked of him. But God wishes to be honored and loved by men, not only as the Author of natural goods, but also as the Author of the supernatural and everlasting goods in the world to come; and no one can in any other way come to him and to his friendship, please him, and be acceptable to him. Hence true, divine faith is necessary, because it is only by the light of divine faith that we know God, not only as the Author of nature, but also as the Author of grace and eternal glory; and therefore the Apostle says that to know that there is a God, who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, is to know him as such, not only from natural knowledge, and belief, but also from supernatural knowledge and divine faith.

"But if St. Paul speaks here only of these two great truths, it does by no means follow, that he wishes to teach that the supernatural knowledge of these two truths only and divine faith in them are sufficient to obtain justification, that is, to obtain the grace to become the children of God; but they are necessary in order to be greatly animated with hope in undergoing hard labors and struggles for the sake of virtue. However, to obtain the grace of justification, we must also believe other supernatural truths, especially the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ and that of the Moat Holy Trinity." (Comm. in Ep. ad Heb., ix. 6.)

"Some theologians," says St. Alphonsus, "hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be saved." (First Command. No. 8.) According to St. Augustine (De Praedest. Sanctorum C. 15.) and other Theologians, the predestination, election, and Incarnation of Christ alone were owing, not to the foreseen merit of any one, not even to that of Christ himself, but only to the good pleasure of God. However, the predestination of all men in general, or the election of some in preference to others, is all owing to the merit of Christ, on account of which God has called all men to life everlasting and gives them sufficient grace to obtain it, if they make a proper use of his grace, especially that of prayer.

"That faith," says the same great Doctor of the Church , "is sound, by which we believe that neither any adult nor infant could be delivered from sin and the death of the soul, except by Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man." ( Ep. 190, olim 157, parum a principio.) Hence St Thomas says: Almighty God decreed from all eternity the mystery of the Incarnation, in order that men might obtain salvation through Christ. It was therefore necessary at all times, that this mystery of the Incarnation should, in some manner, be explicitly believed. Undoubtedly, that means is necessarily a truth of faith, by which man obtains salvation. Now men obtain salvation by the mystery of the Incarnation and Passion of Christ; for it is said in the Holy Scripture: "There is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved." (Acts, iv. 10.) Hence it was necessary at all times that the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ should be believed by all men in some manner (aliqualiter, either implicitly or explicitly), however, in a different way, according to the circumstances, of times and persons.

(...)

But if a man act according to the dictates of his conscience, and follow exactly the light of reason which God has implanted in him for his guide, is that not sufficient to bring him to salvation?

"This is, indeed," says Bishop Hay, "a specious proposition; but a fallacy lurks under it. When man was created, his reason was then an enlightened reason. Illuminated by the grace of original righteousness, with which his soul was adorned, reason and conscience were safe guides to conduct him in the way of salvation. But by sin this light was miserably darkened, and his reason clouded by ignorance and error. It was not, indeed, entirely extinguished; it still clearly teaches him many great truths, but it is at present so influenced by pride, passion, prejudice, and other such corrupt motives, that in many instances it serves only to confirm him in error, by giving an appearance of reason to the suggestions of self-love and passion. This is too commonly the case, even in natural things; but in the supernatural, in things relating to God and eternity, our reason, if left to itself, is miserably blind. To remedy this, God has given us the light of faith as a sure and safe guide to conduct us to salvation, appointing his holy Church the guardian and depository of this heavenly light; consequently, though a man may pretend to act according to reason and conscience, and even flatter himself that he does so, yet reason and conscience, if not enlightened and guided by true faith, can never bring him to salvation.

"Nothing can be more striking than the words of Holy Scripture on this subject. ‘There is a way,' says the wise man, ‘that seemeth right to a man, but the ends thereof lead to death.' (Prov. xiv. 10.) What can be more plain than this, to show that a man may act according to what he thinks the light of reason and conscience, persuaded he is doing right, and yet, in fact, he is only running on in the way to perdition! And dot not all those who are seduced by false prophets, and false teachers, think they are in the right way? Is it not under the pretext of acting according to conscience that they are seduced? and yet the mouth of truth itself has declared, that 'if the blind lead the blind; both shall fall into the pit.' (Mat. xv. 14.) In order to show us to what excess of wickedness man may go under the pretence of following his conscience, the same Eternal Truth says to his apostles, ' the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth God a service;' (John xvi. 2.) but observe what he adds, - 'And these things will they do because they have not known the Father nor me.' (Ib. 3.) Which shows that, if one has not the true knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which can be obtained only through true faith in the Church, there is no enormity of which he is not capable while thinking he is acting according to reason and conscience. Had we only the light of reason to direct us, we would be justified in following it; but as God has given us an external guide in his holy Church, to assist and correct our blinded reason by the light of faith; our reason alone, unassisted by this guide, can never be sufficient for salvation.

"Nothing will set this in a clearer light than a few examples. Conscience tells a heathen that it is not only lawful, but a duty, to worship and offer sacrifice to idols, the work of men's hands. Will his doing so, according to his conscience, save him? or will these sets of idolatry be innocent or agreeable in the sight of God, because they are performed according to conscience? ' The idol that is made by hands is cursed, as well as he that made it; . . . for that which is made, together with him that made it, shall suffer torments.' (Wis. xiv. 8, 10.) Also, ‘He that sacrificeth to gods shall be put to death, save only to the Lord.' (Exod. xxii. 20.) In like manner, a Jew's conscience tells him that he may lawfully and meritoriously blaspheme Jesus Christ, and approve the conduct of his forefathers in putting him to death upon a tree. Will such blasphemy save him, because it is according to the dictates of his conscience? The Holy Ghost, by the mouth of St. Paul, says, 'If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema,' that is, 'accursed.’ (I. Cor. xvi. 22.) A Mahometan is taught by his conscience that it would be a crime to believe in Jesus Christ, and not believe in Mahomet; will this impious conscience save him? The Scripture assures us that 'there is no other name given to men under heaven by which we can be saved,' but the name of Jesus only; and ‘he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remaineth on him.’ All the various sects which have been separated from the true Church, in every age, have uniformly calumniated and slandered her, speaking evil of the truth professed by her, believing in their conscience that this was not only lawful, but highly meritorious. Will calumnies and slanders against the Church of Jesus Christ save them because of their approving conscience? The Word of God declares, ‘That the nation and the kingdom that will not serve her shall perish;' and ‘there shall be lying teachers who shall bring in damnable heresies, bringing upon themselves swift destruction, . . . through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.' (II. Pet. ii. 1.) In all these, and similar cases, their conscience is their greatest crime, and shows to what a height of impiety conscience and reason can lead us, when under the influence of pride, passion, prejudice, and self-love. Conscience and reason, therefore, can never be safe guides to salvation, unless directed by the sacred light of revealed truth."

