Posted on 02/07/2011 8:45:48 AM PST by verdugo
We all hate it when someone makes a promise and doesn’t keep it. “But you promised!” we will say, and, depending on the level of blame and sensitivity of conscience on the part of the offending party, the reaction can be one of great shame. If this is true of promises one is simply unable to keep because circumstances forbade it, it is more so in the case of false promises: that is, those made with no intention of keeping them, or those one had absolutely no authority to make. To promise salvation to a non-Catholic, either directly or indirectly, falls in the latter category as being particularly shameful. It is shameful because it is sinful. It is sinful because it offends not only against faith, but against the greatest Christian virtue: charity.
That the Church has defined there is no salvation outside her means that this proposition is true, and we know it is so with a divinely guaranteed certitude. Genuine charity is rooted in truth. A lie is an affront to truth and therefore an offense against charity. The ontological and psychological connection between truth and charity is a basic Christian concept, whose origin is in the Trinity Itself. Pope Benedict XVI recently highlighted this truth-charity nexus:
To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). … Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. (Caritas in Veritate, No. 1, 3, emphasis in original.)
There are various theories regarding how non-Catholics get to heaven as non-Catholics. Many of these have been advanced by churchmen of high rank. Rather than attempt to disprove these opinions in polemical fashion, I would prefer to show the truth of their contrary, and the consequent duty we have in charity not to waver from it. Out of love for God and for our non-Catholic neighbor, we must not give false or even uncertain assurances concerning how salvation is to be attained, and, consequently, how damnation is to be avoided. That would not be “doing the truth in charity” (Eph. 4:15), as St. Paul enjoins upon Christians.
Let’s consider an oft-cited infallible definition:
“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, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
We often hear the objection that someone does not need to be a “formal” member of the Church in order to be saved. The implication is that the spiritual trumps the juridical, and that God is not a stickler for names on baptismal registers and the like. But the implication often reaches further than such trivialities, to include what the Church has defined is necessary for salvation. The objection frames the issue of being Catholic in a far-too-juridical way. What makes us inside the Church? Three things: Divine and Catholic Faith (explicit in the principal mysteries — the Trinity and the Incarnation — and at least implicit in all other articles), sacramental baptism, and subjection to the Holy Father. These defining elements of Church membership expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine were authoritatively postulated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [I Cor., XII, 13] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [Cf. Eph., IV, 5] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (No. 22)
There are many people who would not be considered “formal” members of the Church who are, in fact, Catholics in the dogmatic sense. Consider a case I’m personally familiar with: a teenager baptized in a (schismatic) Orthodox church in Russia. Adopted by a Catholic couple when she was about eleven years old, she continued to communicate and confess in the Catholic Church as she had in the Orthodox parish in Russia. The Catholic priest in this country said that as long as she believed in the pope — which she did — she was free to receive the sacraments. Yet I have been assured that, juridically, she is still considered Orthodox. I am fairly certain that her name appears on no Catholic parish register. For all that, she meets the three of the requisites above. This young lady could not be more Catholic. What is important are not the “juridical” issues, but the ecclesiological, sacramental, and “creedal” elements that truly make one a Catholic. Perhaps we can put it in terms that might make a canonist cringe: de facto Catholicism is what matters, not de jure Catholicism.
The overly legalistic analysis strikes me as somewhat disingenuous, too, inasmuch as those who advance it generally accuse us (“Feeneyites”) of being hung up on some sort of formalism. Assuredly we are not; but we are hung up on Catholicism.
Note in the definition of the Council of Florence that “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” are all categorically described as “existing outside the Catholic Church” and, consequently, they cannot “have a share in life eternal.” With only two exceptions, those “outside” the Church according to Florence correspond exactly to those not included as “members” by Pius XII. Those exceptions are 1) unbaptized believers (e.g., catechumens), whom Florence does not mention in Cantate Domino, but whom Pius XII clearly states are not members; and 2) excommunicates, whom Florence does not mention.
