Promising Salvation to Non-Catholics: A Sin against Charity

Catholicism.org ^ | November 2, 2010 | Bro. Andre Marie

[verdugo]

We all hate it when someone makes a promise and doesn’t keep it. “But you promised!” we will say, and, depending on the level of blame and sensitivity of conscience on the part of the offending party, the reaction can be one of great shame. If this is true of promises one is simply unable to keep because circumstances forbade it, it is more so in the case of false promises: that is, those made with no intention of keeping them, or those one had absolutely no authority to make. To promise salvation to a non-Catholic, either directly or indirectly, falls in the latter category as being particularly shameful. It is shameful because it is sinful. It is sinful because it offends not only against faith, but against the greatest Christian virtue: charity.

That the Church has defined there is no salvation outside her means that this proposition is true, and we know it is so with a divinely guaranteed certitude. Genuine charity is rooted in truth. A lie is an affront to truth and therefore an offense against charity. The ontological and psychological connection between truth and charity is a basic Christian concept, whose origin is in the Trinity Itself. Pope Benedict XVI recently highlighted this truth-charity nexus:

To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). … Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. (Caritas in Veritate, No. 1, 3, emphasis in original.)

There are various theories regarding how non-Catholics get to heaven as non-Catholics. Many of these have been advanced by churchmen of high rank. Rather than attempt to disprove these opinions in polemical fashion, I would prefer to show the truth of their contrary, and the consequent duty we have in charity not to waver from it. Out of love for God and for our non-Catholic neighbor, we must not give false or even uncertain assurances concerning how salvation is to be attained, and, consequently, how damnation is to be avoided. That would not be “doing the truth in charity” (Eph. 4:15), as St. Paul enjoins upon Christians.

Let’s consider an oft-cited infallible definition:

“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.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

We often hear the objection that someone does not need to be a “formal” member of the Church in order to be saved. The implication is that the spiritual trumps the juridical, and that God is not a stickler for names on baptismal registers and the like. But the implication often reaches further than such trivialities, to include what the Church has defined is necessary for salvation. The objection frames the issue of being Catholic in a far-too-juridical way. What makes us inside the Church? Three things: Divine and Catholic Faith (explicit in the principal mysteries — the Trinity and the Incarnation — and at least implicit in all other articles), sacramental baptism, and subjection to the Holy Father. These defining elements of Church membership expounded by St. Robert Bellarmine were authoritatively postulated by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [I Cor., XII, 13] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [Cf. Eph., IV, 5] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (No. 22)

There are many people who would not be considered “formal” members of the Church who are, in fact, Catholics in the dogmatic sense. Consider a case I’m personally familiar with: a teenager baptized in a (schismatic) Orthodox church in Russia. Adopted by a Catholic couple when she was about eleven years old, she continued to communicate and confess in the Catholic Church as she had in the Orthodox parish in Russia. The Catholic priest in this country said that as long as she believed in the pope — which she did — she was free to receive the sacraments. Yet I have been assured that, juridically, she is still considered Orthodox. I am fairly certain that her name appears on no Catholic parish register. For all that, she meets the three of the requisites above. This young lady could not be more Catholic. What is important are not the “juridical” issues, but the ecclesiological, sacramental, and “creedal” elements that truly make one a Catholic. Perhaps we can put it in terms that might make a canonist cringe: de facto Catholicism is what matters, not de jure Catholicism.

The overly legalistic analysis strikes me as somewhat disingenuous, too, inasmuch as those who advance it generally accuse us (“Feeneyites”) of being hung up on some sort of formalism. Assuredly we are not; but we are hung up on Catholicism.

Note in the definition of the Council of Florence that “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” are all categorically described as “existing outside the Catholic Church” and, consequently, they cannot “have a share in life eternal.” With only two exceptions, those “outside” the Church according to Florence correspond exactly to those not included as “members” by Pius XII. Those exceptions are 1) unbaptized believers (e.g., catechumens), whom Florence does not mention in Cantate Domino, but whom Pius XII clearly states are not members; and 2) excommunicates, whom Florence does not mention.

The unbaptized catechumen and analogous individuals bear a certain close relationship to the Church, as they have her faith, assent to her government, and seek her sacraments. I don’t see the need to be preoccupied with this question, as some are. God will provide for His own, and these people are His by those ties I’ve just mentioned. God will not cast off anyone who perseveres in His grace.1 Regarding excommunicates, we know from the grave nature of excommunication that those who die in that terrible state — if they really are excommunicated in foro interno — are lost. What concerns me most are the “pagans, … Jews and heretics and schismatics” that do not have the Church’s faith, do not assent to her government, and may or may not have a sacrament or two, or even seven. The Church infallibly assures us that those who fit these descriptions are not in the way of salvation and that “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.” Jesus commands us in the Holy Gospels to preach the unvarnished Catholic Gospel to these. If we let human respect get in the way of the great mandate, we damn ourselves.