Where Is the Church From Before 1963?

2007-07-25T02:08:00.000-07:00

This is the last installment of the series on the controversy with the advocates of 'unknown ways' of joining the Catholic Church such as implicit baptism of desire. Interestingly, the case for EENS turned out to depend on accepting one letter, Suprema haec sacra, of 1949, discussing the case of Fr. Feeney. I posted the exchange almost in full so as to demonstrate the difficulty of discussing the issue with the Catholics strongly committed to the Vatican II. I will post my comments on the exchange later, should time permit.

Peter Albert said...

PJP, you raised a very important question--where is the Church? Now, I suppose this is according to you a very simple question to answer, but it was not always so easy to answer, and I'll just bring up two historical cases when it was as difficult:

a) Athanasius vs. Arius

b) Great Western Schism.

In the first case, actually the Arian bishops ruled their dioceses and yet they lost their jurisdiction due to heresy.

In the second case, there were saints who supported in good faith papal claimants who later turned out to be antipopes.

Now, one lesson we might draw is that both issues were not seen at the time in the light they came to be seen by historians. So what were Catholics to do in those times? Use the means of salvation of the Church and convert the non-Catholics to the Catholic faith (again the Athanasian Creed comes in handy).

PJP, to close my position on the EENS, I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.If we are to continue the discussion, I have one condition--that we do not go off on tangents such as the Vatican II vs. pre-Vatican II teaching (for that reason I quoted the opening address of John XXIII who clearly denied the possibility that the council could change the meaning of the established dogma).

Let me end in the following way: imagine that the modernists would want to compromise on the dogma of immaculate conception of Blessed Virgin and would find that indeed Thomas Aquinas had denied that truth (when it was still not defined)--how would you react if not the way I reacted? Would you try to find all the ways in which this 'broader interpretation' could be accommodated or would you say, no, that's it, that's clearly outside the Catholic tradition?Peter

July 24, 2007 3:11 PM
PJP said...

Fair treatment, Peter? You aren’t giving yourself a fair treatment by quoting such things out of context, are you? Are you giving Vatican II fair treatment? Are you giving the Dimond Bros fair treatment? Baptism of desire? Ecumenical Councils? The Church? Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail?

First of all, you neglect many of the questions I have posed to you. I wonder why? What do you mean by “exclusive salvation”?

Second, what you accept of Suprema Haec Sacra supports the entire document as what “must be understood in that sense in which the Church [NOT Peter Albert] herself understands it.” Don’t you see what you’re doing? You taking what you want to read and not reading the entire context of what the Church teaches. This has led you to make false conclusions.

Furthermore, you quote a non-infallible theologian, Fr. Fenton, to tell you an authoritative document is not itself infallible. Well, that doesn’t make sense, does it? Are we as catholic ONLY to submit to those statements that carry an infallible character? Is that the traditional Catholic way?

All your other “traditional resources” (Haydoc, Most Holy Family Monastery, etc) carry no infallibility either, do they, Peter? No. You are relying on sources (for EENS that negate the foundation of EENS. What?) without looking to the foundation and fundamental source of EENS, the Catholic Church and HER way of understanding it. So it seems like you are contracting yourself.

You do not reply to the entirety of Unitatis Redintegratio no. 3? Why is that? You have also failed to answer my questions regarding the salvation of only those who are formal members of the Church. Peter, does one have to be in a Catholic pew to be saved? No, you simply say that I call the Dimond Bros. “dangerous.” Well, I say that because it is true. They wrench quotes out of context all the time, condemning Christ's vicars since Vatican II as apostates and heretics and you’ll be following their example, if you're not already, if you are not vigilant. Please beware. Do your homework and don't trust the Brothers Dimond. Yes, Peter, there is only one acceptable faith, and that is the Catholic faith. But there is extraordinary and ordinary means by which to come to such faith? Yet does faith alone save? No one is contending that here.

Peace, PJP

July 24, 2007 3:25 PM
Peter Albert said...

Dear PJP,I'm not calling for fair treatment, but frankly you are a second discussant who, after being presented with the evidence, exclaimed that the gates of hell have not prevailed and that he cannot accept that the Vatican II documents could contain error (although I had not advanced such an argument in the discussion).

Since you are a fellow Catholic by virtue of baptism and the sacraments, I don't just want to quit the discussion and instead respond with all sincerity.I have quoted extensively infallible statements of the popes from Leo to Pius XII to illustrate the concept of 'exclusive salvation' -- if you don't like the term, I'll settle for 'the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation'.

Before you raised a number of issues dealing with the magisterium, permanence of the dogma and the boundaries of the church, I merely pointed out the main problem with Mr. Sungenis' alternative to the sacrament of baptism--namely the danger of staying in mortal sin when one does not have access to sacramental confession. It's a serious pastoral issue, and one that should concern us as Catholics as well--we cannot just stake everything on the perfect contrition.

PJP, Catholic faith is a POSITIVE system of theology and you have so far demonstrated a negation of a string of quotes from the Popes and Councils. Your only reference is the letter Suprema haec sacra, which, although authoritative (i.e. valid in the matter of discipline) is not a source of doctrine! For one, it was not addressed by the Pope to the entire Church with the purpose of teaching doctrine or morals. Hence, it had the authority of the Congregation yet it did not define doctrine, but merely it elucidated it. If it was not ex cathedra, error could creep in there. Haven't you heard, PJP, of the Popes who made theological errors in private? John XXII is one of them. (not John XXIII, but XXII, check it out for yourself). Vatican I does not provide for unlimited infallibility, as we know :) -- now that would be a stumbling block for the separated brethren, wouldn't it.