The unbaptized catechumen and analogous individuals bear a certain close relationship to the Church, as they have her faith, assent to her government, and seek her sacraments. I don’t see the need to be preoccupied with this question, as some are. God will provide for His own, and these people are His by those ties I’ve just mentioned. God will not cast off anyone who perseveres in His grace.1 Regarding excommunicates, we know from the grave nature of excommunication that those who die in that terrible state — if they really are excommunicated in foro interno — are lost. What concerns me most are the “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” that do not have the Church’s faith, do not assent to her government, and may or may not have a sacrament or two, or even seven. The Church infallibly assures us that those who fit these descriptions are not in the way of salvation and that “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.” Jesus commands us in the Holy Gospels to preach the unvarnished Catholic Gospel to these. If we let human respect get in the way of the great mandate, we damn ourselves.
These categories are not beyond comprehension. “Pagans” (or the synonymous “infidels”) would include not only unbelievers like atheists and agnostics, idolators like Hindus, or pantheists like Buddhists, but also Muslims, whom the Catholic world lumped into the category “pagan” in the fifteenth century when the Florentine Fathers met. “Jews” are hardly in need of explanation. They identify themselves as such. The words “heretic” and “schismatic” are rarely used in common parlance today, even in ecclesiastical circles, for they are considered “divisive” and even rude. Yet, the Church not only officially uses the words, but also clearly defines them in the current (1983) Code of Canon Law:
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Elsewhere in the Code (1364 §1), we are informed that members of all three categories here mentioned automatically excommunicate themselves from the Church: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication…”.
I am very well aware that theologians distinguish between formal and material heresy as well as between formal and material schism. These are perfectly legitimate distinctions. Someone baptized and brought up in an alien sect will inevitably be, for a time anyway, merely in material heresy or schism. Before the age of reason, it’s not even a question: the child is a Catholic plain and simple. There are no infant Lutherans, Syrian Jacobites, or Serbian Orthodox — only pagan ones and Catholic ones. At what point one brought up in such a sect formally adheres to heresy or schism is God’s business and I’ll not lose the least amount of sleep over the question. What is the duty of the Church, however, and what ought to make us lose a few winks, is the duty we have to witness to the truth of where salvation is to be found. To keep people somnolent in their errors is just plain damnable. Let us suppose for a moment that one of the infants we’ve just considered lives to his teens in a blissful merely material heresy. Supposing he commits a mortal sin? Where does he seek forgiveness? Let’s say that his particular denomination believes that sin cannot separate us from God’s love — as so many believe? What then? Will the same priest who puts the fear of God into a Catholic boy struggling against vice do a volte-face and assure the non-Catholic suffering the same moral afflictions a place in Paradise should he die — even though he will not seek the sacrament of God’s mercy because his parents taught him it’s a popish abomination?
Indifferentism breeds strange contradictions.
While these distinctions are real, and have a valuable place in Catholic theology, they are not intended to contradict the plain meaning of dogma. Theology is meant to serve the revealed word, not to annul it.
The explanation that I recently read on the blog of a particularly intelligent priest, to the effect that God can save someone outside the Church very much misses the point. To argue from God’s sheer power while prescinding from His revelation is a dangerous thing. God could, by His naked omnipotence, use me — who am not a priest — to confect the Eucharist, couldn’t He? By His omnipotence, God could arrange for a child of our own times to be immaculately conceived. Neither of these things entails an inherent contradiction like squaring a circle, but both contradict defined dogma. It would be wiser to believe that God’s grace and providence will make things happen in conformity to His revelation — despite the apparent “unlikeliness” of it.
If we trust God’s grace, justice, and mercy to conform perfectly to the dogmatic teaching of His Church, we will never regret it. And that, I can promise.
“(those who, in their ignorance, still follow the commands of their conscience become a law unto themselves), as it says in Romans.”
But that’s not what it says:
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts ACCUSE or EVEN excuse them”
Their conscience accuses them or EVEN excuse them. The “excuse” them is condemnation. Read the entire chapter in context.
Romans 2:13 - “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
James 2:10 - “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”
Romans 3:20 - “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”
Ver-””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, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) “”
Pope Eugine was obviously not defining special circumstances,ver.
Try explaining Saint Genesius of Arles who was declared baptized by Martyrdom
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=5868
Excerpt...
“He requested baptism from a bishop, but for some unknown reason the prelate declined his petition, telling him that his likely martyrdom would obtain for him the baptism of desire. The bishop may have been in prison at the time and hence unable to baptize Genesius, but it is also possible that he refused out of cowardice. In any event, Genesius soon afterward suffered martyrdom by beheading
There is also Saint Victor of Braga who was merited baptism by his blood through martyrdom by refusing to worship and Idol and professing his love for Christ.
