FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Outside the Church there is No Salvation Made Meaningless
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
http://divineandcatholicfaith.blogspot.c...esiam.html

 In the May 2018 issue of Catholic Family News Matt Gaspers, the new editor of the newspaper, wrote an article titled “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” in which Gaspers quotes as if it were of great authority the 1949 Cardinal Marchetti-Salvaggiani Holy Office Letter to Archbishop Cushing regarding the controversy surrounding Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. The Letter teaches that “no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff.” This qualification completely undermines not only Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but the Catholicity of all dogma. It implies that souls can be saved outside the Church as long as they do not know that the Church was divinely established by Christ. Orestes Brownson, one of America's greatest Catholic apologists, wrote, “To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, is only generally true and therefore not a Catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit of no exception or restriction whatever.”1

The language used by the Church in her dogmatic definitions very clearly affirms that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Catholic dogma in the sense that it is universally true:


Quote:“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Lateran VI, Pope Innocent III)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV)


Catholic Family News
has been criticizing Vatican II for a long time and it is doubtful that anyone who writes for them would be unfamiliar with Pope Paul VI's well known quote about Vatican II differing from other Ecumenical Councils in that it was pastoral and refrained from making any dogmatic definitions that are of themselves infallible. In saying thus, Paul VI was acknowledging that dogmatic definitions have been made at other Councils that are of themselves infallible. It logically follows that the first thing any Catholic who is confused as to what he must believe about a particular doctrine should do is look to the dogmatic definitions that have been made at the Church's first twenty Ecumenical Councils. Gaspers omitted entirely any reference to the of themselves infallible definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence. Instead, Gaspers quotes and emphasizes the modernist principle articulated in the 1949 Letter that teaches that “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth is that dogmatic definitions are the sense in which the Church understands divine revelation. To say that dogma must be understood in the sense that the “teaching authority of the Church” understands it is to, as D.M. Drew perceptively writes, “claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement...”2 Vatican I teaches, “The sense of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” This teaching from Vatican I on the immutability of dogma was quoted by Leo XIII in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae and by St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. The dogmatic definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at Lateran IV and Florence give us the sense of the dogma which our “Holy Mother the Church has once declared” and which can never be “abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.”


The Manual of Christian Doctrine Comprising Dogma, Morals, and Worship teaches that the science of the true religion is the most excellent of sciences because it is the easiest and most certain.3 It is the easiest “because the Church presents it in clear, brief, and precise formulas, which the grace of God enables men of good will to understand.” It is the most certain “because it is founded on the word of God, who is truth itself.” For those who adhere to dogma as the rule of faith, Catholicism truly is the easiest and most certain of sciences. Dogmatic definitions are clear, brief, and precise formulas. The Catholic who adheres to dogma as the rule of faith can be absolutely certain that what he believes is true because every dogma is a formal object of Divine faith that can and should be believed on the authority of God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, revealing. One of the hallmark characteristics of the New Church has been its utter inability to teach anything in a clear, brief, and precise manner. The New Church thrives on prolixity, ambiguity, and deceit. The 1949 Letter is of the same kind as the scandalous documents that have come from the New Church and it should surprise no one that the 1949 Letter was referenced as a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium. Nor should it surprise anyone that the 1949 Letter was inserted into the 1962 edition of Denzinger by the at the time editor of the book, Fr. Karl Rahner. With the Letter's rejection of dogma as the rule of faith, certainty as to what a Catholic must believe ceases to be possible and religion is reduced to a matter of mere opinion.