Why do you want me to discuss the interpretation of the Vatican II decrees and documents, if they are only being interpreted now, and John Paul II and Benedict XVI blamed all the liturgical and doctrinal abuse on the 'misunderstanding' of the Council. Sorry, my job was to alert to the danger of the idea of 'baptism of desire' which indeed goes all the way back to Augustine, Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas, but is not stated explicitly in a single ex cathedra papal statement. Did I say that Vatican II decrees and documents contain heresy? No, I didn't. Did I say that Vatican II has any bearing on the dogma that has been defined earlier? I believe the opposite since it can be shown that the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation was established earlier, and the definition of a dogma cannot be made less strict (unlike the discipline)--see the Trinity--the subsequent councils developed, i.e. made more clear and explicit, the dogma, but never made it more ambiguous. The documents of Vatican II do not make the meaning more restrictive--rather allow for multiple interpretations. And we agree on the latter point. As a result, you should not blame me for opting for discussing the issue on the basis of the more restrictive statements since there are such statements in the deposit of the faith. It is really a methodological question and does not imply anything in the discussion on Vatican II.

July 24, 2007 3:50 PM
Peter Albert said...

One more issue, PJP.You keep on pressing me on giving a verdict as to who 'only' is saved. I responded earlier that while God wants to save all, and Jesus' redemption applies to all, not all apply the means of salvation! Moreover, I clearly made sure that I do not believe in the assurance of salvation the Calvinist way, and provided an entire passage of a very respectable spiritual work by Fr. Cochem in which he demonstrated the need to 'tremble' about our salvation. So we know that not all the Catholics in the pew are going to be saved.

However, you seem not to be satisfied with the answer. In that case, I must resort to a very important part of the Catholic theology--which is--mystery. Yes, indeed. The discussions between Thomists and Mollinists on predestination were never resolved and the Pope even put a stop to the debate.You seem to shift the debate from the question 'what saves'--the answer 'Catholic faith' to 'how can we know who is saved'.

The answer to this one is twofold: a. negative--wheat and tares--not all members of the visible Church will be saved, b. positive--we, the people, don't see the extent of the invisible Church, and only in heaven will we get a glimpse.

Having said all this, do you agree that the Holy Ghost brings good-willed people to the Catholic faith? And that God wills all the people to come to the Catholic Church? If you answer yes to both questions, I have no further argument.
Peter

July 24, 2007 4:03 PM
PJP said...

Peter

“I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is.”

Nice try, Peter, but we are only “totally entitled” as long as our understanding is consonant with what the Church teaches [Not what Bros Diamond or Peter Albert teaches]. We cannot have our own renditions of what a dogma means, holding to the Council of Florence as the only clear teaching on EENS, negating the Church’s understanding of her dogma. Again, there is an entire context and corpus of thought and we must see the way the Church understands EENS. You seem to bypass that corpus and hold to only a portion of it. That portion you quote from the Diamond Bros. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.

I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents.Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty.

You in fact negate: You “negate” baptism of desire/blood. You negate the teaching of Vatican II as authoritative. You negate the fact that we must submit to statements that do not fall under your/Diamond brothers discernment of what is “ex cathedra”. Btw, who are you to discern how much error there may be within a document that is not “ex cathedra”? You are the negating.

Of course, I agree that the Holy Spirit brings people to the Catholic Church and that God wills such return. Who would disagree with that? But again, the way that one is brought to Catholic faith goes beyond formal membership or participation in the formal act of reception of a sacrament, doesn’t it? Read Roman 2:14-16 again, Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42–43.

It seems like you’re pushing some stringent view of EENS which is not in accord with the entirety of Catholic thought, while “negating” other aspects of catholic thought that complement, not negate, the teaching of popes and councils that you bring forward.God bless,PJP

(...)

July 24, 2007 9:28 PM
Peter Albert said...

Dear PJP,This time I will quote you: "I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents. Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty."

Since "it doesn't hill of beans" and you have "stated" that my conclusions based on my "good" quotes are "faulty", I understand that you have closed the discussion.I am sorry I took the title of your site too strictly (pun intended). It turned out that Mr. Sungenis' belief in an 'anonymous Christian' going back to Karl Rahner is more consonant with centuries of Catholic belief.

Actually, I don't hold this position against you. The issue here does not seem to be the use of sources or a form of argument... but with drawing any conclusions whatsoever from the fact that 'there was Catholic Church before 1963'.

I have not reviewed other discussions on your blog, but if the other discussions are handled as this one was--i.e. opponents are accused of dishonest use of sources and (incredibly for a blog that seemed to stress that 'there was Church before 1963) bashed for not submitting to A (single) document, then how are you going to help restore the Church? To what state?

The irony is that while I toiled to try to make myself understood and build an argument, you resorted to ad hominem shortcuts--such as 'whoever makes a link to the site of the Dimond Brothers is by definition wrong'. Well, I made a link to your blog as well as to anyone who seems to care to discuss the EENS.

You seem to have a zeal to defend the Catholic Church against people like myself, and yet you have not shown a single argument that would show why the strict interpretation of the EENS is less safe for salvation than the idea presented by Mr. Sungenis that there are 'unknown ways' in which people become Catholic even without knowing it.

PJP, I tried to show that Mr. Sungenis used sloppy argumentation and drew conclusions that discourage evangelisation--I rest my case.

How to Use the Magisterium? Responding to a Critique

2007-07-24T22:03:00.000-07:00

Predictably, the discussion with PJP shifted to the question of the validity of Vatican II documents and actually my first post "Where Is the Catholic Church" got quoted! Here follows the continuation of my exchange with the host of the blog Recapturing the Catholic Patrimony:

PJP said...

In your comments you question the validity of baptism of desire (which lies within the tradition of the Church as form of the sacrament of baptism) and you read/interpret the Council of Florence out of context (out of the corpus of Catholic thought and interpretation of the EENS dogma), placing such a statement above later statements reiterating EENS. It seems you have placed yourself as the arbiter and interpreter of the magisterium. This is quite dangerous, and I’m sincerely concerned for you.

