[editor: This is one of the more thorough articles dealing with EENS. Many of the points have been adressed in other articles. We tried to tie together alot of threads.]
We were made aware of Mr Lofton’s YouTube channel and he seems to be an up and coming Catholic Utuber.
Here he is attempting to tackle the Dogma : Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
He says he is hesitant to address it. Maybe because some who oppose the liberal interpretation of this long held dogma, can be a little feisty.
He does seem confused on his position. The whole time he supports the liberal understanding. But in the end he seems confused, he says implicit "Baptism" of Desire can save; but, then he says "it is rare." Claiming BoD is rare is how we got here, saints letting this "rare" thing slide. This "small" loophole eventually becomes Rahner/Barron universalism.
We do commend Mr. Lofton for attempting to do as thorough a job as he has. Although we think he has missed many points of those who hold a strict view of the Dogma.
We think he is of good Will. But he needs to study the strict understanding better. Aquinas made it a point to know the other side's position thoroughly.
We can appreciate his problem. We were in the same position many years ago.
We were discouraged from reading the “Feeneyite” position. (Although we are not technically Feeneyites, i.e. followers of Fr. Feeney, we do sympathize with his doctrinal position.)
He says in the opening of his presentation, this is not an exhaustive study, but is one of the best from a Conservative Catholic, most run away from the topic. So we see him seeking truth. We think this topic is at the heart of almost all the problems in the Church today.
We wonder if he knows that a strict understanding
is acceptable by the Church?
He stresses that we are to understand The Dogma (EENS) as the Church understands it. The dogmas are the way the Church understands it.
The Church’s position is the 3 dogmatic statements :
* “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215. Denzinger 430)
* “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… 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, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302. Denzinger, 468-469.)
* “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. Denzinger 714.)
He was probably taught in the Cardinal Newman school of developments. Most who follow Newman have never read his book on Development. It is rife with serious errors.
This “Development of Doctrine” method, which he is using, we have seen before, especially with conservative Catholics. They apply an “evolution of dogma” (although they will deny this), as taken from Bl. Cardinal Newman-- in his so-called “Development of Doctrine Essay”. We have treated Newman’s errors here on this blog in depth, in a number of articles.
There can be distictions, but never at the expemse of how it was understood when defined.
This method, Newman's, takes what is the most current or recent position of theologians, or papal writings, which are fallible, as the light we view defined dogma and the Apostolic Faith. When in actual fact we should use the exact opposite method--what is Apostolic and ancient.
Defined dogma is the light we should view all other teachings-- subjecting them to the light of Faith, as defined by the Church. Yes there are even levels of Managerial documents, the lower being seen in light of the higher. A dogmatic definition is the highest and, well, definitive, by definition. That is the way we should understand it.
It is also important to say that the issue at hand is MEMBERSHIP in the Church. While there is ample documentation of who is, or is not, IN the Church, it has not been defined as such, so to exclude “Baptism” of Desire or “Baptism” of Blood.
There are many murky statements by saints, and popes, that can add grey to a relatively clear teaching. Alas, we are in a desperate situation in the Church, Her worst crisis in history--confusion has reigned over this topic of EENS.
-----------------------------------------------------
THE ANCIENT CHURCH
Mr. Lofton rightly opens with scripture as the foundation of the dogma:
John 3:5
“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Or as many translations have it:
“Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
This is a good place to start.
When Jesus says in scripture “Amen, Amen” or “Truly, Truly” he is saying something very important and we should pay attention.
He correctly says that Jn 3:5 has been traditionally understood to be Sacramental Baptism, but we would also mention, it is taught in councils as such, we have treated this topic here link. E.g:
“If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent Canon 2, "On Baptism;" Denz. 858)
He also correctly says, Christ makes it clear to enter the kingdom of God one needs to be Sacramentally Baptized.
Agreed.
Then he makes a mistake, by equating the Kingdom of God with Heaven.
The Church is the Kingdom of God, here on earth --the church militant; the Church is also partly in Purgatory--the church suffering and partly in Heaven--the church triumphant.
Here on earth the Kingdom is a “mixed” state that grows in the world with both “weeds”- evil people, and “wheat”- holy people, until the harvest when Christ comes as judge.
