A quick question on Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salva

[Leo_The_Great]

Is it PERMISSIBLE to hold the view that only the Baptized will be among those who persevere to the end and attain to final glorification?

DO we have to believe that those Justified by BOD will be given the gift of final perseverance?

In other words, can we believe that only those with the sacramental character of baptism will enter into heaven; and that though others be justified for a time, they will all fall away?

 

[JM3]

Why would you want to believe this?

 

[MarkThompson]

Is it PERMISSIBLE to hold the view that only the Baptized will be among those who persevere to the end and attain to final glorification?

DO we have to believe that those Justified by BOD will be given the gift of final perseverance?

In other words, can we believe that only those with the sacramental character of baptism will enter into heaven; and that though others be justified for a time, they will all fall away?

No, I do not think so. To take the parallel case of Baptism of Blood, for example the Roman Martyrology for April 12 has:
Bracari, in Lusitania, sancti Victoris Martyris, qui, adhuc catechumenus, cum noluisset idolum adorare, et Christum Jesum magna constantia confessus fuisset, ideo, post multa tormenta, capite abscisso, meruit proprio sanguine baptizari.
which means,
At Braga, in Portugal, the holy Martyr Victor, who, while still a catechumen, when he refused to adore an idol and confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, consequently, after many torments, being beheaded, merited to be baptized by his own blood.
This was in the fourth century. Now, remembering that blood is invalid matter for real (water) baptism, would you accordingly be willing to say, “A martyred catechumen cannot be ‘baptized’ in blood; thus the cult of Victor is false, the Martyrology is fraudulent, and the Church has greatly erred in giving such a non-saint a feast day”?

Likewise, as to baptism of desire specifically, St. Thomas holds:
[T]he sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: “I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.”
. . .
Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.
. . .
The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed” (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).
So if Thomas, Ambrose, and the Church are all wrong, then perhaps your position has merit.

Unless I’ve misunderstood your question altogether and you’re really asking whether we could hold that people like Victor and Valentinian are saints in heaven now, but won’t actually make it through to the end of time. No, we cannot hold that position either, since the personal judgment that occurs upon death is final and irrevocable.

 

[Planty_Pall]

Is it PERMISSIBLE to hold the view that only the Baptized will be among those who persevere to the end and attain to final glorification?

DO we have to believe that those Justified by BOD will be given the gift of final perseverance?

In other words, can we believe that only those with the sacramental character of baptism will enter into heaven; and that though others be justified for a time, they will all fall away?

If there are those baptized by water who fall from grace, then it cannot seem prohibited to think it possible who are baptized by desire may do the same. The only reason it may not follow would be if “baptism of desire” refers specifically to a grace that is activated upon the death of one who was never baptized by water. Upon reflection, I would tend to understand baptism of desire that way, as taking effect at death. Otherwise, we would have to say for every baptized adult convert, that they received the grace of baptism upon conceiving the desire, and that seems unacceptable.

In my opinion, the Church has never clarified this question, and either school of thought is permissible.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I was just curious. THat’s Father Feeney in a nutshell, and the church never condemned his ideas, and he died in communion with the church, and his slaves of the immaculate heart of mary are in communion with the church at present.

SO I was just Curious.

He was never asked to retract his views when he was rehabilitated.

 

[pnewton]

A person can hold an opinion that is in oppostion to Church teaching, but it will never be permissible, as in having permission for dissent to be granted. Fr. Feeney was never granted such permission and neither has the St. Benedict Center. Saying their views are permissible is no more logical than saying abortion is permissible because pro-abortion politicians aren’t excommunicated.

 

[JM3]

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Session VI - Celebrated on the thirteenth day of January, 1547 under Pope Paul III

CHAPTER IV A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE
In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

 

[MarkThompson]

I was just curious. THat’s Father Feeney in a nutshell, and the church never condemned his ideas, and he died in communion with the church, and his slaves of the immaculate heart of mary are in communion with the church at present.

SO I was just Curious.

He was never asked to retract his views when he was rehabilitated.

Actually, the Church did condemn his views. Read this letter from the Holy Office (now the CDF).

 

[mattkubes]

A person can hold an opinion that is in oppostion to Church teaching, but it will never be permissible, as in having permission for dissent to be granted. Fr. Feeney was never granted such permission and neither has the St. Benedict Center. Saying their views are permissible is no more logical than saying abortion is permissible because pro-abortion politicians aren’t excommunicated.

Well his situation was a little different - Fr Feeney was excommunicated for failing to obey his summons to Rome, but I think the OP is referring to the fact that he wasn’t required to recant his position on EENS before the excommunication was lifted. Still, I don’t think his had anything to do with his belief on EENS though, so that probably doesn’t tell us much. But I doubt the excommunication would be lifted on a pro-abort without them recanting.

Nope, I’m not a Feeneyite, but I think his story is interesting.

 

[pnewton]

Well his situation was a little different -

All situations are a little different. I do not know what would happen in the case of a pro-abortion politician beinf reinstated, as none of them have been excommunicated. The point of similarity is that we simply can not draw an inference of permission from a reinstatement of excommunication. That is not the intent or the substance of this type of reconcilliation. Disciplinary actions or lack of them is not catechesis.

 

[pnewton]

I found this at EWTN:

When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him,
let him be reconciled to the Church. As part of the unfortunate
looseness we se so often today, they did not demand that he recant.
So he did not. As a result, some former followers of his came back to
the Church. Others even today insist that the lack of demanding a
recantation meant Feeney had been right all along. Of course not.