Regarding the nature of dogma Cardinal Henry Manning wrote, “It is not enough that a truth should be definitely conceived; for if a teacher know the truth, and is not able to communicate it with accuracy, the learner will be but little the wiser. And therefore God, who gave His truth, has given also a perpetual assistance, whereby the Apostles first, and His Church from that day to this, precisely and without erring declare to mankind the truth which was revealed in the beginning; and in declaring that truth the Church clothes it in words, in what we call a terminology: and in the choice of those terms the Church is also guided. There is an assistance, by which the Church does not err in selecting the very language in which to express divine truth. For who does not see that, if the Church were to err in the selection of the words, the declaration of truth must be obscured?...Therefore a dogma signifies a correct verbal expression of the truth correctly conceived and known.”4 The very selection of words is protected from error in the definition of a dogma. Lateran IV defines that “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” It is very, very significant that this definition refers to the Church as being composed “of the faithful.” In the Missal there is a distinction made between the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” Catechumens are those who are preparing to enter the Church through baptism. The “faithful” are those who have already entered. The definition says that no one at all can be saved who is not a member of the Church of the faithful. This ought to end all speculation about souls being saved by “baptism of desire”. Souls can be justified (possess sanctifying grace) prior to the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, but they cannot be saved unless they persevere in this state and enter the Church. We must, with St. Augustine, “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator.”5

Traditional Catholic prayer books do not include prayers with petitions for the repose of any souls other than the “faithful departed.” “May all the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace...” It would be uncharitable for the Church not to pray for the repose of the souls of those who were not members of the “Church of the faithful” if such non-members could make it to Purgatory. The Council of Braga decided that “Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism.” St. John Chrysostom wrote, “...For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other...If it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."6

Sacred Scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Vienne all infallibly teach that there is only one baptism. The Council of Trent defines as divinely revealed dogmas: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon II). “If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon V). It is noteworthy that Trent refrained from defining the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for salvation in a like manner as it had done in regards to the necessity of Baptism. Reception of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, but only by a necessity of precept. Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. The necessity of Baptism for salvation has been defined as a Catholic dogma because Baptism is universally necessary for all men regardless of particular circumstances. This is what is meant when something is said to be necessary by a necessity of means. The Eucharist has never been defined as being absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature because its necessity is not universal but admits of exceptions based on circumstance.

Catholics who want to read more in depth defenses of the true sense of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would do well to read Fr. Leonard Feeney's Bread of Life and Fr. James Wathen's Who Shall Ascend. Adherence to this foundational salvation dogma is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity.


1.Orestes Brownson, Brownson’s Quarterly Review. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. April, 1874

2.D.M. Drew “Open Letter to E. Michael Jones: Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition” http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPE...209-10.htm

3.https://archive.org/stream/manualofchristia01brot#page/6/mode/2up

4.Cardinal Henry Manning, The Glories of the Sacred Heart

5.Brian Kelly “Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of St. Augustine” http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire...stine.html

6.St. John Chrysostom “Homily 25 on the Gospel of St. John” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm
Doh!

We have dealt with the issue countless times here.

The Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas, the Council of Trent, Pius IX, all clearly taught that "Baptism of Desire" and "Baptism of Blood" while not Sacraments, and while they do not make one a member of the Church, produce the same essential effects as Sacramental Baptism : to wit, they remove Original Sin by the infusion of Sanctifying Grace.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office was specifically approved by Pope Pius XII, as head of the Holy Office, meaning it is a specifically Papal Act, and is thus the teaching of Pius XII as well. This is why it is included in the Denziger.

St. Alphonsus Liguori called Baptism of Desire de fide based on the Council of Trent's decree that the Sacrament or desire thereof is necessary for salvation.

If you are unwilling to accept the Catholic Faith which teaches, please don't bother us here with pages of text. It is a waste of your time and ours.