Are you prepared to go against Church teaching and deny that some canonized Saints are not in heaven?
Sorry, I pinged marsh-mellow to #102 and meant to ping you
I am aware that the old law condemned all who did not have the law. This is the reason for the new law, by which Christ himself broke the gates of hell, to free the righteous.
Abraham believed in God, and so it was credited to him as righteousness. Any Gentile who does not know God, who obeys his conscience will be saved by the Grace of our Lord and saviour. As Abraham, as Noah once were saved by the Grace of God.
If they know God, they must accept him to be saved. Our God can save those whom he will save. He is not bound by our actions, as he can read the hearts of the righteous.
The reason we have a conscience is so that those who are without the law still have knowledge of the law. Thus those who are without the law are condemned by their conscience, or saved by their conscience.
Yes, true. Thanks for the correction. It has not been declared infalliable.
Wow! You should listen to Catholic Answers! They do not believe this on Ewtn in the afternoon. Since Trent after the first generation of Trent. Nada! They are highly educated. Canon lawyers and theologians. Try listening.
To all:
Interesting article on the question of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” and Fr. Feeney and how he as a Priest elevated his personal opinion of Papal texts to the only correct orthodox interpretation.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm
Now, I have no axe to grind with Traditionalist and hope that all of the SSPX reconcile with Rome and am glad that Fr. Feeney’s followers have reconciled with Rome. However, I would think that they should at least admit that the current Catchesim of the Catholic Church has also addressed the question of “Outside of th CHurch their is no salvation” and that Catechism does not seem to get mentioned on that “Slave of the Immaculate Hearts of Mary” website that Verdugo has linked.
BK - “I am aware that the old law condemned all who did not have the law.”
Romans is a New Testament book, written to the church.
Romans 1:7 “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints.”
BK - “This is the reason for the new law, by which Christ himself broke the gates of hell, to free the righteous.”
Romans 3:10 - as it is written “None is righteous, no, not one;”
BK - “Abraham believed in God, and so it was credited to him as righteousness.”
This is a twisting of the text, which actually reads:
“Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” - Romans 4:3
There is a HUGE difference between believing IN God and believing God.
Believing IN God, will save no one. Believing God, in Abraham’s case meant believing the promises of God; ultimately, believing that God would Himself provide a way of redemption for sinners through the Messiah.
For us, believing God means believing that God has completely provided the way of salvation for us in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is our’s through faith, just as Abraham was saved by faith.
BK - “Any Gentile who does not know God, who obeys his conscience will be saved by the Grace of our Lord and saviour.”
Romans 3:23-25a - “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood TO BE RECEIVED BY FAITH.”
Christ is the propitiation ONLY for those who receive Him by faith.
Romans 3:28 “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
Romans 10:14-15 - “But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
Romans 10:17 - “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
John 8:24 - “ I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
1. Faith is necessary for salvation.
2. Faith comes through hearing the Word.
3. Without hearing the Word, faith is impossible.
4. Without faith in Christ, man will die in his sins.
BK - “Our God can save those whom he will save.”
True.
BK - “he can read the hearts of the righteous”
As I’ve already shown from Romans3, there are none righteous - NO NOT ONE.
Genesis 6:5 - “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Jeremiah 17:9 - “The heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
BK - “The reason we have a conscience is so that those who are without the law still have knowledge of the law. Thus those who are without the law are condemned by their conscience, or saved by their conscience.”
Romans 2 has nothing to say about being saved, it is all condemnation. Romans 2:6 is written to shut the mouths of those who think they are righteous.
Romans 2:6-8 - “He will render to each one according to his works: (hard swallow) to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;(nobody does - Genesis 6:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10, etc...) but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey righteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”
It is only through Him, and his Mercy, that they will be saved, not through their own works.
God will examine the hearts of the righteous (those who conduct their lives in accordance with him, even if they are not perfect), and will determine whether they will or will not be saved.
The directive, as the first part of Romans, is charged to Jews (who know the law), and Gentiles, who have been exposed to the law. It does not apply to the ignorant, as anyone who has heard Paul is no longer ignorant of the good news of Christ.
Paul explains, that even if the Word has not reached people, they will be convicted based on their conscience, their thoughts either preserving or convicting them. Their conscience is how they know the law of God, even if they have not heard the Word of God. In the sense that the Gospel is not new, because those who have not heard it will respond to it based on what they already know through their conscience. Anyone who’s done missions will tell you this.
