Ordinary vs extraordinary means of salvation

[Gregory_I]

That’s really cool cecilianus!

I do think God is CAPABLE of saving whoever he wants, however he wants.
But he has only revealed to us baptism as a means of conveying sanctifying grace. And yes, I know the much repeated phrase, God is not bound by the sacraments. But I then ask:

In the case of a king who enacts a law, he is himsaelf subject to remain within the bounds of the laws he enacts. THis is to preserve the right order of society. Of course he can make new laws, but he cannot outright revoke the laws that have been made.

Now, God has given us the new law of the sacraments. And God upholds that which he establishes, when he says “I have sworn and will not change my mind…”. For God is not subject to change, nor is he fickle or inconstant, nor does he tell man one thing, and then do another and thus give the lie to his own decrees.

So, I ask you, friendly-like, Is it consistent with God’s nature to establish something, only to abrogate it? Is it consistent with his treatment of Israel under the old law? Is it consistent with the deaths of Ananias and Saphira who lied do God, and God struck dead? Is it Consistent with the God who swears and will not change his mind?

It’s not that we limit GOd, it’s that he limits himself by being consistent. God cannot lie, he cannot contradict his nature. If he gives a command, he cannot revoke it, for it implies that he acted imperfectly in one sense, and is now acting more perfectly for THIS persons behalf. God is no respecter of Persons.

What do you think?

 

[Cecilianus]

That’s really cool cecilianus!

I do think God is CAPABLE of saving whoever he wants, however he wants.
But he has only revealed to us baptism as a means of conveying sanctifying grace.

Yes; I would even say (as I’m pretty sure you mean) that water baptism is the only means revealed to us of conveying sanctifying grace. “Baptism of desire” I take as simply another word covering the omnipotence of God, using the term “baptism” so that we clarify that these graces are an extension of the application of the graces of water baptism.

And yes, I know the much repeated phrase, God is not bound by the sacraments. But I then ask:

In the case of a king who enacts a law, he is himsaelf subject to remain within the bounds of the laws he enacts. THis is to preserve the right order of society. Of course he can make new laws, but he cannot outright revoke the laws that have been made.

Now, God has given us the new law of the sacraments. And God upholds that which he establishes, when he says “I have sworn and will not change my mind…”. For God is not subject to change, nor is he fickle or inconstant, nor does he tell man one thing, and then do another and thus give the lie to his own decrees.

So, I ask you, friendly-like, Is it consistent with God’s nature to establish something, only to abrogate it?

Is it consistent with his treatment of Israel under the old law? Is it consistent with the deaths of Ananias and Saphira who lied do God, and God struck dead? Is it Consistent with the God who swears and will not change his mind?

It’s not that we limit GOd, it’s that he limits himself by being consistent. God cannot lie, he cannot contradict his nature. If he gives a command, he cannot revoke it, for it implies that he acted imperfectly in one sense, and is now acting more perfectly for THIS persons behalf. God is no respecter of Persons.

What do you think?

I do not believe that God has abrogated water baptism by baptism of desire, because water baptism is still morally binding on everyone. If someone knows that he must be baptized and is able to become baptized and yet does not, he commits a sin, as everyone here acknowledges. If someone is invincibly ignorant of the necessity of baptism, God in His infinite love will extend the graces of baptism to that person anyway. This isn’t a case of God abrogating his establishment of baptism; rather it’s a case of Him following it even when we do not know to do so.

 

[Gregory_I]

Sorry Cecilianus, I guess you misunderstood me, I believe in Baptism of desire, in the sense of the explicit desire for water baptism, because that is the only way the church speaks of it. I was speaking about your belief in implicit desire for baptism.

And yes, as you said, there is only ONE baptism, water baptism. Baptism of Desire is only reffered to as baptism by analogy. Just like baptism of blood.

For example spiritual communion is not taking communion, but it is like communion in that we seek to be in communion with Christ. Baptism of desire is not baptism, but it is like it because we receive the grace of baptism, but not it’s incorporation into the church, or its sacramental Character.

Part of this you may be able to help me understand is invincible ignorance. THis is what the scriptures say:

“That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.” (John 1:9 ) So God’s grace has enlightened every man.

