Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of the Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.
The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.
Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.
Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor
Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.
Your Excellency:
This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “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.”
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (, n. 801).
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical From the Housetops, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.
From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound’ of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts 20:28).
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the ““ which is prescribed by the sacred canons.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.
July 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
Novus Ordo priest affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma and also Vatican Council II
An Italian priest who offered the Novus Ordo Mass in Italian today morning at the Salus Populi Romani chapel in the Basilica of St. Mary Majors, Rome, said it was a mortal sin to deny an ex cathedra dogma like the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr. Gabrielle said it was a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition without first going for Confession.
He was speaking with me in the sacristy after Mass and will be here for a few months. I told him I write on this subject on my blog.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation) says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church for salvation. He agreed this was the teaching of the dogma and of the Catholic Church. Every non Catholic needs to enter the Church for salvation.” If there is no baptism there is no salvation “,said Fr. Gabrielle.It needs to be mentioned that Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7).
Vatican Council II also says Fr. Gabrielle said that there can be those saved through Jesus and the Church and who may not be members of the Church. It needs to be clarified here that only God knows which non Catholics are saved through Jesus and the Church. So this does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr. Gabrielle had earlier during the homily spoken about St. Maria Goretti. He also mentioned in the homily that fornicators, or someone who committed a sin of impurity, should not receive the Eucharist, without going for Confession otherwise it would be a sacrilege.
So I asked him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He said presently there was a lot of confusion on this issue.He emphasized the necessity of the Church for the salvation of all people.-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS THE DOGMA
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II (Note: All need the baptism of water for salvation and Catholics only give baptism to adults with Catholic Faith. So Ad Gentes 7 is saying that all people need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.)
CATECHISM AFFIRMS DOGMA
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (Note : ‘which men through Baptism as through a door’ was a term used by the Church Fathers for the rigorist interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation).
CCC 845.To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Church n.845 Catechism of the Catholic Church
DOMINUS IESUS AND THE DOGMA
This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20 (Note: Salvation is open for all however to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church).
_________________________________________
Ordinary Magisterium
Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 – 590): “Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. …Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. …Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. …[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.” (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 – 604): “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.” (Moralia )
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)
Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )
Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )
“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae )
Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane )
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum )
Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)
Extraordinary Magisterium
Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes “in concrete,” so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” -from the website Catholicism.org
__________________________________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
Vatican Council II says outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Catholic Church teaches after Vatican Council II (1965) that all people need to enter the Catholic Church to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).
Catholic Faith with the Baptism of water is the normal, ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II).The Catholic Church is the ordinary way of salvation for all people (Lumen Gentium 14).Non Catholics however can be saved through the extraordinary means of salvation (Lumen Gentium 16).Only God knows who are the non-Catholics saved through the extraordinary means of salvation; the exceptions. We do not know who the exceptions are. We cannot judge. Jesus, the Church, Scripture and Vatican Council II indicate that the priority is Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for all people.
So everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church which is the like the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood (CCC).Non Catholic religions have good things in them. However they are not paths to salvation. All salvation comes through Jesus and His Mystical Body the Church. Those non-Catholics who know the above information and yet do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14).Those non-Catholics participating in inter religious dialogue, are educated. They know. They are oriented to Hell.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water are needed for all people. This is Vatican Council II.
No where in Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II is it said that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation.
Vatican Council II is in harmony with John 3:5, the Church Fathers, Council of Florence, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on Fr. Jacques Dupuis etc.
Don’t let people fool you about Vatican Council II. Check the details and affirm the Faith which does not change.
Jesus called the Catholic Church “…my church…” He told St. Peter that it would prevail against Satan and be there for all time. -Lionel Andrades
Photo Fr.Gabrielle this morning during the 8 a.m Mass at St.Mary Majors,Rome.
July 6, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
KARL KEATING SAYS FR.LEONARD FEENEY WAS NOT EXCOMMUNICATED FOR HERESY
I have come across Karl Keating the founder of Catholic Answers’ E-Letter Jan 13, 2004, in which he writes :
From the late 1940s until his death he was known instead for his rigorist interpretation of the maxim “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (“no salvation outside the Church”). Adherents to his interpretation became known as “Feeneyites.”
