To those with conservative views on salvation

[Markstorm]

Markstorm,

The moral unaniminity of the Theologians teach both Baptism of desire and Blood. St. Alphonsus classifies it as de fide.

SFD

Thank you, my friend.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think the entire argument over the Baptism of Desire is somewhat disingenious. I believe that all CAN be saved but that is through the grace of God. Many people today and throughout history have made a conscious and knowing rejection of Christ and His Church

The Church was established by Christ as the means on earth to attain salvation. It really isn’t optional. If one knows of the Catholic faith and knowingly rejects it, then they have as far as I can see, thrown away their opportunity at salvation. I don’t think that God requires everyone to know each and every aspect of Catholicism in order to either accept or reject it. You either do or you don’t. If you have heard of it, and very few Christians in the world have not heard of it, and you don’t embrace it then as I see it, you are gone. There are of course the relatively rare instances where one wants to be part of the Church, but is prevented from doing so through no fault of their own. I see them as benefiting from Baptism of Desire, but very, very few others.

If you are a non-Christian, who has never heard of the Church, then I think salvation is attainable. But on the other hand, if you** have** heard of the Church and reject it in favor of Judaism, Islam, Shinto Wicca or whatever, then as I see it you are gone. Very simple… Very hard, but very simple.

If not , where is the line drawn? At what point does indifference and hatred become invincible ignorance if ever? God gave man the means, the intelligence and the manner of salvation. He also gave man the choice of either accepting or rejecting it. In the end result man bears the ultimate responsibility for either accepting or rejecting Christ and His Church. While it may sound harsh to some, God has always been demanding of man and at times, quite harsh.

Well, as much as I agree with what you’re saying, there is also part of me that hesitates to project judgement on others’ eternal destinations, if they are not Catholics. Our role is to accept the graces to help lead souls to Christ–and hopefully, through the Church’s fullness of the faith. But other than that–it is hard for us to speculate who will be in Heaven. Someone on their death bed, who is not Catholic, could reach out to Christ, and with his/her whole heart accept Him–and be saved. We just don’t know.

 

[SFD]

Well, as much as I agree with what you’re saying, there is also part of me that hesitates to project judgement on others’ eternal destinations, if they are not Catholics. Our role is to accept the graces to help lead souls to Christ–and hopefully, through the Church’s fullness of the faith. But other than that–it is hard for us to speculate who will be in Heaven. Someone on their death bed, who is not Catholic, could reach out to Christ, and with his/her whole heart accept Him–and be saved. We just don’t know.

whatevergirl,

I agree that we do not know with absolute certitude the disposition of another’s soul. However we can know with moral certitude. We must avoid the trap of saying that because we do not have metaphysical certitude we do not have certitude. Or because there are cases we cannot know about, that we can never know about any cases at all.

Maybe this will help:

Invincible ignorance is neither a sacrament nor a virtue: it cannot therefore sanctify or save. It simply excuses the breach of the law of which one is invincibly ignorant. The faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation is a supernatural virtue moving one to believe firmly all that God has revealed, and is explicit as to the essential articles listed above. It cannot be replaced by Protestant “faith” meaning the impious and unjustified conviction that one’s sins are forgiven (Dz. 802), or by natural knowledge of God’s existence, or by mere opinion as to supernatural truths; nor can it be a faith having no object - it is necessary to believe what God has in fact revealed. What is necessary for salvation by necessity of means admits of no substitute, excuse or exception. Ignorance thereof is always either sinful in itself or permitted by God in consequence of other sins against one’s conscience. What is necessary by precept, but not by necessity of means, admits exceptions in the case of invincible ignorance. God may allow exceptions to positive law, but not to dogma.

Thus it is not in every case absolutely necessary for salvation to be within the visible communion of the Catholic Church, but it is absolutely necessary to share the Church’s faith and to be united with her at least in voto.

Of those who die outside the visible communion of the Church, it is certain that the following are damned:

1. All those who manifestly lack supernatural faith;
2. All those who die in a state of manifest sin against the natural law known to all men, or to the revealed law of God insofar as they are aware of it;
3. All those who are manifestly not invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church.

Hence the Holy See has repeatedly condemned the practice of even conjecturing about the final destiny of such persons, as though it were a matter of doubt.