At least as an only infrequent contributor here, you should have the courtesy not of trolling.
If Father Feeney had been listened to in 1950 there would be no ecumenism today. Because they ignored him today they think all religions are a road to salvation. The Missionary Spirit of the Church which was massive pre-Vatican 2 has dried up, why convert the pagans and others who sincerely believe their false teaching. So in reality today we have 8 Sacraments not 7 , Ignorance of the Truth has become #8 If you sincerely don't know or find the truth apparently your ignorance and sincerity is as powerful as Baptism or being in the Church. Thank You Modernists for your Loving way around the truth to get everybody into Heaven.
(06-12-2018, 08:28 PM)salus Wrote: [ -> ]If Father Feeney had been listened to in 1950 there would be no ecumenism today. Because they ignored him today they think all religions are a road to salvation. The Missionary Spirit of the Church which was massive pre-Vatican 2 has dried up, why convert the pagans and others who sincerely believe their false teaching. So in reality today we have 8 Sacraments not 7 , Ignorance of the Truth has become #8 If you sincerely don't know or find the truth apparently your ignorance and sincerity is as powerful as Baptism or being in the Church. Thank You Modernists for your Loving way around the truth to get everybody into Heaven.

Fr. Feeney was right to point out the liberal movement toward a universal salvation, especially in the context of the American concept of religious liberty (recall that the theologian behind religious liberty at Vatican II was the American Jesuit John Courtney Murray).

Fr. Feeney was wrong to take his reply to the opposite extreme and to a point where it equally denied the Catholic teaching (as pointed out by his 1949 condemnation by Papal Act).

It is very often that we see in the history of the Church that opponents of an error correctly point out what is wrong, but then propose a solution which is equally as wrong. Fr. Feeney is not unique in the history of the Church for having done this, and while one could question Cardinal Spellman's orthodoxy, one certainly cannot question that of the Holy Office of Pius XII.

The solution is to teach and accept the Catholic Faith as it has been given to us, not as we would like to have it.
St. Leonard of Port Maurice mentioned in his Sermon on the Fewness of the Saved that God revealed that during one hour on a particular day 33,000 people died and only 5 were saved. How many of the five that were saved were non-Catholics?

 St. Louis de Montfort wrote:

Quote:The number of the elect is so small - so small - that were we to know how small it is, we should faint away with grief. The number of the elect is so small that were God to assemble them together, He would cry to them, as He did of old, by the mouth of His prophet, "Gather yourselves together, one by one" - one from this province, one from that kingdom.


St. Augustine, commenting on Our Lord’s words about how “narrow the way that leads to life is and how few there are that find it”, pointed out that Our Lord was merely talking about those few who end up finding the way. Augustine went on to say that of those already few number who end up finding the way, an even smaller percentage actually persevere in living according to the way which they found and save their souls. 


With all of the allures of the world and with human nature being as weak as it is, the vast majority of men are not going to avail themselves of the necessary means to save their souls if they do not possess a fear of God’s just punishments. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and if the vast majority of modern men are committing mortal sin after mortal sin it is because they do not possess this salutary fear and are consequently fools. Fr. Feeney understood this and knew that the sorry situation both in the world and in the Church is going to continue to get worse and worse unless the foundational salvation dogma is restored to its true meaning. 

The Freemason philosophe of the French Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, wrote in The Social Contract:

Quote:Whosoever dares to say ‘Outside the Church there is No Salvation’ ought to be driven from the State.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subje...04.htm#008

Fr. Feeney was treated with about as much justice as you would expect from a hierarchy that has been infiltrated by Freemasonry. The details of his unjust persecution are given in Sr. Catherine Clark’s The Loyolas and the Cabots and in Br. Thomas Mary’s They Fought the Good Fight.
(06-13-2018, 09:17 AM)St. Camillus Wrote: [ -> ]St. Leonard of Port Maurice mentioned in his Sermon on the Fewness of the Saved that God revealed that during one hour on a particular day 33,000 people died and only 5 were saved. How many of the five that were saved were non-Catholics?

 


Using these numbers, we can estimate that, out of the nearly 110 billion people who have ever lived, about 16.5 million will be saved.
Scary how the modern desire to quantify all knowledge even reaches to salvation.
(06-13-2018, 09:17 AM)St. Camillus Wrote: [ -> ]St. Leonard of Port Maurice mentioned in his Sermon on the Fewness of the Saved that God revealed that during one hour on a particular day 33,000 people died and only 5 were saved. How many of the five that were saved were non-Catholics?

