Promising Salvation to Non-Catholics: A Sin against Charity

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.

“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?

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.

That Fr. Most article that you posted the link to, was soundly refuted by me with Catholic Doctrine. More importantly, the proof that Fr. Most's article is flawed, is in the pudding:

Fr. Most considers Fr. Feeney and his followers as heretics, while the pope, the local bishop, and Rome considers the followers of the late Fr. Feeney as Catholics in good standing. Fr. Most is flawed. I repeat what I sent to marshmallow on posting 35:

Dear Marshmallow,

If you are sincere in your ignorance of the matter, please also forward this to your ALL list, so that we can get this issue out of the way without wasting any further time: The group, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is recognized by their local bishop in NH, and the Pope in Rome.

From: http://catholicism.org/new-mass-schedule-at-ihm-chapel-in-richmond.html

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary All Masses are in the traditional Roman Rite (Extraordinary Form) and are offered with the approbation of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Manchester, N.H. Our Mass schedule is as follows —

Sunday Masses: 7:30 AM Low Mass, 9:30 AM High Mass (with Rosary preceding at 9:00).

Daily Mass: 7:30 AM Low Mass.

Where I differ with my Catholic friends is with respect to the efficacy of asking Mary or another saint multiple times to "pray for us." When I ask a friend to pray for me, he hears it the first time. I don't have to call him 100 times within the hour and keep asking him again. :-)

It is not that "Mary of another saint" does not hear it the first time or forgets the first time or any such human-like deficiency.

The repetition is pleasing to Jesus because He knows your mind is filled with prayer -- really special prayers in the case of the Rosary -- each and every time you say them, along with personal intentions. If you could make up a new prayer each time, well I guess YOU could do that. But Catholics have been told that certain prayers -- especially the Rosary -- are the ones that please God.

Verdugo:

Cardinal Dulles was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II? Do you have a problem with this? as he is the only American Theologian, who was not a Bishop, given such a title.

In a previous thread, this discussion came up and it seems you do not want to answer my questions.

Outside of the Church is a teaching of the Church that goes back to the Fathers of the Church and is taught by the Church. However, has outside of the Church ever been formally defined? as it is clear that Vatican II reformulated “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” to state in essence “All salvation if from and thru Christ through his body the Church” so that the normative instrument of salvation that Christ uses is “The Church”. The question who is part of the Church is not as defined as you say it is for even the Fathers saw in the NT not only Trinitarian Baptism, but also Baptism of Desire and Baptism in Blood.

All these teachings are ex-cathedra. They do not require any other authority. They are it! Statements by a pope that exercise papal infallibility are referred to as ex cathedra teachings. These should not be confused with teachings that are infallible because of a solemn definition by an ecumenical council, or with teachings that are infallible in virtue of being taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which [u][b]nobody at all [/b][/u]is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

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.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which [b]no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

re: Cardinal Dulles was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II? Do you have a problem with this? as he is the only American Theologian, who was not a Bishop, given such a title.

There have been bad cardinals before, and bad popes too. The electing of popes, cardinals or bishops is not an infallible act. Pope Honorius was excommunicated 45 years after he died, and there are scarcely any bishops in the USA TODAY who would have been considered Catholics in even 1950, one here one there, almost all elected by JPII.

re:However, has outside of the Church ever been formally defined?

Not to you, because you don't want to hear it. Who is in the Church and who is not is defined by Pius XII (once more) right on the article for this thread. Which obviously you did not read.

"Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. (and other magisterial documents)?

Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years. (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)

All I said was that Pope Honorius was excommunicated 40+ years after he died. As far as the details of the excommunication, what you wrote, what is your source? The language does not sound like it’s coming from a Catholic source. here’s a Catholic Source:

Excerpt from : http://www.romancatholicism.org/honorius-heresy.htm

“Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. It is incredible that ecumenical councils under the care of papal legates and approved by popes would anathematize and excommunicate a pope without the utmost care and that Rome would have all her popes and priests confess it for a thousand years were it not justified. There is no room for doubt here. His heretical letters were burnt by order of the council and only a scrap survived; it is ridiculous that some should try to construct a case to acquit Honorious on the basis of the scrap and in the face of so much historical testimony”.

verdugo:

With respect to Pope Honorius, I suggest you read the article on Infalliblity at the following link:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The article describes the issue in question consistent with what I wrote in my previous post. It does have a section on Pope Honorious and in what since were the Canons from the 3rd Council of Constantinopile (680-681) that related to the said Pope were to be accepted by Rome. Pope Honorious was condemned for not putting the end to the Monothelite heresy as opposed to teaching it ex cathedra, which he in fact “never did”. He never definitively taught anything on the subject of the “Monothelite heresy” [One Will vs. Two Wills of Christ] and it was in that sense he was condemned by Pople St. Leo II.

“What the Catholic church teaches is that those who have not heard of Christ, can still be saved at the last judgement, by the works of their heart, (those who, in their ignorance, still follow the commands of their conscience become a law unto themselves), as it says in Romans.”

Which just goes to show, yet again, how the Catholic church is opposed to the Word of God.

Romans 2:12 - “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”

According to God, all who have sinned without the law, are going to perish.

"Which just goes to show, yet again, how the Catholic church is opposed to the Word of God."

This was explained to me by a reference in the CCC that mentions God using ways known only to himself to lead someone seeking him but that such a possibility doesn't relieve us of having to preach the Word and spread the Gospel.

I understand what you're saying about Romans, but you're also saying there are things God cannot do other than the obvious ones like lying and so forth. Is that what you mean to say? There was no law when Abraham was chosen, that's why I'm asking since there could be people in the same situation as he was without any knowledge of the Gospel and the Law.

I'm not following why that verse would limit God from doing something we don't know about to lead someone to Salvation if they were seeking him. I know, a missionary could go, but that still doesn't answer whether or not God is limited by that same verse.

Romans 3:21-26 = “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 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. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 10:9-15 = “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

God’s Word is clear that salvation is of grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone. Without faith in Christ, one will not be saved. Those who have never heard of Christ will not be condemned for unbelief, they will be condemned for their violation of God’s law, which is written on all men’s hearts.

Romans 1:14-15 = “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”

Although is seems to be misunderstood by some here, this verse is one of condemnation, not salvation. The “FOR” that starts these verses points back to the condemnation written out in verses 12 & 13.

Therefore, those who do not have the law (the Word of God) and who have never heard of Jesus, are going to perish. Why? Because they violate the law of God that is written on the hearts of all men (conscience). It will certainly be a lesser form of punishment than those who have openly rejected Christ, but nonetheless, they are going to perish.

We dare not think ourselves more caring, more loving, or more compassionate than God.

Romans 9:15 = “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Romans 2:12-16 - “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

God says that ALL who do not have the written law are going to PERISH. Not get another chance.

It is those who obey the law, who will be declared righteous. Who is that?

Romans 3:23 - “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Nobody. At this point, some will say “that’s not fair”. To which God says “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them”

Those who do not have the law, are still law-breakers. They prove that they know God’s law when the refrain from doing evil. They further prove that they know God’s law when they break it, and their conscience convicts them.

You really need to read your Bible more carefully. The first three chapter of Romans are written to condemn all men - those with the law (Jews) and those without the law (Gentiles). All are guilty. Which builds to a crescendo in Romans 3:10-18

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Our mouths are now to be collectively shut, in fear and trembling. Then comes the good news of Romans 3:21-24

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

Praise God for His glorious grace, in sending Jesus Christ to save us!

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.