Ordered to stop teaching his interpretation, Feeney refused and was excommunicated, not technically for teaching heresy but for disobedience.
Karl Keating says that Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy but he held the ‘rigorist interpretation of the maxim “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”.
It was not a maxim it was a dogma Mr.Keating and the dogma held the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of outside the church there is no salvation.
Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to this ‘dogma’, the ‘infallible’teaching.
So if Fr.Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy and held the same teaching as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, did the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston support Fr.Leonard Feeney on dogma/doctrine ?
__________________________________________
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/karl-keating-says-frleonard-feeney-was.html
July 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Saturday, July 2, 2011
MORE LIBERAL NOVUS ORDO PRIESTS ARE ACCEPTING EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
They see through the media deception and futile controversies when they realize that the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle and never known de facto.
I was talking to a visiting priest a few days back, at a small church. He agreed that the baptism of desire was only known to God. We did not know any case.
We then agreed that in Vatican Council II all the objections against the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, were known only to God. Those in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) were known only to God. Those saved by the Word of God were unknown to us.
The baptism of desire was dejure, accepted only in principle, since it can never be de facto for us, Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct. There is no baptism of desire or blood that we in general can know of. If someone really is a martyr only God can judge. We cannot judge. When the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.
So with the Fr. Leonard Feeney and Vatican Council II objections removed, we are left with the centuries- old interpretation of extra eccleisam nulla salus. We come to this conclusion based on reason. This is not a new theology.
For centuries there was no controversy over baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Since they were always understood to be implicit and did not contradict the dogma which called for explicit baptism of water, for all without exceptions.
Then the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued to the Archbishop of Boston by Pope Pius XII mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. That dogma was Cantate Domino, one of three ex cathedra definitions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The text of Cantate Domino indicates all Jews and other non Catholic in Boston need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. This was exactly what Fr.Leonard Feeney taught. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy? The Letter supported him on doctrine. This is contrary to the secular media propaganda.
The message of the Letter and the dogma is the same as Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20. This is Vatican Council II and Magisterial documents in accord with Cantate Domino. This has been the positive aspect of this issue.
On what seemed the negative aspect, but is not, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to invincible ignorance which does not contradict the dogma since it is not explicitly known to us.Implicit case are hidden from us.
So rationally we are back to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the Church has not retracted in any Magisterial document. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 can be interpreted in accord with the dogma. CCC 846 on Outside the Church No Salvation says all need to enter the Church as through a door. This was how the Church Fathers described extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC’s 846’s reference to those saved implicitly through Jesus and the Church does not contradict the dogma, since we do not know a single person, saved through Jesus and the Church.
-Lionel Andrades
July 6, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Thursday, June 30, 2011
EVERYBODY NEEDS THE EUCHARIST TO GO TO HEAVEN – Fr.Marcos Renacia, Augustinian Recollect priest
‘The Eucharist is the ordinary means of salvation’, said Fr. Marcos Renacia, an Augustinian-Recollect priest. ‘Everyone on earth de facto needs the Eucharist to go to Heaven’.
Hypothetically, in a way known only to God, through the extraordinary means God can save a non Catholic who is not a member of the Church who has not received the Sacrament of the Eucharist, he agrees, de facto we do not know a single case such case.
De facto everyone on earth needs the Eucharist to avoid Hell. De jure, in principle, there could be the possibility of someone saved who has not received this Sacrament.
The Church is the ordinary means of salvation states Pope John Paul II in Redemptoris Missio 55. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (Ad Gentes 7).Jesus saves through the Sacraments, those who respond (Dominus Iesus 20) by entering the Church.
Fr. Marcos was commenting on the Gospel Reading last Sunday (Corpus Domini) in which Jesus says the Eucharist was needed for salvation (John 6). he was speaking with me at the Augustinian– Recollect Church in Rome. We were comparing the dogmatic teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) with the Eucharist being needed for all.
Fr. Marcos chose to use the defacto-dejure explanation of this issue, especially, when asked if ‘all non Catholics need to explicitly receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist for salvation; to go to Heaven and avoid Hell ?’
The words de facto and de jure are used in the Introduction to Dominus Iesus.
‘De facto salvation’ used here is synonymous with explicit salvation. It refers to the baptism of water which is visible and repeatable. It refers to Catholic Faith which is taught explicitly. It is the ordinary means of salvation.