You can't answer that question either, because that was not something revealed to you. Heck, it's not even part of the deposit of Faith, so you don't even have to believe it, but it is quite simply, it's a red herring. This has nothing to do with whether Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood are taught as part of the Catholic Faith.

They are. Hundreds of references from the Magisterium, St. Thomas, the Fathers and a variety of other theologians, not to mention basic standard orthodox Catechisms like the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of St. Pius X all support this doctrine.

That's the question.

In fact, it does not matter if only 5 people in the whole of history were saved as a result of God infusing in a special way Sanctifying Grace, Perfect Contrition and Charity (aka Baptism of Desire), it would still remain part of Catholic doctrine.

In the case of Baptism of Blood we have dozens of martyrs throughout who were not Baptized, many revered as Saints, many listed in the Martyrology. Most famous among the St. Emerentiana, of whom I have a relic and whose feast day is January 23.

The danger that a truth may be overextended does not make the truth no longer true.
As noted, there is a lot of speculation to this issue on how people could be saved. Some theologians argue that being free from mortal sin (of the natural law) and a certain amount of faith is required, i.e. at least the basics of God and the Trinity, etc. How this could happen is speculation. Can God reveal divine truths to someone moments before they die? Sure, but we don’t really know for certain.
 
One could argue that anyone who is saved would have to be joined to the Catholic Church, in some way, before they die. Pope Pius XII states that the mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same. If someone is saved, then they are joined to Christ and hence they are joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. If anyone in a peculiar situation is indeed saved, then they must somehow be joined to the Church before they die – it is entirely possible that the mercy of God can do this in some way that we are not aware of. However, it doesn’t mean one should assume that it is common.
(06-13-2018, 04:39 PM)Vulgate Wrote: [ -> ]One could argue that anyone who is saved would have to be joined to the Catholic Church, in some way, before they die. Pope Pius XII states that the mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same. If someone is saved, then they are joined to Christ and hence they are joined to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. If anyone in a peculiar situation is indeed saved, then they must somehow be joined to the Church before they die – it is entirely possible that the mercy of God can do this in some way that we are not aware of. However, it doesn’t mean one should assume that it is common.

Membership in the Church is by having the Baptismal Character and

The Mystical Body of Christ is co-extensive with the Church, but the Communion of Saints is not. The former is a visible union (which someone who is not a Baptized Catholic does not have), the latter is a union of Charity (which is possible, but unlikely, for those who are visibly outside of the Catholic Church.

In short, to be a member of the Church one must be a Catholic who is Sacramentally Baptized, and submits to the authority of the Pope, professes the true doctrines, and worships in the correct manner. Sacramental Baptism + Sumbission to Pope + Catholic Dogma + Catholic Liturgy. Such are members of the Church.

Those who are attached to, but not members of the Church are those who are missing one of these, but through no fault of their own, yet because they are not maliciously rejecting any, and even desire to have these (either explicitly or implicitly), they are able to receive through a series of Actual Graces preparing them, the virtue of Charity which when infused also brings Sanctifying Grace, which, being incompatable with Sin, pushes it away. These are members of the Communion of Saints (which is of wider extension that the Church — seeing at least as it contains the angels, and Old Testament Saints, let alone those who are saved through Desire of Baptism or Martyrdom without Sacramental Baptism).

If we fail to make this distinction we end with Rahner's "Anonymous Christianity". That was in fact Cardinal Journet's issue, in fact. 

Jornet, trying to explain the relationship between the "body" and "soul" of the Church and the invisible union, along with the notion of the Mystical Body of Christ. He said precisely what you said above, then said if this union is not by Baptism, then it must be by Charity, so those who have Charity are members of the Church. He realized that this destroyed the visible bond of the Church, and thus while he despised Rahner and his theories, he admitted that if his Charity theory were right, so was Rahner.
Pages: 1 2 3