Salvation for Catholics only

[TMC]

This thread and others like it remind me of an old joke:

A man dies and goes to heaven. He is given a tour of heaven by an angelic guide, and its truly marvelous. There are beatiful buildings and great rooms and wonderful activities of every sort. But every place they go has a huge partition of some sort in the back. And whenever they get close to the partion the guide would motion him to be silent and say nothing until they passed.

After the tour the guide asked if he had any questions. Of course he asked “what’s with the partion and all the shushing?” The guide said, “Oh that, we keep the Catholics back there. They think they are the only ones here.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

From Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (pg. 292):

Book Four: The Doctrine of God the Sanctifier

Part 2: The Church

Chapter 3: The Internal Constitution of the Church

1. Christ and the Church
2. Founder of the Church - Christ founded the Church (De fide.)

Part b.) On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began. The Fathers and theologians see in the flowing forth of the blood and water from the opened side of Jesus a symbol the emergence of the Church.

 

[fix]

This thread and others like it remind me of an old joke:

A man dies and goes to heaven. He is given a tour of heaven by an angelic guide, and its truly marvelous. There are beatiful buildings and great rooms and wonderful activities of every sort. But every place they go has a huge partition of some sort in the back. And whenever they get close to the partion the guide would motion him to be silent and say nothing until they passed.

After the tour the guide asked if he had any questions. Of course he asked “what’s with the partion and all the shushing?” The guide said, “Oh that, we keep the Catholics back there. They think they are the only ones here.”

I have heard that before and it always strikes me as bad theology. Is anyone in heaven not Catholic? Of course not. All who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church.

Unless Christ was wrong about the Church He founded?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Also, if you think Jews can be saved by the Old Covenant, then you fail to realize that the Old Covenant was never salvific for anyone, including the Jews. There is a Dogma called Limbus Patrum, or the Limbo of the Fathers. It’s were the Jewish Fathers, such as Moses and Abraham wen’t to wait for the coming of Christ. They couldn’t be saved without him. Dominus Iesus reaffirms the (T)raditional belief here.

 

[TMC]

I have heard that before and it always strikes me as bad theology. Is anyone in heaven not Catholic? Of course not. All who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church.

Unless Christ was wrong about the Church He founded?

It is, after all, just a joke. This is a tough room.

The answer to your question is a bit of a Catch-22. All salvation comes from the Church, so yes, in that sense they are Catholic. But many in heaven did not profess to be Catholics during their lifetimes. I am not sure the word “Catholic” will mean anything in the next life, the saved will be together in Christ. I suspect the saved will have a deeper understanding that will make our earthly theology seem childish.

 

[Arnobius]

Perhaps one should consider the case of Leonard Feeney and his misunderstanding of “No Salvation outside the Church” Excommunicated in 1949.

romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm#a2

This link gives the Church understanding of No Salvation Outside The Church, a view that coincides with the Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II

In essence, the stand of the Church is:

1. 
   *]Those who have invincible ignorance are not bound by what they cannot know
   *]Those who suspect that what they had previously thought they had known may be false are required to seek out the truth
   *]Those who recognize the truth of the Church, yet refuse to enter or remain within it cannot be saved
   
   Moreover, we must remember that the Church also teaches in the CCC (repeating the timeless truth):
   1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
   
   So it does allow us to hope for those who have not been baptized through no fault of their own, but we are obligated to preach the gospel and to baptize, because Baptism and the Church is the way Christ decreed as necessary.

 

[fix]

It is, after all, just a joke. This is a tough room.

Yes, a joke but one that seems to me to minimize an important truth.

The answer to your question is a bit of a Catch-22. All salvation comes from the Church, so yes, in that sense they are Catholic.

Ok

But many in heaven did not profess to be Catholics during their lifetimes.

OK

I am not sure the word “Catholic” will mean anything in the next life, the saved will be together in Christ.

I think it is not just a word, but what that word represents. That is the Church.

I suspect the saved will have a deeper understanding that will make our earthly theology seem childish.

Childish? I think it is quite sophisticated.