You seem to frequently employ the term “exclusive salvation” as some “traditional message” or teaching of the Church. But is your rendition of exclusivism truly an aspect of Catholic Tradition? What do you mean by such a term? You state on your blog: “Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.” Peter Albert, this is what is known as a false dichotomy – a false option set up which is not consonant with Catholic thought. You do this again and again in your comments, making the salvation matter a black and white issue. Yes, ALL salvation come to the world through the Catholic Church (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, CCC 846), but the grace of salvation which emanates from the Church reaches people in both ordinary (sacraments) and extraordinary (ways unknown) means. The latter is unknown to us as noted in the Catechism no. 848. But in my estimation you probably don’t accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

Furthermore, you tell Wendy that she deserves to be “served the wealth of Catholic dogma.” I agree with you that all Catholics need to know and understand Catholic dogma and that much of it has been twisted or hidden today. Yet WHO is to do the serving? Are we to serve ourselves or are we to look to those God has placed in places of authority – the Magisterium (See. Matt. 23)? I’m not pushing for magisterial positivism (“Well, they say so, so it must be true.”), for I encourage a critical study of the faith in the context of Tradition, examining the current crisis we are in, but you’re taking the EENS matter into your own hands, divorcing in from the living magisterium of Christ’s Church.

What do you think about the Holy Office’s response to the Feeney issue as posted by Matt above? This is pre-Vatican II. Do you accept it as authoritative? You accept the Council of Florence as authoritative but you deny the same level of authority to Vatican II. Why is that?

On your blog you state: “The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.” Yet you never answer the title of the post, “Where is the Catholic Church?” Where is it, Peter?

Peter, you also misinterpret Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio. It does not say that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church contra the sacred dogma of faith. It simply says that they are elements of the Church are found in protestant and orthodox communities and those Catholic elements can lead one to salvation. Hence, the elements are Catholic and connected to the one Mystical Body of Christ, noting that salvation still comes from the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It seems like you’re looking for contradictions that aren’t there.

You fail to quote the next section of UR no. 3 which clarifies the earlier section you take out of context. Here is the clarification:

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college ALONE, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be FULLY incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.

This blog does not preach universal salvation or your stringent idea of exclusivism, but it does recognize the entire Magisterium of the Church. You are wrenching things out of context, Peter, and this has led you to come to conclusions that are not consonant with the Faith of our Fathers.

All the best in Christ,
PJP

PS: On a last note, I saw that you link to the Holy Family Monastery of the Diamond Brothers. Please beware. Run away as fast as you can. These guys are in grave and obstinate error.
July 24, 2007 2:11 PM

Peter Albert said...
Dear PJP,

Unless we argue issues, we will call names--you managed to call the Dimonds 'dangerous' while earlier you stated that 'certainly' Sungenis believes in the necessity of sacrament of baptism.

Dear PJP, you imply that I distort the magisterium by imputing me the position of 'an arbiter', and yet note that I responded to each of your questions and theses (such as Romans 2:14-16 or 1 Timothy 2:4) by reference to traditional Catholic sources.

And I'll do the same to tackle the infamous Protocol 122/49, Suprema haec sacra. Well-known theologian of the time (and supporter of the position expressed in the Protocol) John (sic! should read Joseph) Clifford Fenton said the following on the relevance of the letter to the dogma of EENS in his book The Catholic Church and Salvation, published in 1958 (p. 103):

"This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra [Protocol 122/49], ... is an authoritative, though obviously not infallible document. That is to say, the teachings in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document."

I agree with one point in the Suprema haec sacra:

"the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is nosalvation outside the Church. However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.”

Since you imply that I am prejudiced against the recent pronouncements on EENS, I'll supply the 20-th century Pope, Pius XII's' statements:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943: “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laverof regeneration and profess the true faith.”

Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947: “In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration."

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter ofa few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the RomanCatholic Church are one and the same. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation."

Do you see, PJP, where I got the expression with which to address Mr. Sungenis' presentation? However, since I could be branded a self-styled 'arbiter' of the magisterium, I'll leave those quotes up there without a comment for you to figure out whether in fact Pius XII condemned the heresy of Feeneyism.

Let me address another of your concerns up front. You are asserting that the choice I posit 'either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith' is a false dichotomy. Again, I must resort to a quote that actually supports only one alternative of the two:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

This reiterates the Athanasian Creed, and is the unchanging expression of the Catholic faith.I hope that I'll get fair treatment of the quotes I put up for defence of my position and that you state your position as well instead of warning of the danger of certain doctrines or people.Peter

July 24, 2007 2:45 PM

Why Do Non-Catholics Read the Church's Position Better Than Do the Vatican II Apologists?

2007-07-24T21:53:00.000-07:00

Well, the debate at http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html brought some fruit. It was also a chance for me to reflect on the problem that the apologists of Vatican II have with the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Wendy said...
Well said Peter Albert. Kudos! You are obviously and learned man and well versed with the Traditions and documents (as well as Councils) of the Church. Please continue to post here. Thanks again!

July 24, 2007 10:39 AM
Peter Albert said...

Dear Wendy, no, I'm just a beginner in Catholic theology, but I've spent too much of my time searching for the truth outside of the Catholic Church to be satisfied with sloppy use of terms or easy labelling. I don't care if it's Mr. Sungenis who needs to be refuted if he fails to address key issues of salvation, instead unravelling the dogma so as to divide the Church! I'm sorry but it seems to me that many of the critics of the strict interpretation of the EENS would rather anathematize their fellow Catholics than tell the non-Catholics openly that they are lost if they do not use the Catholic Church's means of salvation.

You know, I spent the last couple of days reviewing the reactions to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith's recent explanation in the blogosphere. It is very illuminating that 90% of the non-Catholics got the message that the Cathollic Church insists on the traditional message of exclusive salvation, while 90% of the Catholic bloggers went an extra mile to disabuse their non-Catholic friends of even a hint that they should accept such a 'radical' interpretation...

In my blog http://breviary.blogspot.com I listed all the resources and blog references to EENS that I could find. I did this because I found this amazing that the necessity to convert to the Catholic Church (even if we grant that one is culpable if one rejects that option knowing this) was consistently swept under the carpet of PC terms. In my first post, I admitted that I would not have returned to the Catholic faith if I had not seen the absurdity of universal salvation--that God did not care about people's ideas about Him or that He could be worshipped any way since what mattered was either personal righteousness or even worse the believer's feelings towards God. If I had believed that God was a sentimental 'good uncle' I would not have had a clue that He required to be glorified and that my sins offended Him as the Lord.Dear Wendy, don't let anyone corner you with the label of a 'heretic' or a 'Feeneyite'--as a lay Catholic you deserve to be served the wealth of the Catholic dogma that is our standard for knowing what to believe. The Catholic dogma is immutable and just as the laws of physics, mathematics or nature are immune to any politicking, so are the infallible pronouncements of the Popes and Councils. At another forum, I was served a ridiculous (though dangerous) argument that the Council of Florence's definitions of the Church were aimed to settle contemporary issues--on those grounds for instance some claim that the Protestants are not covered by Eugene IV's statements on 'schismatics'--since those concerned only those who had separated from the Church by that time.

