"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[USMC]

itsjustdave1988:

I didn’t actually see where USMC made this assertion. But, perhaps I simply missed it.

As I see it, a person must be joined to the Catholic Church in soul, if not in body (yet God desires both), and that one may be joined to the Church by a “certain unconscious desire.” Yet, “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.” (Letter of Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII, August 8, 1949)

That is exactly right. The Church teaches that it is possible to be united to the soul of the Church, without being united to the body. This is certainly the exception, but it is possible. For example (and I have used this argument against the Feeneyites), a protestant child, prior to the age of reason, who has been baptized is most certainly united to the soul of the Catholic Church, even though they are not externally united to the visible body.

But a vague implicit, or even explicit, desire to be united to the Church will not suffice without supernatural faith, which is the foundation of the supernatural life.

And even if the person has an explicit desire to belong to the Church as well as supernatural faith they are still not united to her without supernatural Charity, which is the state of grace, as the quote from the Holy Office says: "it is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity.

These minute theologicial realities are not understood by the average Catholic, not should they necessarily be. And that is why the Church, prior to the 1960’s would also speak in the objective order, proclaiming the rule, rather than the exception.

It is also why Pope Pius IX, who is often quoted with regard to invincible ignorance, actually forbade the Bishops of his time to inquire into the possible salvation for those who were in invincible ignorance.

Pope Pius IX: “For, 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; but on the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate disposition, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ * we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry” (Denz pg. 416, #1647).

It should also be noted that just because a person is not guilty of the sin of unbelief when they are invincibly ignorant of the truth, that does not mean they are therefore justified. We are not born in the state of grace, and without supernatural faith the state of grace is impossible, since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life.*

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jimmy:

That is an error. A denial of any truth of the faith leads to hell. Invincible ignorance applies to all who are not formally Catholic and accepting of every single doctrine. If a protestant is not invincibly ignorant of his errors he will not recieve salvation. In as much as they reject the Catholic faith they are also seperated from God.

I disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that culpability of sin is linked to voluntariness of the human act. One can be vincibly ignorant and have diminished culpability, although not complete removal of guilt. Objectively grave sin can be merely material and not formal sin. Thus, unless full advertence and perfect consent are present, voluntariness is diminished and with it, culpability. Without full advertence and perfect consent grave sin does not meet the conditions necessary for mortal sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

That is exactly right. …

… It should also be noted that just because a person is not guilty of the sin of unbelief when they are invincibly ignorant of the truth, that does not mean they are therefore justified. We are not born in the state of grace, and without supernatural faith the state of grace is impossible, since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life.

We are not justified by ignorance alone!

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

Just for the record and I not a Feeneyite, and do not agree with them.

OK.

Where do you differ with the Feeneyites?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

I’m going to say this only one more time. If you still ask me to cite a Magesterium document then this discussion is over.

READ MY OTHER POSTS. I POSTED A LINK TO THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE SECTION THAT I WAS CITING. THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AN OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT. **YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN’T BEEN READING MY POSTS. THE SECTION OF THE CATECHISM I CITED BEGINS BY SAYING “THE WORD CATHOLIC MEANS UNIVERSAL”. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. IT THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. I POSTED A LINK TO IT SO I DIDN’T HAVE TO POST THE WHOLE SECTION HERE. IF YOU DIDN’T READ IT, THEN YOU DIDN’T READ MY POST. READ MY POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING TO THEM.

**Everyone keeps telling me what I’m saying and you are all putting words in my mouth. Please stop doing that. Thank you.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[jimmy]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that culpability of sin is linked to voluntariness of the human act. One can be vincibly ignorant and have diminished culpability, although not complete removal of guilt. Objectively grave sin can be merely material and not formal sin. Thus, unless full advertence and perfect consent are present, voluntariness is diminished and with it, culpability. Without full advertence and perfect consent grave sin does not meet the conditions necessary for mortal sin.

Can you give me the reference for this in St. Thomas? I would like to read it.

 

[jimmy]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

I’m going to say this only one more time. If you still ask me to cite a Magesterium document then this discussion is over.

READ MY OTHER POSTS. I POSTED A LINK TO THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE SECTION THAT I WAS CITING. THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AN OFFICIAL CHURCH DOCUMENT. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN’T BEEN READING MY POSTS. THE SECTION OF THE CATECHISM I CITED BEGINS BY SAYING “THE WORD CATHOLIC MEANS UNIVERSAL”. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. IT THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. I POSTED A LINK TO IT SO I DIDN’T HAVE TO POST THE WHOLE SECTION HERE. IF YOU DIDN’T READ IT, THEN YOU DIDN’T READ MY POST. READ MY POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING TO THEM.

Thank you.

In Christ,
Rand

I read your post and there is no where in the catechism that distinguishes between a big ‘C’ Catholic Church and a little ‘c’ catholic Church. The is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

That is an error. A denial of any truth of the faith leads to hell. Invincible ignorance applies to all who are not formally Catholic and accepting of every single doctrine. If a protestant is not invincibly ignorant of his errors he will not recieve salvation. In as much as they reject the Catholic faith they are also seperated from God.

Demonstrate this assertion from the Catechism, please. It’s plainly talking about those who have never heard the Gospel at all.

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

(cont)

.

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

It should also be noted that just because a person is not guilty of the sin of unbelief when they are invincibly ignorant of the truth, that does not mean they are therefore justified.

Of course! A man of the Lakota Sioux nation in AD 500 could be a wicked person that does not follow his conscience.

