The Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved (Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?)

Do you truly think a priest posting opinions at ewtn trumps the Magisterium?

Luther certainly thought so....

I invite anyone who can produce a dogmatic declaration of the Church that teaches that salvation is possible without Christ or outside of the Church to do so.

The problem for you is that this statement does not conflict with Vatican II or with the "broader" interepretation of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus that has been around for centuries and was not invented at Vatican II. "Outside the church" can be further specified. The crytpo-Jansensist Feeneyite rigorists identify membership in the visible, formal Catholic Church with "the church" and to deny that anyone not a visible, formal member of the Catholic Church can be saved. Rigorism has been an issue for at least 19 centuries now--Novatianists were rigorists too (over different issues, but with a similar psychology).

Nor does the claim that one can be saved without being a formal member of the visible Catholic Church mean that one is being saved without Christ. Christ is active outside the boundaries of his visible Catholic Church. What the good Father Echert here asserts is that no one who is saved is saved apart from Christ.

What the 1949 Holy Office letter asserts (and a series of 19thc and earlier papal teachings also asserted) is that someone who is outside the visible Catholic Church because he knowingly and deliberately rejected her claims, knowing them to be true but still choosing to remain outside her membership, such a person is damned. But not all who are not formal adherents of the visible Catholic Church formed by those bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome and their flocks are damned. And many who are formal adherents and members of the visible Catholic Church formed by adherence to bishops who are in communion with the bishop of Rome, many of those could well end up in hell for sins against charity, sins against truth, for not living up to the higher obligations placed on them by their formal membership in that visible Church and their greater knowledge of the truths about the Church. Those who know these things and do not live according to them, those who violate caritas as in the 1949 letter, they are in deep doo-doo (as the letter did not say--at least not in those terms).

You silently inserted the word "visible" into Fr. Echert's statement, then invoked his authority for your rigorist position. That's sloppy reading and interpretation of the text.

As you reread Unam Sanctam, you might also reread the postings on this thread. A number of us have explained in detail that Unam Sanctam is fully compatible with what you dismiss as doctrinal and historical revisionism. It's meaning has not been changed. False interpretations of it abound. You seem to be the victim of some of them.

What the 1949 Holy Office letter asserts (and a series of 19thc and earlier papal teachings also asserted) is that someone who is outside the visible Catholic Church because he knowingly and deliberately rejected her claims, knowing them to be true but still choosing to remain outside her membership, such a person is damned.

That's true, but the Holy Office letter also teaches that those who are merely vincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church are also condemned as being "extra ecclesiam." An implicit desire can only exist in one who is truly invincibly ignorant, as the letter says.

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" is not a matter of a precept binding only those who know the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ and necessary for salvation; through this dogma we learn that formal membership in the Church is absolutely necessary by a hypothetical necessity of means (in re aut saltem in voto - it must be had at least in true implicit desire).

I would be interested if you could produce these "earlier papal teachings." As far as I can tell, the "rigorist" (i.e., something like this) reading of the doctrine was fairly common straight up through the 18th century at least, although it wasn't dogmatic.

I know just exactly how ya feel. :-)

The two letters I gave you are argumentative, not only didactic.

So to pretend that they can be ignored on the basis that they are Catholic is silly; the arguments for the Christian truth are advanced on the basis of ancient and divine Christian tradition (the baptismal symbol of faith), the Holy Scriptures, and solid reasoning.

I didn't realize I was a problem...

I know just exactly how ya feel.

PS Sorry, this should make more sense now. :-)

Dear gbcdoj,

Vincibility is an interesting topic.

I've seen some folks interpret invincible vs. vincible as whether, in a given set of circumstances, any person could come to knowledge of the truth of the Catholic Church's claims. Thus, we get folks who say that anyone who lives in the United States, or the West, generally, cannot have invincible ignorance, because there are at least SOME individuals, given the circumstances in our society, who can overcome their ignorance. I'm not sure, I don't think you're suggesting that, are you?

My own limited intellect suggests that invincibility/vincibility covers a wide range of issues, including, near the top, the intellectual capacity of the individual. I'm not the dimmest bulb in the box, but I often find these debates approaching the limits of my own intellectual capacity, and sometimes moving beyond those limits.

