Salvation

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, as Marineboy pointed out, your beliefs better, known as the heresy of Feeneyism was clearly rejected by Pope Pius XII in 1949. Feeneyism has not grown to be any more convincing since then, and is consequently still rejected by faithful Catholics.

Your can read Pius XII refutation of Feeneyism here:

LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing (1949)
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

 

[EENS]

Chris W:

Sounds reasonable. But wouldn’t the mere fact that it is “conditional” indicate that the potential exists for a Protestant baptism to be valid? If not, then we wouldn’t perform a “conditional” baptism. And if it is even possible possible that a protestant baptism be valid, then your interpretation of Church teaching is in error.

If a protestant baptism can be valid, and the person were to die without having committed a mortal sin, thereby dying in the state of Sanctifying Grace, how can you argue they would not be saved? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that such a person has a valid Baptism. If it were not, a conditional Baptism would not be necessary, as you pointed out. However, it seems highly unlikely considering that the intention MUST be “to do as the Church does”, and I can’t see how a protestant or anyone outside the Church could have that intention. Now, say such a person existed. OK, he is validly baptized, but, as I also said, such a person could not be possibly called invincibly ignorant. He could know of the Church if he simply did the research. For this, he will be condemned, since he has not done enough to enlighten his conscience. Now, say a person really could not know any better, about him we say: God would send Him a means to know the Church, even an angel, if necessary, since God wills that all be saved, and His Church has infallible defined that no one is saved outside of Her; therefore, God would reveal Himself to such a person so that he could be saved, since we know by infallible revelation that he has no hope otherwise. Moreover, if a person does not convert before death either by means of a missionary or some other natural occurance, or by supernatural means (as many cases are outlined by Fr. Muller in one of his works), such as an angel or a missionary Priest being bi-located to the person, or the person brought miraculously to the Priest, etc., then we must say: such a one either was in a state of sin or culpable ignorance or outright rebellion against the truth; otherwise God would have provided.

Now, that is the logical premise. Here are a few of many like quotes from the Fathers of the Church saying likewise about the one who is baptized outside the Church:

St. Cyprian of Carthage: “If the Baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church, how much the more worthless is it for him, in secret places and in the caves of robbers, dipped in the contagion of adulterous water, not merely not to have put off his former sins, but even to have added new and greater ones!”

St. Augustine: “Sara said: ‘Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac’ [Genesis 21:10]. And the Church says: ‘Cast out heresies and their children; for heretics shall not be heirs with Catholics.’ But why shall they not be heirs? Are they not born of Abraham’s seed? And have they not the Church’s Baptism? They do have Baptism; and it would make the seed of Abraham an heir, if pride did not exclude them from inheritance. By the same word, by the same Sacrament you were born, but you will not come to the same inheritance of eternal life, unless you return to the Catholic Church.”

St. Fulgence of Ruspe: “Anyone who is outside this Church, which received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is walking a path not to heaven but to hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death. And this is the case not only if he remains a pagan without Baptism, but even if, after having been baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he continue as a heretic. …For he is saved by the Sacrament of Baptism, whom the unity of love holds within the Catholic Church up to his passing from this present life.”

[see next post]

 

[EENS]

St. Fulgence of Ruspe: “From that time at which our Savior said: ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the Sacrament of Baptism, …receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal. Anyone who received the Sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole Sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the Sacrament, he will not have, if he has had that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must, therefore, return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the Sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church.”

The same Saint: “Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that no person baptized outside the Catholic Church can become a participant of eternal life if, before the end of this life, he has not returned and been incorporated in the Catholic Church.”

God bless.

 

[bear06]

This article is a worthy read. catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3553

Here’s a little bit from it:

It is the task of the living magisterium alone to interpret revelation whether in scripture or tradition as we have said. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. (TCR: note the word “alone”) Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. ----CCC, PART ONE, ARTICLE 2 (emphasis ours)

Again, only the Church can interpret and mediate its own tradition. It would be preposterous, then, a priori, that the living magisterium could ever teach things that are “objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary papal magisterium.” This would pit the present Church against the Church of the past and collapse the Church’s teaching on indefectibility.

Of course this is just going to lead into the old argument of when is the Pope infallible. On one hand we have those who would say whenever he speaks ex cathedra as well as in his teachings on faith and morals and those who will just say ex cathedra. So, it looks like we’re back at square one.

 

[EENS]

JimG:

Father Feeney taught an extra-rigorist interpretation of 'extra ecclesiam nulla sanctus," and was ordered by the Vatican to stop teaching that interpretation. He refused, and was excommunicated for disobedience. But he was reconciled with the Church before his death.

Actually, his “disobedience” was not in stopping the teaching as he did but in refusing to be summoned to Rome by the Pope. He was not obliged to to so under Canon Law, since no reason was given him for this summons. Somehow he was still excommunicated anyway.