Jesus introduces most of his parables with the “Kingdom of God” or the “Kingdom of Heaven”:
Matthew 13:24-30
“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away…” At the end Jesus says: “tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned. But gather the wheat into my barn.”
But since the topic is, “who is saved?” here on earth, if one does not mention the “Kingdom” as the Church, then that is a rather large oversight.
We can see how he could make this error, some saints say “Kingdom of Heaven” to mean the beatific vision. But, on this topic, it is crucial to be accurate on what we are discussing-- salvation.
Sacramental Baptism makes one a member of the Kingdom of God, (the Catholic Church) making it possible for us to enter heaven. One becomes a member, or better yet, an adopted son of God through Baptism, by the reception of the sacramental Seal of Baptism (covered in depth here) for example:
Hermas, 140 A.D.:
“… before a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal, he puts mortality aside and again receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water. They go down into the water dead, and come out of it alive.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 92.]
This is very important, because we can only enter Heaven by being grafted into Christ, as sons of God (Romans 11:17) we must also retain Sanctifying Grace to inherit heaven. But whether we enter heaven or not we remain sons of God, because of the Seal, in heaven or in hell. This is why we Baptize with caution, making sure that the person will be brought up in the Faith, because
one suffers more in hell with the Seal of sonship.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309:
“3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, BUT DO NOT EFFECT INCORPORATION INTO THE CHURCH [editor:which is the Seal]… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”
[Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309]
Next Mr. Lofton quotes Justin Martyr, from St. Justin’s First Apology, par. 46:
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word(Logos) of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them”
St. Justin makes the argument here that the teachings of Christians are according to reason. And in a sense, those who love truth are in a way Christian. But right knowledge is only one necessary feature of salvation; one needs Sanctifying Grace, and a life corresponding to that Grace--- since Pentecost, incorporation into Christ is only by the Seal of Baptism.
We don’t think St. Justin is preaching a form of Pelagianism-- man by his knowledge and virtuous life can be saved without Christ, which is condemned as heresy. He was working in a polemical style..
Could one of the great philosophers have been in a situation of the saints of the old testament? Doubtful (Plato for example, as great as he was, was a homosexual, which is a sin against the natural law). This is why Christ came; we needed a savior, and the Grace to do good and avoid sin. Even the saints of the old testament failed. Moses couldn’t enter the promised land; David, a man after God’s own heart, who was a murderer and committed adultery; Solomon for all his wisdom worshiped false gods….etc..
We wish for mercy on all, but since we lack so many details of ancient pagans, it is wrong to speculate.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem:
“...but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
[Denzinger 1647]
Especially if it undermines what we DO know.
The fact remains that God has revealed that all who wish to be saved must believe the Catholic Faith, and be Sacramentally Baptized. We believe that God will make sure that souls of good Will, will hear His voice, and receive the Catholic Faith. This should not be hard for a Catholic to accept. He makes bread His body.
He miraculously sent St. Philip in Acts 8:27 to the eunuch; miraculously revealed Himself to St. Paul (Acts 9:3-19); and St. Cornelius (Acts 10); God not only worked these miracles, but corrected those of good will who were only baptized in John’s baptism and not by the correct formula-- by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:3-5)
Mr. Lofton is doing a historical account, which can be useful, but what he is setting up is a psychology of persuasion-- an evolution of dogma concept. We wouldn’t accuse him of being deceitful. He thinks this is the proper way, since he was taught in post Vatican II theology.
While it is useful to know the historical context, we should be focused on the dogmatic statements, and why they are true.
He seems to gear his whole talk to show that EENS dogmas are NOT true. Even though he is not denying the dogmas directly, and giving lip service to believing them. He is in essence “disproving” them.
Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907-#24:
The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .--- condemned [Link]
He goes through a list of Church Fathers, which we will address, but let us first address the whole topic in general, by a non Feeneyite theologian.