Also we read: " Shall a man be hidden in secret places, and I not see him? Do I not fill heaven and earth? ( Jermias 23:24 )

Again we read; " The Gospel has come unto you as unto the whole world; the Gospel is preached in all creation under heaven."
( Colossians 1:5-6,23 ).

And most profound is Romans chapter 1:20-23

“For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.”

The Scripture also says man’s conscience will not save him:

" Every way of a man seemeth right unto himself. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and the ends thereof lead to death. (Proverbs 21:2,12:15; 15:25 )

Read the words of Saint Teresa of Avila: “However sinful I was , I always considered that I had some good intention of serving God. Yet for all that, I was shown the place in hell the devil held in store for me.”

" That it is right for each individual to follow what is acceptable to his own religious creed makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. Especially fatal to the salvation of souls is that erroneous opinion that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship is the proper right of every man. By our Apostolic authority, we condemn this evil opinion." Pope Pius IX " Qui Pluribus" 1846

" By the fact that freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the holy immaculate Spouse of Christ, outside of which there can be no salvation, is placed on the same level with heretical sects and even with the Jewish peridy."
Pope Pius VII " Post Tam Diuturnas "

and lastly:

" It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are in the inalienable rights of every citizen! From this foul-smelling fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to complete liberty of opinions which work such widespread havoc both in Church and State."
Pope Gregory XVI

" Enemies of grace offer us examples of ungodly men who, although without the faith, abound in virtues where there is only the good of nature without the aid of grace. God forbid that there be true virtues in anyone unless he be just; and God forbid that he be truly just unless he live by the faith. All that is not of faith is sin. When there is no knowledge of the eternal and unchangeable truth, virtue is false even in the best morality. The fact that a wicked man performs some good works does not mean that such good
works avail toward his eternal salvation."
Saint Augustine "Against Julian the Pelagian "

I could go on and on what the Saint, Fathers and Doctors of the Church taught but I will limit this to one
more:

" It follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin on account of either a preceding negligence, or the consequent result; and, for this reason, ignorance is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. All sin proceeds from ignorance."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

Where is the invincible ignorance?

If there is invincible ignorance, I think it would be more appropriate to apply it solely to infants and to those who die in original sin alone. THat’s what I was getting at earlier about limbo and the pagan afterlife.

Does this make sense?

 

[Cecilianus]

Sorry Cecilianus, I guess you misunderstood me, I believe in Baptism of desire, in the sense of the explicit desire for water baptism, because that is the only way the church speaks of it. I was speaking about your belief in implicit desire for baptism.

In this respect we disagree.

Part of this you may be able to help me understand is invincible ignorance. THis is what the scriptures say:

“That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.” (John 1:9 ) So God’s grace has enlightened every man.

I don’t think this means God revealed Christianity to every individual soul; just that divine grace is working in the heart (through the natural law, for example) to seek Him by whatever means the soul has available - usually the religion a person was born into. If they sincerely follow God’s grace by seeking truth in their heart, then they should recognize Christianity as the truth when they encounter it. If not, it’s not up to me to judge them.

I also think this passage applies to someone who has never heard of Christianity - a “virtuous pagan”, for example.

Also we read: " Shall a man be hidden in secret places, and I not see him? Do I not fill heaven and earth? ( Jermias 23:24 )

Again we read; " The Gospel has come unto you as unto the whole world; the Gospel is preached in all creation under heaven."
( Colossians 1:5-6,23 ).

This passage from Colossians refers to the universality of the Gospel, and really speaks from the eternal viewpoint by which the entire proclamation of the Gospel and work of the Church is seen as a single event. In practice, Christianity has not been preached in every country, and not everyone has a proper understanding of it (just look at all the misconceptions people in America have about Catholicism - how much more so would you expect misconceptions from someone in Thailand or Bhutan?)

And most profound is Romans chapter 1:20-23

“For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.”

Again, you will find the same attitude towards the ineffability of God (and the inadequacy of idolatry) in Hinduism, except that the Hindus accept idol-worship as a transitional stage to be eventually overcome for the vulgar.

The Scripture also says man’s conscience will not save him:

" Every way of a man seemeth right unto himself. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and the ends thereof lead to death. (Proverbs 21:2,12:15; 15:25 )

But some people outside the Church are sincerely trying to follow the will of God, rather than “their own way”.

Read the words of Saint Teresa of Avila: “However sinful I was , I always considered that I had some good intention of serving God. Yet for all that, I was shown the place in hell the devil held in store for me.”