‘Dejure salvation’ is synonymous with implicit salvation. It refers to the baptism of desire, those saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, perfect contrition, in partial communion with the church or saved by the Word of God. It is not the ordinary means of salvation and depends on God’s grace. It’s an extra ordinary form of salvation.
When Fr.Marcos says that the Eucharist is the ordinary means of salvation he refers to de facto salvation. Since we do not personally know any case of de jure salvation, we assume everybody needs to de facto receive the Eucharist. Everyone we meet needs the Sacraments. There is no exception that we know of.
This is the official teaching of the Church through the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II, Redemptoris Missio 55, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, Dominus Iesus 20, Ecclesia di Eucarestia etc.)
The Church documents, Magisterial texts, indicate everyone de facto needs the Sacraments to go to Heaven.
The understanding of Church (ecclesiology) in Ecclesia di Eucarestia was based on outside the Church there is no salvation, complained Cardinal Walter Kasper. In the magazine 30 giorini he said no one today believes in outside the Church there is no salvation. He complained that Ecclesia di Eucarestia also ignored the Orthodox Christians, who have a valid Eucharist.
Orthodox Christians are ‘schismatics’ according to Cantate Domino, ex cathedra. They need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell according to the dogma. We may call them ‘true’ churches and ‘sister’ churches but the dogma says they are all oriented to Hell. We are not permitted to receive the Eucharist at their churches. Neither are they permitted to receive the Eucharist at Catholic Churches.
Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II has the same message. It says all need baptism for salvation. Catholics only give the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith. The Orthodox Christians donot have Catholic Faith.
Just as a Catholic in mortal sin is not to receive the Eucharist even though Jesus is still present in the Eucharist an Orthodox Christian is not to receive the Eucharist at a Catholic Church.it is a sin. Cantate Domino indicates Orthodox Christians are in mortal sin (‘schismatics’).De facto they are all on the way to Hell.
So when Jesus says ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life’- are there any exceptions?
De facto, none.
De jure, none. All those who are saved implicitly are saved through Jesus and the Church (CCC 846).
When the Augustinian Recollect priest says de facto everyone with no exception needs the Eucharist for salvation he is affirming the centuries old interpretation of Cantate Domino-just like St. Augustine.
If Fr. Marcos does not use the terms de facto-dejure (hypothetical) it would be confusing. It would be saying everyone needs the Eucharist except for…It would be saying yes and No. simultaneously.
There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino or Ad Gentes 7 unless one mixes up de jure salvation for de facto salvation.
If one mistakenly says the baptism of desire refers to de facto salvation and contradicts Cantate Domino which also refers to de facto salvation, then something is wrong. It is in conflict with the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If one correctly infers that de jure baptism of desire does not contradict de facto Cantate Domino then it is rational. It also does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So de facto everybody needs the Eucharist for salvation as Fr. Marcos Renacia says.
Outside the Church, outside the Eucharist, there is no salvation.
July 6, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
We do not know any case of the baptism of desire so Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there is no de facto baptism of desire,that we know of
The Friars Minors in New York who produce the magazine Seraph have placed the following quotation on the internet.
THE SALVATION OF NON CATHOLICS
Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office August 8, 1949, to the Archbishop of Boston.
(Controversy which arose at Boston College on the subject of the axiom, “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”)
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office.
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
(Note: The ‘dogma’ the ‘infallible’ teaching is Cantate Domino, Council of Florence defined by Pope Eugene IV, 1441.)
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Note :Fr.Leonard Feeney taught that every non Catholic in Boston needed to enter the Church formally for salvation and there were no exceptions. This was the message of Cantate Domino. So he could not have been excommunicated for heresy.(Also see Ad Gentes 7, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20 ).
(The text specifies Jews, Protestants and Orthodox Christians. It says if they do not enter the Church they will not receive salvation. The only way they could enter the Church is through Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is the ordinary way. They could not enter the Church through the baptism of desire since this was a grace given by God. It cannot be administered like the baptism of water.)
Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.
(Note: ‘ Go out and preach the Good News’, ‘…those who do not believe will be condemned’-Mark 16:16 )
Obligation to enter the Church
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to his Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.
Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.
The “desire” may suffice
In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
The implicit “desire”
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
(Note: The Letter mentions an implicit desire. We can only accept implicit desire as a probability, something that is possible. We accept it ‘in principle’ because of its very nature. It is known only to God and unknown to us.So we do not know any de facto case of a person saved with implicit desire. So it cannot contradict Cantate Domino.)
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1948, “On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”. For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.
(Note: There are those who are incorporated into the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This is explicit. There are those who are incorporated into the Church only by desire and this is known only to God. We cannot imply that we know such cases and so this contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, the same August Pontiff says: “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”.
Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire”, and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation,
(Note: Those who ‘are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire’ are not excluded from eternal salvation. However they are known to God only .Also the baptism of desire is not the ordinary means of salvation.The ordinary means of salvation is the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. Since we cannot know on earth who they are, with that ‘yearning and desire’ we cannot infer that they contradict Cantate Domino.
So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in infering that there is no baptism of desire that we know of and everyone with no exception needs to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell.This was the teaching in the text of Cantate Domino.)
but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church”.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,
(Note: We do not ‘exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ however we accept it only as a possibility. Since it is known only to God it does not contradict the ‘infallible’ teaching the ‘dogma’.
So when Fr.Leonard Feeney said every one needed to enter the Church with no exception for salvation he was not contradicting the Church teaching on (dejure) baptism of desire.)
and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.
Necessity of faith
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him”. The Council of Trent declares: “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of his children”.
(Practical dispositions relative to Reverend Leonard Feeney.)
Submission to the Church
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith.
(Note: Fr.Leonard Feeney was affirming Cantate Domino and since the baptism of desire is always de jure and known only to God how could he deny something that none of us knows of personally; none of us knows any case of a non Catholic in the present times being saved with the baptism of desire.
Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are known only to God. Since we do not know a single case on earth, it does not contradict Cantate Domino which says formal entry into the Church is needed for all.
Since we do not know any case on earth of the baptism of desire, Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there is no de facto baptism of desire (that we know of).
Certainly, their bond, and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church `’only by an unconscious desire”. Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.
Placed by friarsminor.org/boston.html Most Rev. Bishop Louis O.F.M. ,SERAPH – P.O. Box 16194 Rochester, NY 14616 USA
Note: the Catholic Church has not officialy retracted the dogma Cantate Domino. Fr.Leonard Feeney had the same message as Cantate Domino. He had the same message as the popes and saints throughout history, those who offered the Tridentine Rite Mass.
How could he claim that de jure baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma ? The baptism of desire cannot never be de facto known to us so it does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades
E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com
June 8, 2020 at 9:07 am
JUNE 7, 2020
CDF always interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and Bishop Athanasius Schneider does not correct them
Bishop Athanasius Schneider has said that God does not will a plurality of religions for salvation yet he interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and so the inference is that there is salvation outside the Church. There are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church for him.There are known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16) and so they are exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So the conclusion is that God does will a plurality of religions for salvation. This is what Pope Francis has been saying all along citing Vatican Council II( interpreted with the confusion).
Bishop Schneider’s conclusion is that Vatican Council II contradicts EENS.So he confirms that God wills a plurality of religions for salvation.
If he did not use the false premise( invisible cases of I.I are visible and objective exceptions to EENS),he would be affirming 16th century EENS.He would be theologically saying, citing Vatican Council II, that God does not will a plurality of religions for salvation.He would be affirming like a traditionalist, that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
But if there is known salvation outside the Church for Bishop Schneider then Pope Francis is correct in supporting a theology of Christian or general religious pluralism and salvation.
Unfortunately Bishop Schneider supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949( LOHO) which wrongly assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire ( BOD) and invincible ignorance were known and objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So every one did not need to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
‘Therefore that one may obtain salvation it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.’-Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).
LOHO is the foundation for the New Theology.Without the mix up between what is invisible-visible there is no New Theology. Invisible cases were projected as objected exceptions to EENS.Bishop Schneider does not correct the mistake.
These are points related to Vatican Council II and EENS which are never responded to by Bishop Schneider and the Lefbvrists.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is always interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise and Bishop Schneider does not correct them.