To reiterate Augustine, if it wasn't for the infallible pronouncements of the Church, I wouldn't know what to believe. For the above reasons, I'm not going to engage in the recent debates as to how 'conservative' the recent declarations of the Vatican are--most of them unfortunately are worded so ambiguously that they allow multiple interpretations. And I'm not saying that this tendency has started with Vatican II--in fact the 'aggiornamento' of John XXIII dates back to the liberal currents of thoughts which were well described in the Syllabus and parts of which were condemned under the terms 'modernism' and 'Americanism'.

Frankly, I might be among the few who miss the times when the fundamental questions of the Christian faith were matters of theological debates and so helped clarify the understanding of the Church. How far more concerned with the dogma was the Church at the time of Nicea, Ephesus or Chalcedon? I'm here fighting the battle for revisiting of the Church's teaching on its means of grace, but we need to seriously attack the reemerging Pelagianism and forms of Arianism.

Thank you once again, Wendy, for your kind words. I hope that this more personal intervention should serve as a sort of introduction as to why I believe what I believe.

Charity Compels Us to Warn Non-Catholics Against Staying Outside of the Church

2007-07-23T12:50:00.000-07:00

This is another part of the debate that I held with PJP, the host of the blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963. It refers to the earlier post on this blog Is It Necessary to Convert to the Catholic Church To Be Saved?

The entire exchange can be found at:

http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

Peter Albert said...

Responding to your question whether I believe that the document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church" 'truly represents the Catholic and Apostolic faith', I'd like to make two caveats:

a) the document does not claim infallibility in itself (i.e. it does not elucidate the deposit of the faith in a new fashion, but instead rests on the declarations of Vatican II, as I will show,

b) its relevance for the Catholic faithful depends on the extent to which it conforms to the principle, stated by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council. By the way, this quote is taken from the very document I'm discussing here (though it's tucked into a footnote so it might be a fine-print caveat :)):

"The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained."

I will be blunt. I don't have half as much problem with the expression that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (provided that we understand that the Catholic Church indeed was, is, and will be the Church of Christ) as with the following statement that this document quotes verbatim from the Unitatis redintegratio decree of the Vatican II council:

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church".

John XXIII's opening address stresses that no council may go contrary to the deposit of the faith, as expressed in the infallible statements of the popes and earlier councils approved by the popes. Does the Unitatis redintegratio decree only express but not distort the meaning of the deposit of the faith as stated in Eugene IV's infallible statement that I quoted in my earlier response?

"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; that 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."

Of course, since according to your blog's title, Catholicism existed before 1963, I should be able to reconcile the Council of Florence with the Unitatis redintegratio. I could try and state the orthodox dogma that the Holy Ghost operates outside the Catholic Church but that only the Catholic Church has the effective sacraments and thus is God's instrument of salvation. But this is not how it was understood not by laymen, but by key figures in the post-Council drive for ecumenism. I cite these just as examples:

In an interview given to the Italian newspaper Adista, Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that since Vatican II "we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a 'return', by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being Catholics." (February 26, 2001)

Cardinal Ratzinger directly contradicted Eugene IV's unequivocal statement that the Jews would not be saved as long as they remained outside the Catholic Church when he expressed his belief in an interview to the Zenit agency that "a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved." (September 5, 2000)

Finally, John Paul II openly denied the necessity of entering the Catholic Church for salvation since, in his words: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church" (Redemptoris Missio #10, December 7, 1990).

What should I make of these as a lay Catholic? Should I stop preaching to the Jews since they 'don't need to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God', or should I give up on converting the Eastern Orthodox since they need not 'return to being Catholics'?

No. I should do neither of these things. Is it because I pride myself like a Pharisee that I am not 'one of those people'? No--this would condemn me and give a scandal to those around me. Is it because I know they will be lost if I do not seek to convert them? No, God might apply supernatural means. It is because I should be charitable and not keep the treasure of Catholic faith just to myself, which is the only sure (though difficult) way, the only one that has been guaranteed that would fail not (Matthew 16:18).

Do I glee over the sorry state of the Church, in which for decades the pastors have preferred to be 'ecumenical' rather than point in truth the danger of remaining outside the Church, the ark of salvation? No, I am most grieved.

Am I hopeful that the truth of the 'narrow gate' and the necessity to submit to the Roman pontiff (Unam Sanctam bull of Boniface VIII) is going to awaken many non-Catholics to the reflection and to return to the Catholic Church? Yes, I am!

I am reminded daily by St. Paul that "charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth" and that "there remain faith, hope, charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians 13:6.13)

Recapitulating, the problem of many Vatican II statements is not even for the Catholics who know the theology and can see through the ambiguities and fuzzy language thanks to their sensus catholicus. The real problem is that some people who might convert if they were faced with the requirement to do so, have been lulled into believing that they might just as well stay outside. How many of those could die in their mortal sins without getting absolved?

I feel I can only respond by referring to this terrible verse of Ezekiel that places the responsibility on us who already know where the medicine is:

"But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. (...) But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul." (Ezekiel 3:19.21)

So, all in all, we don't have the choice but warn both the wicked and the just that they may not sin. And we know how we may be in and remain in sanctifying grace--it is a gift from God that He has given his Church "the instrument of salvation". And so there is "one faith, one church, one baptism for the salvation of all."

Righteous Pagans and Uncertainty of Salvation

2007-07-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

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?

Baptism of Desire at the Council of Trent? Refuting Mr. Sungenis

2007-07-23T08:49:00.000-07:00

The blog Recapturing Our Catholic Patrimony: Because Catholicism Existed Before 1963 features a discussion on Robert Sungenis' apology of 'baptism of desire'.

