Salvation outside the church

[fhansen]

1. This all simply means that God did not leave on the earth any authoritative teaching authority in the form of a human being.

Then we’re all doomed because who can teach the bible authoritatively?

 

[GerardP]

Nice try Gerry but i am not talking about contingency. I am talking about the Church clarifying what she means about necessary.

The Church has done no such thing. Necessary means necessary something that is not necessary is contingent.

You are saying that "necessary means “necessary.” Well, that begs the question. Is it possible that God could allow, under some circumstances exceptions? YES!!!

No. He would be a liar and that is not acceptable. You’re adopting the Protestant argument that Jesus didn’t really mean “eat my flesh and drink my blood” or “this is my flesh.”

Maybe a few years from now a non-infallible document will come from the Holy Office talking about how “flesh” doesn’t mean “flesh” but rather the "binding of souls together as the one body of Christ in community.’

He does this with other quotes and passages. Example Paul says “All have sinned and falls shorts of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23–Does Paul mean all in the absolute sense? NO!!! Mary!!! Infants who die before the age of reason—IT IS THE NORM!!!

“All” has more than one meaning. Necessary does not.

Now—NICE TRY BUT THE POPES DID SAY SOMEONE CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT EXPLICIT FAITH----LET’S TAKE PIUS IX Sinulari quadem “…it is necessary to hold for certain that those who labour in ignorance, of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by guilt in the eyes of God.”

“Not stained by guilt” does not mean saved without the necessary Baptism with water and the Holy Spirit in the name of the Trinity. Christ even put water first when He made His command.

This was December 9 1854. Pius expands on this in in Quanto canficiamur (denzinger 1677) It is known to US and to you that they who labour in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can by the operating power of divine light and grace, OBTAIN ETERNAL LIFE, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls,and habits of all men,because og His great goodness and mercy, will by NO MEANS SUFFER ANYONE TO BE PUNISHED WITH ETERNAL TORMENT WHO HAS NOT THE GUILT OF DELIBERATE SIN."

Again. There is no statement in that quote that says that God will not supply what He has deemed necessary. As Aquinas stated, as the scriptures record, God can and has provided miraculous help to provide Baptism as in the cas of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

Now if Baptism is ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY AS YOU SAY–why would Pope Pius IX even make these statements? This wouldnt even matter if what you are saying is true. It would be an open and shut case. NO BAPTISM YOU CANT BE SAVED—

That kind of argument from silence doesnt’ hold. First, the Holy Father was defending the Church against indifferentism. the dogma was directly under attack. The more subtle Baptismal question wasn’t a major issue. The Holy Father didn’t realize that he was attacking the tree and not the root.

Second, your argument implies that St. Augustine should have taught the doctrine of transubstantiation instead of merely calling the Eucharist “a latent mystery”.

Third, I can make a legitimate argument from silent point out that the Holy Spirit protected the Holy Father from saying, “In these cases, Baptism is not necessary.”

Also how about Pius X’s catechism? If anyone was a hawk on orthodoxy it was Pius X–the catechism clearly says that Baptism of Desire is a teaching of the Church. (even Ludwigg Ott’s book–Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma says The CHurch teaches Baptism of Desire/Blood)

The modernists either got it past him by stealth or it’s a later corruption or he was wrong. But you’ll notice that is doesn’t rule out miraculous water Baptism.

Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X:

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.

“On the way of salvation” does not say “is saved.” It means God will supply what is necessary.

17 Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire

.

For a non-sensical question it is actually true. Baptism of Desire is an absence of Baptism. Baptism of Blood is also an absence of Baptism. No Baptism has occurred.
Will those non-Baptisms move God to supply a true Baptism? Probably. Will God not keep His promises? No.

P.S. The Holy Offices Letter issued by Pius XII says that “faith that leads to salvations need not always be explicit.”(Leonard Feeney case)

There are plenty of problems with that letter both juridical and doctrinal. The last thing it is is magisterial. Non-infallible statements cannot modify dogmatic definitions. The dogmatic definitions are the protected documents. They are sufficient unto themselves for understanding. That’s why they are definitions.
“The mind of the Church” is in the dogmatic definitions, not the non-dogmatics twisting by “theologians” to circumvent the hard teachings of the Church and turn them into “meaningless formula” that Pius XII also lamented.