Damnation is a possibility for every human on Earth, and only God’s grace (rather than just our “good intention of serving God”) can save us - not sure what point you were trying to make here.

 

[Cecilianus]

" That it is right for each individual to follow what is acceptable to his own religious creed makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. Especially fatal to the salvation of souls is that erroneous opinion that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship is the proper right of every man. By our Apostolic authority, we condemn this evil opinion." Pope Pius IX " Qui Pluribus" 1846

" By the fact that freedom of all forms of worship is proclaimed, truth is confused with error, and the holy immaculate Spouse of Christ, outside of which there can be no salvation, is placed on the same level with heretical sects and even with the Jewish peridy."
Pope Pius VII " Post Tam Diuturnas
and lastly:

" It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are in the inalienable rights of every citizen! From this foul-smelling fountain of Indifferentism flows the erroneous and absurd opinion or rather derangement, that liberty of conscience must be asserted for everyone. This most pestilential error opens the door to complete liberty of opinions which work such widespread havoc both in Church and State."
Pope Gregory XVI"

Also not sure what you are getting at with these quotes.

" Enemies of grace offer us examples of ungodly men who, although without the faith, abound in virtues where there is only the good of nature without the aid of grace. God forbid that there be true virtues in anyone unless he be just; and God forbid that he be truly just unless he live by the faith. All that is not of faith is sin. When there is no knowledge of the eternal and unchangeable truth, virtue is false even in the best morality. The fact that a wicked man performs some good works does not mean that such good
works avail toward his eternal salvation."
Saint Augustine "Against Julian the Pelagian "

I think the Blessed Augustine’s language went too far here, in his attempt to rid himself of Pelagianism. Obviously we all acknowledge -as non-Pelagians - that we cannot earn our way to Heaven and that God’s grace alone is sufficient. The mind of the Church however does not condemn the pagan virtues as sinful - they are simply non-salvific. Thus if God offers His grace to such a pagan I don’t see how there could be any impediment so long as the virtuous pagan has a natural trust or “faith” in God. (The theological virtue of Faith is a result of divine grace; we must have at least a natural faith in God in order to receive grace to begin with.)

I could go on and on what the Saint, Fathers and Doctors of the Church taught but I will limit this to one
more:

" It follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin on account of either a preceding negligence, or the consequent result; and, for this reason, ignorance is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. All sin proceeds from ignorance."
Saint Thomas Aquinas

I strongly disagree with Thomas’ intellectualist generalization "all sin proceeds from ignorance, and if he is talking about sin for which one is culpable (rather than just the matter of sin) then he is obviously not talking about invincible ignorance in this sentence, since invincible ignorance by definition is ignorance for which we are not culpable for.

Where is the invincible ignorance?

If there is invincible ignorance, I think it would be more appropriate to apply it solely to infants and to those who die in original sin alone. THat’s what I was getting at earlier about limbo and the pagan afterlife.

Does this make sense?

I find it difficult to question whether there can be invincible ignorance - it’s a basic part of the terminology I learned when I became Catholic, probably from the Baltimore Catechism. What exactly do you mean by “those who die in original sin alone”? I don’t think that someone ignorant of the moral law but who dies having committed grave matter - and being too attached to that grave matter to repent of it should he learn the truth - would be physically capable of entering Heaven. And if there are no actual (mortal) sins present, I see no reason why God in His mercy would not grant them access to Heaven. Do we disagree here, or are we on the same page?

 

[Gregory_I]

No, this makes sense…

But we agree that whatever means God would save someone invincibly ignorant, it would have to be some kind of miraculous infusion of grace into the soul. I just don’t see how that is possible though.

I think perhaps I need to back off from the issue before I find myself fighting the church. THat’s not what I want to be.

I will ask one question though. If there were people who sincerely desired truth, would not God bring it to them? Like the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius? And if they did not, is it incredible that they die in their ignorance condemned?

Thanks for your patience.

 

[CradleCath]

That’s really cool cecilianus!