In Italy the judges in the secular courts interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise. They do the same at the Vatican Tribunal and Bishop Schneider remains silent.
His last book with Diane Montagna,interprets Vatican Council II with the error.Very convenient and politically correct. So I did not recommend it.
When the CDF asked the traditionalist St. Benedict Center, N.H., to interpret CCC 847-848( invincible ignorance) as an exception to Feeneyite EENS, he did not protest.
Would Bishop Schneider and the Lefbvrists be ready to say that all the non Catholics in Kazakhistan, his diocese, are oriented to Hell without faith and baptism according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?
I hope so.
He would of course be asking , the CDF , and Rome, to come back to the Faith.
However it seems like the traditionalists need the ‘exceptions’ like a man drowning in the ocean needs air.This is why there is no denial for these reports on this blog.I send these reports to Bishop Schneider at his e-mail address and also to the assistant at his website Gloria Dei.
Even the sedevacantist bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas and Fr. Anthony Cekada, for physical and material survival, need the ‘exceptions’.
The traditionalists would like Rome to come back to the Faith, but on easier terms, for themselves.-Lionel Andrades
June 8, 2020 at 7:22 pm
So you think that someone who professes the Catholic Faith in full and seeks baptism but dies before hand cannot be saved?
June 9, 2020 at 9:28 am
Hypothetically anything is possible.
Defacto we humans do not know of any such case.
If such a person was saved he or she would only be known to God.
So there would be no objective exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
There are no objective exceptions to EENS in 1965. There are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
June 9, 2020 at 10:08 pm
Well that rather depends on. how you interpret EENS. One might simply hold that catechumens are not extra ecclesia in the relevant sense. I’m not sure about the coherence of your other point. There is no way of knowing if someone was saved unless he is canonised. I agree that the only instrument available to us for justifying someone in original sin – “the power to become children of God” – is baptism. I don’t know what you mean by ‘objective’. If a catechumen is granted supernatural faith, hope and charity by God (which I agree we could not know) and then dies before baptism without mortal sin then it is still objectively true he was saved even if we cannot know that it happened (unless he is canonised).
June 10, 2020 at 9:31 am
By objective I mean physically visible.Someone would have to be present in real life who is saved outside the Church.You agree that there is no such case in 2020.
The Catechumen who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved is always a hypothetical and speculative case.
June 10, 2020 at 9:49 am
But the justification of the neophyte is not physically visible we know it occurs through faith. We cannot see that the catechumen has been granted faith, hope and charity before baptism but we also cannot see that the penitent has made a good confession. I remains reasonable to suppose that some penitents do make good confessions and that some catechumens are granted faith, hope and charity before baptism but in neither case can we be sure as we can be sure that a neophyte was justified by the sacrament.
June 10, 2020 at 10:24 am
Fine hypothetically but we cannot project any of this as an exception to Feeneyite EENS.At the physical level of matter they do not exist.
It only exists in our mind as thoughts.
June 10, 2020 at 10:26 am
JUNE 9, 2020
An exception must exist in a particular place for it to be an exception : CDF has got it wrong
AN EXCEPTION MUST EXIST IN A PARTICULAR PLACE FOR IT TO BE AN EXCEPTION
If there are a group of school boys standing at a bus stop and then a boy joins them who is very tall, then that tall boy is an exception among those boys who are short.
That tall boy is an exception primarily because he is there and not just because he is tall.
If he would stand at another bus stop on the same street but far away, he would not be an exception.
He would have the same height but would not be an exception among this group of boys.
So to be an exception it is not enough to be different, the person or thing must be present, among other persons or things,who or which are different.
If there is an orange in a box of apples that orange is an exception because it is different but also because it is there in that box.
Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith: interview with the …
For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and the liberals the baptism of desire(BOD) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But there are no known cases of the BOD on earth ? No practical cases.
For the CDF being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the Athansius Creed which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.But there are no known cases of non Catholics saved without faith and baptism and instead with invincible ignorance. So how can invincible ignorance be relevant to the Athanasius Creed or EENS, as an exception ?
This is a false premise of the CDF.
Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith – Minnesota Catholic …
With the false premise they make a false inference. They assume there is known salvation outside the Church and so non Catholics do not need to necessarily, have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
With the same false premise and inference they interpret Vatican Council II and project it as a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).