Mr. Sungenis' presentation can be viewed at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXvn0Sqam7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riUk9RqaE7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0v0ZYIqnhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45foZDKg7PI

I was asked by the host to explain what I meant when stating that "Mr. Sungenis made the dogma meaningless"

The intervention is posted at: http://rcpstudy.blogspot.com/2007/05/outside-church-there-is-no-salvation.html

For those interested in further arguments against the hypothesis of 'baptism of desire', being based on reading of the Council of Trent, are advised to follow the source of my quotations from the Council and from Pope St. Leo the Great's letter--Peter and Michael Dimonds' book Outside the Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, available on their website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf

July 23, 2007 9:04 AM
Peter Albert said...
I'm sorry but it's curious in the first place why Mr. Sungenis would deliver all his talk and then conclude that the Church did not define the 'desire' in 'baptism of desire' and that the whole issue had been phrased by Trent in a 'roundabout way' so that the faithful should draw their own conclusions. I'm afraid this is a pretty Protestant way of handling dogmas. In fact, when the speaker claims that 'unless' in John 3:5 should not be taken in the strict sense, I'd like to point to two sources. First, Haydock's commentary to John 3:5 says that "The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Aug. in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ's adding water , is excluded a metaphorical baptism." (page 1397).

What is worse Mr. Sungenis goes on to use the expression 'and a desire for it' of Session 6, Chap. 4, of the Council of Trent in the sense which seems to exclude the necessity of sacramental baptism even though the text of the canon continues 'as it is written' and quotes John 3:5. However, another canon (Session 7, Can. 2 on the Sacrament of Baptism) does not allow a metaphorical understanding of John 3:5:

"If anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’, are distorted into some sort of metaphor: let him be anathema.”

Still, Mr. Sungenis boldly proceeds that the mere addition 'or a desire for it' "puts a totally different twist" on the issue and eliminates the 'physical' aspect. Is this a safe argument to present to the faithful? Far from it when one considers another quote from Session 6, Chap. 7 on the Causes of Justification:

"The causes of this Justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ… the efficient cause is truly a merciful God… the meritorious cause is His most beloved and only‐begotten Son… the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without faith no one is ever justified… This faith, in accordance with apostolic tradition, catechumens beg of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for faith which bestows life eternal…"

Wouldn't it also be nice if Mr. Sungenis mentioned that in general agreement of the theologians the baptism of desire is not a form of the sacrament of baptism? And he would be wise to consider the unity of the baptism as indicated by Pope St. Leo the Great who, in the dogmatic letter to Flavian, mentioned: "the spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism" and stated that "these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others."

The above quote should alert to the likelihood of reading Sess. 6, Chap. 4 in the meaning that "justification of the impious ... cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" so that BOTH water AND desire are necessary for the baptism to effect the justification.

I am in general wondering what the point of Mr. Sungenis' lecture is in the congregation of Catholics? Does it reinforce the believers' faith in the mission of the Church? Hardly. Would a non-Catholic stepping into the congregation be impelled to convert to the Catholic Church? Given Mr. Sungenis' emphasis on the 'second option' -- I doubt it.

I would rather expect Mr. Sungenis to point out why 'there is no salvation outside the Church', to explain the significance of the dogma to the faithful and non-Catholics. Mr. Sungenis places too much emphasis on the individual's personal relationship with God on the path of salvation, and fails to elaborate the initial topic of the unique 'power of the keys' to the Church.

Finally, is it edifying for the faith to opt for a more 'liberal' or ambiguous reading of the Councils and Popes when there is a probable reading that is more 'restrictive'? I leave this judgment to you. For the above reasons, I must stick to my original assertion that Mr. Sungenis 'made the dogma meaningless'.However the irony is that by Mr. Sungenis' own judgment he himself may be the victim of 'invincible ignorance' and that would not matter in assessing his theological argument a bit since he had the best of intentions, right?

Debating the Salvation of non-Catholics and Catholic Charity Towards Them

2007-07-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

Here is the exchange that I had with a certain Theocoid (with additional intervention of another paricipant). The entire debate and the original post can be found at Father Martin Fox's Bonfire of the Vanities blog at:

http://frmartinfox.blogspot.com/2007/07/post-for-feeneyites.html

"July 14, 2007
Peter Albert said...

Well, before Fr. Feeney, there was Pope Eugene IV who said in 1441:"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; that 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."

This not only asserts the need to be united to the Church before death but also affirms that valid sacraments are effective for salvation only "in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church". And if one jumps to the conclusion that non-Catholics are damned for staying outside the church, here's Bishop George Hay, speaking on the subject in 1787:

"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."

The necessity of being converted to the Catholic Church is demonstrated by the continuous missionary activity of the Church in the newly-discovered lands of America--if the Native Americans could be saved in their religions, why did missionaries go to such lengths to convert them?

(...)

July 14, 2007
Theocoid said...

As I mentioned in my comment, Peter Albert, that position clearly dismisses what has been said in total concerning the matter. First, you have to consider the historical climate in which that statement was made (the various formal heretics that were sowing discord and causing schism, that Jews simply could not deny the difference betwen Christianity and Judaism, hence chose to reject Christ and his Church, and that virtually no one in Christendom grew up in ignorance of the authority of the Church). In addition, you have to differentiate between those who cause schism and those who are unwittingly swayed by them, those who are formal heretics and those who are unknowingly material heretics (that is, grew up with no knowledge of Catholic authority), and those who would choose to do Christ's will given the choice and the understanding of its necessity. Also, you have to disregard that the Councils of Florence and Trent validated the baptism of those who were baptized even by pagans or heretics. As the current teaching of the Church states, baptism joins these people to the Church. And finally, you have to throw out the traditional belief in the salvation of righteous pagans (not to mention the OT patriarchs) held by many of the early Church fathers and doctors of the Church.

Bishop Hay was not speaking in an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium. He was teaching through his ordinary magisterial authority. Unless you are also going to give creedence to all other bishops speaking on that subject at the time, you cannot hold up his claim as being the proper interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Clearly, the magisterium has made clear since that time that such an interpretation is not the only acceptable theological opinion. The move against Fr. Feeney, although it did not condemn outright the interpretation as heretical, clearly discouraged that inerpretation. The latest pronouncements of the Church simply do not square with Bishop Hay's words.

The words of a handful of theologians in a particularly bitter period in Catholic history do not speak for the totality of Catholic doctrine, nor can they account for God's means or His mercy.For more information, see http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html

(...)

July 15, 2007
Peter Albert said...

Dear theocoid, I appreciate you took the time to analyze the arguments I have brought forward. I'm not going to discuss the question of the permanence of the dogma although it is disturbing that you could easily conclude that the 'current' teaching invalidates the ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope.