“Believing IN God, will save no one. Believing God, in Abraham’s case meant believing the promises of God; ultimately, believing that God would Himself provide a way of redemption for sinners through the Messiah.”
Fine. Still doesn’t get around my point that Abraham in submitting to God was considered to be righteous, which you do not address. The same is true for others who are ignorant of God but do what the Law requires. Same as with Noah, btw.
BK - “God will examine the hearts of the righteous (those who conduct their lives in accordance with him, even if they are not perfect), and will determine whether they will or will not be saved.”
Either you’re wrong, or God is, since over and over He says that our hearts are wicked, and there is none righteous, no not one. I’ll stick with God on this.
BK - “Fine. Still doesn’t get around my point that Abraham in submitting to God was considered to be righteous, which you do not address.”
I have addressed this issue, and unlike you, I’ve done it without twisting Scripture into saying something it doesn’t.
Romans 4:3 - “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:9b - “We say that FAITH was counted to Abraham as righteousness.”
It does NOT say that Abraham was considered righteous in “submitting to God” that is your own perversion of the Scripture.
Romans 10:9-10 - “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses AND IS SAVED.”
If what you believe is in fact true, then Romans 10:14-15 are total nonsense, since the primitive man in the jungle doesn’t need to hear about Christ in order to be saved. What utter rubbish!
If you are correct, and a man can be saved apart from hearing the Word of Christ and believing it, then Romans 10:14-15 are
If man could be saved by the "righteousness" of man, then why did Christ have to die? Man's best efforts are as filthy rags before a just and Holy God. And there is no asterisk beside "ALL". "For ALL have sinned and come short the glory of God." And God has given man ONE way out. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;.."Rom. 3:23-25.
I believe Abraham was saved in leaving his home and moving to Israel, in trusting the promises of God, and submitting to them by actually acting and following through.
Same as with Noah and the flood.
“since the primitive man in the jungle doesn’t need to hear about Christ in order to be saved.”
Did Abraham hear about Christ? Was he saved?
Romans 10:3
“Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness”
You must submit to Christ.
“For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him”
This is crucial. The God of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, of David, is our God.
But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”
So Paul believes that God worked through the prophets to proclaimed the word to Israel, through Moses, and that Israel stands condemne because she has strayed.
Thank you smvoice. I appreciate your support and your Scriptural support as well.
If you want to believe in baptism of blood, there is nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. BUT, you'd be a rare liberal if that is all that you want to make of baptism of blood. So, where are you going with this?
re: Try explaining Saint Genesius of Arles who was declared baptized by Martyrdom
The martyrology is in error, he had received the sacrament of baptism. Maryrolgies are fallible. There's my answer. To think otherwise, one would have to believe that God preordained like 5 martyrs to be saved without baptism (and He preordained thousands of others of every type to be brought back from the dead just to be baptized). We would have to believe that God goes has to go against his own dogma that one must be baptized:
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
(P. S. - Baptism of desire is not a sacrament.)
Anyhow, I answered your questions about baptism of blood, WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT numerically speaking practically ANYONE which you liberals are saved outside of the Church.
Here's St. Augustine:
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Rat poison is 99% nutritious, it's the 1% that will kill you. EWTN and Catholic Answers are only good for dumb down Catholics, a stepping stone to real Catholicism.
Correction:
Anyhow, I answered your questions about baptism of blood, WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT numerically speaking practically ANYONE which you liberals think are saved outside of the Church.
“If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that ‘they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
Good answer.
“Today you shall be with me in paradise”
Was the thief on the cross baptised? Was he saved?
Baptism of desire is scriptural. I agree with you that it is important that all those who believe in Christ ought be baptized, but the practice in the early church is not where it is now. Many were baptised before they died.
What’s your issue with converts, btw? All this sedevacantist nonsense is no different than what Luther, or Calvin did 500 years ago. You simply don’t want to submit to the pope, anymore than Luther or Calvin. Same motivation, different time.
The word of BenKenobi - “I believe Abraham was saved in leaving his home and moving to Israel, in trusting the promises of God, and submitting to them by actually acting and following through.”
as opposed to
The Word of God - Romans 4:9b-10 = “We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was NOT AFTER, BUT BEFORE he was circumcised.”
Romans 3:4 - “Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.