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.

No, the point is that you are flat-out contradicting the Word of God, and do not understand how a man is justified in the sight of God.

You said “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.”

This is salvation by doing something (works).

The Word of God says that “We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.” - BEFORE he did anything (circumcision, moving, offering Isaac, etc....)

This is a critical distinction. Abraham was counted righteous by believing God. Nothing more. The fact that he followed through and obeyed was evidence of his belief, not the basis on which he was counted righteous.

BK - “Did Abraham know of Christ?”

The Bible doesn’t tell us how much Abraham knew, but he certainly believed that God was going to provide a way of salvation for mankind.

BK - “Was Abraham saved?”

Yes.

BK - “As for circumcision, Paul just spent chapters on discussing that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.”

I understand that. That was provided to prove that Abraham was counted righteous because of his faith before he DID anything. Which proves you wrong.

STF-””Try explaining Saint Genesius of Arles who was declared baptized by Martyrdom””

Ver-The martyrology is in error, he had received the sacrament of baptism.

Prove it? Your wrong! There are others as well.

Ver-”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”

Is this going to be the new mission of the Feeney crowd now- to start a crusade to remove Saint Genesius of Arles and others from Sainthood ?

Also, I never said there is no Salvation outside the Church,dear brother and I adhere to the defined teachings of the Church on these matters which is in the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION LUMEN GENTIUM regarding the invincibly ignorant who follow the law of love,thus not making me liberal at all,but one who is obedient to the Church,unlike Feeney. We have been through this already.

Salvation comes through the Church through a mystical connection through God’s grace

From Lumen Gentium and Dominius Lesus(AGAIN!)

Lumen Gentium-DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

And from Dominus Iesus written by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI...

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82

Feeney’s antisemitism written in his own articles at the below link ought to trouble you regarding him,ver

http://fatherfeeney.org/point/index.html

“The Bible doesn’t tell us how much Abraham knew, but he certainly believed that God was going to provide a way of salvation for mankind.”

Is that what God told him?

God was very clear with what he promised Abraham.

He promised Abraham the following:

1, that his descendents would be as numerous as the sand on the shore.

2, that they would reside in Israel, in the land between the Nile and Euphrates.

Wrong again.

Genesis 12:3 - “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and IN YOU ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH WILL BE BLESSED.”

Hebrews 11:8 - “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance.”

Abraham went as a result of his faith, not the other way around.

So now two questions for you.

1. What is justification?

2. How is a man justified in the sight of God?

“justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”

I believe I did say that we are Justified by the Grace of God, through Faith in Christ.

Said so twice.

We aren’t in *dis* agreement about much at all in this thread. You are arguing between yourself and your perceptions.

You are looking for an answer, but you aren’t getting the one you like, so you continue asking.

So I’ll answer again.

We are justified by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.

re: “Today you shall be with me in paradise” Was the thief on the cross baptised? Was he saved?

The good thief was under the old covenant. He did not go directly to heaven, he went to the same place as Adam, Eve, Abraham, and the Holy Innocents all of which were not under the obligation of being baptized to be saved. Heaven was not opened till the Resurrection of Our Lord.

From The Catechism of Trent: Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

re: Baptism of desire is scriptural. That's your opinion. There is no passage in scripture that is more exact than the requirement that one must be baptized to be saved. Besides, I'm not a Protestant, if you want to discuss dogma that's fine. If you want to discuss scripture, go and join one of the many never ending circle discussions with other YOPIOS on FR.

re:What’s your issue with converts, btw?

None. My issue is liberals and progressivists and the dumb down Catholics they have taught. Where people came from to become Catholics is of no concern to me. My favorite female saint is Mary Magdalene, who was a whore. Among the strict interpreters of EENS there are many Protestant converts.

re: 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.

1)I'm not a sedevacantes.

2)Luther and Calvin rejected THE OFFICE of pope. I don't.

3)The author of the article of this thread is in union with his local bishop and the pope.

4)sedevacantes don't reject the office of the pope, which would be heretical. They just don't believe that the post Vatican II popes are valid popes. Big Difference.

5) Let's see how you submit to the pope when he issues a decree that you don't like? Do you contraceptives? 99% of Catholics use them. I doubt if 1% of you who claim to follow the pope have had all the children God has sent you.

