[Tantumergo]

Vere has conveniently forgotten the infallible decree issued by Eugene IV at the Council of Florence, as a result of the re-union agreed by the majority of the Council fathers (both Latin and Greek), :

"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, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) 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 from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and 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 they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Additionally the Council of Trent (as you are no doubt all aware), although it invited the Protestants to take part in order to settle the disputed doctrines (men who were still in valid Catholic orders), was equally authoritative in the condemnation of their errors.

Contrast the above infallible decree of the Council of Florence with the ambiguous twaddle (in no way declared to be binding on all the faithful) issued in V2's decree on ecumenism:

"The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation" (UR 3c).

It is notable that the English bishops (under Cardinal Godfrey) had requested along with many other bishops that the Protestant observers be excluded from some of the Council's sessions, in order that the bishops could discuss the issues freely without fear of embarrassment or compromise. The modernists under Cardinal Bea prevailed as they did in so many things.

IMHO the above statement of V2 is the one that is most difficult to reconcile with previous definitive teaching. But as has been said before, no claim is made for the dogmatic status of this document. The main aim of the decree on ecumenism was to set out Catholic pastoral policy towards separated brethren, and as such any comments that touch on matters of faith or morals were very much secondary. Pastoral policy has never been considered to be immune from error and consequently cannot be binding on the faithful.

If Peter Vere or anyone else can show how the above statements of the Council of Florence and Vatican II are reconcilable, then they are a far greater spin doctor than I.

He also seems to be unaware of the principle set out at Vatican I:

"The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." (Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Faith and Reason.)

[NYer]

Outside the church, there is no salvation

How do you feel about the following, from a catholic apologetics web site?

The doctrine of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that must be carefully understood in context, and it has, in recent years, been subject to much misinterpretation. The first place I would point you to is the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you can trust as an authoritative statement of Catholic doctrine:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.[336]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.[337]

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."[338]

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21: PL 3, 1169; De unit.: PL 4, 509-536.

336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.

337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.

338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

This paragraph quotes Second Vatican Council, the document Lumen Gentium. Paul VI incorporated it into his Credo of the People of God

(10 Aug 1968):

22. Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ, of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity, and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity, we entertain the hope that Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only Shepherd.

23. We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ who is the sole Mediator and Way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His Body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men; and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.

On the other hand, it must not be interpreted too strictly. In 1949, a priest by the name of Leonard Feeney was rebuked by the predecessor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the chief guardian of doctrine at the Holy See, for holding that no one who wasn't literally a member of a Catholic parish could be saved:

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, AUG. 8, 1949.

This letter, proposed on July 27 and approved the next day by the Supreme Pontiff, is directed against that rigorism by which certain members of the institutions "St. Benedict's Center" and "Boston College" interpret the saying "Outside the Church there is no salvation" to mean that all non-Catholics--catechumens having the explicit intention of entering the Catholic Church excepted--are excluded from eternal salvation. One of these rigorists, Leonard Feeney, unmoved by the warning of Church authority, was excommunicated on Feb. 4, 1953. [See Mike's comment below.]

3866.......Among those things which the Church has always proclaimed and never leaves off proclaiming is contained the infallible proposition by which we are taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation."

3868Nevertheless, this dogma must be understood in the sense in which the Church itself understands it. For our Savior did not give the contents of the deposit of faith to private judgments, but to the magisterium of the Church.The Church does in fact teach how this most severe precept of Jesus Christ is to be interpreted. For He Himself charged His apostles to teach all nations to carry out all the things which He had commanded. Moreover, not the least among the commandments of Christ is that by which Christ orders us to be incorporated by baptism into the mystical body of Christ, that is, the Church, and to cling fast to Christ and to His vicar, through whom He governs the Church on earth in a visible manner. Therefore no one will be saved, who knowing the Church to be divinely instituted by Christ, nevertheless refuses to subject himself to the Church or denies obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of Christ on earth.

3868 Indeed, Christ did not simply command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also set up the Church as the means of salvation, without which no one is able to enter the kingdom of heavenly glory.