 

[GerardP]

Since many people are adopting a modernist-influence understanding of the Church’s teaching, Here’s a very interesting article critiqueing Jimmy Akin’s approach to this issue and how he (probably unknowingly) is undermining the teaching authority of the Church. Not to pick on Jimmy Akin, but it just happens to be his work that is the example.

geocities.com/adam_todm/Akin1.htm

Excerpt:

SUMMARY CONCLUSION TO PART I

We conclude part I of this critique with a summary conclusion. James Akin is guilty of the following:

Draws attention of reader away from actual words used in document: #1, 9, 10;

Approaches dogmas contrary to what Church teaches on how we are to believe them: #4;

Draws conclusions not actually present in document: #2, 3, 5, 6;

Fails to provide documentation to back up his own statements: #3, 6, 8, 9, whereas I provide two papal quotes which directly contradict and refute his entire argument: #10.

WORSE OF ALL AND FATAL TO HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT AND POSITION:

Akin is guilty of subjecting:

a. that which is infallible to that which is not infallible;

b. that which is definitive to that which is not definitive

He thus subverts and inverts the Church’s Teaching Authority.

This ends Part I of the Tower of David critique of James Akin’s article. Please continue on to Part II for the rest of this critique and its conclusion.

Adam S. Miller

 

[D317]

1. But God did leave on the earth the Word of God, the Bible, as the authoritative teaching authority. 12. The sooner anyone stops looking for a trustworthy WORD OF MAN (Pope, Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, etc.) teaching authority, and starting looking just to the WORD OF GOD (Bible) as his/her teaching authority, the sooner he/she will find peace and security in God. Or, you can keep researching and thinking and asking and hoping to find a why to see that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church really are infallible after all. I don’t recommend that. Just have faith in God and Christ, like the Bible recommends.

What makes “your” interpretation of the Bible better than “my” interpretation, or someone else’s? This would mean that Christ founded billions if not trillions of individual ‘interpreters’ of the Living Word of God or ‘churches’.

If it were the case, with all of the individual interpretations of God’s Word, how would man ever get it right unless Christ left us with a teaching authority? That authority is His Church. Clearly, the only time Christ uses the word ‘church’ is when he declared “and upon this rock (Peter) I build my Church.”

Not churches, or different churches, or different individual interpretations, His Church. His Church is NOT the ‘word of man’ as you put it. The Apostles appointed bishops to carry on the sacred teachings that they had received, both orally(which constitute part of the Sacred Tradition) and in writing (letters to the new churches). The bishops are the direct line of authoritative succession from the Apostles and they are the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

Clearly, there is an objective truth and that truth is the Church, which St. Paul clearly states is the pillar and foundation of truth. This Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter and his successors. This Church is the Catholic Church, which by the way its members under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit put the Bible together. Or since it was “man” who put it together you feel that it is now unreliable as a teaching instrument?

No where in the Bible does it state that “the Bible” is the authoritative teaching of the Word of God. So many non-Catholics “keep researching and thinking and asking and hoping to find a why” (to use your words) to deny these Truths. Since they can not be denied through Sacred Scripture, they must have some personal animosity against the Church which Christ founded. No doubt to overcome some personal discomfort with the Truth.

Remember, the New Testament is not what created the Sacred Traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church. It was the Sacred Traditons, both oral and written, which together through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, created the New Testament that we have as a blessing and gift from God. The Catholic Church as maintained this entire deposit of faith in a sacred and faithful way.

 

[Marcos_2]

montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=veritas&subsecao=igreja&artigo=foradaigreja&lang=eng

 

[knightbvm]

The Church has done no such thing. Necessary means necessary something that is not necessary is contingent.

No. He would be a liar and that is not acceptable. You’re adopting the Protestant argument that Jesus didn’t really mean “eat my flesh and drink my blood” or “this is my flesh.”

Maybe a few years from now a non-infallible document will come from the Holy Office talking about how “flesh” doesn’t mean “flesh” but rather the "binding of souls together as the one body of Christ in community.’

“All” has more than one meaning. Necessary does not.

“Not stained by guilt” does not mean saved without the necessary Baptism with water and the Holy Spirit in the name of the Trinity. Christ even put water first when He made His command.

Again. There is no statement in that quote that says that God will not supply what He has deemed necessary. As Aquinas stated, as the scriptures record, God can and has provided miraculous help to provide Baptism as in the cas of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

That kind of argument from silence doesnt’ hold. First, the Holy Father was defending the Church against indifferentism. the dogma was directly under attack. The more subtle Baptismal question wasn’t a major issue. The Holy Father didn’t realize that he was attacking the tree and not the root.