I imagine there are many folks not born into the Catholic Church who may have even more limited intellectual capacity than I have. It would be unsurprising to me if many of these individuals found themselves unable to decisively choose between the competing claims that they might find on either side of these questions.

That inability, combined with cultural, familial prejudices and other factors, might give rise, in my own opinion, to a lot of invincible ignorance.

To me, vincible ignorance is when an individual withholds from Catholic belief because, even though he senses its rightness, he hides from it to avoid disappointing friends and family, taking on hardship - socially, financially, politically, whatever, or to maintain his position. I've heard it said that Mr. Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, would convert save for his position. I don't know whether that's true or not, but it would seem to me that if that's true, he's actually moved well past ignorance, vincible or not, and is precisely the sort of individual toward whom these teachings are directed.

What do you think?

Dionysiusdecordealcis, I'd appreciate your thoughts, as well.

Thanks,

sitetest

Pius IX, Allocution Singulari quadam (1854). I don't have Denzinger at hand so I can't give the Latin (it should be Denzinger 2865i)

"It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord. But then, who would dare to set limits to this ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of people, lands, native talents, and so many other factors."

Especially the last sentence does not sound like Feeneyite-Jansenist rigorism and it sounds an awful lot like Vatican II. I get so tired of those who, from both the right and the left, portray Vatican II as a sudden change of course.

Now, try Pius IX's Encyclical, Quanto conficiamur moerere (1863), addressed specifically to the bishops of Italy in the midst of the Italian Liberal/nationalism chaos:

First a Liberal indifferentism is condemned: "And here, beloved Sons and venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion tha those who live in errors estranged from the true faith and Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching." (Denzinger 2865)

Note that this pararaph is explicitly directed to lapsed Catholics who are alienated from the faith they once held.

Then: "We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in th ehearts of all persons, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all persons, wil lnot permit, in accord with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment." (Denzinger 2866)

Pardon me if I say it, but this is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to assert in previous postings: that establishing vincible or invincible ignorance in a particular non-Catholic person is not something that you or I has any business trying to do. Exactly how much one knows and how accountable he is for knowing and not knowing is for God alone to judge.

The encyclical continues: "However, also well known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority of the definitions of the Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of his vineyard, cannot obtain salvation." (Denzinger 2867)

The operative words here are "stubbornly" and "obstinately." Again, I cannot possibly judge who is guilty of obstinate stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge and submit to the claims enunciated here. The Church leaves that judgment to God and I think it would behoove some of the rigorists and crypto-Feeneyites and their fellow travelers to practice a little bit of charity and humility lest they find themselves in hell some day for their stubborn self-righteousness. The lax "all paths lead to God" indifferentists also need to do some conscience examining.

There is at least one more that directly addresses the difference between later generations of cultural Protestants and the 16thc Protestant Reformers who deliberately abandoned the faith, but I can't locate it at the moment.

"... and hold their office by virtue of their union with St. Peter's See."

How does this work out with Orthodox bishops and Patriarchs from a Latin pov?

Because Rome accepts certain episcopal acts among the Orthodox as legitimate, she recognizes a de facto holding of jurisdiction and office by the Eastern Bishops. Since there are many explanations for how this is so it is a debated matter.

The long and short of it is that canonically Rome essentially accepts the Eastern Bishops as legitmate Bishops of the Catholic Church.

I would be interested if you could produce these "earlier papal teachings." As far as I can tell, the "rigorist" (i.e., something like this) reading of the doctrine was fairly common straight up through the 18th century at least, although it wasn't dogmatic.

The rigorist reading is the doctrine of the Church. It is clearly taught in the Magisterium, especially in the dogmatic definitions of Trent, upheld in the Tridentine and Vatican II Catechisms, contained in the Summa and the writings of the Church's other doctors, is the unanimous belief of the Fathers, and is certainly what I was taught by Opus Dei when I entered the Church just 14 years ago.

The laxist view is essentially very broad and sloppy thinking about the prevelance of Baptism of Desire among heathens, sinless living among Protestants without confession and the eucharist, and Invincible Ignorance among all-non Catholics.