3869 Concerning the aids given for salvation, which are ordered to the ultimate end by divine institution alone and not by any intrinsic necessity, God in his infinite mercy willed that in certain circumstances the effects necessary for salvation may be obtained when these aids are clung to only by a wish or desire. In the most holy Council of Trent, we see this enunciated in clear words first concerning the sacrament of regeneration and then concerning the sacrament of penance.

3870The same can be said about the Church, since she herself is a general aid to salvation. Thus for a person to obtain eternal salvation, it is not always demanded that he really be incorporated as a member of the Church, but it is at least required that he adhere to it by wish and desire. It is proper that this wish not always be explicit, as happens with catechumens; on the contrary, when man labors under invincible ignorance God also accepts an implicit wish, called by this name because it is found in that good disposition of the soul by which man wishes to conform his will to the will of God.

3871 These things are clearly taught inPius XII's encyclical letter on the mystical body of JesusChrist. In this letter the Supreme Pontiff distinguishes clearly between those who are really incorporated as members of the Church, and those who adhere to the Church by wish alone. . . ."Among the members of the Church those alone must be numbered who have received the washing of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have neither separated themselves miserably from the structure of the Body nor, on account of a most serious crime, have been severed from it by legitimate authority." Near the end of the same encyclical letter, inviting to unity with a most loving spirit those who do not belong to the structure of the Catholic Church, he remembers those "who by an ignorant desire or wish may be ordered towards the Mystical Body of the Redeemer," whom he excludes not at all from eternal salvation, although he asserts that in such a state they are tossed about from every side, "and cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation . . . for they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and aids, of which one may have the benefit only in the Catholic Church."

3872 With these wise words he reproves as much those who exclude from eternal salvation all who adhere to the Church by an implicit wish only, as those who falsely claim that men can be saved in every religion equally. Nor must it be thought that any wish whatsoever of entering the Church suffices for the salvation of man. For it is required that a wish, by which someone is ordered toward the Church, be formed in perfect charity; nor can an implicit wish have effect unless a man has supernatural faith.

[ultima ratio]

The interpretation of "No salvation outside the Church" which you cite is an extreme view which is rightfully opposed by the Church. If one were to accept it, not even aborted babies or just Protestants or Jews might find salvation. But we know this is not the case. How do we know?

Because the Church has always admitted there were exceptions to this dogma. Catechumens and martyrs who died before they were officially baptized were considered saved--yet they had not yet formally been received into the Church. Thus the Church affirmed the Baptisms of Blood and Desire. To have supposed catechumens and martyrs were condemned because of a lack of formal entrance into the Church was too obviously unjust to accept.

There are other reasons for opposing the extreme view. The Church's own limitations argue against it. Though the Church was established to preach the Gospel to all people, it is not omnipotent and it is subject to the limitations of its own imperfect humanity--even its own physical limitations. That is to say, it has geographic limitations, so that those not reached by its Gospel cannot possibly be culpable for not hearing it. This is why the Church, following Thomas Aquinas, distinguishes between vincible and invincible ignorance.

The Church has moral limitations as well that are due to its imperfect represenatatives on earth. Many of the Church's own leaders may be in outright error about its teachings, causing some followers to believe in doctrines which are actually mistaken, while contrariwise many good people may actually refuse to espouse such errors and may turn away in disgust. Again, they surely would not be blameworthy for rejecting error.

Lack of charity and bad example on the part of those who preach the Gospel are still other reasons why many people may turn away from the Church. Such failed witnessing leads to a distorted perception of the Church on the part of those who might otherwise be open to its teachings, making conversion extremely difficult, if not impossible. In none of these instances can the person turning away from the Church be considered culpable for his or her invincible ignorance.

There is also the problem of mortal sin as defined by the Church herself. It is Catholic teaching that unrepented mortal sin condemns the individual after death. This means the sin committed must be a grave one, it must be freely committed and it must be committed with full knowledge of the gravity involved. But if someone outside the Church does not fully realize the gravity of his not belonging, how can any mortal sin have been committed? This central tenet of Catholic theology is therefore in clear opposition to the extremely rigid interpretation of the ancient dogma which you repeat. The narrow interpretation you espouse has therefore rightfully been condemned, even by preconciliar popes who were traditionalists and anything but liberal in their interpretation of the faith.