Second, your argument implies that St. Augustine should have taught the doctrine of transubstantiation instead of merely calling the Eucharist “a latent mystery”.

Third, I can make a legitimate argument from silent point out that the Holy Spirit protected the Holy Father from saying, “In these cases, Baptism is not necessary.”

The modernists either got it past him by stealth or it’s a later corruption or he was wrong. But you’ll notice that is doesn’t rule out miraculous water Baptism.

“On the way of salvation” does not say “is saved.” It means God will supply what is necessary.

.

For a non-sensical question it is actually true. Baptism of Desire is an absence of Baptism. Baptism of Blood is also an absence of Baptism. No Baptism has occurred.
Will those non-Baptisms move God to supply a true Baptism? Probably. Will God not keep His promises? No.

There are plenty of problems with that letter both juridical and doctrinal. The last thing it is is magisterial. Non-infallible statements cannot modify dogmatic definitions. The dogmatic definitions are the protected documents. They are sufficient unto themselves for understanding. That’s why they are definitions.
“The mind of the Church” is in the dogmatic definitions, not the non-dogmatics twisting by “theologians” to circumvent the hard teachings of the Church and turn them into “meaningless formula” that Pius XII also lamented.

It is funny Gerald everytime someone quotes a document you have your interpretation of it—that is fine, but I believe you are way off. The council of Trent says baptism is necessary. You say that “necessary” always means “absolutley necessary.” Says who? says you? sorry not good enough!!! Necessary does not necessarily mean ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY. There can be exceptions to certain rules. Especially if God so deems it. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS!!! THE CHURCH NEVER SAYS A STATEMNT LIKE THIS-----IT IS ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY, AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON MUST BE WATER BAPTIZED AND HAVE EXPLICIT FAITH TO BE SAVED—YOU SIMPLY DONT HAVE IT!!! When you read a quote from Pius IX or the Catechism of Piux X you say “no it doesnt mean that.” WEll I am gonan take the interpretation of the Holy Office and the Catechism of Pius X and believe in Baptism of desire. I think their interpretation is more reliable than yours.
I will agree that it would be helpful if the Holy Father would step in an issue an infallible interpretation of this -----
I also cant see how you can read Pius IX’s statements and believe that he was teaching that “only those who are baptized (water) and have explicit faith are saved.” If he meant that why didnt he say it? Or if he meant that God would provide water baptism if someone is invincibly ignorant then why didnt he say it? It seems to me that you are stretching—

 

[SFD]

St. Alphonsus classifies Baptism of desire as de fide, as he explains below:
Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

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. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

 

[SaintHenry]

Retraction:

1. Some of the 12 points in my previous post (on Jan. 26, 2008) in this thread are debatable. So don’t anybody lose any sleep over them, okay.
2. But here is a true fact: 11 months ago I wrote the bishop of my diocese a nice, respectful letter asking him if he could clarify the “no salvation outside of the church” doctrine for me. I asked some specific particular questions. He never replied.
3. Here’s another true fact: 14 months ago I wrote the same letter to a parish priest in my diocese. He also never replied.
4. Twelve months ago I wrote the same letter to the priest who runs the ecumenical affairs office in my diocese. He also did not reply.
5. I wonder why none of them replied. What do you think?
6. Please, people, let us all forget all this study and debate over Catholic doctrine. If you are young, you have much more important things to do, since so many important things are determined for life when you are young. If you are old, you don’t have much time left, so waste time studying and debating crusty old doctrines in books?
7. Live life. Love God. Forgive your enemies. Console a friend. Enjoy the sun while it shines.

 

[GerardP]

St. Alphonsus classifies Baptism of desire as de fide, as he explains below:

St. Alphonsus classifies Baptism of desire as de fide, as he explains below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

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.

Just to clarify what St. Alphonsus is saying, I’m going to post the relevant statements from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Baptism Instituted At Christ’s Baptism

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptised by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying. St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustine testify that to water was then. imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life. In another place St. Augustine says: “From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.” And again: “The Lord is baptised, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.”

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion. The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding. Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptised, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

**Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ’s Resurrection **

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;’ and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, " refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

 

[SFD]

St. Alphonsus classifies Baptism of desire as de fide, as he explains below:

Just to clarify what St. Alphonsus is saying, I’m going to post the relevant statements from the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

Baptism Instituted At Christ’s Baptism

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptised by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying. St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Augustine testify that to water was then. imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life. In another place St. Augustine says: “From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.” And again: “The Lord is baptised, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.”