I would characterize the rigorist view as: salvation requries explicit belief in the Trinity, Incarnation and salvific redemptive activity of the Lord, and a future state of rewards and punishment for behavior in this life, necessity of Baptism at least in desire for the cleansing from Original Sin, necessity of Confession at least in desire and with perfect contrition for the remission of post-baptismal sin, necessity of the Eucharist and membership in the Church at least in desire to form the bonds of charity uniting us with the Lord and each other in the Church, necessity of prayer in general and specifically devotion to Our Lady to obtain grace from Our Lord.

Here's a recent writing on this topic.

We cannot forget that the Church is not merely a way of salvation; it is the only way. This is not a human opinion, but the express will of Christ: he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. This is why we assert that the Church is a necessary means of salvation. No later than the second century, Origen wrote: If anyone wants to be saved, let him come to this house so that he can obtain salvation... Let no one deceive himself: outside of this house, that is outside of the Church, no one will be saved. Of the deluge, Saint Cyprian says: If someone had escaped outside of Noah's ark then we would admit that someone who abandoned the Church might escape condemnation.
Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus. That is the continual warning of the Fathers. Outside the Catholic Church you can find everything except salvation, Saint Augustine admits. You can have honour and sacraments: you can sing 'alleluia' and respond 'amen' You can uphold the gospel, have faith in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and preach that faith. But never, except in the catholic Church, can you find salvation.
Nonetheless, as Pius XII lamented little more than twenty years ago, some reduce to an empty formula the need to pertain to the true Church in order to obtain eternal salvation. This dogma of faith is at the root of the Church's co-redemptive activity. It spells out the Christian's grave apostolic responsibility. Among Christ's express commandments is the categorical one to incorporate ourselves in his Mystical Body by Baptism. And our Saviour not only commanded that everyone enter the Church, but also established that the Church be the means of salvation, without which no one can reach the kingdom of celestial glory.
It is a matter of faith that anyone who does not belong to the Church will not be saved; and anyone who is not baptized does not enter the Church. Justification cannot take place after the promulgation of the gospel, without Baptism or its desire, the Council of Trent established.
This is a continual demand of the Church which on the one hand stimulates us to greater apostolic zeal, and on the other manifests clearly the infinite mercy of God with his creatures.
St. Josemaria Escriva, "In Love With the Church", The Supernatural Aim of the Church, 1972

The laxist attitude leads to the following that St. Josemaria observed:

There are many Christians who are persuaded that the Redemption will be completed in all environments of the world, and that there have to be some souls — they do not know which ones — who will contribute to carrying it out with Christ. But they see this in terms of centuries, many centuries. It would be an eternity, if it were to take place at the rate of their self-giving.
That was the way you thought, until they came to “wake you up”.
St. Josemaria Escriva, Furrow, 1, 1986

Please note that in your quotations from Saint Joesemaria, he uses "Church" in an unqualified sense. What you quote from him is irrelevant to the debate at hand because the claim made at Vatican II, in Pius XII, in the 19thc documents I quoted in #152 is that there is salvation outside the visible Catholic Church but there is no salvation outside the Church. The claim is that the Church of Christ that subsists in the Catholic Church (that is, in the local churches whose bishops are in communion with the bishop of Rome), this Church of Christ outside of which no salvation is possible, is not identically coterminous with the visible Catholic Church. Saint Josemaria is referring to the broader sense of Church--I cannot imagine that he was unaware of Mystici Corporis or the 19thc documents I quoted or the 1949 Feeneyite letter. He does not specify "visible Catholic Church" or "formal membership"--the qualifying, specifying terms used in the 1949 Holy Office letter to the Feeneyites or the 19thc documents I adduced in # 152.

You read his letter as if he had specified "visible Church" and thus denied Pius XII, Vatican II etc. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you employ his words in a narrower (yes, indeed, more rigorist) sense than he seems to have meant them. One cannot be absolutely sure that by "Church" he did not mean "visible Church," but since he certainly knew about the "salvation outside the visible church" doctrine, his failure to specify "visible Church" would seem to indicate that he intended to refer to the Church of Christ that is not strictly speaking confined to the visible, formal boundaries of the churches in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Vatican II is also pretty clear about how the salvation of non-Catholics is to occur. After listing all the ways various non-Catholics are connected to the Church:

"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." (Lumen Gentium, 16).