The insisted again upon the fact that the
declaration: “there is no salvation outside the Church” is an
infallible statement which the Church has always preached and will
never cease to preach, and it qualified this statement as a dogma. It
explained that the Church understood this dogma to mean that the
Church is necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation with both
the necessity of precept and the necessity of means. Furthermore, it
taught that the Church was a means of salvation to be classified
among those <quae divina sola institutione, non vero intrinseca
necessitate, ad finem ultimum ordinantur>, and that thus, under
certain circumstances, salvation can be attained when the Church
itself is used or entered . Again it
brought out the Catholic teaching that, in cases where men are
invincibly ignorant of the true Church, “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.”[16]

ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/PXIITREA.TXT

 

[jmcrae]

I heard a joke one time, too. St. Peter was at the front desk checking the credentials of everyone who was trying to come into Heaven. Jesus came to him and sternly said, “We are getting way too many sinners up here - please try to tighten up your standards.”

So St. Peter thought to himself, “Wow, I thought I was being really strict, but okay, I will be even tougher than before.” Just then a Catholic came up to the desk, and St. Peter checked his records and said, “Sorry, you go downstairs - you did have a good Last Confession, but you had a mean thought about your mother-in-law just before you died.”

“But,” cried the man, “She was driving on the wrong side of the road, and we got hit by a truck! That’s how I died!”

“Sorry,” said St. Peter, “I’ve been told to be very, very strict.”

So the man sadly turned away, and just then, he heard, “Psst!! Come here!! I’ve made a hole in the fence; you can come in this way!!” It was Mother Mary, and she reached out and grabbed him by both arms and pulled him in through the hole in the fence.

St. Peter said to Jesus, “I think I know what the problem is …” and Jesus said, “Yeah, I saw that too. Well, what can we do? I cannot say no to my Mother!”



That’s the joke as I heard it.

But just then a Protestant came along, and St. Peter said to him, “Not even a chance - I just turned away a guy who had a good Last Confession; I should let you in? I don’t think so,” so the Protestant turned away sadly, and then he heard “Psst, psst,” and he turned around and he saw Mother Mary there, and he called her the “Whore of Babylon,” and then he said, “What do you want, Whore?” And she said, “Never mind; forget it,” and she patched up the hole in the fence.

 

[GerardP]

Perhaps one should consider the case of Leonard Feeney and his misunderstanding of “No Salvation outside the Church” Excommunicated in 1949.

Feeney’s excommunication (dubious at best) was not for his theology. It was for refusal to go to Rome until the proper protocols concerning his case were followed.

He was reconciled with never having to recant his views. He merely had to recite the Athanasian Creed.

Also, the groups that have followed him have not had to renounce the strict interpretation of EENS.

This link gives the Church understanding of No Salvation Outside The Church, a view that coincides with the Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II

Baltimore and the CCC are not clear or in error on this.

In essence, the stand of the Church is:

*]Those who have invincible ignorance are not bound by what they cannot know

Yet all are given sufficent grace to salvation. Ignorance doesn’t save.

*]Those who suspect that what they had previously thought they had known may be false are required to seek out the truth

And…???

*]Those who recognize the truth of the Church, yet refuse to enter or remain within it cannot be saved

Correct. But that doesn’t mean that they are the only ones who cannot be saved.

Moreover, we must remember that the Church also teaches in the CCC (repeating the timeless truth):

1257 Doctrine: The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.

Editorializing:
Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

Tricky language. Trying to make an exception without making an exception.

Doctrine:
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”

Editorializing with a non-dogmatic theological speculation:
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.[/indent]

So it does allow us to hope for those who have not been baptized through no fault of their own, but we are obligated to preach the gospel and to baptize, because Baptism and the Church is the way Christ decreed as necessary.

No. No. No.

Condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

 

[GerardP]

That’s quite a limit you’ve imposed on God. We don’t know if His mercy would extend to those unbaptized children or not. We will never know.

No. I’m just saying that God is no liar, cannot deceive nor be deceived.

If His mercy is above all His works, it is no effort for Him to provide miraculous Baptisms for those that He elects to save that weren’t reached by mortal hands.

I don’t believe that God “misses” anyone in His grace or in giving them the sufficient opportunity and “let’s them slide.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Feeney’s excommunication (dubious at best) was not for his theology.

