Salvation outside the Church

[At_Trent]

The reason this must be the correct understanding is right after this statement in Trent with “desire” says as it is written, i.e. literally :
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” ( Jn. 3:5)"
No exception made by scripture so how could that support desire?
Understanding “or” as “and” is the only answer

Exactly.

Here is my view, which I will take to my deathbed. (to all here, whether agreeing with my previous posts or otherwise)

I don’t know if Fr Feeney erred on some points or just wasn’t able to articulate what you point out. I just don’t believe he was wrong.

The danger in this desire business, is that it is used today to justify false ecumenicism. As time goes on, the protestants are not seen as a threat, but rather concession after concession is made. They welcome Roman Catholics into their religious services, and they will come to ours IF it’s an interfaith event.

But,

• they do not “desire” to be a part of Holy Mother Church by converting
• they do not accept papal primacy
• they do not accept the Doctrine and Dogmas of HMC

And with other non-Christian faiths it gets worse

• no acceptance of the Divinity of Jesus Christ
• worship of false gods, in violation of the 1st Commandment
• rejection of the New Covenant
• some want us dead

Any teaching of possible salvation for one not baptized by water, by virtue of desire, surely means desire to attain salvation in unity with, and a member of HMC. Those who reject Her Doctrines and Dogmas will not be saved.

Ecumenism of return does not = today’s ecumenical efforts. The modern version, is… revolutionary. It’s modernism. Another about face. Another bad fruit of the “spirit of VII”, that is false ecumenism. If modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, then false ecumenism must rest at it’s apex. It’s just this side of apostasy.

jmo… in concrete

 

[una_fides]

I looked up the code of canon law from 1917, and it is right on:
Can 737 §1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum ianua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma.
Here is my loose translation of that Latin since there is no online English translation:
Of the sacraments, baptism is the door and foundation, and produces salvation for all who receive in fact or at least in desire…

(Corrections are welcome for any possible mistranslations.)

Another very interesting point is that the Council of Trent uses a different word for “or” (aut) than the 1917 Code of Canon Law above (vel). It could not be clearer that the Church means “or” and not “and” (et) from the context of the actual statements themselves, how the theologians understood those terms, and finally how the Church elsewhere explained through papal declarations and catechisms that baptism can be gained in re or in voto.

 

[At_Trent]

Still confused Mike ?

 

[sidbrown]

Good grief, do you honestly believe that there are no churchmen “in full communion” that would disagree with what you just pointed out ?.

Well, I asked you a while back for the name of one Catholic theologian or bishop, not a member of any fringe group such as Most Holy Family Monastery, who says today that all those who have not been baptised Sacramentally with water will go to hell. No one has come forward with a name. If every Catholic theologian and if every Canon lawyer in the world disagrees with you, then it is only reasonable and prudent to assume that your case is weak and not worthy of support.

 

[chypmonk]

Well, I asked you a while back for the name of one Catholic theologian or bishop, not a member of any fringe group such as Most Holy Family Monastery, who says today that all those who have not been baptised Sacramentally with water will go to hell. No one has come forward with a name. If every Catholic theologian and if every Canon lawyer in the world disagrees with you, then it is only reasonable and prudent to assume that your case is weak and not worthy of support.

Sorry Sid same argument was used against St. Athanasius. It didn’t work then it won’t work now the truth is true no matter what the majority may say.

If you don’t think that the Bishops and priests of the CDF are reliable on this issue how can we change your mind.
You don’t even know how to tell if a doctrine is infallible what can we really say?

 

[Sir_Knight]

If you want to sit here and go back and forth listing quotes from the Church all day, we can, but the key is that one needs to reconcile them. Truth cannot contradict truth. If it is truth that there is no salvation outside the Church and that those outside the Church who are invincibly ignorant can be saved and that one can receive baptism through desire, then when you piece it all together you can see that those who are invincibly ignorant of the truth who with perfect charity desire baptism (whether consciously or unconsciously) can receive the grace of baptism and thereby be placed into the Church and thereby be saved! Don’t believe me? My next two posts will be from Pope St. Pius X and then the Baltimore Catechism from which you yourself just quoted.

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X

28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

Here is some more of the context “conveniently” left out from the passage that was quoted above from the Baltimore Catechism. I will also supply the link to the full text, which the above poster failed to do, so that everyone on here can read it in its full context.
**Baltimore Catechism

• 1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?**

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.
…
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.

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.
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bcreed09.htm
The Baltimore Catechism could not have any more clearly taught that one can be saved through an implicit desire for baptism. While such is difficult, we also know that with God all things are possible and that he desires that all men will be saved. While most people will end up going to hell and God’s consequent will still will be done, God can still manifest himself to people on their deathbeds or prior thereto and communicate his grace to them in a mystical way so that they may enter the Church and be snatched from the grasp of satan before the point that their souls leave their bodies.

One little problem with what you are saying is that in conflicts with an EARLIER INFALLIBLE Church teaching …In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It 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 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. (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

 

[TMC]

Please anyone who holds Baptism of Desire could you provide me with a definition?

It is defined in the Catechism, Lumen Gentium, an encyclical from Pope Pius XII and about a hundred other places. The definitions vary in wording slightly. Here is the catechism’s definition:

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

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

So there are two forms of Baptism of Desire - explicit (i.e. catechumens) and implicit (“such persons [who] would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”)

 

[una_fides]

One little problem with what you are saying is that in conflicts with an EARLIER INFALLIBLE Church teaching …In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It 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 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. (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

I’m quite familiar with that statement. You would agree that when one receives baptism he has thereby been placed into the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church,” and again we know that one can receive this sacrament in re or in voto, as the infallible Council of Trent, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the Holy Office, and numerous popes have stated. When one receives baptism of desire, he is thereby placed into the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, and if he remains therein he will be saved.

The problem comes when one sees everything as contradiction instead of trying to see how one truth can fit together with another. If we conclude that the Church had infallibly excluded those with a desire for baptism, then we would also have to conclude that countless popes and the universal Church has erred continually in this regard in other authoritative pronouncements. The difference is that these other popes did not see contradiction. They saw harmony.

The following is a prime example of how a vicar of Christ can clearly state that outside the Church, the sole ark of salvation, no one can be saved and then clarify that those who are invincibly ignorant can still be saved. Obviously they cannot be saved without the graces of baptism, and that is the “grace” that Pius IX is referring to in the passage below. They can receive this grace of baptism through implicit desire.
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, August 10, 1863:
6. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]
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.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Are we to conclude that Pius X also had no clue what he was talking about when in his catechism referenced earlier he first states that there can be no salvation outside the Church and that to be in the Church one had to be a living member and then go on to say that those invincibly ignorant but who follow the natural law can still be saved?

 

[una_fides]

To answer what one person said earlier in this thread, this is most certainly not pelagianism, though I can see how you could get confused. Pelagius held that one could be saved through following the natural law alone–without the aid of divine grace. Baptism of desire states that those souls could receive baptism through their desire for it if reception was not possible due to physical limitations (i.e. the thief on the cross) or for those invincibly ignorant who would have desired the sacrament had they known of its necessity.

And to answer another objection baptism of desire–when properly understood–does not result in the thinking that water baptism is not necessary or that all those in false religions will be saved or anything of the sort. The Church has explained that this desire for baptism has to be animated by perfect charity, which also would include perfect contrition for any sins committed. The Baltimore Catechism does a nice job explaining, as was also cited earlier, that for those invincibly ignorant of the truth perfect contrition would be a very very difficult thing to come by since they are ignorant of its necessity. The way is still narrow and those who will enter are still few, but the Catholic Church teaches that they can enter through baptism in re or in voto.

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

How to do Theology

Lesson: On no salvation outside the Church.

The Church teaches that outside the Church there is no Salvation.

QUESTION: Does this mean outside the Church “OF THEIR OWN FAULT” or does it mean “PEOPLE NOT OF THEIR OWN FAULT”.

Proposition of Certain posters in the thread.

Those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own and have not mortally sinned in their lifetime are damned because they lack membership of the Church

ANSWER: Pope Pius IX

1. 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.
2. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."

---------------QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

Short Version.

Pope Pius IX is better at theology than ye who hold the proposition above and also happens to have taught officially that your proposition is untrue.

This teaching mind you was repeated in the Holy Office’s condemnation of Father Feeney, It also was repeated in Vatican 2 and it was also repeated by Pope John Paul II .

---

God Bless you

Br. Paul

 

[chypmonk]

It is defined in the Catechism, Lumen Gentium, an encyclical from Pope Pius XII and about a hundred other places. The definitions vary in wording slightly. Here is the catechism’s definition:

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

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

there are two forms of Baptism of Desire - explicit (i.e. catechumens) and implicit (“such persons [who] would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”)

So you hold that there are two types of BoD:
1, Explicit
2. Implicit

The explicit is for catechumens,( not eligible for implicit) which implies they implicitly **do not **want to be saved even though they are doing everything to be a member of the Church.

While Hundus who has a vague desire to go to heaven and only needs to follows his conscience, like worshiping cows (didn’t seem go over that well during Moses’s time with God) will be saved** without** believing in Christ nor desiring baptism.

This means that implicit BoD is easier than explicit BoD to live, so it would be better for people not to know the Gospel at all,( even catechumens can’t be saved by implicit BoD) because there would be no need to follow any rules except one’s own conscience even if that conscience tells them to worship cows.

Does that sound right? ‘Go into the whole world preaching ignorance and tell them to do what ever their conscience tells them and baptize them by saying nothing— so they are not culpable.’ [24:17 Gospel according to Rahner ]

BoD makes the Gospel a burden not a blessing and it is better to be ignorant than to believe as seen above in the situation of the catechumen.

World according to BoD:
So a Moslem terrorist who wants to go to heaven crashes a plane into a rich country’s skyscrappers, killing hundreds of people, will be saved because he is following his conscience and is a martyr for his trust in God?

Isn’t that what BoDers think?

 

[At_Trent]

Well, I asked you a while back for the name of one Catholic theologian or bishop, not a member of any fringe group such as Most Holy Family Monastery, who says today that all those who have not been baptised Sacramentally with water will go to hell. No one has come forward with a name. If every Catholic theologian and if every Canon lawyer in the world disagrees with you, then it is only reasonable and prudent to assume that your case is weak and not worthy of support.

So your answer to my question is no, you don’t believe it ?

 

[At_Trent]

una fides;7159105.......:

When one receives baptism of desire, he is thereby placed into the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, and if he remains therein he will be saved. …

So, how does that apply to a member of, say, the Southern Baptist Convention ?

That is what I’ve been trying to stress. How can one who rejects Roman Catholic Doctrine and Dogma be saved, when Holy Mother Church is the Church Christ willed ?

 

[At_Trent]

chypmonk, they can’t understand it because of all the inter religious gatherings. It clouds their reasoning. That is why the new ecumenism is so dangerous.

 

[TMC]

So you hold that there are two types of BoD:
1, Explicit
2. Implicit

The explicit is for catechumens,( not eligible for implicit) which implies they implicitly **do not **want to be saved even though they are doing everything to be a member of the Church.

While Hundus who has a vague desire to go to heaven and only needs to follows his conscience, like worshiping cows (didn’t seem go over that well during Moses’s time with God) will be saved** without** believing in Christ nor desiring baptism.

This means that implicit BoD is easier than explicit BoD to live, so it would be better for people not to know the Gospel at all,( even catechumens can’t be saved by implicit BoD) because there would be no need to follow any rules except one’s own conscience even if that conscience tells them to worship cows.