This is deceptive.
-Lionel Andrades
June 10, 2020 at 10:28 am
JUNE 10, 2020
Diocese of Manchester, USA and CDF grant canonical status for religious communities which interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion
The Diocese of Manchester, USA interprets 1) Vatican Council II 2) baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance 3) Catechism of the Catholic Church 4) extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and the 5 ) Athanasius Creed with a false premise and inference to create a non traditional conclusion.This is approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) officials who want the St.Benedict Center,USA, in the diocese, to do the same. All the religious communities in the diocese are obliged to interpret magisterial documents with a false premise to receive canonical recognition.
The St.Benedict Center interprets EENS without the false premise.It does not have canonical recognition.
The FSSP uses the false premise.It is recognised.
All the priests who offer Holy Mass in Latin or English have to use the false premise to interpret the Creeds.This is heresy.It is an impediment to offering Holy Mass.
…
The Thomas More College of Liberal Arts 1 is in the diocese of Manchester.Phil Lawler teaches there.He chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.Anthony Esolen also teaches at this institution approved by Bishop Peter Libasci and the CDF.
-Lionel Andrades
June 10, 2020 at 7:29 pm
The Athanasian Creed does not mention Baptism.
June 11, 2020 at 9:28 am
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.-Athanasius Creed
It says that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
All need faith and baptism for salvation, as Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II states.
And there are no objective exceptions mentioned in the Council text.
So I interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the Athanasius Creed.
But for those who project LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc as exceptions to the Athanasius Creed, as saying that there are known non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. So all do not need the Catholic faith for salvation.
June 11, 2020 at 4:43 pm
I agree one cannot be saved without the Catholic Faith. I agree with St Thomas that there are exceptions in regard to those who are saved with a living faith but without sacramental baptism. I do not consider the view that there are no exceptions to be heretical.
June 11, 2020 at 4:55 pm
Great.Do you consider the theological position of the CDF heretical ? What about Bp. Schneider?
June 11, 2020 at 7:58 pm
You’d have to give me the exact quotations.
June 12, 2020 at 9:42 am
See
SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
Pope Benedict approved the mistake of the International Theological Commission, a magisterial error on a faith issue which contradicted the ex cathedra teaching of three Church Councils and popes
-blog Eucharist and Mission.
The proof is there on the ITC papers.
June 12, 2020 at 10:28 am
That’s not a quotation and the ITC is not part of the magisterium.
June 12, 2020 at 10:57 am
The two ITC papers were approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj.
It is saying LG 16 etc are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
That’s proof.
_________________
Then at the Plaquet Deo Press Conference ( March 2016) Cardinal Ladaria cited LG 8 as an exception to the traditional teaching on the Church having a superiority and exclusiveness in salvation. He was responding to a question from a lady correspondent of the Associated Press. Watch the video.
That’s proof.
__________________
Then in 2016 in Avvenire Pope Benedict was quoted in an interview. He said that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.He said there was a development with Vatican Council II. He mean LG 8. etc were exceptions.
This is proof.
The details are there on my blog Eucharist and Mission..
All this has been approved by the CDF and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
There is no denial from the bishop and neither does he interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
He complains about Vatican Council II and calls for a Syllabus of Errors since he is interpreting the Council with a false premise and does not know about the alternative or does not want to use the rational-alternative.
There are other reports on my blog which make the same point.
June 12, 2020 at 3:31 pm
But none of this is an official statement by the CDF.
June 13, 2020 at 9:40 am
The examples above show that the present popes and the CDF asume there are ‘exceptions’ to EENS.Bishop Schneider goes along with it since he considers it ‘magisterial’.
So the proof is there on the website of the Catholic Diocese of Manchester where the bishop is Peter Libasci.It is also there on the website of the St. Benedict Center, N.H, Catholicism.org. The CDF asks that CCC 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) be considered an excepton to Feeneyite EENS.
But since it is not considered an exception to EENS by Brother Andre Marie penalties have been placed on the SBC. This is official and it is there on the websiie for over a year.