Reading the 1949 letter from the Holy Office (which also happened to be approved by Ven. Pius XII) would lead one to believe otherwise.

It was for refusal to go to Rome until the proper protocols concerning his case were followed.

This just added to it.

He was reconciled with never having to recant his views. He merely had to recite the Athanasian Creed.

This is true, but you don’t know all the circumstances present in the decision.

Also, the groups that have followed him have not had to renounce the strict interpretation of EENS.

This is also true, but that doesn’t mean they’re not in error. Jansenists were in the Church for a long time after their condemnations by several Popes.

Baltimore and the CCC are not clear

I personally think they are very clear on this.

or in error on this.

Well, you’re right about that.

Ignorance doesn’t save.

Ignorance alone doesn’t save. There are other “requirements” that must be met ie: free from mortal sin at the time of death, belief that their relgion is the true religion, etc. If they ever doubt that their religion is the true religion and they fail to inquire further, then they are culpable for not acting on the inclinations that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ, which is equal to outright rejecting the Church, and you know where that leads…

Condemned in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

This is correct, but this is completely taking out of context the entire Pontificate of Blessed Pius IX. Did he not on several occasions teach about invincable ignorance? He did, and in so using the above argument you have failed to realize that the very same Pope in which you speak of, taught about invincable ignorace in much the same way the CCC does today.

 

[Arnobius]

GerardP:

Your interpretations seem to make you the judge of the magisterium and it is to be followed only when you believe it to be correct for the reasons you believe.

It takes a strong arrogance to put oneself as a arbiter as to when the CCC and Baltimore Catechism err or are ambiguous.

Moreover, your argument on Feeney is circular to avoid the truth. he was excommunicated for the defiance of the Church on the issues of his refusal to submit over his errors on what the Church meant.

Perhaps in your adherence to the Syllabus of Errors, it might have moved you to check the document the statement in #17 was based on, the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur

Pope Pius IX said (#7)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Does that make Pope Pius IX a Modernist then?

Perhaps before citing Pope Pius IX at me, you should check what he actually has proclaimed instead of reducing the teachings of the Church (including the valuable Syllabus of errors) to mere slogans.

 

[SemperFidelis]

There is no salvation outside the Church, but that doesn’t mean one has to be a formal member to be inside the Church, and hence to be saved. Anyone saved visibly “outside” the Church is not really “outside” but inside, because they are imperfectly joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, and are saved because of the Church. I’ve posted this in a several other threads, but here it is again; a list of Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors, Councils, and theologians who have taught Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood:

Tertullian (died A.D. 220)
St. Hippolytus. (A.D. 253)
Origen. (A.D. 253)
St. Cyprian (A.D. 258)
St. Eusebius of Caesaria. (A.D. 341)
St. Basil the Great (Doctor, A.D. 379)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Doctor, A.D. 386)
St. Gregory Nazianzen (Doctor, A.D. 389)
St. Ambrose (Doctor, A.D. 397)
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens (A Christian poet; died A. D. 405)
St. John Chrysostom (Doctor, A.D. 407)
Rufinus Tyrannius (A.D. 410)
St. Jerome (Doctor, A.D. 420)
St. Augustine (Doctor, A.D. 430)
Pope St. Leo the Great (Doctor, A.D. 461)
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (A.D. 463)
Gennadius of Marseilles (A.D. 496)
St. Fulgentius (A.D. 533)
St. Bede the Venerable (Doctor, A.D. 735)
Rabanus Maurus (A.D. 856)
Hugh of St. Victor (A.D. 1141)
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (Doctor, A.D. 1153)
Peter Lombard, “Master of the Sentences” (A.D. 1160)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1216)
St. Bonaventura (Doctor, A.D. 1270)
St. Thomas Aquinas. (Doctor, A.D. 1274)
St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor, A.D. 1380)
Council of Trent (A.D. 1563)
Pope St. Pius V (A.D. 1572)
St. Charles Borromeo (A.D. 1584)
St. Robert Bellarmine (Doctor, A.D. 1621)
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori (Doctor, A.D. 1787)
Bishop George Hay (A.D. 1811)
Fr. Michael Muller (A.D. 1875)
Dom Gueranger (A.D. 1875)
Blessed Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1878)
Orestes Brownson (late nineteenth century)
Pope St. Pius X (A.D. 1914)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1922)
Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1958)
Fr. Joseph Fenton
Second Vatican Council (A.D. 1965)