These categories are not beyond comprehension. “Pagans” (or the synonymous “infidels”) would include not only unbelievers like atheists and agnostics, idolators like Hindus, or pantheists like Buddhists, but also Muslims, whom the Catholic world lumped into the category “pagan” in the fifteenth century when the Florentine Fathers met. “Jews” are hardly in need of explanation. They identify themselves as such. The words “heretic” and “schismatic” are rarely used in common parlance today, even in ecclesiastical circles, for they are considered “divisive” and even rude. Yet, the Church not only officially uses the words, but also clearly defines them in the current (1983) Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Elsewhere in the Code (1364 §1), we are informed that members of all three categories here mentioned automatically excommunicate themselves from the Church: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication…”.

I am very well aware that theologians distinguish between formal and material heresy as well as between formal and material schism. These are perfectly legitimate distinctions. Someone baptized and brought up in an alien sect will inevitably be, for a time anyway, merely in material heresy or schism. Before the age of reason, it’s not even a question: the child is a Catholic plain and simple. There are no infant Lutherans, Syrian Jacobites, or Serbian Orthodox — only pagan ones and Catholic ones. At what point one brought up in such a sect formally adheres to heresy or schism is God’s business and I’ll not lose the least amount of sleep over the question. What is the duty of the Church, however, and what ought to make us lose a few winks, is the duty we have to witness to the truth of where salvation is to be found. To keep people somnolent in their errors is just plain damnable. Let us suppose for a moment that one of the infants we’ve just considered lives to his teens in a blissful merely material heresy. Supposing he commits a mortal sin? Where does he seek forgiveness? Let’s say that his particular denomination believes that sin cannot separate us from God’s love — as so many believe? What then? Will the same priest who puts the fear of God into a Catholic boy struggling against vice do a volte-face and assure the non-Catholic suffering the same moral afflictions a place in Paradise should he die — even though he will not seek the sacrament of God’s mercy because his parents taught him it’s a popish abomination?

Indifferentism breeds strange contradictions.

While these distinctions are real, and have a valuable place in Catholic theology, they are not intended to contradict the plain meaning of dogma. Theology is meant to serve the revealed word, not to annul it.

The explanation that I recently read on the blog of a particularly intelligent priest, to the effect that God can save someone outside the Church very much misses the point. To argue from God’s sheer power while prescinding from His revelation is a dangerous thing. God could, by His naked omnipotence, use me — who am not a priest — to confect the Eucharist, couldn’t He? By His omnipotence, God could arrange for a child of our own times to be immaculately conceived. Neither of these things entails an inherent contradiction like squaring a circle, but both contradict defined dogma. It would be wiser to believe that God’s grace and providence will make things happen in conformity to His revelation — despite the apparent “unlikeliness” of it.

If we trust God’s grace, justice, and mercy to conform perfectly to the dogmatic teaching of His Church, we will never regret it. And that, I can promise.

[happilymarriedmom]

“Glad I didn’t go to ‘the Church’ for my salvation”

That’s what I was thinking. Jesus promised me salvation, not the church. But I guess I can’t blame them for believing non Catholics won’t go to heaven since many Catholics don’t believe Catholics will go to heaven either.

[Alex Murphy]

“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

Who, then, can be saved?

Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments.
Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.
Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.
Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.

God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

-- concluding paragraph (formatting mine), from the thread Who Can Be Saved?,by Cardinal Avery Dulles, found at Catholic Education Resource Center

[BenKenobi]

So which is it?

Is it because the Church is too lax or stringent?

Seems Protestants can’t agree on what the Church actually teaches...

[jroneil]

This group is is schism with the Catholic church and does not have authority to speak for the Catholic Church. They originally broke away with Father Feeney

[lastchance]

I believe the site is from Schismatics who are either ultra trads or sedevacanists or perhaps both. So they’re opinion is not supported by the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

[marshmallow]

To whom it may concern.........

About Br. Andre Marie.....

"He entered as a postulant for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in May of 1993, and went on to the novitiate on Christmas of that year. He made profession of vows on Epiphany of 1996.

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary........

"Our Crusade was begun by Father Leonard Feeney, who strove to combat the liberalizing of Catholic dogma which he saw as a major impediment to the conversion of America."

[DesertRhino]

Wading through catholic law,, reminds me of needing to memorize and adhere to the US tax code. Funny how Jesus himself made it rather simple.

[Pyro7480]

Indeed, and apparently, the group he belongs to has been recognized by their local bishop in NH.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=503967

[DManA]

I believe in one catholic and apostolic church.

That’s catholic with a small “c”.

So it may be correct to say that there is no salvation outside of the one catholic and apostolic church. You just don’t have to be a member of the Roman branch of it.

[verdugo]

TO ALL NON-CATHOLICS:

What I posted is Catholic doctrine, not my own invention. I didn't make this a Catholic Caucus, because, obviously, it affects all non-Catholics, HOWEVER, the details of the doctrine is really for Catholics only.

Be assured that it is unchangeable Catholic doctrine, and is posted for your salvation. If you don't believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God, then why get all upset and unraveled by the article? I certainly don't loose one minute of sleep over what any YOPIOS or any other religion has to say about anything, as far as a Catholic is concerned, they are just one of gazillion opinions out there on the road to perdition.