Fr. Jurgens, a Church Fathers expert, seems confused that the consensus of the Fathers makes Sacramental Baptism absolute, with no exceptions:
Fr. William Jurgens:
“If there were not A CONSTANT TRADITION in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirithe cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ IS TO BE TAKEN ABSOLUTELY, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. BUT THE TRADITION IN FACT IS THERE; AND IT IS LIKELY ENOUGH TO BE FOUND SO CONSTANT AS TO CONSTITUTE REVELATION.”[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]
Fr. Jurgens is honest enough to admit the truth, although he seems to not accept it. Mr. Lofton we hope will also see the truth of this Sacred Tradition, and not cling to the traditions of men--”Baptism” of Desire (BoD) and “Baptism” of Blood (BoB). [editor: we put “Baptism” in quotes because neither are real Baptism, they are metaphorically “Baptism.”]
In 1546, the Council of Trent issued a decree prohibiting people from interpreting Scripture “contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent,
Fourth Session (8 April 1546)
Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books
“No one . . . shall interpret... sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church . . . hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”
We need consistency. How could the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism be so clear, as to be constituted as Divine Revelation by the Fathers, but BoD and BoB are still true?
As Mr. Lofton will show there are a few supposed exceptions by great Catholic thinkers, but no Church Father is infallible, most make some mistakes. That is why we need to take them as a whole and the consistent consensus. As pointed out above by Trent and Fr. Jurgens.
Let's return to Mr. Lofton’s presentation. He next quotes St. Cyprian.
St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254AD)Epistle 72 :
“Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood…”
St. Cyprian is a mixed bag. He is the first writer of “Outside the Church there is No Salvation,” but at the same time he denied the validity of Baptism performed by those outside the Church. This was infallibly condemned by Pope Steven.
Let’s examine this passage. While teaching baptism of blood, notice that St. Cyprian makes a significant error in the same sentence. He says:
“catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism.”
This is completely wrong, even from the point of view of the “baptism” of blood/desire advocates. All “baptism” of desire and blood ( BoD or BoB) advocates readily admit that neither is a sacrament, because neither confers the indelible character/seal of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Hence, even the staunchest advocates of “baptism” of blood would admit that St. Cyprian’s statement here is wrong. Therefore, in the very SENTENCE in which St. Cyprian teaches the error of “baptism” of blood, he makes a significant error in explaining it – he calls it “the Sacrament of Baptism.” What more proof is necessary to demonstrate to the BoDers that the teaching of individual fathers is not infallible and does not represent the universal Sacred Tradition and can even be dangerous, if held obstinately?
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
He jumps into “Invincible Ignorance.” While there is a place for this in theology, it doesn’t have a place in salvation.
Conservative Catholics present a strawman of EENSers, that one cannot be punished for NOT joining the Church, if
a) one didn’t know it existed or
b) didn’t know they needed to join it. (Ironically this second point-- no one knows because it isn’t preached, But this is a strawman of the Feeney position).
Of course, no one would be condemned for not knowing they needed to join the Church, if they hadn’t a way to know about it. That is not the problem.
Conservative and liberal Catholics stress this point. Creating a strawman argument, because they are so SHOCKED anyone would believe what is dogmatically taught.
Jesus came to give us Sanctifying Grace, so we CAN be saved. Without this Grace, available only in the Church, we are not capable of salvation. Our state is already fallen and condemned, just with Original Sin, but we also fall into sins we already know are wrong, when we are outside the Church, thus building up a resistance to the Actual (Helping) Grace that God sends to lead us to His Church.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2:
“If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”
Again even if they only have Original Sin:
Council of Lyons II:
“…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, TO BE PUNISHED WITH DIFFERENT PUNISHMENTS…-- (Denzinger 464)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, de fide:
“…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell BUT TO UNDERGO PUNISHMENTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS.” (Denzinger 693)
Mr. Lofton also seems to imply that those who hold to a strict understanding of The Dogma, don’t accept that grace can be had outside the Church.
Of course there is grace for those outside the Church, but it is not salvific grace, it is helping grace, which leads them to seek God and finally union with Him, in the Church. Invincible ignorance neither saves nor damns a person.
St Augustine, 395:AD “… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.” [Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1536]
Mr. Lafton also makes some good distinctions between formal and material heresy. Material heretics are functioning at a minimum of help for salvation. Many Catholics are lost to hell, and they have at their disposal all the sacraments. Are we to believe those living outside the Church are at an equal advantage? Doubtful.
SAVED BY PARENTS FAITH??