I do think God is CAPABLE of saving whoever he wants, however he wants.
But he has only revealed to us baptism as a means of conveying sanctifying grace. And yes, I know the much repeated phrase, God is not bound by the sacraments. But I then ask:

 

[At_Trent]

Pelagianism has crept into this thread

mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pelagian.htm

 

[CradleCath]

Pelagianism has crept into this thread

mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pelagian.htm

The teachings of Pelagius…that original sin doesn’t exist, that Adam was just a “bad example”, that Christ was the “good example” & that we, alone, without the graces & help & the SACRIFICE of His only son are to choose which of them we would …has crept into every thread that Gregory I has posted on.

Thank you, God for all the helps You has given to us

 

[Cecilianus]

No, this makes sense…

But we agree that whatever means God would save someone invincibly ignorant, it would have to be some kind of miraculous infusion of grace into the soul. I just don’t see how that is possible though.

“Extraordinary” would probably be a more technically accurate term than “miraculous”, since “miraculous” usually refers to exceptions to the (scientific) order of physical nature. But the meaning is the same. It would not be in the ordinary course God set up for our salvation. But “miracles” are certainly possible for God; everything is.

I think perhaps I need to back off from the issue before I find myself fighting the church. THat’s not what I want to be.

I will ask one question though. If there were people who sincerely desired truth, would not God bring it to them? Like the Ethiopian Eunuch and Cornelius? And if they did not, is it incredible that they die in their ignorance condemned?

Thanks for your patience.

God usually works through natural causes. Someone is not usually going to have Christianity revealed to them in a vision; we are the ones who have to bring it to them. So the Native Americans before 1492 would die in ignorance of Christianity. Someone growing up in Northern Ireland after the Protestant Revolt or in present-day Saudi Arabia is probably going to have both a falsified view of Catholicism and a deep-seated attachment to a different sect coming from their environment. God does sometimes give extraordinary graces for people in unlikely situations to come to the truth (St. Paul being a great example), but that is more of a “miracle” or extraordinary grace than an ordinary one. Normally, God respects the order one would predict from natural psychology and sociology, just as He respects the laws of physics and chemistry.

We are commanded to preach the Gospel; to those who remain unenlightened we can only pray and commend them to God’s mercy. I think that’s the closest to how the Church wants us to think about it.

And I thank you for your patience and understanding; I have found our exchange on this thread profitable and constructive for myself at least.

 

[Cecilianus]

The teachings of Pelagius…that original sin doesn’t exist, that Adam was just a “bad example”, that Christ was the “good example” & that we, alone, without the graces & help & the SACRIFICE of His only son are to choose which of them we would …has crept into every thread that Gregory I has posted on.

Thank you, God for all the helps You has given to us

How so? I haven’t read a single thing of his that looked remotely Pelagian to me. Could you please give specific examples that we could have a constructive discussion about, rather than just making unsupported claims?

 

[Gregory_I]

There is no possible way pelagianism has crept into this thread.

I abhor pelagius and anathematize him myself…

Al infants are born in original sin which deprives one of the kingdom of God, and is personal in nature as specified by Rent.

Baptism is Given to remove the stain and Guilt of original sin, and to infuse the life of grace into the soul.

Let me guess, Limbo is pelagian? It is not, that is a misunderstanding. The happy infants pelagius talked of was understood as being a place in heaven that infants immediately go to upon their death, on the pretense of our Lord’s words: “In my fathers house there are many mansions…”

Augustine emphasized infant damnation because he was emphasizing that the baptized infant is really saved from the power of death, sin and the devil and has the guilt and personal character of original sin remitted; it is not simply an infusion of grace, as pelagius taught.

Now, I dare you to show me where I am pelagian.

Was Aquinas a pelagian?

I agree with aquinas.

I believe infants MAY be saved from LIMBO in the ressurection, in this sense:

Some theologians after Aquinas held that the unbaptized infant, when they are raised, will be given a glorified body and inhabit the reconstituted earth. I maintain, that if this is theoretically possible, let’s take it a step further and say, since they do not enjoy full blessedness (where it is impossible to make an act of faith) nor are they fully damned, they may be capable of receiving God’s grace and making an act of faith. I partially base this on the verse “All flesh shall SEE the salvation of God.” obviously not the damned, but I see this as plausible.

The same would go for virtuous pagans and the mentally retarted.

SO you tell me how I am a pelagian given that I accept Augustines and the church’s view of original sin and all the councils and especially the council of trent and the Vatican council and personally anathematize all things contrary thereto.