Does that sound right? ‘Go into the whole world preaching ignorance and tell them to do what ever their conscience tells them and baptize them by saying nothing— so they are not culpable.’ [24:17 Gospel according to Rahner ]

BoD makes the Gospel a burden not a blessing and it is better to be ignorant than to believe as seen above in the situation of the catechumen.

World according to BoD:
So a Moslem terrorist who wants to go to heaven crashes a plane into a rich country’s skyscrappers, killing hundreds of people, will be saved because he is following his conscience and is a martyr for his trust in God?

Isn’t that what BoDers think?

It is not what I hold, it is what the Church holds. If you are asking if I agree with the Church, the answer is yes.

Some have suggested that implicit BoD is easier than explicit - I am not sure I agree. I don’t see how the doctrine makes the Gospel a burden rather than a blessing. Remember that Baptism of Desire is no more a “free ticket” than formal baptism with water. It seems you are viewing salvation as a kind of checklist where the goal is to tick of certain items and win a ticket to heaven. Salvation is about accepting God’s love and grace and living a life that is consistent with His grace. The Gospel is an aid in doing that, not a hinderance.

 

[At_Trent]

It is not what I hold, it is what the Church holds. If you are asking if I agree with the Church, the answer is yes.

Some have suggested that implicit BoD is easier than explicit - I am not sure I agree. I don’t see how the doctrine makes the Gospel a burden rather than a blessing. Remember that Baptism of Desire is no more a “free ticket” than formal baptism with water. It seems you are viewing salvation as a kind of checklist where the goal is to tick of certain items and win a ticket to heaven. Salvation is about accepting God’s love and grace and living a life that is consistent with His grace. The Gospel is an aid in doing that, not a hinderance.

I agree with the bolded part, but only in light of EENS. Is that your view as well TMC ?

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Another very interesting point is that the Council of Trent uses a different word for “or” (aut) than the 1917 Code of Canon Law above (vel). It could not be clearer that the Church means “or” and not “and” (et) from the context of the actual statements themselves, how the theologians understood those terms, and finally how the Church elsewhere explained through papal declarations and catechisms that baptism can be gained in re or in voto.

Chypmnk already covered that here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7157212&postcount=79

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I believe the requirements for baptism of desire have already been explained on this thread. Baptism of a desire is a desire for the reception of the baptism animated by perfect charity, and this desire may be either explicit as in the case of catechumens or implicit, which could even constitute an unconscious yearning for baptism made by one who is invincibly ignorant of its existence.
Here is a brief section from the letter from the Holy Office given with full approval of Pope Pius XII:
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance 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. …
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
This teaching is so firmly rooted in the Church’s tradition that it goes beyond the mere ordinary magisterial weight of that decree from the Holy Office. This fact too was also pointed out earlier in this thread that this dogma of baptism of desire is one that is so unanimously accepted by theologians and doctors of the Church that it transcends to the level of the universal ordinary Magisterium and as such would be infallible.

You forgot to include the last part of the quote from the Holy Office:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I’m sorry but that is an extraordinarily strained reading of the text. It is also inconsistent with the way the Church itself has interpreted the text, see CCC 1260 (bolding is mine):

Chypmonk addressed this adequately here: (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7154590&postcount=57). I would further add that it’s clear from CCC #1260’s statement that “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity” that it’s addressing something on the grounds of sheer speculation and such a statement falls outside the sphere of having any doctrinal significance or authority.

 

[TMC]

Chypmonk addressed this adequately here: (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7154590&postcount=57). I would further add that it’s clear from CCC #1260’s statement that “It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity” that it’s addressing something on the grounds of sheer speculation and such a statement falls outside the sphere of having any doctrinal significance or authority.

How can any issue of faith and morals be outside of the Church’s doctrinal authority. If you are saying you disagree with the Church on this point, fine. But you can’t seriously be claiming that the Church has no authority to teach in this area?