He then [23 minute mark] quotes a Church Father, St. Prosper of Aquitaine, to the effect that the parents can provide the desire for their child’s “Baptism” of Desire.
This theory was condemned in Trent, and is well explained by a Doctor of the Church, that will be used by Mr. Lofton for his support of BoD and the Liberal understanding of EENS.
As St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states: “Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism.
But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin.
This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four[link]: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned”
(Explanation of Trent , Duffy Co., 1845, p.56). See our Defense of Limbo
Thus, a child cannot be damned to Hell Fire for its parents’ actual sins or lack of Faith, nor saved by its parents’ virtues or devout Faith.
WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD THIEF?
Let us return to a point he makes with St. Augustine just a few minutes before this [20:23 mark]. He brings up the Good Thief as an example of BoD --a theory that Augustine himself repudiated in later life (anti-pelagian) . Saying that he didn’t know if the Good Thief may have been baptized or not.
We say, the Good Thief, cannot be used as an example of “baptism” of desire primarily because the Good Thief died under the Old Law, not the New Law; he died before the Law of Baptism was instituted by Jesus Christ after the Resurrection.
The Good Thief was a circumcised Jew, so it constitutes no argument against the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation, since circumcision was the Old Covenant “Baptism,” according to St. Paul.(Col. 2:11)
In fact, when Our Lord said to the Good Thief, “This day you will be with Me in paradise,” Jesus was not referring to heaven, but actually to “Hell” (a.k.a.Limbo of the Fathers). As Mr. Lofton well knows, no one entered Heaven until after Our Lord did, after His Resurrection, understood by most theologians to be Ascension Thursday.
On the day of the Crucifixion, Christ descended into “Hell”, as the Apostles’ Creed says. He did not descend to the Hell of the damned, but to the place in Hell called the Limbo of the Fathers, the waiting place of the just of the Old Testament, who could not enter Heaven until physically led by the Savior into heaven. (This is why we need to be baptized.The requirements for salvation have slightly changed. He cannot lead us physically into heaven, because when He returns, in a non-sacramental way, He comes as Judge; not Savior. So we need to be IN CHRIST through Sacramental Baptism.)
1 Peter 3:18-19- “Christ also died once for our sins… In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison…”
To further prove the point that the Good Thief did not go to Heaven on the Day of the Crucifixion, there is the fact that on Easter Sunday, when Mary Magdalene met the Risen Lord, He told her, “Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father.”
John 20:17- “[On the Day of the Resurrection] Jesus saith to her; Mary. She turning, saith to him; Rabboni, (that is to say, Master). Jesus saith to her; Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father…”
Our Lord hadn’t even yet ascended to Heaven on the Sunday of the Resurrection. It is therefore a fact that Our Lord and the Good Thief were not in Heaven together on Good Friday; they were in the Limbo of the Fathers, the prison described in 1 Peter 3:18-19. Jesus called this place “paradise” because He would be there with the just of the Old Testament.
So, as St. Augustine later admitted, he erred in trying to use the Good Thief as an example for his point.
This proves again that only the dogmatic teachings of the popes are infallible, as well as the universal and constant Sacred Tradition of the Church. But St. Augustine himself in many, many places affirms the universal Sacred Tradition of the Apostles, that no one is saved without the Sacrament of Baptism; and, in fact, he denied the concept that a catechumen could be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism by his desire for it numerous times:
St Augustine, 395:
“… God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1536]
St. Augustine, 412:
“… the Punic Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but salvation… Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the Kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1717 ]
St. Augustine, 391:
“When we shall have come into His [God’s] sight, we shall behold the equity of God’s justice. Then no one will say:… ‘Why was this man led by God’s direction to be baptized, while that man, though he lived properly as a catechumen, was killed in a sudden disaster, and was not baptized?’ Look for rewards, and you will find nothing except punishments.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 1496]
Here we see St. Augustine completely rejecting the concept of baptism of desire. Nothing could be more clear.
He says that God keeps sincere catechumens alive until their baptism, and that those who look for rewards in such unbaptized catechumens, who have unfortunately died, will find nothing but punishments. St. Augustine even makes it a special point to affirm that the Almighty doesn’t allow unbaptized catechumens to be killed except for a reason.
Those who say that St. Augustine held to "baptism" of desire are, therefore, simply not being complete with the facts.
