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.)
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Rev Muller on Pius IX and Invincible Ignorance
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."
"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
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.
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
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."
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
How to Use the Magisterium? Responding to a Critique
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
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)