If any non-Catholic has any sincere questions about the matter, I will answer them, but, know that this tread is really intended for Catholics.

God Bless,

[DManA]

So why not go to some Roman Catholic forum and discuss it with you fellow Roman Catholics. Why clog up this one?

[strider44]

I have some questions:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

[redgolum]

To be fair, a great many Catholics can’t decide what the Catholic church teaches. This thread is evidence of that.

Now, if you want to talk about the shenanigans among us Lutherans, grab a beer and sit down. It will take a while!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” 16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that -> whoever believes in Him <- shall not perish but -> have eternal life. <- “ - Jesus Christ

Apparently, Jesus Christ says something quite different than the doctrinal position you espouse here.

Let me consider this carefully... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

OK, I’m going with the plain, clear, truthful words of the Savior over man-made doctrines that contradict His words!

If you have sincere questions about Christ’s words, I will answer them.

:-) Best
ampu

[verdugo]

If you are sincere in your ignorance of the matter, please also forward this to your ALL list, so that we can get this issue out of the way without wasting any further time:

The group, The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is recognized by their local bishop in NH, and the Pope in Rome.

From: http://catholicism.org/new-mass-schedule-at-ihm-chapel-in-richmond.html

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary All Masses are in the traditional Roman Rite (Extraordinary Form) and are offered with the approbation of the Ordinary of the Diocese of Manchester, N.H. Our Mass schedule is as follows —

Sunday Masses: 7:30 AM Low Mass, 9:30 AM High Mass (with Rosary preceding at 9:00).

Daily Mass: 7:30 AM Low Mass.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

strider44,

a-j are written to JEWS. Not applicable to Christians. A better question is, “do they still apply to Jews.” Perhaps you should ask a Jew. They can speak very well for themselves.

ampu

[pgyanke]

You spell "her" with a capital, "H", eh? Interesting.

"H"er is the Church... the Bride of Christ.

[DManA]

So your purpose here is to proselytize?

[Salvation]

The Early Church Fathers on Salvation Outside the Church [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]

[verdugo]

Cardianl Avery Dulles is fallible. Moreover, he is a Progressivist, a punishment from God upon Catholics and non-Catholics. The two postings below describe his type:

"As Catholics live among those who are of false religions, and often have the most intimate connections with them, they naturally and laudable contract a love and affection for them. This makes them at first unwillingly to think that their friends are out of the way of salvation, then they proceed to wish and hope that they may be saved, then they call into question that that is so. In this, they grab at every pretext to persuade themselves that their friends can be saved in their own religion. It has become the fashion to think and believe that an uncovenanted mercy is to be found in God for Jews, Mohamedans, and those of false religions. Fashion is a powerful persuasive against which even good people are not always immune. When a Catholic hears these liberal sentiments every day resounding in his ears, and anything that seems contrary to them, ridiculed and condemned. He eventually yields to the delusion. The real reason that Catholics adopt this loose way of thinking, is that they are ignorant of the grounds of their religion, they don't examine the matter thoroughly, and once they are infected by the spirit of the day, they become unwilling to examine any further. They even get angry if any zealous friend should attempt to undeceive them. Grasping at the false reasoning that favors this loose way of thinking, they refuse to open their mind to the truth".

- Orestes Brownson (1803-1876), Brownson's Quarterly Review ( American born, former New England Transcendentalist and colleague of Channing, Emerson, and Hawthorne. Published Brownson's Quarterly Review from his conversion to Catholicism in 1844, until within three years of his death.)

"Why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur in Vatican II. (and other magisterial documents)?

Considering all that I have said thus far, especially concerning the ulterior motives of the liberal prelates and their virtual hijacking of Vatican II, I think Scripture has an answer as to why God would allow these "ambiguities" to occur. In short, there is an interesting working principle in Scripture. As a punishment for your sin, God will allow you to pursue, and be condemned by, what you sinfully desire. This is what I believe happened at Vatican II. The progressivist bishops and theologians sought for a way to push their heterodox ideas into the Church, so God allowed them to do so, as a witness and judgment against them. He would allow the Council to have its "ambiguities" so that those who would interpret them contrary to nineteen centuries of established Catholic dogma, would lead themselves into sin, and ultimately into God's judgment. Unfortunately, as is always the case, the sheep suffer for what the shepherds do wrong, and as a result, we have all been wandering in the spiritual desert of liberal theology for the past 40 years. (Article from Catholic Family News, Feb 2003, by Robert Sungenis)(1)

(1) In fact, the bad shepherds may be a chastisement for the sins of the sheep. Saint John Eudes, basing his words on Sacred Scripture, says that when God wants to punish his people, he sends them bad priests. See The Priest, His Dignity and Obligations, by Saint John Eudes, Chapter 2, "Qualities of a Holy Priest". (New York: P.J. Kenedy and Sons, 1947).

Vatican II is a punishment from God. It is a snare, a siren song to RUN AWAY FROM! Do not seek any answers about the Faith from Vatican II or any theologian that refers to it.