The CDF is saying there are exceptions to EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Nincene Creed and the Apostles Creed. The Catechisms, like Vatican Council II have to be read also with alleged unknown and invisible exceptions in 2020 being visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.They ‘contradict’ Tradition ( Syllabus of Errors of Pius X, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc).
Since there were exceptions for Cardinal Ratzinger,,Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus do not affirm exclusive salvation but acknowledge the exceptions.
So Vatican Council II is read with ambigous passages contradicting the orthodox passages .Instead for me they are hypothetical passages which do not contradict the orthodox passages.
For me Vatican Council II has only orthodox passages which support EENS since the hypothetical passages are not exceptions.This is not the way the CDF and Bishop Athanasius Schneider read Vatican Council II.
June 13, 2020 at 5:44 pm
One needs to distinguish two senses of ‘extra’. In one sense anyone who is not baptised, knowingly rejects the legitimate authority of his Catholic ordinary or knowingly rejects the dogmatic teaching of the Church (or even unknowingly rejects the prime credibles) is outside the Church. I would say, however, that some such persons could be saved. To take the easiest (possibly the only) example a catechumen might accept all the teachings of the Church insofar as he knows them and at least the Trinity and the Incarnation and submit to the authority of his local Catholic ordinary but not be baptised because still under instruction. He is ‘outside the Church’ in this sense but we must hold he can be justified and it cannot be safely taught that he will certainly not be given final perseverance by God even if he dies before baptism. In the second sense of ‘extra’ he is not outside the Church. He is not a member of the Church but he is ‘aggregated’ to her in the sense used by the Council of Florence in Cantate Domino “nisi ante finem vitae eidem fuerint aggregati”. In this second sense the EENS principle is exceptionless. For this aggregation to obtain one has explicitly to believe the prime credibles on the authority of God revealing through a proximate norm which one (at least implicitly) holds to be infallible and intend to fulfil all the requirements God imposes for salvation. I consider it dogmatically defined that the prime credibles include since the Passion at least the Trinity and the Incarnation. I do not think that it is a heresy to hold that no one is saved outside the Church on the narrow definition of outside but it cannot be safely taught. I do think it is a heresy or at least an error to hold that no one can be justified outside the Church on the narrow definition of outside. It is a heresy to hold that anyone can be justified or saved outside the Church in the broad definition of outside explained above. It may be that some of the individuals you have mentioned above were materially heretical on this count but I have not come across statements that could only bear this interpretation issued by them in the discharge of their formal magisterial duties. The position that the CDF told Br Andre Marie was ‘unacceptable’ was that Dominus Iesus and the CCC “contradict what was previously taught.” I don’t think it is necessary to hold this position. CCC1257 expressly teaches that “The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude”. It is therefore possible to hold that as a matter of fact no one who has not been baptised will be saved without contradicting the CCC.
June 18, 2020 at 2:53 pm
Sounds good to me.
June 18, 2020 at 4:25 pm
But it is not the rational and tradiitonal interpretation of Vatican Council II.Instead a false premise is used to create a new salvation doctrine.
June 18, 2020 at 7:46 pm
What is ‘it’?
June 19, 2020 at 8:59 am
The Council Fathers accepted the false reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) which assumed unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance, were known examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. So there were objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.The Athanasius Creed was also made obsolete.There was no correctioin from Pope Pius XII. The excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was still not lifted in 1965 by Pope Paul VI and the Archbishop of Boston.
So the Council Fathers assumed there were exceptions to EENS and so not every one needed to enter the Church but only those who ‘knew’ about Jesus and the Church and did not enter i.e those who were not in invincible ignorance.This was the new doctrine on salvation. It is there in LG 14.
When St.Francis Xavier went to Goa as a missionary he knew all the pagans, all the non Catholics there, were oriented to Hell without faith and the baptism of water.This was the traditional teaching of the Church based upon John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Matt.7:13, John Chapter 6 etc.
June 19, 2020 at 9:21 am
Whatever you think of the Holy Office letter and whatever its authority (and this is not clear as it was never included in the AAS) it does not require denial of the necessity of aggregation to the Church in the broad sense I outlined above as Fenton pointed out: “most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation.” I would be interested if you could point out where the letter requires one to believe that there are actual concrete persons who have been or will be saved outside the church in the narrow sense (rather than merely that this is theoretically possible)?