Here’s some Catechisms that teach this:

Catechism of Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
The Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Baltimore Catechism
Catechism of St. Pius X
This Is The Faith by Canon Francis Ripley
My Catholic Faith by Louis LaRavoire Morrow, D.D.
The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John A Hardon, S.J.
Catechism of the Catholic Church

And this list ain’t even complete…

I’m glad to see that according to Fr. Feeney, that all of these above Early Church Fathers, Doctors, Popes, Councils, Catechisms, etc. have erred. If Fr. Feeney is right, then the Church has been in error for a long time.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Here’s one for the Feeneyites:

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).

Feeneyites believe those who believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are rejecting EENS. We all know that the rejection of any Dogma is a mortal sin. According to this line of thinking then, all those Saints, Popes, Doctors, Early Church Fathers, etc. I listed above are in hell. [SARCASM] Well I’m glad to see then that half of the Doctors of the Church are in hell.[/SARCASM]

 

[GerardP]

 GerardP:

Your interpretations seem to make you the judge of the magisterium and it is to be followed only when you believe it to be correct for the reasons you believe.

Not at all. First, I don’t pretend that every catechism, quote from a Vatican official, or comment of a Pope is Magisterial.

It takes a strong arrogance to put oneself as a arbiter as to when the CCC and Baltimore Catechism err or are ambiguous.

That’s not a good argument. That’s like saying it takes arrogance to say that 2+2 does not equal 5 when a professor of math says it does equal 5.

Moreover, your argument on Feeney is circular to avoid the truth. he was excommunicated for the defiance of the Church on the issues of his refusal to submit over his errors on what the Church meant.

Not quite. Brush up on it and read more than the standard line on things

catholicism.org/latter-athanasius.html

Perhaps in your adherence to the Syllabus of Errors, it might have moved you to check the document the statement in #17 was based on, the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur

Pope Pius IX said (#7)
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Where does it say that he will forego Baptism and won’t provide a Saint or Angel to provide the Sacrament? Or provide it Himself for that matter?

Does that make Pope Pius IX a Modernist then?

No. But like everything else in the Modern era, people want to bring things to the encyclicals that twist and pervert the straightforward meaning in order to make it conform to a liberal interpretation.

Perhaps before citing Pope Pius IX at me, you should check what he actually has proclaimed instead of reducing the teachings of the Church (including the valuable Syllabus of errors) to mere slogans.

Maybe you should be sure of what you write. I cited him perfectly accurately. I didn’t pretend that necessary doesn’t mean necessary or that No Salvation Outside the Church means Salvation Outside the Church or that God is so weak that he lets people slip through the door without Baptism as if he’s a Domino’s pizza delivery man who showed up too late.

 

[GerardP]

Here’s one for the Feeneyites:

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).

Feeneyites believe those who believe in Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are rejecting EENS. We all know that the rejection of any Dogma is a mortal sin. According to this line of thinking then, all those Saints, Popes, Doctors, Early Church Fathers, etc. I listed above are in hell. [SARCASM] Well I’m glad to see then that half of the Doctors of the Church are in hell.[/SARCASM]

“Feeneyites believe”…Actually a lot of people lie about what “Feeneyites or LeFebvrites believe” Are you one of them?

How about a citation from the St. Benedict Center proving your assertion?

I’ve found that all of the “quick answers” about Fr. Feeney fall completely to pieces when you actually read the arguments from more than one side.

 

[Arnobius]

Not at all. First, I don’t pretend that every catechism, quote from a Vatican official, or comment of a Pope is Magisterial.

That’s not a good argument. That’s like saying it takes arrogance to say that 2+2 does not equal 5 when a professor of math says it does equal 5.