However, two important issues arise. First, you are advancing a number of reasons why Eugene IV should have made such a pronouncement. Let me quote him at the Council of Florence for the context:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped. Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

Now, the above was not merely a response to specific heresies or clarification of some murky theological detail. In fact, it is a word-for-word assertion of the Athanasian Creed that can be found in the Prime hour of the traditional Roman breviary (all the way to 1962).

So to recapitulate unless one holds the two fundamental truths of the Catholic faith, i.e. the Trinity and Incarnation, one cannot be saved. This strict position did not spring up in the 15th century but may be easily seen in the first millennium when the councils placed anathemas on those who denied the dogma of the Trinity.

Secondly, bishop Hay need not be infallible to draw inference from the deposit of the faith. I believe you missed the point that was raised at the beggining of my earlier post. The question is not whether invincible ignorance is the cause of damnation (it needn't be), but how one may be in the state of sanctifying grace if one does not partake of sacraments. True, baptism of heretics and schismatics may be valid (against the position of Augustine), but how does one become justified with God outside the Catholic Church if:

-- Leo XIII did not accept the validity of Anglican orders,

Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896: “… of Our own motion and certain knowledge We pronounce and declare that Ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been and are absolutely null and utterly void.”

-- the power of the keys is necessary for administering valid confession (Council of Trent).

Can anyone show me any infallible statements since then that would either approve of the Anglican rites or allow for valid confession in communities without Apostolic Succession? Vatican II? John Paul II? Benedict XVI? Any such statements?

Concluding with the oft-quoted Euguene IV and the Council of Florence:

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 (or perfect contrition, which is a gift from God) is needed for taking away mortal sin. To my knowledge, valid confession is not available in Judaism, Islam or Protestantism.

Dear theocoid and other contributors: I have a general question for you--is it truly charitable to assure non-Catholics of their salvation or claim ignorance as to their fate if they die in mortal sin? This smacks of hipocrisy since we know that as Catholics we will surely not be saved if we die in mortal sin. I hope, dad29, that you are not saying "We ain't smart enough to know" what will happen if we die in mortal sin. In case we don't know, the Gospel and letters of St. Paul may enlighten us easily.

There are a number of places in the Scripture where the prophets (starting with Noah and Lot, Moses all the way to John the Baptist) announced in no ambiguous terms to the neighbors and strangers alike that unless they repented and made use of God's terms of salvation (e.g. the ark, Passover, baptism) they would be lost. And as we know all this has been written for our education.In Christo,Peter Albert

July 16, 2007
Patrick said...

It's entertaining to think that what this boils down to is our declaration of specific persons in hell...

The Church has never (and will never) abrogate its Divine mandate to bring the entirety of humanity to know Christ in the Catholic Church through the sacraments. Obviously, the point of all such topics is individual conversion. (Perhaps a different topic, but people incorrectly denounce Dignatatis Humanae as being anti-missionary, when rather is merely states that a forced conversion is not really a conversion at all!) Those disagreeing with Fr. Feeney have no right to say that it is better for some to remain outside Church, as this directly contradicts Church teaching.

As members of the Catholic Church, we really have only one thing to concern ourselves with with respect to those outside the physical boundaries of the Church, and that is evangelization and our efforts at bringing about their conversion.

Our missionary outreach is truly an act of charity insofar as we are helping people attain what Christ desires for them--namely, incorporation and participation in the Mystical Body. It's not good enough to desire merely that someone not goes to hell; we must desire that they love God. (Take for example, the difference between perfect and imperfect contrition.)

So perhaps the Feeneyites are right, and only those physically in the Catholic Church are saved, or perhaps they are wrong, and God can work extraordinarily with respect to certain circumstances and people... Neither changes our mandate as those in the Church: namely to be evangelistic and missionary.

What does it all boil down to? Simply, the state of those souls not affected by our actions to the extent necessary for conversion. I don't see this as a point worth fighting over; the Church was intended to be the salvation of all peoples, and all within the Church have the perogative to spread the word of God to those who don't know it through means that are efficacious. Perhaps some will be converted by being reminded of the very real possibility of their souls spending eternity in hell as they remain outside of the effects of the sacraments, while others will be converted by the desire to have the authentic faith, hope, and charity present only in the Church.

July 16, 2007
Theocoid said...

You see, here is where the Feenyites play the whole changing dogma card. That's not what happened. Dogma has not changed. The interpretation you have put on the 15th-century formulation is simply wrong. Either that, or the new pronoucements in Lumen Gentium and the Catechism are wrong, which means the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church. I don't accept the latter, so I have to believe the former.

In addition, we still have an obligation to evanglize non-Catholics. Even though they might have to possibility of salvation because of the one sacrament they have received, they do not have the fullness of the means salvation. You're correct. It is not charitable to let people live in error, but that is hardly the same as saying that they have no chance of salvation.

July 16, 2007
Peter Albert said...

Dear theocoid, please note that the remark on the permanence of the dogma was an aside, and was not directly pertinent to the argument. Of course, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church and of course the Church in heaven and on earth is in agreement on the dogma as we believe in the unity of the Church. So no disagreement here!

Also I'm glad that charity does not divide us as all Catholics ought to care for the salvation of their non-Catholic neighbors.

What remains to be seen, however, is how a baptized Christian may remain in the state of sanctifying grace without valid confession. It really comes down to the key controversy of Luther and Calvin vs. Trent -- does God require us to be sanctified through the confession of mortal sins to a valid priest or does 'faith alone' justify 'juridically' with God?

Of course, I'm not a Jansenist to believe that grace is not present outside the Catholic Church, and everyone on the forum seems to agree that the refusal to join the Catholic Church once one is aware of the duty to do so is sinful. In essence, one should then read the Lumen Gentium in a restrictive sense--the Holy Spirit operates outside the Church, grace is given to sinners to repent. But one should not read it in the sense that a Talmudic Jew who denies Jesus Christ or a Protestant who refuses the primacy of the Pope is free to do so and their beliefs are indifferent to their salvation.

If we speak of 'righteous pagans' then we assume that they not only follow their conscience but that they seek God. In that case, the Gospel promises that they will be given the Holy Spirit who will guide them into 'all things'. Some have appealed to God's mercy--indeed God is merciful enough to grant as much grace as is necessary for one to come to the fulness of salvation AS LONG AS ONE COOPERATES WITH THE GRACE ALREADY GRANTED.