We are not born in the state of grace, and without supernatural faith the state of grace is impossible, since faith is the foundation of the supernatural life.

Is anyone arguing that a man can be saved apart from grace? But I wonder, what do you believe that a man of the Lakota Sioux nation in AD 500 would have to explicitly believe to be saved?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**The Church and non-Christians **

839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

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.334

 

[USMC]

stanley123:

These are clear statements concerning the previous teaching. I don’t see how anyone could say that there has been no change in the teaching, but only a development for further clarification. Why would not a development of the teaching which turns it around into meaning the opposite of what it originally meant be a total and complete change in the original teaching.

1. At the Council of Florence, was it not taught that Jews would go to hell.
2. Now is it not taught that the Covenant is salvific for the Jew and he can attain heaven by means of the Covenant.
   Isn’t this development simply a complete and total change in the teaching?

This is one of the reasons the Church is in the mess she is in today. The fact is that the teachings of the faith do not, and have not changed. What has happened is that the vast majority of Catholics, following the vast majority of the hierarchy, have ceased to beleive what the Church teaches.

It was solemnly taught at the First Vatican Council that the truths that have been defined by the Church must be understood just as the Church has always understood them; and that it is an error to depart from them under the guise of a “deeper understanding”.

First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chapter 2, on Divine Revelation, A.D. 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. ” (Pope Pius IX)

Our days are not much different than the 4th century Arian crisis when, according to Cardinal Newman, as much as 90% of the hierarchy was infected by the Arian heresy. This is repeating itself today. The difference being that it is not Arianism that has pervaded the Church, but the errors of liberalism and modernism, which undermine and subtly attack virtually all dogmas of our faith.

Bishop Graber: “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria today is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transformed to a
different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character.” – Msgr. R. Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, 1974, “Athanasius and the Church of Our Time,” p. 23

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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

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

It seems plain that “through no fault of their own” deals with people who “are ignorant of the Gospel,” not those in paragraph 838, ie., those to whom the Church says she knows she is joined

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

jimmy:

I read your post and there is no where in the catechism that distinguishes between a big ‘C’ Catholic Church and a little ‘c’ catholic Church. The is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Peace be with you!

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

This is the point I have been arguing. I am NOT…I repeat am NOT…trying to say that it doesn’t matter what someone believes. So everyone can go ahead and stop telling me that’s what I’m saying. What I am trying to point out is that we don’t know what’s in other peoples’ hearts and so we can’t say if they are going to hell or not. Perhaps you guys will actually read this now, since you don’t have to go through all that work of clicking on a link…

In Christ,
Rand

 

[JKirkLVNV]

VI said no “deeper understanding,” it didn’t say “no clarification.”

 

[jimmy]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

This is the point I have been arguing. I am NOT…I repeat am NOT…trying to say that it doesn’t matter what someone believes. So everyone can go ahead and stop telling me that’s what I’m saying. What I am trying to point out is that we don’t know what’s in other peoples’ hearts and so we can’t say if they are going to hell or not. Perhaps you guys will actually read this now, since you don’t have to go through all that work of clicking on a link…

In Christ,
Rand

This still does not make the big c little c distinction. Remember the “or not” part of your statement. You can not say anyone who is not Catholic is saved in the same way that you can’t say that they aren’t saved. It is the opposite error to the feeneyites.

JKirk, I am not forgetting about your post. I will respond later when I have more time.

 

[stanley123]

jimmy:

The Covenant is for those who have been baptized. We know no way of salvation other than water baptism. … At Florence they taught the absolute necessity of baptism of water.
.

This appears to be contrary to what is now being taught:
According to Walter Cardinal Kasper, “Dominus Iesus.” Address delivered at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001:

“…the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."

 

[Matt16_18]

USMC:

It was solemnly taught at the First Vatican Council that the truths that have been defined by the Church must be understood just as the Church has always understood them; and that it is an error to depart from them under the guise of a “deeper understanding”.

“ … the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition …”Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including “outside the Church no salvation.”

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said: It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

EWTN, Expert Answers​

 

[jimmy]

stanley123:

This appears to be contrary to what is now being taught:
According to Walter Cardinal Kasper, “Dominus Iesus.” Address delivered at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001:

“…the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."

Walter Kasper is not the Church. I think the document “Dominus Jesus” which was put out by Cardinal Ratzinger shows the actual teaching.

 

[USMC]

Matt16_18:

Is anyone arguing that a man can be saved apart from grace? But I wonder, what do you believe that a man of the Lakota Sioux nation in AD 500 would have to explicitly believe to be saved?

The question you asked really boils down to this: To have supernatural faith, is it necessary for a person to have explicit, or merely implicit, faith. St. Thomas, whose authority has been highly praised by many Popes, teaches that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation now that grace has been revealed.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”(Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.7.)

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Pt.II-II, Q.2, A.8.)

Regarding the often spoken of invincibly ignorant native in the jungle, this is what St. Thomas teaches:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. 11, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

So, according to St. Thomas who is recognized as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, theologians of the Church, explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary.

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection "It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”(Fr. Rulleau, Baptism of Desire pg 55-56)

As we saw above, St. Thomas teaches the necessity of explicit faith in the doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation. The Church has solemnly defined this at the Council of Florence, when it taught:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinityin unity.
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man… This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Since the Church has solemnly defined that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation is necessary for salvation, that’s what I believe.

 

[USMC]

“ … the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition …”Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

The doctrine that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including “outside the Church no salvation.”

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said: It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL

EWTN, Expert Answers​

You seem to be on the attack against me. That is fine, but if you disagree with something I have said, please be specific so I can respond.