As to those who die outside the Church’s visible communion, but after a life of apparent virtue, with the possibility of invincible ignorance of the Church and true supernatural faith, their salvation is certainly possible. However, it would be a mistake to presume that case to be a common one. For if, for such people, actual membership of the visible Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation, it remains the ordinary means of salvation, and the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not readily to be conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.

SFD

 

[Markstorm]

Out of curiosity, is that quote your own or from somewhere else?

 

[TMC]

The so-called “conservative” EENS and whatever you call the rest of the “not so conservative” EENS crowd point to the same basic principles but seem to have differences in two interrelated areas. The Church comes down on the ‘not so conservative’ side of this issue.

The first is the degree to which one must be ‘ignorant’ to be ‘invincibly ignorant.’ Some say that invincible ignorance is destroyed by any knowledge of the existence of the Catholic Church, or at least it is destroyed if one knows the Church holds itself out as the one true and apostolic church. This would make it impossible for around half of humanity, and probably all practicioners of Abrahamic religions, to be invincibly ignorant. Others would say that invincible ignorance means not knowing (in the sense of believing, not just hearing claims about) that the Catholic Church is the true Church. By this measure, if you are raised a different religion and have consistantly been taught the truth of that religion you are invincibly ignorant, even in the face of evangelization. If you come to believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church but deliberately remain apart for some reason, then you are not ignorant. By this measure only a few unbelievers are not invincibly ignorant because presumably most people would join the Church if they believed it to be the one true Church. The Church’s position is much closer to the second than the first.

This difference in the idea of ignorance leads to the difference in opinion on the meaning of ‘desire’ in baptism of desire. Some say this is an explicit desire, and some even that there must be a very good reason it has not yet been acted on. Others say that the ‘desire’ can be implicit – meaning that this clearly the kind of person that would have desired baptism if he know about it, or even knowing about it would have sought it if he knew it was necessary. (This meshes in with ignorance, obvisously.) Here the Church clearly teaches the second (implicit desire). See CCC 1260.

The debate over whether this is a) pretty much what the Churhc always taught, b) a development and refinement of past teachings that is in no why contradictory, c) a radical departure from what the Church has always taught, d) a return to the original understanding of EENS, or something else will rage on, I’m sure.

 

[SFD]

TMC:

The so-called “conservative” EENS and whatever you call the rest of the “not so conservative” EENS crowd point to the same basic principles but seem to have differences in two interrelated areas. The Church comes down on the ‘not so conservative’ side of this issue.

The first is the degree to which one must be ‘ignorant’ to be ‘invincibly ignorant.’ Some say that invincible ignorance is destroyed by any knowledge of the existence of the Catholic Church, or at least it is destroyed if one knows the Church holds itself out as the one true and apostolic church. This would make it impossible for around half of humanity, and probably all practicioners of Abrahamic religions, to be invincibly ignorant. Others would say that invincible ignorance means not knowing (in the sense of believing, not just hearing claims about) that the Catholic Church is the true Church. By this measure, if you are raised a different religion and have consistantly been taught the truth of that religion you are invincibly ignorant, even in the face of evangelization. If you come to believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church but deliberately remain apart for some reason, then you are not ignorant. By this measure only a few unbelievers are not invincibly ignorant because presumably most people would join the Church if they believed it to be the one true Church. The Church’s position is much closer to the second than the first.

This difference in the idea of ignorance leads to the difference in opinion on the meaning of ‘desire’ in baptism of desire. Some say this is an explicit desire, and some even that there must be a very good reason it has not yet been acted on. Others say that the ‘desire’ can be implicit – meaning that this clearly the kind of person that would have desired baptism if he know about it, or even knowing about it would have sought it if he knew it was necessary. (This meshes in with ignorance, obvisously.) Here the Church clearly teaches the second (implicit desire). See CCC 1260.

The debate over whether this is a) pretty much what the Churhc always taught, b) a development and refinement of past teachings that is in no why contradictory, c) a radical departure from what the Church has always taught, d) a return to the original understanding of EENS, or something else will rage on, I’m sure.

TMC,
What part of the below quote do you disagree with? Be careful…because it is based on the Church’s teaching and that can be proven.