They should add the qualification that he many times rejected the idea, and was on both sides of the issue. Thus, the only father that the “baptism” of desire advocates can clearly quote in favor of the concept (Augustine) actually denied the concept of "baptism" of desire many times.
St. Augustine:
“If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that "they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined." There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestined is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.”
(On the Soul and Its Origins, Book III. ch.13 )
Here we see St. Augustine again affirming the apostolic truth that no one enters Heaven without Sacramental Baptism and again he explicitly denies the concept of baptism of desire, by denying that any catechumen can be freed from sin without baptism.
All of this shows that “baptism” of desire is not the universal Sacred Tradition of the Apostles; rather, the exact opposite of the universal Tradition of the Apostles and Fathers – i.e. that no catechumen can be saved, without water baptism.
It does get exhausting pointing out the errors of Conservative Catholics. Like Protestants, they just keep using the same tired arguments. One thing Pope Francis has helped us with, is, NOT taking the pope to be some kind of divine prophet. Conservatives have been scandalized by his heresies, or apparent heresies, but we EENSers have dealt with this reality a long time ago.
AQUINAS AND IMPLICIT FAITH
Mr. Lofton next tries to set up that Aquinas’ speculation on implicit faith of pagans, before Christ; can be smuggled in with implicit faith for non believers today. Both are speculative theories, and weak ones too. He quickly adds that Aquinas didn’t hold that implicit faith in the New Testament can save you, as an aside.
To pass over such an important point from one, Aquinas, who BoD advocates use to their advantage so often, is sad. BoDers never show, Aquinas either contradicts himself on this point, or is just inconsistent.
His nonchalantly throws in the New World was a big problem, because ‘churchmen thought the Gospel had already been preached to the whole world.’
This is just not true. Yes, some were troubled, by the implications of the New World, but as Father Brian Harrison, O.S., S.T.D, a learned pontifical university theologian points out to the Wanderer, who made the same mistake:
“Historically, it really isn’t credible to suggest that Catholic bishops and the Pope in 1442 thought that everyone on earth by that time “had heard and had understood the Gospel message.” Remote parts of northeast Europe were then still being evangelized; educated Catholics knew that down in Africa there were unreached tribes; the previous two centuries had seen both peaceful and warlike contact between Europeans and the Mongols, Chinese, and other large Asian populations whom educated Europeans knew had never been thoroughly — or, in some cases even partly — reached by Catholic missionaries. In other words, the discovery of the New World 50 years after the Council didn’t change the European Catholic perspective nearly as much as you (following Sullivan?) claim it did.”
AQUINAS AND “BAPTISM” OF DESIRE
[30 minute,mark] He talks about how Aquinas held to a “Baptism” of Desire. He seems to be so happy about this?
Even though it is contrary to the overwhelming evidence in the early Church.
It is understandable that people can be confused on this issue, because St. Bernard and St. Thomas Aquinas made “Baptism” of Desire their own position based on passages in St. Augustine, and the ambiguous one in St. Ambrose, this caused hosts of theologians in the middle ages and down to our day to subsequently adopt “Baptism” of Desire out of deference to their great learning (particularly St. Thomas’), making it seem De Fide, i.e. dogmatically proclaimed.
Nevertheless, even Aquinas can make mistakes.The Catholic Church recognizes infallibility in no saint, theologian, or early Church father. It is only a pope operating with the authority of the Universal Magisterium--believed always and everywhere, that can clarify the issue.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950:
“This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
And Aquinas also holds that God would provide the means (Sacramental Baptism?) to those who desired it.
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1:
Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.
St. Thomas replies- “It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”
Could Aquinas have been mistaken on his BoD position? Or did he change his mind, since he advocated implicit faith, but then later only explicit faith can save? Or was he just being inconsistent? We don’t know nor do we need to, since the deposit of the Faith is not the Summa, as great as it is.
St. Thomas repeatedly and unambiguously refuted the heresy that “invincible ignorance” saves. He affirmed that explicit faith in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation is absolutely necessary.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica:
“After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to EXPLICIT FAITH IN THE MYSTERIES OF CHRIST, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”
[St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7]
And the fact that no one, above the age of reason, who wishes to be saved can be saved without a knowledge and belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
WHAT ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF THE NEW WORLD??