 

[EENS]

itsjustdave1988:

EENS,

Pope St. Pius X taught the following clearly enough, which seems contrary to your thesis…

"**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***

(Catechism of Pius X)"

ON THE WAY TO SALVATION is not the same as being saved. This is the same argument as from Trent when it says “justification”. There is a difference between initial and final justification. Although the Pope (and speaking completely fallibly, mind you) says that a person can be on the road to salvation, that doesn’t mean he is saved. If you are on a train to Chicago, then are you in Chicago? No. You are on the way. If someone is on the way to anything, that doesn’t mean he has gained it. In fact, it signifies quite the opposite: he DOES NOT have it but is on his way towards it.

 

[marineboy]

EENS AND THE ReST JSUT READ TRENT PLEASE IT SAYS NOtHNG, IN THE QUOTE I GAVE EALIER ABOUT INITIAL AND FINAL JUSTIFICATION–IT SAYS JUSTIFICATION IS THE STATE OF GRACE–HERE IS IS A DIRECT QUOTE, CHAPTER IV DECREE ON JUSTIFICTION --“Justification is a translation from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace (hello eens wake up) and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected without the laver of regeneration (baptism) or the desire of…” hello??

 

[Apolonio]

“And if a person can ONLY BE INITIALLY JUSTIFIED by desire, then it does not follow that a person even with explicit desire for baptism can be saved. You have said: just because a person is not justified at one time does not mean he later will not be finally justified and saved, seemingly saying that therefore since a person has had an initial justification is is possible (and even necessary) that he will also die finally justified. That is a non-sequiter, especially since the only final justification is in Baptism.”

Response:
Again, Tradition never taught that a person is “initially justified” through baptism of desire.

“You have said: just because a person is not justified at one time does not mean he later will not be finally justified and saved, seemingly saying that therefore since a person has had an initial justification is is possible (and even necessary) that he will also die finally justified.”

Response:
That’s not what I said. I said that it does not mean that a person is not initially justified at one time, he cannot be “finally justified” in another time.

“What, may I ask, exactly is “baptism of desire” if not a desire to be baptized?”

Response:
I said that the notion that baptism of desire refers to “catechumens desiring to be baptized” is not the same thing. Please read my posts again.

“Yes, it was a letter to a king, so what? That doesn’t mean what it says is not true. Everyone, not just Catholics, are oblidged to show obedience to the Holy Pontiff. No where is it even indicated otherwise.”

Response:
I didn’t say it wasn’t true.

“Their only connection is in theirBaptism, but Baptism outside the Church does not carry the effects of Baptism, since they are not a part of the Mystical Body, which is necessary for salvation, per the Fathers of the Church.”

Response:
Of course the effects of baptism does not apply to those outside the Church. But it does apply to those who are outside the visible structure of the Church. That’s how it has always been applied and I don’t know why you are objecting to it. If you know your Aquinas and Patristics, that’s how they have always applied it. You know that, so I don’t have to reiterate it again.

“Yes, I assert the same above, but such a “communion” if it is even rightly so called is not sufficient for salvation.”

Response:
How do you know that?!? You have no support from the magisterium. All you have is quotes saying “no outside of the Church, no salvation.” Fine. But if a person is imperfectly united to the Church, can he be saved? The Church said that in some circusmtances, yes.

“No, the Pope might say yes, but the Church most assuredly does not, just as when John XXII said that there is no particular judgment, that does not mean the Church said it. In fact, the next Pope condemned such a belief again to make it clear. He stated it infallibly. Just because John Paul II hold a belief does not mean it is the teaching of the Church.”

Response:
I’m sorry, but John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio speaks of it, Dominus Iesus speaks of it, and so does Vatican 2. Those are magisterial texts. You even admitted that Trent does not explicitly speak of what it means by “baptism of desire.” So we have to go with Tradition in this case. And who interprets Tradition? The magisterium. The dogma of EENS was never intended to be ecclesiolocentric. It was always Christo-centric. It’s not, “Be visibly a Catholic and you shall be saved!” It’s “Have faith in Jesus Christ and participate in His life, death, and resurrection.” That’s the context of it. There is such a thing as being connected to the “spiritual” Church (which means invisible Church). Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange said:

“Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces are not only possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace” He then quotes Fr. Lemonnyer, “If they are born candidates for the minor mystical graces, they are unknown Catholics, members of one spiritual Church…” (Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)

Now, if a person dies as a member of the Church, then he surely can be saved. I’m very familiar with Patristic ecclesiology. And Fr. Feeney’s interpretation of EENS is contrary to it.

 

[Chris_W]

EENS:

Yes, it is POSSIBLE that such a person has a valid Baptism. If it were not, a conditional Baptism would not be necessary, as you pointed out. However, it seems highly unlikely…

Unlikely or not (in your opinion), it is possible. We’re starting to get somewhere. This means it is possible for a protestant to be in the state of sanctifying grace, if even for only a short while.

Now, are you really asserting that if a person were to die in that state of sanctifying grace he may still be condemned to hell?

EENS:

Now, say such a person existed. OK, he is validly baptized, but, as I also said, such a person could not be possibly called invincibly ignorant.

You seem to know the hearts of men better than the Church, EENS. Most of us do not know the hearts of others well enough to judge them. (Seems like I read something in the Bible about that…hmmmm.)

Therefore, we state what can be known for sure: A protestant *can * receive a valid baptism, thus putting them in the state of sanctifying grace, and *if * that person dies in that state of sanctifying grace (however unlikely you may think that is) then that person will be saved. That is all we can say for certain.

Having made that conclusion, it is clear that you are in error in your interpretation of the Church’s teaching. We don’t need to compare what one person said against another. We can stop right there and confirm with certainty that it is possible for someone to be saved without being a formal member of the Catholic Church.

 

[marineboy]

one can argue that Trent --in my above quote was talking about an explicit desire for baptim–but even if that is the case–feeney’s position is WRONG— because the feeney position is that that NOONE CAN BE SAVED WITHOUT WATER BAPTISM–Trent specifically states that one can be in the state of grace by baptism or its desire—

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

ON THE WAY TO SALVATION is not the same as being saved.

“On the way to salvation” means simply that there is no eternal security in the state of their soul, which is true of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Nobody is finally saved until they are eternally glorified. A Catholic may be joined to the Church in body, but not in soul. Such a Catholic is outside the ark of salvation. A non-Catholic may be joined to the Church in soul, but not in body. Such a person is within the ark of salvation. Their final destination, glorification, is not assured, however.

It is the relationship of the soul’s union with the Catholic Church that matters, not that of the body. That’s what St. Pius X is teaching, which is precisely what St. Augustine asserted.

St. Augustine:

"When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39]).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

With regard to St. Pius X’s teaching, he speaks of those in “good faith.” To better understand what St. Pius X is teaching, I recommend the following artile.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Good****Faith

A phrase employed to designate the mental and moral state of honest, even if objectively unfounded, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition or body of opinion, or as to the rectitude or depravity of a line of conduct. One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless. This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church.

The following excerpt from the same 1909 encyclopedia on the difference between formal sin and material sin is also significant:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sin

Material and Formal Sin
This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

With respect to the sin of heresy, the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Heresy

The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: ***in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness–free choice–is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. ***

According to Pope St. Pius X:

For a sin to be mortal three things are required: (1) Grave matter, (2) Full advertence, (3) Perfect consent of the will. (Catechism of Pius X)

Consequently, a material heresy, although objectively grave, lacks the necessary conditions of mortal sin. Those who labor in ignorance in “good faith”, who commit material heresy but not formal heresy may attain eternal life. St. Pius X does not say that they WILL attain eternal life, but that they may. One condition is that such must have "received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism."

St. Pius X makes no condition that they be bodily joined to the Catholic Church, but instead agrees with St. Augustine that the union of the soul to the Church is salvific.

Morever, this is in agreement with St. Thomas Aquinas, those who labor in invincible ignorance do not incur the guilt of sin.

If … the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether. (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 76, 3)

And with regard to baptism of desire, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:

the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire … such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of “faith that worketh by charity,” whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. (Summa Theologica, III 78, 2)

So, those who have a desire for baptism, even merely implicit as St. Pius X asserts receive remittance of all sin and are sanctified inwardly. If such are heretical merely materially, and not formally, and continue to live in “good faith,” and “sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can” then Catholicism teaches that such persons can attain eternal glory. There’s certainly no guarantee, no assurance to eternal glory, but neither is there an assurance for those visibly united to the Catholic Church in body but not in heart. Only those who die in a state of grace, those "who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark."

 

[Tim_Hayes]

EENS is closer to the truth than most of you, not because his extremely rigid interpretation is necessarily correct of itself, but the problem lies in the alternate allowance of allowing those outside the Church, not visibly within her, but attached to the SOUL of the church to be saved.,

As there are no guidelines in interpreting who is outside the Church and who is inside then everyone in their current faith system (not catholic) has no need to convert.

How can you tell (evangelise) people that “ideally” they should become catholic, but if they don’t they can still be saved if they are good people. How in the world do you define Good/Right to someone who does not see good/right the way you (catholic Church) see it.

No doubt some people outside of the “physical” confines of the Church can be saved, but the number saved must be extremely small, for if it is not small then there is clearly no need to be christian and in particular catholic.

People cannot have it both ways, either most outside the “card carrying” membership of the Church are damned, or the alternate means that being even Christian is not necessary.