To say: "procure the salvation of all of these ... the Church fosters the missions" implies that their salvation is dependent upon that activity. If they were already saved in their ignorance, their would be no need for missions. However, ignorance is a purely negative quality. It doesn't unite one closely to God, rather it blinds one to the truth and leads most souls into hell. Thus:

"And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.'
"There is then, Venerable Brethren, no reason for wonder that the corruption of morals and depravity of life is already so great, and ever increasingly greater, not only among uncivilized peoples but even in those very nations that are called Christian. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Ephesians, repeatedly admonished them in these words: 'But immorality and every uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as become saints; or obscenity or foolish talk.'[4] He also places the foundation of holiness and sound morals upon a knowledge of divine things - which holds in check evil desires: 'See to it therefore, brethren, that you walk with care: not as unwise but as wise ... Therefore, do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.'[5] And rightly so. For the will of man retains but little of that divinely implanted love of virtue and righteousness by which it was, as it were, attracted strongly toward the real and not merely apparent good. Disordered by the stain of the first sin, and almost forgetful of God, its Author, it improperly turns every affection to a love of vanity and deceit. This erring will, blinded by its own evil desires, has need therefore of a guide to lead it back to the paths of justice whence it has so unfortunately strayed. The intellect itself is this guide, which need not be sought elsewhere, but is provided by nature itself. It is a guide, though, that, if it lack its companion light, the knowledge of divine things, will be only an instance of the blind leading the blind so that both will fall into the pit.
"... We do maintain that the will cannot be upright nor the conduct good when the mind is shrouded in the darkness of crass ignorance. A man who walks with open eyes may, indeed, turn aside from the right path, but a blind man is in much more imminent danger of wandering away. Furthermore, there is always some hope for a reform of perverse conduct so long as the light of faith is not entirely extinguished; but if lack of faith is added to depraved morality because of ignorance, the evil hardly admits of remedy, and the road to ruin lies open."
(St. Pius X, Encyclical "Acerbo Nimis")

You don't need to be too versed in the controversies on grace to see the Augustinian emphasis of His Holiness. Also:

"Unbelief may be taken [as] pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. ... If ... we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22) 'If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin'; which Augustine expounds (Tract. lxxxix in Joan.) as 'referring to the sin whereby they believed not in Christ.'" (Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10, Art. 1)

Ignorance of things divine is a horrible curse of a darkened mind. To think that it provides salvation is a quite contrary notion.

When Bl. Pius IX speaks of the invincibly ignorant obtaining eternal life, it is by means of "the power of divine light and grace". Of necessity, this would involve the dispelling of their ignorance.

My own limited intellect suggests that invincibility/vincibility covers a wide range of issues, including, near the top, the intellectual capacity of the individual. I'm not the dimmest bulb in the box, but I often find these debates approaching the limits of my own intellectual capacity, and sometimes moving beyond those limits.

Duh! I aint no beachcomber. Can I still keep my name? :-)

I wasn't arguing against Christian truth. If you will scroll back to prior posts, my faith and values, as well as Christian Doctrine came under attack. My posts were in defense of my Christian faith, they were not intended to attack Catholicism. My point about Mary was this, she did nothing worthy of bringing her worship, she was not irreplaceable had she not been there God would have chosen another to do the exact same thing for which thousands of Catholics across the country worship Mary. Before you deny that, I have personally met several Catholics, "too many to count if you're looking for a number" who themselves worship, "Holy Mary Mother of God" as they were taught in the Catholic church by the priest. "But thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and only him shall thou serve."

I have also had several Catholic friends who carried medals of various saints in their pockets which they clutched as they prayed to these various saints. "Thou shalt not make unto thyself any graven images." I could continue, but it is evident to me that I am typing in vain. I appreciate that you hold your faith close to your heart, but just because my faith doesn't follow Catholic tradition doesn't make it wrong. The Catholic church by the way is not the oldest church on record. The Jewish church is the oldest church revering the God of Abraham, so the reformed Messianic Jewish movement starting at the acceptance of Christ's teachings would be the oldest church, existing even before the "almighty Catholic church"

There is no proper distinction between the visible Catholic Church and some invisible Church which contains more people. Frankly, that distinction is total Protestantism.

Membership by desire in the Church is invisble/informal communion with the visible Church.