Mr.Lofton next brings up the discovery of the New World, but any confusion of the salvation of natives of the New World was dealt with pretty swiftly-- at least for the Church.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as The Holy Office) under Pope Clement XI responded to a question in the missions in Canada, that a missionary must, before baptism, explain the Trinity and the Incarnation as absolutely necessary mysteries to an adult who is at the point of death.
Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”[Denzinger 1349a]
Another question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.
Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
“A. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.”[Denzinger 1349b]
While the Holy Office is not infallible, the above teaching is the opposite of the liberal interpretation of the Letter to Boston concerning Fr. Lenard Feeney.
So how do we reconcile this? We hope to further on.
The belief in the Trinity and Incarnation is absolutely necessary for salvation, for all those above the age of reason; this is also the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas (as already quoted above--Summa Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7); Pope Benedict XIV and Pope St. Pius X.
Again Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica clearly teaches explicit Faith is necessary:
“And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
[link:St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 8]
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 1), June 26, 1754:
“We could not rejoice, however, when it was subsequently reported to Us that in the course of religious instruction preparatory to Confession and Holy Communion, it was very often found that these people were ignorant of the mysteries of the faith, even those matters which must be known by necessity of means; consequently they were ineligible to partake of the Sacraments.”
[link:The Papal Encyclicals]
Pope Benedict XIV, Cum Religiosi (# 4):
“See to it that every minister performs carefully the measures laid down by the holy Council of Trent… that confessors should perform this part of their duty whenever anyone stands at their tribunal who does not know what he must by necessity of means know to be saved…”
[link:The Papal Encyclicals]
Those above the age of reason who are ignorant of these absolutely necessary mysteries of the Catholic Faith – these mysteries which are a “necessity of means” – cannot be numbered among the elect, as Pope St. Pius X confirms:
Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“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.’”
[link:The Papal Encyclicals]
For those who believe that explicit Faith in Christ and the Trinity is NOT necessary, (which is “the Catholic Faith” if defined in terms of its simplest mysteries) must change their position and align with Catholic dogma.
There is no other name whereby a man is saved other than the Lord Jesus (Acts 4:12). They must firmly hold this so they themselves can possess the Catholic Faith and profess it.
UNAM SANCTAM
[34 minute mark] Mr Lofton quotes Unam Sanctam, dealing with being subject to the Pope. There are actually two infallible statements in this document. He failed to mention the FIRST which is:
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, de fide:
“...we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
[linkDenzinger, 468-469.]
This infallible statement from Unam Sanctum would seem to at least cast doubt on BoD-- those outside the Church, receiving remission of their sins. We will be covering true membership in the Church later; right now we are just conterpointing his presentation.
Mr. Lofton does quote the SECOND infallible statement of Unam Sanctam,(BTW much to his credit he does quote the infallible statements on EENS, most of our other protagonists do not bother, so hats off to him for this):
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, de fide:
“...Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
[linkDenzinger 468-469 the translation of “absolute necessity” was dropped from the linked site. But this translation is found in a real book that cannot be altered like the Internet.--- Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469. Mr. Lofton’s translation has “matter of necessity”. Isn’t it strange how dogmatic statements linked to EENS seem to undergo many translation “adaptations”?? ]
He seems to not understand that Sacramental Baptism makes one subject to the Pope. As long as one is Baptized in Water, and receives the Sacramental Seal, that person is subject to the Pope. So far as there is no active rejection of the Pope by the Sacramentally Baptized person, then they are understood to be subject to the Pope.
This is why infants are subject to the Roman Pontiff. They put no obstacle of their Will to the Grace of the Sacrament, i.e. Baptism.
Notice that Pope Boniface VIII did not declare that every human creature must know the Roman Pontiff, but that every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Infants become subject to the Roman Pontiff by their baptism into the one Church of Christ, of which the Roman Pontiff is the head on earth, as His vicar. Infants put no opposition of the Will.
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3), Feb. 8, 1884:
“The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism…”
[ link: The Papal Encyclicals]
Children are placed under the authority of the Church by baptism. Thus, by their baptism they are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, since the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme authority in the Church (First Vatican Council, de fide). This proves that baptism is actually the first component in determining whether or not one is subject to the Roman Pontiff, and a member of the Church.