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

 

[mattkubes]

I found this at EWTN:

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

Thanks for that, I just saw that linked in this [very good] analysis too:
associatedcontent.com/article/1120627/feeneyites_catholics_in_good_standing.html?cat=9

Turns out the censures should never have been lifted according to Canon Law (1917 and 1983). Talk about giving scandal to people leaning towards a strict interpretation of EENS.

 

[laszlo]

Is it PERMISSIBLE to hold the view that only the Baptized will be among those who persevere to the end and attain to final glorification?

God gave freedom for us, so this is possible. However this is false and condemned belief.

 

[Gregory_I]

I saw this in the so-called condemnation

"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” (Denzinger, n. 801). "

But isn’t that exactly what everyone wants to believe nowadays?

 

[mattkubes]

I saw this in the so-called condemnation

But isn’t that exactly what everyone wants to believe nowadays?

That’s a good point - some people seem to be under the impression that the very existence of the notions of baptism of blood and desire means that most non-Catholics are more or less OK. I’ve always understood that the conditions necessary for salvation to be given to a person outside the visible Church (perfect charity, etc.) are pretty rare.

Our Lord didn’t tell us to baptize all nations just for fun.

 

[Gregory_I]

That’s a good point - some people seem to be under the impression that the very existence of the notions of baptism of blood and desire means that most non-Catholics are more or less OK. I’ve always understood that the conditions necessary for salvation to be given to a person outside the visible Church (perfect charity, etc.) are pretty rare.

Our Lord didn’t tell us to baptize all nations just for fun.

That means they are in a real danger of hell then, right?

I mean, if a people doesn’t know Christ, can we not say what Christ said to the Pharisees:

“Those who are of God hear the words of God; but you are not of God, therefore you do not hear.”

In other words, a people that does not have the gospel preached to them is a people unwilling to hear the gospel: For could God ever leave a person of good will ignorant of the only means of salvation?

 

[mattkubes]

In other words, a people that does not have the gospel preached to them is a people unwilling to hear the gospel: For could God ever leave a person of good will ignorant of the only means of salvation?

Haha I think I know where you may be trying to facilitate this, but I like to leave this one to the Angelic Doctor:

“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.”

This was the way St Thomas speculated that they might be saved, although I don’t think he meant it to the exclusion of all other extraordinary options.

Edit: that still leaves us with the question of who is invincibly ignorant. Some people favour a very broad definite (read: all non-Catholics) but I don’t think that’s the way that the term has historically been used.

 

[Gregory_I]

Haha I think I know where you may be trying to facilitate this, but I like to leave this one to the Angelic Doctor:

“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.”

This was the way St Thomas speculated that they might be saved, although I don’t think he meant it to the exclusion of all other extraordinary options.

Edit: that still leaves us with the question of who is invincibly ignorant. Some people favour a very broad definite (read: all non-Catholics) but I don’t think that’s the way that the term has historically been used.

See, that is the big thing for me: I do not deny that God can furnish a person with extraordinary means of salvation: I deny that they do not involve or contradict what Christ established in the Church.

GOd does not infuse grace against a persons will; therefore an act of the will is necessary to receive grace: But what act of the will is sufficient without perfect charity?

How will they know perfect charity?

How will they have perfect contrition?

How will they be raised if they fall?

I say, look to the scriptures: AN angel led cornelius to the TRUTH: God did not LEAVE him in his ignorance, which is spiritual blindness.

Why was it not enough for GOd to leave Cornelius the God-fearing gentile in his simple faith?

Because ignorance is not salvific.

Why did God not leave the Ethiopian Jew in his faith, in simplicity?

Because a partial knowledge is not enough.

Both these men were saved through extraordinary means:

But they were not saved against their will, neither were they saved apart from an act of the will, neither were they saved without repentance.

DO you see the desperate need for missions?

If so, you must acknowledge that hell is a reality for people who are ignorant of Christ:

There is more than one way to sin. ANd invincible ignorance is not inculpability of EVERY sin: It simply means not being guilty of the single and particular sin of unbelief.

THe above posts beg an interesting question: What is the significance of the Baptismal Character impressed on the soul, if man can be saved without it?

 

[mattkubes]

See, that is the big thing for me: I do not deny that God can furnish a person with extraordinary means of salvation: I deny that they do not involve or contradict what Christ established in the Church.

Can you explain that last part a bit more? Or do you just mean what St Thomas said - that even if it takes a miracle, they will receive instruction in the faith etc.?

DO you see the desperate need for missions?
If so, you must acknowledge that hell is a reality for people who are ignorant of Christ:
There is more than one way to sin. ANd invincible ignorance is not inculpability of EVERY sin: It simply means not being guilty of the single and particular sin of unbelief.

Absolutely - why should we leave people and just cross our fingers hoping that they are given extraordinary means of salvation? That’s certainly wouldn’t be true charity on our part.

But haven’t you heard? Evangelism is out, rampant ecumenism is in

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Can you explain that last part a bit more? Or do you just mean what St Thomas said - that even if it takes a miracle, they will receive instruction in the faith etc.?

What you and Gregory I said.

Absolutely - why should we leave people and just cross our fingers hoping that they are given extraordinary means of salvation? That’s certainly wouldn’t be true charity on our part.

But haven’t you heard? Evangelism is out, rampant ecumenism is in

Too true. ANd you know, I have said this before, and I stole this from Gregory I, I believe that all of this, and even Fr. Feeney’s analysis that the doctrine of extra ecclesia nulla salva has a deeper underlying cause:

We have moved away from the Traditional and Tridentine understanding of the nature of original sin. THis is the font and source whence flows false ecumenism and a weakening of the necessity of the church for salvation.

Hell is our default operating mode: NOT heaven.