I sent an email to the Diocese and this was the response Thank you for your inquiry to the Diocese of Manchester website.

The individuals who work and reside at Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, NH are Catholic men and women who have made private vows to the Lord, and canonically are in good standing in the Roman Catholic Church. Neither the Saint Benedict Center nor the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary currently has official standing within the diocese. However, Bishop McCormack has granted permission for a priest to celebrate Mass and to hear confessions at Saint Benedict Center for the residents of the Center and their guests, and Bishop McCormack, his delegate, and the local pastor continue to work with those who reside at Saint Benedict Center to find a way for the work of the Center to resonate with the mission and ministry of the Universal Church, in particular, with the Diocese of Manchester. I hope that this information is helpful to you. Diane Quinlan
Diane Murphy Quinlan, Esq. Chancellor Diocese of Manchester PO Box 310 Manchester, NH 03105 dquinlan@rcbm.org (603)663-0101

Basically what they are saying is they have NO CHURCH AUTHORITY and what they are speaking is from their own personal opinion of what the Church teachs

“That’s your opinion. There is no passage in scripture that is more exact than the requirement that one must be baptized to be saved. Besides, I’m not a Protestant, if you want to discuss dogma that’s fine. If you want to discuss scripture, go and join one of the many never ending circle discussions with other YOPIOS on FR.”

I’m not arguing against the principle that baptism is a requirement. All I’m arguing is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are valid ways by which one can achieve baptism.

Fr’instance my home parish baptises catecumenates at Easter, every year. If someone were to die in the process of entering the Church, they still would be considered baptised. In the early days catechumens studied much longer than they do now.

re:2, 3, 4. Submission is the issue. Like them, you find submission to Benedict XVI difficult.

Luther and Calvin did not "find submission difficult", they outright rejected the authority of the office of the pope. They were schismatics, and heretics.

Besides, what exactly is there that you feel that the author of the article is not "submitting" too? Obviously, B-16 and his local ordinary in New Hampshire do not see what you see.

This progressivist ruse of "submit" is a now almost 50 year old and can be seen now for what it was, a ploy to get the ignorant of the faith to submit to their lying novelty religion. Open your eyes, All the progressivists and their stooges are not submitting to all the popes of 1960 years. Today, they teach "who knows who is outside of the Church?"

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

from: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt

I’m familiar with their arguments, and yours.

Luther made similar ones and eventually came to the conclusion that he must divide the body in order to save the souls of his charges. The result is what we see today. That he argued the Church was irredeemably corrupt, is identical to your argument here.

Benedict has welcomed you in as our brothers and sisters. Then as now, I wrote, we shall see whether they shall submit to the legitimate authority of this pope.

You are right, that there are many who have undermined the teachings of the previous two millenia. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the answer is not the division of the body, but to submit to the legitimate authority of Benedict XVI. Then we can work together.

We have far to many enemies to fight each other, we must stand together.

re:All I’m arguing is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are valid ways by which one can achieve baptism.

Baptism of blood - The theological construct called baptism of blood is a fallible theory. Cantate Domino's "even if they shed their blood for Christ" is infallible. So are the other nine ex-cathedra definitions that I posted. In total, those 9 ex-cathedra, and those many more magisterial decrees of popoes which confirm the 9 ex-cathedra, and the thousands of actual cases of people raised from the dead just to be baptized, all those stand against what? Like 5 martyrology cases of Baptism of Blood like 1500+ years ago?

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?

Baptism of desire - another theological construct. It is a fallible theory. The requirement of the sacrament of baptism is infallible dogma:

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.)

Some more observations on Baptism of desire:

1)One has the "desire" only by the grace of God. In order to believe in baptism of desire, one would have to believe that God's Grace could convert the hardened person, but God did not have the power to keep the person alive long enough to get someone to pour water on his head. You are caught in a vortex of confusion!

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)

2)The theory of baptism of desire saves no baptized Protestant or Eastern Orthodox, they are already baptized.

3) The theory baptism of desire does not save anyone who does not desire to be a baptized member of the Catholic Church.

So, these two theories don't really apply to all the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox on FR, the people that the liberalized dumb down Catholics are trying to bend over backwards to show that they are saved.

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.