Salvation outside the Church

[At_Trent]

Here is an interesting article. I’m not sure I buy it, but I’m open to opinions.

Three errors of the Feeneyite movement

1/ Misrepresentation of the Dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

They present it as “without baptism of water there is no salvation.”

St. Cyprian, the first Saint to use by writing the expression “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, in the very passage in which he uses it, shows that Baptism of water being inferior to Baptism of Blood, and this last one not being fruitful outside the Church, “because outside the Church there is no salvation,” therefore baptism of water outside the Church cannot be fruitful. (It imprints the character, but does not give sanctifying grace, i.e. justification, and thus does not open Heaven’s door).

In the very next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches, with all the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and unanimously all theologians, that Baptism of Blood (dying for the Catholic Faith) is the most glorious and perfect of all baptism, explicitly stating “even without the water”.

And in the next paragraph, St. Cyprian teaches that Catholic Faithful who, with no fault of their self, were received in the Catholic Church without a valid baptism, could still go to Heaven (thus with the Catholic Faith and Charity, but without the waters of baptism: this is exactly the conditions of baptism of desire).

Why not then believe the Dogma of the Church “outside the Church there is no salvation” “in the same meaning and in the same words – in eodem sensu eademque sententia” as the whole Catholic Church has taught it from the beginning, that is, including the “three Baptism”? Why then give a new meaning, a new interpretation to the Dogma?

It is worth reminding that this traditional interpretation of the Dogma, including the Three Baptism, is that of St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Peter Canisius, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, Pope Innocent II, Pope Innocent III, the Council of Trent, Pope Pius IX, Pope St. Pius X, etc. and unanimously all theologians (before the modernists) !

It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: “it is de fide – that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith – that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.”

That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is “no other remedy” : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa qu. 68 a 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!

Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value. But let us refute them too.

2/ The doctrine on Baptism of Desire is optional

They present it as a freely discussed question in the Church : “an academic difference to be settled by the Church.” : each school of thought would then have to be accepted until the Pope later defines that doctrine. This is false.

The error here is to claim that only that which has already been defined belongs to the Deposit of Faith, and everything else is opened to free discussion.

The truth is that one ought to believe everything that belongs to the Deposit of Faith, both that which has already been defined and that which is not yet defined but is unanimously taught by the Church.

Such is the doctrine on Baptism of desire, by their own admission. They write indeed: “this teaching [on three baptisms] indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of this millenium.” They should add: common teaching of Popes, of Doctors of the Church and of Saints! They should add that it is found even before this millenium in the very early years of the Church, without a single dissenting voice.

Therefore one ought to believe in the doctrine of three baptisms, as it belongs to the Catholic Faith, though not yet defined. Thus St. Alphonsus can explicitly say: “it is de fide…”

cont…

 

[At_Trent]

If a point of doctrine is not yet defined, one may be excused in case of ignorance, or one may discuss some precision within the doctrine (as to how explicit the Catholic Faith must be in order to have baptism of desire), but one is not allowed to reject the doctrine itself, simply denying baptism of desire.

The example of St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception is a false one. Indeed one must note that St. Thomas accepted the highest purity he saw possible for Our Lady, accepting even the feast of the Immaculate Conception as being the day of her “sanctification.” He says explicitly: “Under Christ, Who [alone] did not need to be saved, being the universal Savior, the Blessed Virgin had the highest purity.” The hard question in this point of doctrine was how to reconcile the fact that she is redeemed, and that she is immaculate. The truth is that Our Lady was sanctified in the very first moment of her conception by being preserved from original sin, and not in the second moment of her life by being purified : as this distinction was simply not taught before St. Thomas Aquinas, he cannot be criticized for not holding it. There was no unanimity before him as to how to reconcile these two points of doctrine. And therefore the parallel with baptism of desire does not stand at all! Never could a Pope define a doctrine contrary to what the Church has always taught.

And he who denies a point of doctrine of the Church, knowing that it is unanimously taught in the Tradition of the Church is not without sin against the virtue of Faith (“without which [Faith] no one ever was justified” ! Dz 799)

3/ Third error : The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification “but not for salvation”.

The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire is sufficient for justification. It is very explicitly stated in Session 7 Canon 4 on the sacraments in general: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but that they are superfluous; and that men can, without the sacraments or the desire of them, obtain the grace of justification by faith alone, although it is true that not all the sacraments are necessary for each individual, let him be anathema.” (Dz 847).

Beware of ambiguous translations! In their recent flyer on “Desire, Justification and Salvation at the Council of Trent”, they use an ambiguous translation of Session 6 Chapter 7 (Dz 799): “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified…” Now the Latin has “sine QUA nulli unquam contigit iustificatio”: thus the terms “without which” refer to the faith (feminine in Latin) and not to the sacrament (neutral in Latin: it would then have: sine quo). Thus in the translation found in “The Church Teaches” (TCT 563), one finds: “… without [which] Faith no one has ever been justified.” Why not use the established unambiguous English translation? Why replace it with an ambiguous one?

Now if they had read carefully the Council of Trent, they would have seen that this Council teaches: “it is necessary to believe that the justified have everything necessary for them to be regarded as having completely satisfied the divine law for this life by their works, at least those which they have performed in God. And they may be regarded as having likewise truly merited the eternal life they will certainly attain in due time, if they but die in the state of grace…” In other words, salvation (which is at the end of the Christian life on earth) only requires perseverance in the state of grace received at justification (which is at the beginning of the Christian life on earth). Baptism is the sacrament of justification, the sacrament of the beginning of the Christian life. If one has received sanctifying grace (which is the reality of the sacrament, res sacramenti, of Baptism), he only needs to persevere in that grace to be saved. Perseverance in grace requires obedience to the Commandments of God, including the commandment to receive the sacrament of Baptism: thus there remains for him the obligation to receive baptism of water, but it is necessary for him no longer as mean (since he already received by grace the ultimate fruit of that mean), but only as precept. In case of circumstances not depending on our will and preventing us from fulfilling such a precept, “God takes the will as the fact.” This is the principle applied by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, etc.

cont

 

[At_Trent]

It is false to pretend that canon 4 on the Sacraments in general (where desire is explicitly mentioned in the expression “re aut voto”) deals with justification as opposed to salvation and canon 5 on Baptism deals with salvation as opposed to justification. Indeed canon 4 (quoted above) deals explicitly with the necessity of sacraments “for salvation”, the expression “grace of justification” in that context appears manifestly as being precisely the only essential requisite for salvation, as is taught explicitly in session 6 chapter 16 (see above). That which is said of the sacraments in general applies to each sacrament in particular, without having to be repeated each time. Simplistic reasoning, disregarding the explicit teaching of the Church on baptism of desire, only reach false conclusions.

That it is not necessary to repeat the clause “re aut voto” is so much the more true since baptism of desire is an exception, a special case, not the normal one. One needs not mention exceptions each time one speaks of a law. Thus, there are many definitions of the church on original sin that do not mention the Immaculate Conception, for instance Pope St. Zozimus wrote: “nullus omnino – absolutely nobody” (Dz 109a) was exempt of the guilt of original sin: such “definition” must be understood as the Church understands it, i.e., not including the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the same way, it is sufficient that Baptism of desire be explicitly taught by the Church, by the Council of Trent, in some place, it is not necessary to expect it at every page of her teaching; silence on an exception is not a negation of it. This principle is important to remember, in order not to be deceived by a frequent technique of the Feeneyites: they accumulate quotes on the general necessity of Baptism, as if it were against the doctrine on Baptism of Desire. Often the very persons they quote hold explicitly the common teaching on Baptism of Desire. The fact is that the general necessity of Baptism, as understood “in the same sense and in the same words” as the Church always understood it, far from excluding Baptism of Blood and of Desire includes this doctrine.

The root of the error of the Feeneyites: lack of proper Thomistic Theology

To remedy the errors of modernism St. Pius X has ordered the study of St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy and theology. A book like “desire and deception” put out by a Feeneyite is very dangerous for his opposition to that philosophy of St. Thomas, which is made mandatory by St. Pius X. Let us hear St. Pius X: “We will and strictly ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences… And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us… They cannot set aside St. Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.”

cont

 

[At_Trent]

St. Thomas distinguishes three elements in each sacrament: 1/ the exterior sign, called sacramentum tantum, sacrament itself, signifying and producing the other two elements. This exterior sign is composed of matter such as water, and form such as the words of the sacrament. 2/ An intermediate reality, called sacramentum et res, sacrament and reality, which, in case of baptism, is the character. This intermediate reality is both signified and produced by the exterior sign and further signifies and produces the third element. 3/ The ultimate reality, res sacramenti, the (ultimate) reality of the sacrament, which is the sacramental grace, i.e. sanctifying grace, as source of further actual graces to live as child of God, as soldier of Christ, etc.

A sacrament may be valid but not fruitful. To be valid the exterior sign needs valid matter, form, intention and proper minister, it then signifies and produces always the second element. To be fruitful, there must be no obstacle. Thus baptism in a heretical church, if done with proper matter, form and intention, does give the character of baptism but does not give sanctifying grace; the person thus remains with the original sin and actual sins; he has not become a child of God: Baptism is thus deprived of its ultimate effect, the most important one, because of the obstacle of a false faith, i.e. of heresy. In the same way, baptism in a Catholic Church of a person who had stolen and refuses to render that which he stole: such attachment to sin is an obstacle that deprives baptism of its ultimate effect, sanctifying grace.

One can go to Hell with the character of Baptism. And there are saints in Heaven, such as the Saints of the Old Testament (Abraham, David, etc.) without the character of Baptism. But nobody dying with sanctifying grace goes to Hell (as the Council of Trent says above), and nobody dying without sanctifying grace goes to Heaven.

Thus the necessity of Baptism for salvation is absolute for the third element of Baptism, the new birth by sanctifying grace, element which is found in each of the Three Baptism (even more perfectly in baptism of blood than in baptism of water, as is the constant teaching of the Church). Hence the common teaching on the necessity of Baptism includes the three Baptisms.

The necessity of the exterior element of Baptism, i.e. the sacrament itself, is relative to the third element, as the only mean at our disposal to receive the third element, living Faith; the sacrament itself is “the sacrament of Faith, without which [Faith] no one ever was justified” as says the Council of Trent (Dz 799). See how this holy Council clearly sets the absolute necessity on the third element (living faith, i.e. faith working through charity). One finds the same distinction in the Holy Scripture, chapter 3 of St. John’s Gospel: that which is absolutely necessary is the new birth, i.e. the infusion of the new life, sanctifying grace, the life of God in us. Five times Our Lord insists on the necessity to be “reborn, born of the Spirit”. The water is mentioned only once as the mean for that rebirth, the only mean at our disposal, but not limiting God’s power Who can infuse this new life, (justification) even without water, as He did to Cornelius (Act. 10).

The confusion of the writings of the Feeneyites when they deal with sacramental character or with “fulfilled/unfulfilled justice” (confusion on the third element of the sacrament) is appalling. (Reply to Verbum, Res Fidei Feb.87, p.22, with refutation in Baptism of Desire published at the Angelus).

Dare one add with St. Pius X as cause of their error: pride that makes them more attached to their novelty than to the age-old teaching of the Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints?

Conclusion

“Brethren, the will of my heart, indeed, and my prayer to God, is for them unto salvation. For I bear witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:1-2) How much I wish and pray that, relinquishing their error, their refusal of the traditional teaching on the Three Baptism, they embrace the whole of Catholic Faith (not just defined Dogmas). They pretend to defend Dogma, but not with the truth! One cannot defend truth with error. Their error only gives easy weapons to the enemies of the Dogma! “Not knowing the Justice of God (interior sanctifying grace of justification by living Faith) and seeking to establish their own (exterior belonging to the Church by exterior sacraments), [they] have not submitted themselves to the justice of God” (Rom. 10:3).

We must defend the Catholic Faith, the absolute necessity of interior sanctifying grace (inseparable from the true Faith, Hope and Charity) and the necessity of the exterior sacraments “re aut voto – in reality or at least in desire” as teaches the Council of Trent.

In his time of confusion in the teaching of the Church we must hold fast to the unchangeable teaching of the Tradition of the Church, believing what the Church has always believed and taught “in the same meaning and the same words,” not changing one iota to the right or to the left, for falling from the faith on one side or the other is still falling from the true Faith, “without which [Faith] no one ever was justified!” (Council of Trent, Dz 799).

Let us pray that Our Lord Jesus Christ may give them the light to see and the grace to accept the age-old teaching of our holy Mother the Church by her Popes, Fathers, Doctors and Saints, and that, correcting themselves, they may serve the Church rather than change her doctrine.

this article is on at least 2 sites… I believe it was written by an SSPX priest, but can’t confirm it yet. I should know by Monday

 

[At_Trent]

If anyone is interested, there is a very long discussion here:
catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3026190.0.html

 

[thistle]

Yes that is accurate

Your view is against Church teaching:

CCC 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.

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

 

[TMC]

Perhaps the question simply needs to be looked at in a different light.

Is salvation given to those who have intellectually embraced correct theology or does God give this gift to those who have freely chosen to love Him humbly (i.e. recognizing their own sins, failures and innate unworthiness for salvation)? Or is it that He only grants it to those of the latter category who FIRST achieved success in the first category? Do either of those REALLY sound like the Jesus y’all have come to know in life and in Scripture?

For most of history, there was no real group of people that had made a mental severance between Jesus and the Church, so the clarification was simply not necessary and, indeed, would have been confusing (the answer to a question not asked). Since the protestant revolution is now 500 years old there are massive numbers of people on earth who have been introduced to Christ, but taught lies or distortions about the catholic church. God does not cut them off simply for their intellectual comprehension shortcomings. They ARE part of the Church and saved by the Grace of God which flow through the Church whether they know it or not. Even if they dispute it! God simply doesn’t permit puny humans to confine Him in a box (literal or doctrinal).

I have nothing really to add, except to say that I think this is exactly correct. Salvation is neither a theology test or a lottery.

 

[otjm]

No one is saved by a false religion. All protestant religions are false religions. Everyone who is saved is saved because of the merits of the Catholic religion. In that sense , nothing has changed. There may be many Protestants who embrace the tenets of Catholicism and reject none of them. Will they be saved? Its hard to say. Only GOD knows.

That is not exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. For starters, you might contemplate the fact that the Church recognizes as a sacrament, baptism done in Protestant congregations. So a Lutheran who is baptized with the Trinitarian formula and water is just as baptized as if it were done in the local Catholic Church; and it is through baptism that one starts the path to salvation.

Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that the Lutherans, the Methodists, et alia are “false religions”. You might try to follow the Church in her teachings.

 

[laszlo]

Four words: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

Absolutely. Ultimately only those who are members of the Triumphant (and only eternal) Church are saved. Everyone else will be in the hell.

Also the salvation cannot be achieved by human effort, only through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ trusted His Church (the Militant Church) to represent him in the world. We did not get revelation how this representation works toward the salvation.

We can say with almost certainty, that not all Catholics will be saved and with certainty that not all not Catholics will be damned. The patriarch, Moses, the Prophets and many other were not members of the Catholic Church and Jesus saved them.

The Feeneysm which basically teaches that only those who were baptized and if commit mortal sins after baptism get reconciliation could be saved (consequently most protestants and all non christians are damned) was rejected by the Church.

 

[chypmonk]

@ AT TRENT,
Since your posts are so long I can’t quote them to respond so I will do the best I can to take points one at time.
True, one of the earliest statements supporting the idea that baptism of blood is a possible replacement to Sacramental Baptism, came from St. Cyprian but it is 254 years too late to be considered apostolic:

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.* Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 598]

While teaching about baptism of blood, notice that St. Cyprian makes an error in the same sentence.* He says:

“catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.”*

This is wrong, even from the point of view of the baptism of blood/desire advocates.All baptism of desire and blood advocates readily admit that neither is a sacrament, because neither confers the indelible character of the Sacrament of Baptism. See above on this thread post #15(link)* An honest advocate of baptism of blood would admit that St. Cyprian’s statement here is wrong. In the very SENTENCE in which St. Cyprian teaches the error of baptism of blood, he makes another error in explaining it – he calls it “the Sacrament of Baptism.” *What more proof is necessary to demonstrate that the teaching of an individual father is not infallible? It does not represent the universal Tradition and can even be dangerous, if held obstinately against defined dogma.

Furthermore, St. Cyprian’s errors in this very document (To Jubaianus) don’t end here. In the same document, St. Cyprian teaches that heretics cannot administer valid baptism.

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 593]

This is also completely wrong, as the Council of Trent defined that heretics, provided they observe the correct matter and form, confer valid baptism.* But St. Cyprian actually held that it was from apostolic Tradition that heretics could not confer a valid baptism.* And this false idea was opposed by the then Pope St. Stephen and later condemned by the Catholic Church.* So much for the claim that St. Cyprian’s Letter To Jubaianus is a sure representation of apostolic Tradition.

 

[At_Trent]

@ AT TRENT,
Since your posts are so long I can’t quote them to respond so I will do the best I can to take points one at time.
True, one of the earliest statements supporting the idea that baptism of blood is a possible replacement to Sacramental Baptism, came from St. Cyprian but it is 254 years too late to be considered apostolic:

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.* Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 598]

While teaching about baptism of blood, notice that St. Cyprian makes an error in the same sentence.* He says:

“catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.”*

This is wrong, even from the point of view of the baptism of blood/desire advocates.All baptism of desire and blood advocates readily admit that neither is a sacrament, because neither confers the indelible character of the Sacrament of Baptism. See above on this thread post #15(link)* An honest advocate of baptism of blood would admit that St. Cyprian’s statement here is wrong. In the very SENTENCE in which St. Cyprian teaches the error of baptism of blood, he makes another error in explaining it – he calls it “the Sacrament of Baptism.” *What more proof is necessary to demonstrate that the teaching of an individual father is not infallible? It does not represent the universal Tradition and can even be dangerous, if held obstinately against defined dogma.

Furthermore, St. Cyprian’s errors in this very document (To Jubaianus) don’t end here. In the same document, St. Cyprian teaches that heretics cannot administer valid baptism.

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “… in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics… This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 593]

This is also completely wrong, as the Council of Trent defined that heretics, provided they observe the correct matter and form, confer valid baptism.* But St. Cyprian actually held that it was from apostolic Tradition that heretics could not confer a valid baptism.* And this false idea was opposed by the then Pope St. Stephen and later condemned by the Catholic Church.* So much for the claim that St. Cyprian’s Letter To Jubaianus is a sure representation of apostolic Tradition.

Hi, I’ll reply later this afternoon. I’m off to Holy Hour and noon Mass…

God Bless

 

[chypmonk]

@ AT TRENT
Three Baptisms?
There is a REAL difference between BoD-(Baptism Desire)/BoB-(Baptism of Blood) and the Sacrament of Baptism.
BoD has

1. No Sacramental Character (covered in post #15 link)
   2, No power to repair the temporal punishment due to sin:
   BoD advocate, St Alphonsus Liguori, admits this- In his
   : Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

“We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment."

While BoB as possibility appears doubtful if suffered outside the Church -see Florence below-,
1Gives no Sacramental Character
2 if it were true would repair punishment for sins unlike BoD since advocates say it is martyrdom, i.e. martyrs go straight to heaven.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and** even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ,** unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church. “papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

Finally, BoD/BoB do not make one eligible for receiving the other sacraments and are NOT sacraments themselves again see post #15(link)

So to say there is no difference between the Sacrament and BoD/BoB
is more than misleading.

 

[SouthpawLink]

chpymonk,
Maybe we should take another look at Pope Pius IX’s letter:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1683-1684).

That which the Church’s theologians hold, by universal and common consent, to be de fide is to be held as de fide by the faithful. The faithful must also subject themselves to theological truths and conclusions held by the common and constant consent.

When I referred to DS 788, I was referring to Denzinger-Schonmetzer 788, not Denzinger 788; there is a difference in the numbering. DS 788 correlates to Denzinger 413, but that passage actually refers to explicit baptism of desire (of which Pope Innocent III approved). What I had actually been thinking of, when referrencing DS 788 was Denzinger 388, which corresponds to DS 741. There, Pope Innocent II referred to the writings of St. Augustine (City of God) and St. Ambrose (on the death of Valentinian) in support of baptism of desire, telling the bishop of Cremona to have sacrifices to God for the unbaptized priest who had died.

Fr. Cekada showed that 14 of the 25 theologians he referred to held baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain, while all of them taught it. A larger sample no doubt would have further confirmed his argument that baptism of desire is held by common consent to be a theological truth.

In a later post, you argue for the necessity of sacramental baptism (with which I agree), but you also quote sources which confirm that baptism of desire confers sanctifying grace. Is not sanctifying grace necessary for salvation? The baptismal character imprinted by baptism will add to the glory of those in heaven but will be a mark of shame for those in hell.

TMC,
Before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton noted that “[M]ost theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation” (American Ecclesiastical Review, The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Catholic Church: December 1952, pp. 450-461).

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not possible without supernatural faith and perfect charity (cf. Suprema Haec Sacra, 8 August 1949).

 

[chypmonk]

@ AT TRENT
Three Baptisms- continued–
St. Alphonsus
your article says:

It is worth reminding that St. Alphonsus says: “it is de fide – that is, it belongs to the Catholic Faith – that there are some men saved also by the baptism of the Spirit.”

St. Alphonsus’s is mistaken for few reasons:

1. It is contrary scripture Jn 3:5 (article on this subject–link ) officially interpreted by the Church numerous times: Councils of Vienna, Florence, Trent… to be taken literally “as it is written” ( just like “this is my body” is literal):
   Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:
   “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[Denzinger 696 link]

and Leo the Great holds that the grace of sanctification cannot be separated from the Sacrament of (water)Baptism nor sanctification from the Sacrament:
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood.* And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies.* For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”

This follows logically with the definition of Unam Sanctum that there is NO remission of sin outside the Church:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“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…”papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

1. His statement is not be proven by any definition cited
2. It is not shared by even the theologians who believe in baptism of desire, who followed him. see post #12 above:
   “ Fr. Cekada is refuted by the testimony of the very authorities he brings forward. Of the 25 theologians he presents before Vatican II only 7 say BoD is of the faith. Meaning it is not infallibly taught. “[See post #12 above link]

 

[chypmonk]

chpymonk,
Maybe we should take another look at Pope Pius IX’s letter:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure” (Tuas Libenter, 21 December 1863: Denz. 1683-1684).

That which the Church’s theologians hold, by universal and common consent, to be de fide is to be held as de fide by the faithful. The faithful must also subject themselves to theological truths and conclusions held by the common and constant consent.

When I referred to DS 788, I was referring to Denzinger-Schonmetzer 788, not Denzinger 788; there is a difference in the numbering. DS 788 correlates to Denzinger 413, but that passage actually refers to explicit baptism of desire (of which Pope Innocent III approved). What I had actually been thinking of, when referrencing DS 788 was Denzinger 388, which corresponds to DS 741. There, Pope Innocent II referred to the writings of St. Augustine (City of God) and St. Ambrose (on the death of Valentinian) in support of baptism of desire, telling the bishop of Cremona to have sacrifices to God for the unbaptized priest who had died.

Fr. Cekada showed that 14 of the 25 theologians he referred to held baptism of desire to be at least theologically certain, while all of them taught it. A larger sample no doubt would have further confirmed his argument that baptism of desire is held by common consent to be a theological truth.

In a later post, you argue for the necessity of sacramental baptism (with which I agree), but you also quote sources which confirm that baptism of desire confers sanctifying grace. Is not sanctifying grace necessary for salvation? The baptismal character imprinted by baptism will add to the glory of those in heaven but will be a mark of shame for those in hell.

TMC,
Before the Second Vatican Council, Msgr. Fenton noted that “[M]ost theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation” (American Ecclesiastical Review, The Holy Office Letter on the Necessity of the Catholic Church: December 1952, pp. 450-461).

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is not possible without supernatural faith and perfect charity (cf. Suprema Haec Sacra, 8 August 1949).

Sorry I am tired. I’ll try to get back to you asap but AT TRENT just shot a shot gun of canned worms(open) at me so It will be awhile to answer him and you.
In the mean time if you could define which Baptism of Desire you are defending. There are several different versions. So it will help us to focus and not waste too much time. Thanks God Bless

 

[jpink1019]

No one is saved by a false religion. All protestant religions are false religions. Everyone who is saved is saved because of the merits of the Catholic religion. In that sense , nothing has changed. There may be many Protestants who embrace the tenets of Catholicism and reject none of them. Will they be saved? Its hard to say. Only GOD knows.

Is this the stigma that all protestants and other denominations have in the eyes of the catholic church and catholics??
Is this for the most part how catholics feel? How many would agree to this?

 

[SouthpawLink]

chypmonk,
Okay, that’s fine. I’ll have to look over your quotes.

Is this the stigma that all protestants and other denominations have in the eyes of the catholic church and catholics??
Is this for the most part how catholics feel? How many would agree to this?

The Catholic Faith was revealed by God and the Catholic Church was founded by Christ - every Catholic must believe in those two propositions. Every Protestant denomination is false in the sense that they each depart from Divine Revelation both in faith and in practice (cf. Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, p. 813).

Besides, truth cannot contradict truth. If the Catholic Faith is true, then other faiths with contrary beliefs - contrary to those of the Catholic Faith - must necessarily be false. Moreover, all Protestant worship is false in so far as they do not adore God in the manner in which He desires to be worshiped (by way of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass).

So yes, I would agree with the previous poster that all Protestant religions are false. I think it can be further said that God does not positively desire the existence of Protestantism, but merely permits it, just as He permits other evils. Jesus prayed that His Church would be one (cf. John 17), and she is one; let us pray that non-Catholics are prompted by God’s grace to join His Church, the only ark of salvation.

 

[chypmonk]

@ AT TRENT

your article [post #21 link] says:

That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, saying that for children one ought not to wait at least 40 or 80 days for their instruction, because for them there is “no other remedy” : that expression is taken from St. Thomas, IIIa qu. 68 a 3 and it refers explicitly to baptism of desire (see IIIa qu. 68 a 2), thus being approved by the Council of Florence! When one knows how much this Council espoused St. Thomas’s doctrine, it is astonishing to see Feeneyites opposing that Council to St. Thomas!

That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, ???

I searched and Florence in NO WAY SUPPORTS St. Thomas Aquanis’s theory of BoD. I don’t understand how the author ( I know it isn’t you AT TRENT) could honestly propose that this is true?!
One of the BoD proponents, Fr, Most, makes clear a valid principle that is true in his article against “Feenyism” (A principle which he ironically disregards in the same article-LOL):

Fr. Most, “Appendix: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?” par# 11:
"Before going ahead we need to notice one more principle of interpretation. It is this: the only things guaranteed in statements of the Magisterium, and protected in lesser ways in the works of the Fathers, **are the things explicitly set down on paper. **We may indeed know historically that certain thoughts, more extensive, were in the minds of the writers. Yet Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed."catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=232&chapNum=28&numbers=yes

Principle:** Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed.**

To assume that Florence took all of Aquinas when they** intentionally left-out the part about desire **is going beyond the written text and seems presumptuous. All we know is what they expressed. Florence did not make any exceptions from the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism as posted above:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[Denzinger 696 link]

Finally at the end of the accused first “error” of “Feeneyism”
the article states:

Against that rock of Tradition, all the arguments of the Feeneyites are of no value.

Although a BoD advocate,Fr. William Jurgens- a Church Fathers expert- is honest enough to admit that the Church Fathers are almost unanimous that Sacramental Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions and seems confused by this:
Fr. William Jurgens:
“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there;* and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]

“it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there”

Our Lord didn’t mention the “obvious exceptions” ? Well it wasn’t obvious to the Church Fathers as a whole, as he admits. So “Feeneyies” have good reason from tradition to hold their position.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Hello all, I searched the forum trying to get more information on the subject but failed. I have read all I can and wonder with amazement why 1960 years worth of searching the word by the great men of God, why the church changed the outside the church no salvation apparent theory. I have read things like “if” a man would have agreed with the church “if” he knew it and “if” he would have accepted Christ then he has attained salavation outside the church. Are you kidding me? Did Vatican II change the church just to make it easier to accept. I’m a bit confused and I know there are many here who know much more than a new Catholic. God bless you all.

Hi Mike! I have certainly inquired heavily on this topic as well and have found that, no matter how much I read, I will still not understand. Me personally I would feel like I am limiting God’s omni-maxes (particularly in this case, omnibenevolence) if I were to say, “There is no salvation outside the Church.” It is the same as a Protestant saying, “If and only if you accept Christ as your personal Savior, you will go to heaven. If not, you could burn for eternity hell.” To say something like this, one feels sorry for the innocent little Hindu who has only heard of Christ in maybe superstition. How could we place judgment on other people’s salvation if we cannot even be sure of our own? One may say, “Well then there is the Right to Accountability” but that is never even slightly mentioned in Sacred Tradition, written or oral.

The Church teaches that there CAN be salvation outside of the Church (note: “CAN”). The cathecism says it quite nicely but, as a former atheist, I like to reason (without any Scripture if possible) through things only to inform my atheist friends that they are wrong about what they heard or say about the Church. As an unintelligent being, it is pretty complicated to say the least.

Here is something that helps me understand possible salvation outside the Church. We believe Jesus is The Word of God, The Eternal Logos written on our hearts from the moment of conception (also maybe the logos written in the laws of nature? Argument from Intelligibility?). Right. Ok. So, what? An honest person in search for non-scientific, non-quantified answers will search (“Seek and you shall find”) passed the intellect, passed the emotions, passed the wills to the very thing that wills to find that Life, Truth and Love (“I am the Light, the Life and the Truth”) wanting to emanate from his being (Faith and Works?). We Catholics already do this in a sense. This search stems from the wonder and imagination (by no means does it make it imaginary like Alice in Wonderland but more imaginative like a space shuttle or General Theory of Relativity). Children are great wonderers and imaginers (“Be like a child and you shall be granted the Kingdom of Heaven” or something like that) as well as innocent and unknowingly humble (which leads to great wisdom because you will know that you are a sinner). A dishonest person will obviously not go passed the intellect. So, what is the point? My point is that God knows hearts infinitely better than we do. Maybe the person who does not profess it, actually does believe passed his intellect but he does not know it. This could be merely conjecture though. Yes Jesus says, “The only way to the Father is through me” and St. Paul says in the Romans (I think), “Believe in Jesus Christ and you will be saved” (Faith and Works?). As explicit as it seems, there could also be implications to the implicitness (if there ever was such a word). Maybe He will say to that person upon death, “You did not know My Name but you did search for Me.” (Faith and Works?) With that said, the person who truly believes but denies it… Boy do I feel bad for those guys. Let us just hope that there is no case such as that. Let us hope that atheists like the Four Horsemen are not just stubborn to admit that they actually might believe.

Anyway, you get my point. This brings up a question of sorts: Then, Gregg, why should we evangelize if it is that easy? Well, 1. Jesus Christ (a.k.a. God) told us to (Faith and Works?) and 2. We have no idea or even a way of knowing who actually does that is. For all we know the atheists have not even a whiff of theism in them. It is kind of hard to accept Christ as God Incarnate and your Savior if you do not even believe in God’s existence. So, being involved in God’s plan for our salvation (Faith and Works?) makes us obligated to at least try to get at the most hardened heart of hearts. Do not forget that in order for us to convert people we MUST pray (Faith and Works?). If in the end, the person does not believe (or perhaps does not know he does) but you have converted his heart (Faith and Works?) to make that search for the Eternal Logos, or the Life, Truth and Love, then you have done your job (Faith and Works?) and the Holy Spirit lovingly guide him.

Remember though. I am only saying possibly! I think it is with good reason though. I certainly would not be surprised to atheists and people of other religions with Big Guns Upstairs, if I even go there (at this rate, I highly doubt it). I hope this helps if anyone reads it although nobody probably will because it is too long.

By the way, I say Faith and Works because all people outside the Church that may be saved must do some kind of work in a sense. Why should Christians be exempt from this?

Gregg

 

[thistle]

@ AT TRENT

your article [post #21 link] says:

That traditional interpretation is approved by the council of Florence: the Council Fathers make theirs the doctrine of St. Thomas on baptism of desire, ???

I searched and Florence in NO WAY SUPPORTS St. Thomas Aquanis’s theory of BoD. I don’t understand how the author ( I know it isn’t you AT TRENT) could honestly propose that this is true?!
One of the BoD proponents, Fr, Most, makes clear a valid principle that is true in his article against “Feenyism” (A principle which he ironically disregards in the same article-LOL):

Fr. Most, “Appendix: Is There Salvation Outside the Church?” par# 11:
"Before going ahead we need to notice one more principle of interpretation. It is this: the only things guaranteed in statements of the Magisterium, and protected in lesser ways in the works of the Fathers, **are the things explicitly set down on paper. **We may indeed know historically that certain thoughts, more extensive, were in the minds of the writers. Yet Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed."catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?worknum=232&chapNum=28&numbers=yes

Principle:** Divine Providence has committed itself to protect only the explicitly written texts, not what is merely in the mind and unexpressed.**

To assume that Florence took all of Aquinas when they** intentionally left-out the part about desire **is going beyond the written text and seems presumptuous. All we know is what they expressed. Florence did not make any exceptions from the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism as posted above:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”[Denzinger 696 link]

Finally at the end of the accused first “error” of “Feeneyism”
the article states:

Although a BoD advocate,Fr. William Jurgens- a Church Fathers expert- is honest enough to admit that the Church Fathers are almost unanimous that Sacramental Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation with no exceptions and seems confused by this:
Fr. William Jurgens:
“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there;* and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]

“it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there”

Our Lord didn’t mention the “obvious exceptions” ? Well it wasn’t obvious to the Church Fathers as a whole, as he admits. So “Feeneyies” have good reason from tradition to hold their position.

You have not yet responded to my earlier post so I’ll repeat it. I have quoted the Church teaching on Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire and the Church teaches that such baptisms “assure them the salvation thet they were not able to receive through the sacrament”.
Are you telling all of us here that the Church teaching is wrong?

CCC 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.

CCC 1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.