Not quite. Brush up on it and read more than the standard line on things

catholicism.org/latter-athanasius.html

Where does it say that he will forego Baptism and won’t provide a Saint or Angel to provide the Sacrament? Or provide it Himself for that matter?

No. But like everything else in the Modern era, people want to bring things to the encyclicals that twist and pervert the straightforward meaning in order to make it conform to a liberal interpretation.

Maybe you should be sure of what you write. I cited him perfectly accurately. I didn’t pretend that necessary doesn’t mean necessary or that No Salvation Outside the Church means Salvation Outside the Church or that God is so weak that he lets people slip through the door without Baptism as if he’s a Domino’s pizza delivery man who showed up too late.

What a ridiculous straw man of my statements. I think the problem is similar to the Protestants debating the Bible. The issue is not what the words say, but their interpretation of them. I do not disagree with the teachings of the Church, but with your interpretations of them, and would find the statements of the Church authoritative and your own opinions not at all.

The fact that you choose to misinterpret my statements as making God into a Domino’s Delivery man is your problem, but it is not what I have said in any way.

The issue was not and never was the issue of people refusing to enter the Church, but people who did not know the Church was necessary for salvation through no fault of their own. If you hold those people are damned, then your interpretation of the Church is faulty indeed.

Moreover, your citing the St Benedict Center for proof that Feeney was unjustly persecuted is a bit like asking a Fundamentalist Protestant to explain the case of Luther vs the Catholic Church or the SSPX to explain the canonical status of Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated… none of them represents the view of the Church

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by Arnobius

Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments**.**

This is actually an erroneous quotation It is all over the internet, but that just means it is copied by everyone.
Ya just can’t trust anyone these days…cept me of course.

 

[GerardP]

What a ridiculous straw man of my statements.

Not at all. You’re accusing me of judging the Magisterium of the Church. I’ve commented on merely Catechisms as being in error.
Hence you must think the Catechisms are infallibly Magisterial. They aren’t.

I think the problem is similar to the Protestants debating the Bible.

I was thinking the same thing.

The issue is not what the words say, but their interpretation of them.

Who’s the “their” in interpretation? Some nameless theologian or a Protestant convert that hasn’t quite let go of his liberal Protestantism?

I do not disagree with the teachings of the Church, but with your interpretations of them, and would find the statements of the Church authoritative and your own opinions not at all.

“Statements of the Church” this is another one of those buzz phrases that blankets over the problem of discernment. How do you define a “statement of the Church” as opposed to “statements of Churchmen?”

The fact that you choose to misinterpret my statements as making God into a Domino’s Delivery man is your problem, but it is not what I have said in any way.

I’ve just followed your line of thinking to a logical conclusion and found a contemporary corrollary in modern society.

The issue was not and never was the issue of people refusing to enter the Church, but people who did not know the Church was necessary for salvation through no fault of their own.

It’s Church teaching that all men are given suffficient grace for salvation (ie. to enter the Church and be in the state of grace when they die.)

We don’t even know if this hypothetical “no fault of their own” person exists or ever existed.

If you hold those people are damned, then your interpretation of the Church is faulty indeed.

I don’t hold anyone in particular as damned. I hold that when God makes a supernatural and miraculous “save” at the last minute. He doesn’t cut corners. He supplies the knowledge, gets the consent and provides the sacrament.

Moreover, your citing the St Benedict Center for proof that Feeney was unjustly persecuted is a bit like asking a Fundamentalist Protestant to explain the case of Luther vs the Catholic Church

Why won’t you imitate the Church’s procedure on Luther and actually examine the writings of the person or group you are commenting on? The Church actually read Luther’s 95 thesis and came back with 40 documented errors.

And I’ve actually read some of Luther and there is a world of difference between him and Fr. Feeney or the SSPX. And JPII had the hubris to call Luther a “profoundly religious” guy.

or the SSPX to explain the canonical status of Lefebvre and the Bishops he consecrated… none of them represents the view of the Church

“the view of the Church”…again with the cover all statement. Unfortunately I’m going to have to ask you again what you mean by this term.

 

[bear06]

I guess since I haven’t been involved in an EENS thread in a while, I’ll bring out “the big guns”:

Baltimore Catechism on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus