Salvation of Unbaptized

[rescath]

We’ve been confusing and intertwining on this thread a couple of different cases which we need to distinguish going forward if we’re to have an intelligent discussion.

1. case of a catechumen who has the faith, intends to join the Church, but dies before being baptized.
2. case of someone who does not have the faith through no fault of his own (e.g. out of some “invincible” ignorance) – and some of these may be baptized (e.g. Protestants) and some unbaptized (e.g. Muslims).

It’s ALWAYS been in the context of scenario #1 where theologians have considered the notion of baptism of desire (explicit or implicit) or baptism of blood. Again, the English translation of the Latin votum is misleading, so I will call it baptism of will or intention. If a catechumen thinks “I want to get baptized and will schedule a date to do so”, then that’s an explicit intention. If, however, a catechumen never explicitly thinks the above stated proposition, the thought / intention “I’m going to become a Catholic” implicitly implies the intention to be baptized even if the prior proposition had never been explicitly formulated in his mind. That’s what the term “implicit” means in Catholic philosophy and theology, that one proposition is embedded logically within another. So the citations around “implicit” intention for baptism were always formulated in this context. Until about the 18th century, no theologian EVER considered scenario #2, but only #1, and the Thomistic “question” asked by theologians was always “Can a catechumen who dies before baptism be saved?” That was a DISPUTED theological question and has never been formally defined by the magisterium.

In the case of #2, there are numerous dogmatic definitions which declare it to be heresy. In particular, one of them states that if someone dies outside the Church (whether Protestant, Jew, etc., etc.) EVEN IF HE WERE TO SHED HIS BLOOD FOR CHRIST, CANNOT BE SAVED. In other words, NO good intention or “baptism of blood”, etc., applies in the case of those who do not have the Catholic faith.

Eugene IV in the dogmatic bull Cantate Domino teaches de fide

It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[LilyM]

We’ve been confusing and intertwining on this thread a couple of different cases which we need to distinguish going forward if we’re to have an intelligent discussion.

1. case of a catechumen who has the faith, intends to join the Church, but dies before being baptized.
2. case of someone who does not have the faith through no fault of his own (e.g. out of some “invincible” ignorance) – and some of these may be baptized (e.g. Protestants) and some unbaptized (e.g. Muslims).

It’s ALWAYS been in the context of scenario #1 where theologians have considered the notion of baptism of desire (explicit or implicit) or baptism of blood. Again, the English translation of the Latin votum is misleading, so I will call it baptism of will or intention. If a catechumen thinks “I want to get baptized and will schedule a date to do so”, then that’s an explicit intention. If, however, a catechumen never explicitly thinks the above stated proposition, the thought / intention “I’m going to become a Catholic” implicitly implies the intention to be baptized even if the prior proposition had never been explicitly formulated in his mind. That’s what the term “implicit” means in Catholic philosophy and theology, that one proposition is embedded logically within another. So the citations around “implicit” intention for baptism were always formulated in this context. Until about the 18th century, no theologian EVER considered scenario #2, but only #1, and the Thomistic “question” asked by theologians was always “Can a catechumen who dies before baptism be saved?” That was a DISPUTED theological question and has never been formally defined by the magisterium.

In the case of #2, there are numerous dogmatic definitions which declare it to be heresy. In particular, one of them states that if someone dies outside the Church (whether Protestant, Jew, etc., etc.) EVEN IF HE WERE TO SHED HIS BLOOD FOR CHRIST, CANNOT BE SAVED. In other words, NO good intention or “baptism of blood”, etc., applies in the case of those who do not have the Catholic faith.

Eugene IV in the dogmatic bull Cantate Domino teaches de fide

So you’re saying that John Paul 2 and the compilers of the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church are guilty of heresy since they assert salvation is possible for the unbaptised? Hardly. They simply have clarified the understanding of what it actually MEANS to be in the ‘bosom and unity’ of the Church, as Eugene put it - and that unity with the Church can exist outside of FORMAL unity.

We hold on faith that even heretics and pagans can validly baptise others if they intend to do what the Church does when administering the Rite. We also hold that they can achieve the same effect of our Sacrament of Reconciliation if they spontaneously evince perfect contrition for their sins.

So they can probably, by means unknown and inapplicable to us but certainly both known and possible to a God who desires the salvation of all and reads the hearts of all who sincerely desire to know him and do his will, achieve the effective unity with the Church that we who are baptised also receive.

 

[rescath]

So you’re saying that John Paul 2 and the compilers of the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church are guilty of heresy since they assert salvation is possible for the unbaptised?

You evidently missed my point. There is a theological opinion regarding salvation of the unbaptized but it applies only in context #1 as I stated. #2 involves the salvation of those outside the Church (i.e. who do not have the faith). I don’t know what John Paul II or the CCC said.

They simply have clarified the understanding of what it actually MEANS to be in the ‘bosom and unity’ of the Church, as Eugene put it - and that unity with the Church can exist outside of FORMAL unity.

Yes, that’s been the way modernists have undermined the dogma in such a way as to avoid explicit heresy, by redefining “Church”. We must accept dogmatic definitions in the same sense as they were intended by the pope in eodem sensu and not “spin” words and definitions to change the meaning to make it more to our liking.

 

[LilyM]

We must accept dogmatic definitions in the same sense as they were intended by the pope in eodem sensu and not “spin” words and definitions to change the meaning to make it more to our liking.

Well we’re not precisely in a position to go back 500 odd years in time and ask Eugene precisely what he meant, so we’ll just have to battle on trying to understand what he said as best we can, shall we?

And I’m not at all sure that the motive by and large IS to make the definitions ‘more to our liking’. I know I don’t have a particular emotional investment in whether or not unbaptised people are saved, and I don’t imagine any of our Popes have been such utter bleeding hearts as to be seriously swayed by such concerns either.

What I find objectionable is assuming that God is so in your pocket or in Pope Eugene’s or any other Pope’s that any of you can start telling Him how He is and is not to go about the business of saving people!

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know what John Paul II or the CCC said.

Way to go for someone who calls themselves Catholic I suggest you find out before arguing further on the point, otherwise we’ll be talking at total cross-purposes.

Yes, that’s been the way modernists have undermined the dogma in such a way as to avoid explicit heresy, by redefining “Church”. We must accept dogmatic definitions in the same sense as they were intended by the pope in eodem sensu and not “spin” words and definitions to change the meaning to make it more to our liking.

Well we can’t exactly go back 500 some years and ask Eugene precisely what he meant in this instance. But we CAN be sure that he wasn’t presumptuous enough to mean anything but that God is perfectly able to save who He wills as He wills, within or without the framework of the sacraments if He so wishes!

 

[marybee]

Well we’re not precisely in a position to go back 500 odd years in time and ask Eugene precisely what he meant, so we’ll just have to battle on trying to understand what he said as best we can, shall we?

And I’m not at all sure that the motive by and large IS to make the definitions ‘more to our liking’. I know I don’t have a particular emotional investment in whether or not unbaptised people are saved, and I don’t imagine any of our Popes have been such utter bleeding hearts as to be seriously swayed by such concerns either.

What I find objectionable is assuming that God is so in your pocket or in Pope Eugene’s or any other Pope’s that any of you can start telling Him how He is and is not to go about the business of saving people!

Well said Lily! Beautiful name by the way! I think the people we are trying to convince might be sedevacantists! Other wise they would understand the authority of the last popes! Secondly, they don’t understand that Saints are not infallible. If we can’t even agree on the mere basics how can you debate? I hope that they remember on thing , for the stick that you measure others will be measured onto you! God does not expect what is impossible. He by his nature must give every man at least a chance for salvation. If he can not do that, he is not God.

 

[LilyM]

Well said Lily! Beautiful name by the way! I think the people we are trying to convince might be sedevacantists! Other wise they would understand the authority of the last popes! Secondly, they don’t understand that Saints are not infallible. If we can’t even agree on the mere basics how can you debate? I hope that they remember on thing , for the stick that you measure others will be measured onto you! God does not expect what is impossible. He by his nature must give every man at least a chance for salvation. If he can not do that, he is not God.

Feeneyites by the looks of it (followers of Feeney who held the same rigorously narrow view of EENS).

By the way I appear to have stuffed up in re-editing the post. Never mind.

 

[marybee]

Feeneyites by the looks of it (followers of Feeney who held the same rigorously narrow view of EENS).

By the way I appear to have stuffed up in re-editing the post. Never mind.

FYI- Feeny was excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pious XII! Just in case someone was following him thinking he was correct!

 

[paramedicgirl]

FYI- Feeny was excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pious XII! Just in case someone was following him thinking he was correct!

I think I recently heard something, (I can’t remember where) that Feeney was admitted back into the good graces of the Church before he died. Has anyone else heard this? Possibly I heard it on a Father Corapi tape, but I’m not sure where.

 

[MTD]

Laszlo,

When the popes and theologians used the terms heretics and schismatics, they were referring to formal heretics and schismatics. A sincere Protestant in invincible ignorance of the true religion is a material heretic, not a formal heretic. Thus a baptized Protestant who is invincibly ignorant and who dies in the state of grace is saved. Such a one is united to the soul of the Church though not to the body.

Maria

 

[rlg94086]

Laszlo,

When the popes and theologians used the terms heretics and schismatics, they were referring to formal heretics and schismatics. A sincere Protestant in invincible ignorance of the true religion is a material heretic, not a formal heretic. Thus a baptized Protestant who is invincibly ignorant and who dies in the state of grace is saved. Such a one is united to the soul of the Church though not to the body.

Maria

Hi Maria,

I followed you until the last sentence. What does it mean to be united to the “soul of the Church though not to the body?” Once we die, and we are in a state of grace (therefore saved) aren’t we all one big happy family?

Pax,
Robert

 

[MTD]

I followed you until the last sentence. What does it mean to be united to the “soul of the Church though not to the body?” Once we die, and we are in a state of grace (therefore saved) aren’t we all one big happy family?

Oh, sorry for the lack of clarity. When I mentioned unity to the soul of the Church, I was talking about before death. I meant that a baptized Protestant who is in invincible ignorance and the state of grace is united to the soul of the Church. It is because of this unity to the soul of the Church that he is saved should he die in this state.

Maria

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Maria,

I followed you until the last sentence. What does it mean to be united to the “soul of the Church though not to the body?” Once we die, and we are in a state of grace (therefore saved) aren’t we all one big happy family?

Pax,
Robert

She was speaking about his state during this lifetime. After death, (we can hope) he would be incorporated into the Church in God’s mysterious way - this is presuming that he was in a state of grace, and that he never actually rejected the Church.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, sorry for the lack of clarity. When I mentioned unity to the soul of the Church, I was talking about before death. I meant that a baptized Protestant who is in invincible ignorance and the state of grace is united to the soul of the Church. It is because of this unity to the soul of the Church that he is saved should he die in this state.

Maria

Understood.

It was the juxtaposition of your sentences that threw me off. You mentioned “soul…not body” after mentioning the person “died” in a state of grace, so I got confused.

The danger I see in this is that it can slip into relativism. A person could be led to believe that it really doesn’t matter which church you belong to, for example. How do you explain this to your separated brethren in conversation? Do you just explain that we can have hope in God’s mercy that those outside the Catholic Church can still be saved; however, we can’t be certain?

 

[MTD]

The danger I see in this is that it can slip into relativism. A person could be led to believe that it really doesn’t matter which church you belong to, for example.

First, invincible ignorance means that the person does not know and has no way of knowing that the Catholic Faith is the true religion.

Second, the state of grace received in Baptism is very hard to maintain without the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. So for an invincibly ignorant Protestant to fall into mortal sin is very detrimental to his possible salvation because he doesn’t have the sacraments to restore him to grace, and the only other thing that can restore him to grace is perfect contrition. Now perfect contrition for sin, you know, is rooted in perfect charity. If we who have the sacraments and all the other helps to sanctification in the Church find it so hard to bring about perfect contrition, imagine what it must be like for a Protestant without the Church. And this is all assuming he is in invincible ignorance; if he is in vincible ignorance, no Baptism or contrition will save him because he is in formal heresy.

How do you explain this to your separated brethren in conversation? Do you just explain that we can have hope in God’s mercy that those outside the Catholic Church can still be saved; however, we can’t be certain?

Well, I’d just explain what the Church teaches. There truly is no need to be ashamed or make apologies for it since it is God’s plan, not ours.

Maria

 

[MTD]

To shed a little more light on exactly how a sincere Protestant can be saved, I quote from An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921:

"121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

"Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

"In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

"Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him?

"If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true priest–has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition–that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic–with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts–might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy ofGod.

"If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.

"I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

"I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

“I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.”

Maria

 

[rlg94086]

First, invincible ignorance means that the person does not know and has no way of knowing that the Catholic Faith is the true religion.

Second, the state of grace received in Baptism is very hard to maintain without the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. So for an invincibly ignorant Protestant to fall into mortal sin is very detrimental to his possible salvation because he doesn’t have the sacraments to restore him to grace, and the only other thing that can restore him to grace is perfect contrition. Now perfect contrition for sin, you know, is rooted in perfect charity. If we who have the sacraments and all the other helps to sanctification in the Church find it so hard to bring about perfect contrition, imagine what it must be like for a Protestant without the Church. And this is all assuming he is in invincible ignorance; if he is in vincible ignorance, no Baptism or contrition will save him because he is in formal heresy.

Well, I’d just explain what the Church teaches. There truly is no need to be ashamed or make apologies for it since it is God’s plan, not ours.

Maria

Thanks! You have been a big help. Prior to my conversion, I was definitely ignorant of the truth of the Church (though not invincible obviously), but I had also sinned. So, I fully understand what you are saying.

 

[Dan-Man916]

I think I recently heard something, (I can’t remember where) that Feeney was admitted back into the good graces of the Church before he died. Has anyone else heard this? Possibly I heard it on a Father Corapi tape, but I’m not sure where.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience. Technically, it was not due to his beliefs, eventhough they were condemned.
Feeney did reconcile with the Church before his death. I do not adhere to Feeney’s theology, but he was not made to recant his beliefs when he was received back into the Church.

 

[Pug]

You evidently missed my point. There is a theological opinion regarding salvation of the unbaptized but it applies only in context #1 as I stated. #2 involves the salvation of those outside the Church (i.e. who do not have the faith). I don’t know what John Paul II or the CCC said.

I can’t tell if you grant any authority to John Paul II or not. If you don’t, then that seems beyond this thread.

If you do, then at least you can grant that the CCC and CCCC contain a theological opinion. Well, the snip I gave covers situation 2. So there is at least a theological opinion about #2 in existence. (snip was from CCCC).

 

[drafdog]

Of course there is the possibility of salvation for the unbaptized. How else would we pray in the Canon of the Mass for “all those who have left this world in Your friendship”?

We have no idea of the breadth of the mercy of God. As parents we may learn some measure of the depth of divine mercy as we deal with our children with love, compassion and forgiveness. Can God be any less merciful than we?

Matthew