What is the nature of the act of faith made by a person who is invincibly ignorant of the divine authority of the Catholic Church? There is only one virtue of faith: supernaturally firm belief in all that God has revealed. But, of course, a Catholic knows what God has revealed, at least in outline, whereas one who is invincibly ignorant of the Church does not. In this case, his faith must contain the disposition to believe whatever God has revealed, as soon as he shall become aware of it, and must be explicit as to the four essential articles of faith:

(i) The existence of a single God
(ii) That God will reward the just and punish the wicked
(iii) The triune nature of God
(iv) The Incarnation of God the Son for man’s salvation.

(A minority of recent theologians hold that only the first two articles suffice and this view is not condemned, though the contrary doctrine is preferred.)

God will make known His revelation of the necessary articles to anyone who is faithful to conscience, so that the necessary means of salvation may not be wanting to him. The statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is, therefore, absolutely true and admits of no exception whatsoever. For the purposes of eligibility for salvation, the Church includes not only recognised Catholics, but also catechumens and all those who, being invincibly ignorant of the duty to join her, possess true supernatural faith, explicit as to the necessary articles, allowing them to be counted Catholics in voto - by desire.

 

[whatevergirl]

I love my faith–love the RCC–but it knows who is in hell? Hmmm…It knows who is damned to be in hell? Please site that quote source…thank you.

 

[whatevergirl]

How can one have a* conservative *view on salvation?

 

[SFD]

TMC:

The so-called “conservative” EENS and whatever you call the rest of the “not so conservative” EENS crowd point to the same basic principles but seem to have differences in two interrelated areas. The Church comes down on the ‘not so conservative’ side of this issue.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Dogma of the Church. The proper understanding of that Dogma is what is at issue. The understanding cannot change…there is no “conservative” nor “liberal” interpretation of a Dogma.

SFD

 

[SFD]

I love my faith–love the RCC–but it knows who is in hell? Hmmm…It knows who is damned to be in hell? Please site that quote source…thank you.

It’s not a matter of knowing who is damned…but to know what is required to be counted among the elect. Just because we do not know who is damned…does not mean that we can’t know that anyone is damned.

The author of the quote won’t mean anything to you…but I’ll gather the authorities who are the sources for the author of the quote.

SFD

 

[Writer]

Well, as much as I agree with what you’re saying, there is also part of me that hesitates to project judgement on others’ eternal destinations, if they are not Catholics. Our role is to accept the graces to help lead souls to Christ–and hopefully, through the Church’s fullness of the faith. But other than that–it is hard for us to speculate who will be in Heaven. Someone on their death bed, who is not Catholic, could reach out to Christ, and with his/her whole heart accept Him–and be saved. We just don’t know.

I agree… As a young Protestant, I was prone to make sweeping statements sometimes regarding who would and would not enter heaven. As a more mature Catholic now, I try my best to leave this kind of judgemental thinking in my past. It’s useless, and it nourishes pride.

As an aside on this topic, the “ignorance” of the non-Catholic is a hard one for me sometimes. With regards to my Protestant family, for example, sometimes I wonder whether it’d be better not to speak of the fullness of the Catholic Church to them, because that knowledge may (in some degree) create greater culpability for failing to enter the Catholic Church. I’d be the first to say, however, that this is a dangerous line of thinking. It is our job as Catholics to make everyone aware of the beauty of the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of it in God’s hands.

I recommend Dr. Peter Kreft’s book entitled *Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven *regarding some of the prior questions raised. Regarding earlier posts concerning could there be sadness over the lost in heaven, we might look at it this way. In heaven, we will have awareness of their loss to us (and themselves), but that we will be so overwhelmed by standing in the presence of God and the saints that any sadness will be washed away–i.e. it can’t co-exist in the presence of God. It doesn’t mean, however, that we will be machines unable to realize that our loved ones aren’t with us.

I strongly suggest that the CCC be referred to also in regards to the scope of the Catholic Church in terms of the potential salvation of the ignorant.

 

[Donna_P]

I guess this is a traditional catholicism question, as it tends to be traditionalists who hold to the more literal meaning of extra ecclesia nulla salus, and further that you have to both believe and practice everything the Church teaches to avoid dying in a state of mortal sin. i.e. the kind of views advanced by St Leonard of Port Maurice and others.

Does it ever keep you awake at night, or interfere with your prayers, or make you angry or cold towards God, to think that if you ever do get to heaven, the vast majority of those you loved on earth, maybe even your own parents, spouses and children, won’t be there, and therefore you’ll know that they are in hell for all eternity. Don’t you think that would diminish your joy in heaven, no matter how wonderful it is to be with God?