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion. The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding. Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptised, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

**Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ’s Resurrection **

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead;’ and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord. Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, " refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

What exactly are you clarifying? What is your point here?

Thanks,

SFD

 

[GerardP]

It is funny Gerald everytime someone quotes a document you have your interpretation of it—that is fine, but I believe you are way off.

Am I “interpreting” something when I say 2+2=4? Is that an interpretation or is it a mathematical fact?

The council of Trent says baptism is necessary. You say that “necessary” always means “absolutley necessary.” Says who? says you? sorry not good enough!!!
Necessary does not necessarily mean ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY.

C’mon. Look up the definition of “necessary” adding “absolutely” to it, doesn’t change the meaning. It’s simply redundant.

There can be exceptions to certain rules. Especially if God so deems it.

Can God be a liar? Can God deceive or be deceived?

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS!!! THE CHURCH NEVER SAYS A STATEMNT LIKE THIS-----IT IS ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY, AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, THAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON MUST BE WATER BAPTIZED AND HAVE EXPLICIT FAITH TO BE SAVED—YOU SIMPLY DONT HAVE IT!!!

7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism- Council of Trent:

*If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. *

When you read a quote from Pius IX or the Catechism of Piux X you say “no it doesnt mean that.” WEll I am gonan take the interpretation of the Holy Office and the Catechism of Pius X and believe in Baptism of desire. I think their interpretation is more reliable than yours.

You mean you are going to take your interpretation of Baptism of Desire, not theirs. You rule out the necessity of water Baptism against the Magisterium of the Church. You are putting non-magisterial, non-infallible documents over and above dogmatic definitions.

I will agree that it would be helpful if the Holy Father would step in an issue an infallible interpretation of this -----

That would be the best solution. But nowadays it harms ecumenism to speak the truth of the Catholic faith.

I also cant see how you can read Pius IX’s statements and believe that he was teaching that “only those who are baptized (water) and have explicit faith are saved.” If he meant that why didnt he say it?

The issue wasn’t as explicitly problematic at that time. Transubstantiation was not defined until people started arguing over it. The wrong interpretations have to be delineated from the right one. That’s what a definition is.

Or if he meant that God would provide water baptism if someone is invincibly ignorant then why didnt he say it? It seems to me that you are stretching—

The Church has already, always taught that God will provide sufficient grace for salvation. Nowadays people believe in a weak, failure of a God who can’t reach people before they die.

 

[GerardP]

What exactly are you clarifying? What is your point here?

Thanks,

SFD

That the obligation (necessity) of Baptism was not manifest at the Baptism of Our Lord but rather after the Resurrection.

This is why the Good Thief, St. Dismas was not saved through Baptism of Desire. He had either been previously Baptised as a follower of Christ or he was saved under the Old Covenant.

 

[SFD]

That the obligation (necessity) of Baptism was not manifest at the Baptism of Our Lord but rather after the Resurrection.

This is why the Good Thief, St. Dismas was not saved through Baptism of Desire. He had either been previously Baptised as a follower of Christ or he was saved under the Old Covenant.

Gerard,

Is St, Alphonsus wrong here? Is that what you are saying?

Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

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. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

SFD

 

[buffalo]

New document Oct 2007

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DOCTRINAL NOTE
ON SOME ASPECTS OF EVANGELIZATION

 

[Bubble]

Pope John Paul II and his Council (which included Cardinal Ratzinger) seemed to endorse this position that there is hope for salvation for those who don’t count themselves Catholic.

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
**Redemptoris missio **

1990.12.07

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

1. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

“We cannot but speak” (Acts 4:20)

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

b]All Salvation Comes through Christ

General Audience — May 31, 1995

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church. The universal salvific will is linked to the one mediation of Christ. “God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. And the truth is this: God is one. One also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:3-6). Peter proclaimed this when he said: “There is no salvation in anyone else” and called Jesus the “cornerstone” (Acts 4:11-12), emphasizing Christ’s necessary role at the basis of the Church.

This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man.

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded . . .

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

 

[Bubble]

Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI echo the same message here . . . that there is hope for salvation through the Church, even for those whom aren’t Catholic in title.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH

**LUMEN GENTIUM **

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI

ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

1. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Some say DOMINUS IESUS “corrected” a misunderstanding spawned in Vatican II, but here DOMINUS IESUS reiterates the possibility of salvation for those who are not Catholic in name. It reads: “for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of grace.”

