Replies

(1) Did the Church before Vatican II teach, either in the condemnation of the Modernists or elsewhere, that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved? Or did it teach the opposite, that is, that those within the Catholic Church but not actually members may be saved without becoming members?

I deny the first part absolutely. pascendi is welcome to show otherwise, but he will not be able. Firstly, I note that the following proposition was condemned by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei:

79. The assertion which attacks with slanderous charges the opinions discussed in Catholic schools about which the Apostolic See has thought that nothing yet needs to be decided or pronounced,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools, detracting from the obedience to the Apostolic Constitutions.

Obviously, the Church has never condemned the thesis that those who are not members of the Mystical Body, but are within that Body, can be saved. In fact, as I will show, she has taught precisely that. But even if Suprema Haec Sacra, authored by the Holy Office and approved by Pius XII, be dismissed along with various other documents of the Church's magisterium, obviously it is false and rash to accuse as "modernist" doctrines which have long been held by Catholic theologians and the Fathers of the Church. I present first a catena of opinions on the subject:

Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? ... not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church ... some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name ... they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood ... (St. Cyprian, Epistles, 72:21-22)

As is quite plain, St. Cyprian recognized that the catechumens who are slain for the faith are within the Church even before baptism. But Pius XII teaches, in Mystici Corporis Christi 22, that only the baptized are members of the Church. Therefore, in Cyprian's opinion, those who are not members of the Church can be saved, although there is no salvation out of the Church.

Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal, especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected. (St. Augustine, Letter 43)

With respect to the above text of Cyprian, Augustine recognizes that not all material heretics (heretics erring in good faith) are "to be accounted heretics". And if they are not "accounted heretics", then it would seem that they could be, by desire and longing, inside the Church, although not actual members.

On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. (St. Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, 4:22)

Again, there is recognition that some who are not members of the Church can be saved.

should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him (St. Ambrose, Funeral Oration for Valentinian)

Ambrose recognizes that the unbaptized Valeninian was saved by the desire for baptism.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." (St. Thomas, Summa theologiae, III q. 68 a. 2)

St. Thomas here recognizes "such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized", that is, without membership in the Church.

Illud enim non est ponendum, quo posito sequitur inconveniens. Sed si ponamus quod sit necessarium ad salutem quod aliquid explicite credatur, sequitur inconveniens. Possibile est enim aliquem nutriri in silvis, vel etiam inter lupos; et talis non potest explicite aliquid de fide cognoscere. Et sic erit aliquis homo qui de necessitate damnabitur. Quod est inconveniens; et sic non videtur quod sit necessarium explicite aliquid credere ... Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod non sequitur inconveniens posito quod quilibet teneatur aliquid explicite credere etiam si in silvis vel inter bruta animalia nutriatur: hoc enim ad divinam providentiam pertinet ut cuilibet provideat de necessariis ad salutem, dummodo ex parte eius non impediatur. Si enim aliquis taliter nutritus, ductum rationis naturalis sequeretur in appetitu boni et fuga mali, certissime est tenendum, quod Deus ei vel per internam inspirationem revelaret ea quae sunt necessaria ad credendum, vel aliquem fidei predicatorem ad eum dirigeret, sicut misit Petrum ad Cornelium, Act. X. (St. Thomas, De veritate, q. 14 a. 11)

Thomas takes the hypothetical case of a man raised in a forest, and proves that he is not apart from salvation as God can "per internam inspirationem" give him knowledge of the truths necessary for belief by a necessity of means. The other option, that of a missionary, is presented as a "vel" (or). Therefore, Thomas recognizes that such a man could be saved without baptism, and therefore without membership in the Church.

Voluit ergo dicere, esse in Ecclesia non actu sed potentia, quod idem ipse explicuit initio libri II De Symbolo ubi comparat catechumenos hominibus conceptis, non natis (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante, lib. III, cap. 3)

Here St. Robert writes in relation to a passage of Augustine which places catechumens inside the Church: "Futuri erant aliqui in Ecclesia excelsioris gratiae catechumeni" (In Evang. Joan. tract. 4, no. 13). Robert explains that they are "in the Church not in act but in potential". He concludes:

Quod dicitur: Extra Ecclesiam neminem salvari, intelligi debet de iis qui neque re ipsa, nec desiderio sunt de Ecclesia, sicut de baptismo communiter loquuntur theologi. Quoniam autem catechumeni, si non re, saltem voto sunt in Ecclesia, ideo salvari possunt.

They are able to be saved because they are in the Church at least by desire, although not in fact. What does Suarez say? The same thing:

Melius ergo respondendum juxta distinctionem datam de necesitate in re vel in voto ita enim nemo salvari potest, nisi hanc Christi Ecclesiam vel in re, vel in voto saltem et desiderio ingrediatur (De Fide disp. 12, sect. 4, no. 22)

He recognizes the ability to be in the Church "in voto saltem et desiderio" (at least in desire and longing) although not "in re". Billuart has the same doctrine: catechumens are "non sunt re et proprie in Ecclesia" (are not in fact and properly in the Church) but belong to the Church "inchoative et ut aspirantes.... et ideo salvari possunt. Nec obstat quod extra Ecclesiam non sit salus; id namque intelligitur de eo qui nec re, nec in voto est in Ecclesia" (De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 2, 3). Again, we see the definition of "extra Ecclesiam non sit salus" as applying only to those "qui nec re, nec in voto est in Ecclesia" (he who is neither in fact nor in desire in the Church).

There are also several magisterial texts from before Vatican II which rule this out. Innocent II (Dz. 388) and Innocent III (Dz. 413) both uphold the theory of baptism of desire. Innocent III writes:

If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.

The Code of Canon Law prepared under the supervision of St. Pius X and promulgated by Benedict XV has:

Can. 737. § 1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma.

"Baptism, the foundation and gateway of the Sacraments, for all necessary to salvation in fact or at least in desire". Again, it is not necessary for salvation to be a member of the Catholic Church. I close this list with a letter of the Holy Office signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and personally translated into English by Pius XII:

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ...
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

This letter is futher discussed in the body of the article.

And there you have it. A continuous tradition, and I have not even quoted from all the texts I have available here. So it is certainly up to pascendi to provide the proof that this doctrine, constantly held by the Church and taught by Innocent II, Innocent III, Trent, the Holy Office, Pius XII and Vatican II is in fact a modernist heresy. I'm sure St. Cyprian would be quite suprised to learn that he was a modernist and taught the "synthesis of all the heresies".

(2) Did the Church before Vatican II teach that the Church of Christ was not a subsistence in the Thomistic sense, that is, "it exists in itself and not in another" (I q. 29 a. 2)? Does the Church now teach (nonsensically) that the Church of Christ also subsists in heretical and schismatic Churches and ecclesial communities?

I deny both parts of this question. For the first part, I point to Mystici Corporis Christi, which states that "this true Church of Jesus Christ ... is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church" (§13). Clearly this rules out any idea that the true Church of Jesus Christ could subsist elsewhere then in the Catholic Church.

I also deny the second part, and point to the condemnation of Fr. Leonardo Boff by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

But the council had chosen the word subsistit—subsists—exactly in order to make clear that one sole "subsistence" of the true church exists ...

And to the declaration Dominus Iesus, footnote 56:

The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.

I also point to the fact that Card. Ratzinger has explained that subsistit is to be taken in the scholastic sense:

When the Council Fathers replaced the word "is" with the word "subsistit", they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist". "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject, which exists in itself. (Interview in L'Osservatore Romano)

The question:

"(1) Did the Church before Vatican II teach, either in the condemnation of the Modernists or elsewhere, that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved? Or did it teach the opposite, that is, that those within the Catholic Church but not actually members may be saved without becoming members?"

Your answer:

"I deny the first part absolutely."

I believe you to refer to the bolded part. If so, then you really do, in fact, believe that there really IS salvation outside the Church.

Without a doubt. So as to be absolutely sure to eliminate all doubt, then it is necessary to likewise eliminate any ambiguity whatsoever. I would then, therefore, like to point out that you are conveniently missing a qualifier, and thereby giving rise to a certain ambiguity

That very important qualifier is this: when you say that those outside the Church can be saved, are these people in question "outside" before their death or at or after their death?

This qualifier is absolutely necessary to know. Because it is no doubt true that someone who is NOT now a member of the Church CAN be saved, IF: before death they enter into, and afterwards remain within, the bosom of Holy Mother Church. This is infallible dogma, and in the infallible statement itself, this qualifier is NOT wanting like it is in your statement. Look:

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS BEFORE DEATH they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. --Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Ex Cathedra; infallible.

But note that you leave the matter of when unspecified. Now, if you mean at the point of the death that they are not members of the Catholic Church, then no, you are dead wrong and in violation of infallible Catholic dogma. No doubt whatseover. The case for such is such a slam dunk I wonder why anyone would even bother to try the direct assault such as this.

So please, specify.

"pascendi is welcome to show otherwise, but he will not be able."

Let's defer judgment. You may very well be wrong. To deal with you effectively will be easier than anyone might imagine.

"Firstly, I note that the following proposition was condemned by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei:

79. The assertion which attacks with slanderous charges the opinions discussed in Catholic schools about which the Apostolic See has thought that nothing yet needs to be decided or pronounced,-false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools, detracting from the obedience to the Apostolic Constitutions.

That's not going to work here, and here's why: it's already been pronounced to be infallible dogma. We aren't talking about a theological opinion on the table regarding which there has been no decision or pronouncement. You have one pronouncement above. There are more.

It's not lost on me what you are trying to do, though. You want to state that it is wrong to deny that which is doctrine but which may not yet have been infallibly defined or declared.

Problem is, I agree with that statement. However, that's not the situation we are dealing with here. Effectively, you have erected a strawman.

"Obviously, the Church has never condemned the thesis that those who are not members of the Mystical Body, but are within that Body, can be saved."

Perhaps because it is a meaningless proposition of your own making. The Church has never recognized any such distinction, to my recollection.

This is a most interesting distinction which you introduce into the conversation here... that distinction between within and member. Explain this to me: how can someone be within, while yet not being a member? What in the world is that? What sense do you use within and in what sense to you use member, such that they would differ? What, exactly, is that difference?

You are employing a distinction here, and your entire argument hangs upon it, so it might be best for you to indicate exactly what that distinction consists of.

"In fact, as I will show, she has taught precisely that. But even if Suprema Haec Sacra, authored by the Holy Office and approved by Pius XII, be dismissed along with various other documents of the Church's magisterium, obviously it is false and rash to accuse as "modernist" doctrines which have long been held by Catholic theologians and the Fathers of the Church. I present first a catena of opinions on the subject:"

Here you introduce a saint-theologian quote:

"Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? ... not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is no salvation out of the Church ... some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name ... they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood... (St. Cyprian, Epistles, 72:21-22)

What you are going to do now is to introduce the quotes of saints and saint-theologians. The objective will be to make it appear as if the thoughts of saints and theologians on this matter is universally and consistantly in your favor. Everywhere and through all the ages in your favor.

Problem is, that's not true. For every saint quote you may provide in your favor, there can be found another which matches is one-for-one on the side of upturning your theory. Here's one which contradicts yours:

"Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: "For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

There's lots more like this. So strikingly in direct conflict with your quote that they basically just plain ruin your argument.

Why? Because the problem is the your very approach to the discussion is flawed in method. We don't prove the existence of doctrines this way, by merely quoting the saints and theologians. The theologians are employing doctrines in the excercise of the Divine Science of theology, not producing doctrines, doggonit.

In fact, the more examples you bring up of saint-quotes in support of your position, the more other saint-quotes I can dig up to contradict them one for one.

And what will this prove? It will prove this: that this is NOT a matter of doctrine. It becomes ever more plain that what you concerning yourself with is NOT a matter of always-known and alway-held doctrine, but that these are matters of theological speculation. And that's why saints are providing conflicting answers and explanations concerning the matter.

It's only obvious at this point what mode we are actually involved in: theological speculation, and not doctrine. Clearly some of the saints are in disagreement with each other. Now if it was really a matter of doctrine, that wouldn't have happened, now, would it have?

But it did.

Why? Because they are not in the realm of doctrine, but in the arena of theological speculation. If not, then opinion among the sainst would never have varied such!

But saints are not the originators of doctrine, are they? They are not. They are conformers-to doctrine. But you approach this subject with the assumption that whatever the saints said, well, that was doctrinal. It was universal. But in fact, it was neither. But the Church has never approached the doctrines of the Church from this direction. The Church Herself, in declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in effect ruled contrary to the theological speculations of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who in effect denied an Immaculate Conception as we know it now to be as an infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic Church!

"As is quite plain, St. Cyprian recognized that the catechumens who are slain for the faith are within the Church even before baptism."

Check these out:

"It is obvious that we must grieve for our own catechumens should they, either through their own unbelief, or through the neglect of their neighbors, depart this life without the saving grace of baptism." --John Chrysostom

"Of those who fail to be baptized, some are utterly animal or bestial, according to whether they are foolish or wicked. . . . Others know and honor the gift of Baptism; but they delay, some out of carelessness, some because of insatiable passion. Still others are not able to receive Baptism, perhaps because of infancy, or some perfectly involuntary circumstance which prevents their receiving the gift, even if they desire it..."