I accept the Vatican II council, but given as it did not issue any dogmas, nor was it convened for that purpose, nor did it define anything infallibly, I do not refer to it for dogmatic theology. As per Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. …] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)

Paul VI also stated that Vatican II was not infallible when he concluded it, as follows:

“Today we are concluding the Second Vatican Council. …] But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial
approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.” (Address during the last general meeting of the Second Vatican Council, December 7, 1965; AAS 58; www.
Address During The Last General Meeting Of Vatican II - Papal Encyclicals)

Paul VI also stated a year later:

" There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification , the council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council , it avoided proclaiming in any extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."

 

[Faith3Faith]

Its really quite simple. None of you BoD( Baptism of Desire ) supporters can make the claim that a Catholic must accept the present day Church’s teaching of BoD as being Church doctrine, whether its taught as explicit, implicit or both. This is because BoD is only being taught by today’s “ordinary magisterium”, but was never taught by the “Universal Magisterium”. The “Universal Magisterium” trumpts the “ordinary magisteium”, so therefore a Catholic is to adhere to what the “Universal Magisterium” has always taught.,… Its that simple.

Oh, and if your going to make the claim that BoD has been the Universal and Constant teaching of the Church, then you will have to provide evidence that the majority of early Church fathers accepted BoD as a truth. However, if it is shown that the majority of early Church Fathers rejected BoD, then that means you have no case.

 

[Gregory_I]

Faith3faith:

Tell us what you think we believe, or else you are doing something similar to just making a strawman argumnet: What do modern day Catholics believe about BOD?

My take is that BOD is legitimate if it is preceded by the gift of faith. The council of Trent taught that.

 

[chypmonk]

All this talk about forgiveness of sins (which is what having Sanctifying Grace means) outside the Church seems to go against the Church teaching:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, :
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…"

This tough to get around. This is either absolutely true or heresy.

 

[Gregory_I]

Chypmunk, it’s absolutely true.

And notice the Pope did not say normatively necessary, but ABSOLUTELY. THat means there is no exception. All must be Catholic, or lost. THat’s the teaching of the Catholic church.

 

[Cecilianus]

All this talk about forgiveness of sins (which is what having Sanctifying Grace means) outside the Church seems to go against the Church teaching:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, :
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin…"

This tough to get around. This is either absolutely true or heresy.

Sanctifying grace means becoming deified - partaking of the divine nature through the uncreated energies of God. That’s a lot stronger than just having one’s sins forgiven as Protestants hold.

 

[Gregory_I]

cecilianus

:extrahappy:

 

[chypmonk]

Sanctifying grace means becoming deified - partaking of the divine nature through the uncreated energies of God. That’s a lot stronger than just having one’s sins forgiven as Protestants hold.

I apologize for my sloppy language but you are saying there is Sanctifying Grace outside the the Church and how can that be true if there is no forgiveness of sins outside the Church?

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, :
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation **nor remission of sin…"
**
Is Pope Boniface VIII preaching heresy?

 

[Cecilianus]

I apologize for my sloppy language but you are saying there is Sanctifying Grace outside the the Church and how can that be true if there is no forgiveness of sins outside the Church?

I am saying that outside the visible boundaries of the corporal institution known as the “Catholic Church” the graces of that Church may be applied to individuals resulting in the forgiveness of their sins, and therefore some degree of sanctification or divinization. Whether this occurs at death or during their lifetime for any individual I cannot know, nor can I know to whom or how many people these extraordinary graces apply. But that is the Catholic Faith as I was taught it, and as it was handed down to me.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, :
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation **nor remission of sin…"
**
Is Pope Boniface VIII preaching heresy?

No - he is not teaching heresy, nor is he saying something different from what I am saying. Salvation comes only through the Church - extra Ecclesiam nulla salus! It’s just that more people might benefit from the graces of the Church than we can know. Again (without condoning his disobedience to Rome), I quote the words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who says exactly what I am trying to say in his book Against the Heresies:

This is then what Pius IX said and what he condemned. It is necessary to understand the formulation that was so often employed by the Fathers of the Church: ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’ When we say that, it is incorrectly believed that we think that all the Protestants, all the Moslems, all the Buddhists, all those who do not publicly belong to the Catholic Church go to hell. Now, I repeat, it is possible for someone to be saved in these religions, but they are saved by the Church, and so the formulation is true: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This must be preached.