Dear DL82,

May God be with you!

It makes me pray more and harder.

God bless yoU!

 

[jmcrae]

I guess this is a traditional catholicism question, as it tends to be traditionalists who hold to the more literal meaning of extra ecclesia nulla salus, and further that you have to both believe and practice everything the Church teaches to avoid dying in a state of mortal sin. i.e. the kind of views advanced by St Leonard of Port Maurice and others.

Does it ever keep you awake at night, or interfere with your prayers, or make you angry or cold towards God, to think that if you ever do get to heaven, the vast majority of those you loved on earth, maybe even your own parents, spouses and children, won’t be there, and therefore you’ll know that they are in hell for all eternity. Don’t you think that would diminish your joy in heaven, no matter how wonderful it is to be with God?

First, we do not know who is in union with the Church. While it may seem on the surface that many people are destined for Hell, there is nothing to indicate that anyone but the devils are actually in Hell.

Second, if people do go to Hell, the reason this would be allowed is because that is the happiest possible place for them to be. If they were to go to Heaven, they would be even more miserable.

When we get to the afterlife, we will see clearly what the reason is, and that this is the best of all possible outcomes, for those particular people.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t want everyone in my family to go to Heaven. But if they laugh and me and refuse to hear me, I don’t worry too much, because I know that God has hold of them, and will do the right thing with them, whatever that may turn out to be.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thank you writer for your reply.

Maybe I am more simplistic, but I absolutely agree…there will be A LOT of people in hell…why do I think this? Largely, due to what Jesus said on his sermon on the mount:

When Jesus concluded His message, He told His listeners that if they were to enter into His kingdom, they must “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).

I think that what makes it more specific, is our CCC. Jesus doesn’t mince words, so reading them above, definitely strikes a chord with me…the gate into heaven will be narrow!

 

[Markstorm]

Second, if people do go to Hell, the reason this would be allowed is because that is the happiest possible place for them to be. If they were to go to Heaven, they would be even more miserable.

Right now, I am thinking that you are completely misguided. Citations, please.

 

[whatevergirl]

First, we do not know who is in union with the Church. While it may seem on the surface that many people are destined for Hell, there is nothing to indicate that anyone but the devils are actually in Hell.

Second, if people do go to Hell, the reason this would be allowed is because that is the happiest possible place for them to be. If they were to go to Heaven, they would be even more miserable.

When we get to the afterlife, we will see clearly what the reason is, and that this is the best of all possible outcomes, for those particular people.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t want everyone in my family to go to Heaven. But if they laugh and me and refuse to hear me, I don’t worry too much, because I know that God has hold of them, and will do the right thing with them, whatever that may turn out to be.

It’s been written, that people *choose *hell in this lifetime, by choosing a life apart from God. Why would someone who lived his/her life apart from God–apart from Christ, want to go to Heaven to be with God–a being he/she wanted nothing of? That is the greater question. Christ’s death on the cross earned us the opportunity to go to heaven…but, if we live a life that is counter to Christ–why would we expect to go there?

 

[SFD]

Right now, I am thinking that you are completely misguided. Citations, please.

Yes, and it’s heretical as well.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I agree… As a young Protestant, I was prone to make sweeping statements sometimes regarding who would and would not enter heaven. As a more mature Catholic now, I try my best to leave this kind of judgemental thinking in my past. It’s useless, and it nourishes pride.

As an aside on this topic, the “ignorance” of the non-Catholic is a hard one for me sometimes. With regards to my Protestant family, for example, sometimes I wonder whether it’d be better not to speak of the fullness of the Catholic Church to them, because that knowledge may (in some degree) create greater culpability for failing to enter the Catholic Church. I’d be the first to say, however, that this is a dangerous line of thinking. It is our job as Catholics to make everyone aware of the beauty of the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of it in God’s hands.

This sounds familiar Writer… I’ve often wondered the same thing. That is, would I be better off not telling certain people about the Church so that their chances might be better if they don’t know. Since I’m quite certain the ones I’m referring to would reject it and only become more rebellious towards the Church, and thus make them worse off than they were before. I’ve experienced this rebellion from a family member and it is a scary feeling to say the least. But I also know that I may be held accountable (in the eyes of God) for that persons failures if I don’t do my part to share with them the truth. Like you said it is up to us to do our best and pray God will help the seed grow.