If one has not been baptized, then one cannot be subject to the Roman Pontiff, because the Church exercises no judgment (i.e., jurisdiction) over anyone who has not entered the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide-- see below):
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, On the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap. 2, de fide:
“… since THE CHURCH EXERCISES JUDGMENT ON NO ONE WHO HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY ENTERED IT BY THE GATE OF BAPTISM. For what have I to do with THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ (1 Cor. 12:13).”
[link:Denzinger 895]
It is not possible, therefore, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, since the Church (and the Roman Pontiff) cannot exercise judgment (jurisdiction) over an unbaptized person (de fide, Trent). And since it is not possible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism, it is not possible to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism, since every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation (de fide, Boniface VIII).
These teachings are so clear; they only become confusing when one tries to do an ad hoc for “Baptism” of Desire.
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (Cantate Domino)
Mr. Loton then goes on to quote the Council of Florence :
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, de fide:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Denzinger 714---we will include again a hard copy footnote because the original translation of “abide” has been changed to “remaining.” This is a slight difference but we just want to be thorough. --Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578]
He says he believes “Cantate Domino,” and then pivots so as to undermine the whole point of the definition. He brings up the invincible ignorance argument again.
We don’t understand how he can do this?? Pagans were covered in the definition. The natives in the New World were pagans. How is this not clear??
There has been an attack on the Dogma EENS for a long time. The argument that Mr. Lofton is using on this point was condemned by Pius XII:
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950:
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same. SOME REDUCE TO A MEANINGLESS FORMULA the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
[Link: Denzinger 2319---again a slightly different translation in the site linked. We used the hard copy translation.---The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 4 (1939-1958), p. 179 ]
THE PROBLEM OF METHODOLOGY
By trying to defend BoD, Mr. Lofon is really undermining the credibility of the Church. When something is clearly taught definitively-- Modernists say: “we really don’t know what that means.” We don’t think he is a modernist. but he has drunk from their kool-ade.
Also, is the way he understands it, the way the Council of Florence understood it?
God in his providence, regardless of scientific discoveries, saw fit to define EENS before the New World was discovered. Was God mistaken?
And we now have a definitions from the First Vatican Council speaking about the “development of doctrine”:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, de fide:
“Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church HAS ONCE DECLARED; and there MUST NEVER BE A RECESSION FROM THAT MEANING under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
[Denzinger 1800]
And again:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Canons on Faith and Reason, #3, 1870, de fide:
“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD and understands: let him be anathema.”
This definition from the First Vatican Council is critically important for dogmatic purity, because the primary way the Devil attempts to corrupt Christ’s doctrines is by getting men to recede (move away) from the Church’s dogmas, as they were once declared.
We deal with people who attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the definitions on, “Outside the Church There is No Salvation” all the time, by saying, “you must not understand it so literally; one must see a deeper meaning.” What they really mean is that you must understand dogmas in a way different from what was defined and declared. And this is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns.
It condemns moving away from the understanding of a dogma which the Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the specious (false) name of a “deeper understanding.”
Modernists twist the words of dogmatic formulas to be just a private interpretation. And wring it of all its meaning and power.
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned
[Link:Denzinger 2022]
Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
“The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”
- Condemned
[Link Denzinger 2054]
Dogmas of the faith, like “Outside the Church There is No Salvation”, are truths fallen from heaven; they are not interpretations. To accuse one who adheres faithfully to these truths (fallen from heaven), of engaging in “private interpretation” is erroneous.
The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or document, then the Church has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless.
Anyone who says that we must interpret or understand the meaning of a dogmatic definition, in a way which contradicts its actual wording, is denying the whole point of the Chair of Peter, Papal Infallibility and dogmatic definitions.
Also, Mr. Lofton insists that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (e.g., by non infallible magisterial documents, theologians, catechisms, etc.) he is denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. He is subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human documents, thereby inverting their authority, perverting their integrity, and denying their purpose.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (#7), Aug. 15, 1832:
“… nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.”
[The Papal Encyclicals]
Thus, there really shouldn’t be a “strict” or “loose” interpretation of “Outside the Church There is No Salvation”, as many of the liberals like to insist on, but there should be only what the Church has once declared.