2 Tim. 4:16 states that God wishes all to be saved. This does not mean that all WILL be saved (free will) but certainly that also does not mean that God will leave a 'righteous pagan' in the darkness of error if the person is sincere.

I hope this will show that a Catholic serious about extra ecclesiam nulla sallus need not lack in charity. Let us pray for the conversion of those still in the bondage of sin!

Peter Albert"

The Church's Mandate to Convert the Jews

2007-07-22T03:35:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday, the Jewish organization Anti-Defamation League issued a statement in which it "welcomed the comments of a senior Vatican official that the Good Friday Latin prayer to convert Jews could be removed from the re-introduced Latin liturgy." This statement referred to the position taken by the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who had been reported to say that the substitution of the prayer " would resolve all the problems."

Further, the ADL intimated that "the Good Friday Latin prayer to convert Jews (...) contradicts 40 years of evolving Catholic teachings about the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people, and the end of efforts to baptize Jews".

What prayer could cause so much concern in the leading organization that otherwise is engaged in exposing cases of anti-Semitism or denial of Holocaust? Here it is, taken from The Catholic Missal, being a Translation of the New Missale Romanum arranged for daily use by very rev. Charles J. Callan and very rev. John A. McHugh, published by Benziger in 1943:

"Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews, that our Lord God would withdraw the veil from their hearts, that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Almighty and eternal God, who deniest not thy mercy even to the perfidious Jews, hear our prayers offered for the blindness of this people, that by acknowledging the light of thy truth, which is Christ, they may be freed from their darkness."

The Church prays that the Jews who failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah would 'be free from their darkness'. Gospel of John demonstrates this attitude of the Jews of the day in the dialogues that they had with Jesus when he stated that he was the light of the world. The Lord concluded "I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see might see, and those who do see might become blind." (9:39)

St. Paul observes that the majority of his compatriots have been blinded to the truth of Jesus' messiahship. In the letter to Romans he cites prophet Isaiah to describe the state of the nation in the period between the death of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple:

"God gave them a spirit of deep sleep, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." (11:8)

But Paul has never lost his hope that just as God had given him the grace to see, the other Jews "if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:23) Did he remain indifferent to the fate of those that were outside the Church? Far from this, he cried out that his "heart's desire and prayer to God on their behalf is for salvation". He recognized that while they were zealous for God, their zeal lacked discernment. (10:2.3) So Paul expressed his greatest anguish and like Moses, he was willing to lose his salvation "for the sake of (his) brothers, (his) kin according to the flesh". (9:1)

Let us follow St. Paul's example and pray fervently for the salvation of our Jewish brethren that is only possible within the Catholic Church. Also let us remind other Catholics of the Church's unfailing mandate to enlighten those who remain in the darkness.

Is It Necessary to Convert to the Catholic Church To Be Saved?

2007-07-14T01:58:00.000-07:00

In my first post, I referred to the crucial alternative as to the possibility of salvation between 'universalism' and 'exclusivism'. This comes down to a stark choice between two statements:

Pope Eugene IV stated ex cathedra in 1441:

"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; that 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."

On the other hand, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed in the decree Unitatis redintegratio that salvation indeed is possible outside the Roman Catholic Church and that sacraments are effective towards salvation for those who remain in 'separated churches and Communities' and do not return to the visible unity with the Catholic Church before the end of their lives:

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

Contrary to those who harbor illusions as to the possible 'Counterreform' apace under Benedict XVI--this quote appears verbatim in last week's document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church".

No council may go contrary to the deposit of the faith, as expressed in the infallible statements of the popes and earlier councils approved by the popes. Does the Unitatis redintegratio decree only express but not distort the meaning of the deposit of the faith as stated in Eugene IV's infallible statement? The quoted document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith cites an important announcement made by John XXIII in his opening Address to the Vatican II council:

"The deposit of faith itself and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are annunciated is another, provided that the same fundamental sense and meaning is maintained."

My personal conclusion is that the teachings of the Vatican II allow the interpretation that it is not necessary to convert to the Roman Catholic Church to be saved. This is, in fact, how many of the prominent hierarchs understand this doctrine. Several quotes, taken from the materials posted by Brothers Dimond on their website www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com will illustrate this.

In an interview given to the Italian newspaper Adista, Cardinal Walter Kasper, Prefect of Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity, stated that since Vatican II "we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a 'return', by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being Catholics." (February 26, 2001)

Cardinal Ratzinger directly contradicted Eugene IV's unequivocal statement that the Jews would not be saved as long as they remained outside the Catholic Church when he expressed his belief in an interview to the Zenit agency that "a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved." (September 5, 2000)

Finally, John Paul II openly denied the necessity of entering the Catholic Church for salvation since, in his words: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church" (Redemptoris Missio #10, December 7, 1990).

The latter two quotes are taken from the online version of the book by Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimon, The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II

In the next post, I will look at the tragedy of Holocaust from the perspective of salvation of the many victims' souls.

In Christo

Peter

Where is the Catholic Church today?

2007-07-09T14:51:00.000-07:00

I welcome you to a journey that I undertook two years ago and which brought me to a conclusion that there is no salvation at all outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Let's face it: there are only two alternatives when it comes to salvation--either God accepts all the people of good will regardless of the faith they profess about Him or He accepts only those who hold the one acceptable faith. So it all comes down to the choice between universal salvation or exclusive salvation.

Until the Second Vatican Council the Roman Catholic Church had been known to be the only church that affirmed it was the only one to hold the full and inviolate faith as stated in the Athanasian creed. But since in 1965 the bishops present at the Council signed on to the document that no longer unequivocally identified the modern Catholic Church with the only-saving Roman Catholic Church and granted that salvation could be obtained elsewhere. The church of the Vatican II then is no longer the safe haven of salvation.

So the question remains--if the post-Vatican II church is not the same as the eternal, exclusive Catholic Church, where is the latter? Where is the Church of Ignatius, Athanasius, Augustine, Benedict, Louis IX, Thomas Aquinas and all the saints who would rather die than apostatize and boldly converted the infidels, heretics, Jews and schismatics? Since the Lord promised that this Church would never be overcome by the gates of hell, it must stand until His second coming.

May this blog serve as a forum for all the sincere seekers of the Catholic Church in these difficult times!

In Christo