"I think the first group will have to suffer punishment, not only for their other sins, but also for their contempt of Baptism. The second group will also be punished, but less, because it was not through wickedness so much as through foolishness that they brought about their own failure. The third group will neither be glorified nor punished by the Just Judge; for, although they are un-Sealed, they are not wicked. They are not so much wrong-doers as ones who have suffered a loss..."

"If you were able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without any act of murder, then you could likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But, since you cannot do the former, how can you do the latter?"

If you prefer, we will put it this way: if, in your opinion, desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to Glory. You would then be satisfied to desire Glory, as though that longing itself were Glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual Glory, as long as you have a desire for it? I cannot see it! --St. Gregory of Nazianzen

Holy smoke, gbcdoj, check that bad boy out, eh?

Look. St. Cyprian may have said what you quoted, I have no reason to doubt he did, but that doesn't make it doctrine. You seem to be under the bizarre impression that the saints and saint-theologians are the origin of doctrine. If St. Cyprian said so, doggonit, it's doctrine.

But that's not where doctrine comes from, gbcdoj, and you know that. So now that St. Gregory and St. Anselm and St. John Chrysostom says the opposite, where does this leave your argument that your idea is an always-known doctrine?

Answer: in the realm of theological speculation. A theologumena. But not in the realm of doctrine. Not a chance.

And that's before introducing the canons of the dogmatic Council of Trent which, in effect, clearly rules out your proposition. We can get into that later.

"But Pius XII teaches, in Mystici Corporis Christi 22, that only the baptized are members of the Church."

Right. Who doubts it.

"Therefore, in Cyprian's opinion, those who are not members of the Church can be saved, although there is no salvation out of the Church. "

Aha! Very eloquent simultaneous statement of two contradictory propositions.

In order to pull off such a simultaneious statement of tow contractictory propositions is this: what you are employing here, again, is a distinction between "being a member of the Church" and "being within the Church". Exactly what in the world is this distinction, and, what IS the distinction?

Without that distinction, whatever it is, you have nothing. Nothing. I need to know what that distinction consists of.

"Those are by no means to be accounted heretics who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal, especially when their error is not the fruit of audacious presumption but has been communicated to them by seduced and lapsed parents, and when they are seeking the truth with cautious solicitude and ready to be corrected. (St. Augustine, Letter 43)"

My goodness. Now you're jumping away from baptismal membership to knowledge vs. ignorance of dogma. There's at least two seperate cases here, at a minimum. First, you have the case of the person not yet baptised. Then, you have the case of those baptised but not adherent to the doctrines of the Faith.

You would do well to keep this distinction in front of you such that you do not jump from one class of people to another in a random manner.

"With respect to the above text of Cyprian, Augustine recognizes that not all material heretics (heretics erring in good faith) are "to be accounted heretics". And if they are not "accounted heretics", then it would seem that they could be, by desire and longing, inside the Church, although not actual members."

Jumping around, gbcdoj. Are we talking about the baptized or non baptised, or about those baptised who hold faithful to Catholic doctrine vs. those who don't?

"On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. (St. Augustine, On Baptism Against the Donatists, 4:22)

"May". He said "may". But you were saying this was doctrine, while perhaps not defined, but, doctrine none the less. If that's the case, why the use of "may"? What this little word proves is my point, and not yours: that we are not in the realm of doctrine, but rather, in the realm of theological speculation. If that one little word "may" doesn't trigger off the truth of the nature and scope of this enquiry, I don't know what will. He said may. You don't say may about doctrines. You say IS, or you say IS NOT.

"Again, there is recognition that some who are not members of the Church can be saved."

All your speculation has led you to the very thing I said that you believe, which you deny you believe, and that is this:

You believe there is salvation outside the Church. You deny that you believe there is, but, you really do. And there you have it.

Yeilding the balance of my time for your first post, for now.

Stepping back: I take your position, and I am out one dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Now let's step back and see if what's laid out fits this facts of common experience. This will be a relatively simplistic consideration:

When sinkspur, for instance, openly and boldly states that "there will be Jews and Protestants in Heaven", you do not move a finger to correct him.

However, if I repeat three undeniable doctrinal truths:

1. There is absolutely no salvation outside the Church, and

2. That baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, and

3. That water is the necessary matter of the sacrament of baptism

...you move immediately to make war with a proposed "heresy".

Fact: you explain away dogma with complicated arguments, while not lifting a finger to correct the manifest heresies of others within the same group of individuals who are in discussion of a particular topic.

The charge modernist will be retained, and used.

Here is specifically what I need... listen to this, please. I need to understand your exact distinction between withing the Church and being a member of the Church. Your whole argument rests upon that distinction. Can you please flesh that out, and thanks in advance.