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
**“DOMINUS IESUS” **
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

. . . The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82

 

[Bubble]

In a different, but related matter, the fate of unbaptized babies isn’t an open and shut case either. According to this document from the Vatican website, the Church maintains a sliver of hope that unbaptized babies, who by outward appearances are outside of the church, see the Beautific Vision.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Note: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, was president of this commission and head of the doctrinal congregation when this commission when it began studying the question of limbo in 2004.

This was published in April 2007,

**INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED* **

. . . 40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church, which must be distinguished from the faith of the Church. As for the theory that the privation of the beatific vision is their sole punishment, to the exclusion of any other pain, this is a theological opinion, despite its long acceptance in the West. The particular theological thesis concerning a “natural happiness” sometimes ascribed to these infants likewise constitutes a theological opinion.

1. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation. These other ways are not achieved by modifying the principles of the faith, or by elaborating hypothetical theories; rather, they seek an integration and coherent reconciliation of the principles of the faith under the guidance of the ecclesial magisterium, by giving more weight to God’s universal salvific will and to solidarity in Christ (cf. GS 22) in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision. In keeping with a methodological principle that what is less known must be investigated by way of what is better known, it appears that the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God, the mediation of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a consideration of the condition of children who receive Baptism and are saved through the action of the Church in the name of Christ. The destiny of unbaptised infants remains, however, a limit-case as regards theological inquiry: theologians should keep in mind the apophatic perspective of the Greek Fathers.

1. “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”.[134]

3.6. Hope

1. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).

. . .

1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.

Note, I do not endorse the idea that salvation can come outside the Church. Salvation must come through the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. What I am considering is that we cannot fathom the depths of God’s Mercy. There is no doubt that Jesus is the Judge. People that enter heaven, do so through Christ, Who IS the Church, but we may not always know who has accepted the “Church” of His unfathomable Mercy and who hasn’t.

.

 

[GerardP]

Note, I do not endorse the idea that salvation can come outside the Church. Salvation must come through the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. What I am considering is that we cannot fathom the depths of God’s Mercy. There is no doubt that Jesus is the Judge. People that enter heaven, do so through Christ, Who IS the Church, but we may not always know who has accepted the “Church” of His unfathomable Mercy and who hasn’t.

Why engage in the verbal gymnastics on this issue?

“Outside” the Church is the opposite of “Inside” the Church.

Salvation “through” the Church can’t happen unless someone is “Inside” the Church. You can’t go “through” a tunnel without getting “inside” the tunnel.

The resorting to “through” is an attempt to avoid the issue of “inside” the Church and what that means.

 

[GerardP]

Some say DOMINUS IESUS “corrected” a misunderstanding spawned in Vatican II, but here DOMINUS IESUS reiterates the possibility of salvation for those who are not Catholic in name. It reads: “for those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of grace.”

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

. The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,

The idea of making the Church a “sacrament” instead of describing it as “the Ark of Salvation” like Noah’s Ark. is very tied into the “mobilism” that is inherent among the Vatican II proponents. It prevents ideas and the truth from being immutable.

since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.

Let’s cut the overblown language out and see what it says:

The Church is united always to Jesus Christ, and subordinated to him, she has an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.

Yes. “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church,

“Formally and visibly” what does that mean? There is a trend to pretend that this argument involves Church registries or some kind of nonsense.

The question is, is someone sacramentally by virtue of Baptism united to the Church?

“salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace

Grace meaning; The help of God.

which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church,

Baptized non-Catholics. Why that formulation? Cardinal Bea in the early 60’s made Baptism the distinguishing feature for an approach to ecumenism. Why the loss of clarity?

but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

In other words they might get the knowledge to make an explicit decision and God in His mercy supplies the matter (material situation) necessary for their salvation.

 

[stmaria]

Since many people are adopting a modernist-influence understanding of the Church’s teaching, Here’s a very interesting article critiqueing Jimmy Akin’s approach to this issue and how he (probably unknowingly) is undermining the teaching authority of the Church. Not to pick on Jimmy Akin, but it just happens to be his work that is the example.

geocities.com/adam_todm/Akin1.htm

Excerpt:

GerardP this is an amazing critique of Jimmy Akin’s understatnding of the Church’s teaching.** Did Jimmy Akin ever respond to Mr. Miller’s critique?**