SD

 

[SFD]

Monsignor Joseph Fenton (The American Ecclesiastical Review:

Now we come to another question frequently discussed in contemporary theological writing: the question as to whether or not there are degrees or kinds of membership within the true Church. There are some writers and teachers, especially in this country, who feel that people who are subjects of the Church by reason of their possession of the baptismal character and those who are “within” the Church by reason of a salutary votum or desiderium of entering it are to be designated as “incomplete” or as “virtual” or as “imperfect” members of the true Church. These individuals are under the impression that the statement in the Mystici Corporis Christi about those who alone are to be reckoned as members of the Church applies only to people whom they call “members in the strict sense.” They imagine that there are other kinds of membership. And they definitely seem convinced that, if they can manage in some way to justify the practice of calling some groups of people who are obviously not Roman Catholics “members” of the true Church, they will have done a service to the cause of ecclesiastical unity.

In order to achieve their purpose, they depict the teaching of the Mystici Corporis Christi on membership in the Church as relating only to members in the strict sense, or in the strictest sense of the term. In so doing they misrepresent the doctrine of this great encyclical letter. The document says, of those who possess the four characteristics it mentions as necessary for membership: "In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt."17

Now “reapse” means “really” or “actually.” It cannot be said to mean “in the strict sense of the term.” According to the doctrine of the Mystici Corporis Christi there are none other than those who possess these four characteristics who can rightfully be counted or designated as members of the true Church of Jesus Christ. To say or to infer that there are others who can in any way be called real members of the Church, or that there are others to whom the term “member of the Church” can accurately be applied, is to contradict rather than to explain the clear teaching of the Mystici Corporis Christi.

Furthermore the practice of designating non-Catholics as “virtual” or as “incomplete” members of the Church involves a serious misuse of theological language. The importance of the thesis on membership in the Church rests on the fact that, according to the designs of God’s providence, the true and only Church militant of the New Testament is an organized society, a group composed of people who are recognizable as parts of this group on account of their possession of certain recognizable characteristics. The central mystery of the economy of the New Testament is the fact that the one and only supernatural kingdom of God is the congregatio fidelium or the collectio catholicorum.18 It is the truth that the group or assembly that constitutes the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on earth is the society composed of the Catholics, the baptized people who profess the faith of the Roman Church, who are admitted to the sacramental life of the Church, and who live as subjects (in the religious order) to their proper ecclesiastical pastors, and ultimately to the Bishop of Rome. And, in the eyes of our own people and of non-Catholics, that mystery is beclouded by those who try to make men imagine that at least some non-Catholics are “incomplete” or “partial” or “virtual” members of the Church.

 

[DL82]

As an aside on this topic, the “ignorance” of the non-Catholic is a hard one for me sometimes. With regards to my Protestant family, for example, sometimes I wonder whether it’d be better not to speak of the fullness of the Catholic Church to them, because that knowledge may (in some degree) create greater culpability for failing to enter the Catholic Church. I’d be the first to say, however, that this is a dangerous line of thinking. It is our job as Catholics to make everyone aware of the beauty of the Catholic Church. Leave the rest of it in God’s hands.

I think a lot of people misunderstand this. Invincible ignorance only benefits as regards baptism of desire. Those who would be baptised if only they knew about baptism are saved by their ignorance. Those who would reject baptism if they knew about it are not saved by their ignorance. There is some evidence for this idea in the (apocryphal) Apocalypse of Peter where it talks about the souls of elect and non-elect pagans and unborn children going to differing rewards and punishments. That’s a dangerous realm to get into because it can lead to a false impression of double-predestination, so let’s leave it at that.

If you know (or think you know) that your family would reject Catholicism if you told them about it, that leads to a dilemma. Either:

a) You don’t tell them and you’re right that they’d reject it, in which case they are no less condemned for not rejecting what they don’t know than they would be for rejecting what they do know.

b) You don’t tell them and you’re wrong that they’d reject it, in which case you have failed to give them the good news of salvation.

c) You do tell them and you’re right that they reject it, in which case they are no more condemned for rejecting what they know than they would be for not rejecting what they don’t know (see a).

d) You do tell them and you’re wrong that they’d reject it, in which case you have just given them the good news that they have embraced for their salvation.

In summary, it’s always better to share the faith than to keep it to yourself.