The problem is that since vatican 2 and very strongly with John Paul 2, the Church has tried very hard to be ecumenical and downplayed the very real need to be catholic, in an effort to get non catholics to take a softer view of the Catholic church. Whilst I can see the potential benefit in this, the only reason that such an attitude can be considered acceptable is if, the Chruch believes that God will provide helping grace to those currently outside the Church to see the Church as the TRUTH.

Now if the Church truly believes that God provides such grace to those outside the Church, then there was no reason to play down the necessity of being catholic in the first place, as God would still have applied those helping graces to those outisde the Church to enter anyway, at least those who were prepared to accept his grace and act upon it.

Everyone should think long and hard about this, “hell”, I hope everyone is saved, that means I get saved definitively and for the most it is our own fear of judgement by our family and friends here in this life that stops us being truly evangelical about our catholic faith.

EENS may go overboard in his interpretation,but too many of us gone too far the other way.

In Christ

Tim

 

[Apolonio]

Tim,

The discussion is whether a person can be saved through baptism of desire. Whether the number of the saved is small or big, the fact is that a person outside the visible structure of the Church can be saved. Even Garrigou-Lagrange says that the number is small, but Vatican 2 actually reflected his theology simply because that’s the right interpretation of EENS.

And on the sidenote, Lumen Gentium is probably the best magisterial text reiterating Patristic ecclesiology.

 

[EENS]

“And on the sidenote, Lumen Gentium is probably the best magisterial text reiterating Patristic ecclesiology.”

… I don’t know how you can say that… LG had very few references to any Fathers of the Church… it was mostly just fabricated on the spot–at least what I have read from it

As far as invincible ignorance–we are pretty much on the same page (to everyone)… there is just a small difference:

You all are saying: a person who is invincibly ignorant can be saved outside the Church.

I am saying: NO, he cannot.

The difference is that, I most assuredly admit that if a person is truly invincibly ignorant, (if baptized then hence in a state of grace), God would most assuredly reveal the truth to such a person, either by natural (missionary, etc.) or supernatural (angel, revelation, etc.) means, since to not do so would contradict His expressed Will, which is that it is necessary to be baptized and a member of the Church to be saved.

It can safely be said that a person who dies without Baptism and without union to the Church either was: 1) culpably ignorant, or 2) in a state of sin, or 3) would have died in a state of sin had he been baptized or would have rejected the truth had the truth been revealed to him. Number 3 is the reason given in the commentary of the Douay Rheims Bible as to the reason why so many die ignorant in far off countries. Of course, we can also apply 1 and 2 to most of these same people, especially number 1 to those who do not believe in a monotheistic God, since it is a part fo natural law to believe in God as One and as renumerator.

God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You all are saying: a person who is invincibly ignorant can be saved outside the Church.

I am saying: NO, he cannot.

I don’t believe anybody has asserted that invicible ignorance is salvific apart from baptism or the implicit desire for baptsim. Pius X had many “ifs” when teaching that some who are not bodily joined to the Church may be joined in soul to her.

The following conditions are necessary for salvation:

1. Not finally impenitent of formal mortal sin. Those who labor in ignorance, in “good faith”, unless that ingorance is “affected” (as St. Thomas describes “affected ignorance”), then they are not guilty of mortal sin because the subjective conditions are lacking.
2. **Not finally impenitent of original sin. **Those who have been validly baptized, even by heretics, are freed from original sin. Those who have desired baptism, even implicitly, are freed from original sin.

The above is rather difficult for Catholics, especially the vast majority who neglect their faith, but is more difficult for non-Catholics.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

You may have an opinion that ignorance is always culpable, but Catholicism, specifically the *Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, *disagrees with you.

Your opinion was erroneous according to Pius XII, and is still erroneous now.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

You may have an opinion that ignorance is always culpable, but Catholicism, specifically the *Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, *disagrees with you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Tim Hayes,

The problem is that you approach it as though we are to judge who is going to hell and who is not. That’s not our role, but God’s role.

Our role is to evangelize. God did not say evangelize only to those you think are going to hell. He simply wants us to evangelize. We are to evangelize BOTH Catholics and non-Catholics, just as the apostles did.

“Evangelize always. When necessary, use words.”
– St. Francis of Assisi

We don’t have to know or judge who is going to heaven or hell to evangelize always.

 

[Apolonio]

… I don’t know how you can say that… LG had very few references to any Fathers of the Church… it was mostly just fabricated on the spot–at least what I have read from it

Response:
I suggest you actually read the footnotes of Lumen Gentium because the statement above is ridiculous.

Patristic ecclesiology is Christo-centric. It was a heirarchial-sacramental (communio) model which Lumen Gentium reiterated. Even though some have misinterpreted it, the teachings on the bishops and collegiality is dead on.

As far as your invicible ignorance claim, I believe my past comments are sufficient to refute what you said.