But for the sake of discussion we will indulge this language, only so we can at least have a debate.
Another thing Mr. Lofton seems do is to dwell on each definitional point to the exclusion of the whole of the theology and definitions.
He says Florence doesn’t say how one enters the Church, as a member, in this particular definition,“Cantate Domino,”-- this is true-- BUT the same council DID say how one becomes a member of the Church:
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, de fide:
“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘UNLESS WE ARE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT, WE CANNOT,’ AS THE TRUTH SAYS, ‘ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
[Link:Denzinger 696]
NOT JOINING THE CHURCH?
[36:45 minute mark] He again brings up the strawman argument that people are condemned FOR NOT JOINING the Church if they didn’t know it was necessary. We already covered this above.
No one has a right to salvation; it is a gift from God. The reason we needed a savior was for the very fact all are going to hell, the Massa Damnata, on account of Original Sin, or personal mortal sins.
Without the help of the Sacraments one cannot be saved, since the source of sanctifying Grace is Sacramental Baptism. One does not need to receive all of the Sacraments, but at LEAST one-- Sacramental Baptism. Vatican I explains:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council I, Sess. 2, Profession of Faith, de fide:
“I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 803]
Vatican I infallibly define here that “the sacraments” as such (i.e., the sacramental system as a whole) is necessary for man’s salvation. They are not “NORMATIVE”, but necessary. Not “the privileged way”, but necessary. But it explains not all seven sacraments are necessary for each individual. Again it doesn’t say normative, which would allow exceptions.
Every man must receive at least one sacrament to be saved; otherwise, “the sacraments” as such (i.e. the sacramental system) couldn’t be said to be necessary for salvation.
We covered this point already above. (This is the problem of reacting to videos they tend to jump around)
INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
[37:49] Mr. Lofton points out a theological speculation of implicit faith and invincible ignorance, from Spain, in the 1500’s.
Yes, there were problems in evangelizing the New World, but invincible ignorance does not save.
Mr. Lofton again brings up the strawman argument, that pagans are condemned for not joining the Church, when they could not know about it, or that the Faith has been badly presented by the evangelizing Catholic, and adding to this an unvirtuous example, that many natives remained unconvinced about the necessity of becoming Catholic.
We already covered this above but we will address it again more thoroughly here.
Yes there seemed to have been a movement in the Spanish Salamanca, Dominicans and Jesuits in the mid 1500’s, to say that implicit faith was enough.
Fr. Melchior Cano OP, in 1547, from Salamanca, proposed that implicit faith could suffice for justification (technically not salvation) among unevangelized pagans, like the American Indians.
However, Cano kept within the limits set by the Council of Florence, by insisting that “implicit justification” needed to be ‘upgraded’ to the explicit Faith before death. If this did not happen, the native would fall into sin and lose sanctifying grace, thus being lost to hell.
St. Robert Bellarmine adopted essentially the same position as Cano, about 25 years later. It seems ‘Explicit Faith’ is what St. Robert meant by a “greater light of faith,” further needed by an “implicitly justified pagan” to enter heaven--- this “light'' could only logically be an ‘Explicit Faith,’ in the Trinity, and the Incarnation--death and resurrection, i.e. the “light”-- an explicit knowledge of Christ. There is nothing else it could mean, without contradicting Florence.
Though “implicit faith” was all the rage in the mid 1500’s and 17th century, it was answered by the Holy Office, as we addressed it above, but for convenience we will repost it here:
Holy Office, Pope Clement XI,
Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
Another question was posed at the same time and answered the same way.
Response of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes… although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
“A. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.
But are we saying there was a development of doctrine by the Holy Office? No.
It was already well established in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium-i.e “believed always and everywhere”, until Augustine, Bernard, and Aquinas muddied the waters.
In fact, in the solemn profession of faith of Pope Pelagius I, from an epistle addressed to King Childebert, which was shortly afterwards repeated in the epistle, "Vas electionis," addressed to the whole Church in the year 557, affirming the doctrine that on judgment day, God will hand over to the punishment of hell, all of the wicked, who he says consist of those, who either did not know the way of the Lord, or, having known it, abandoned it.
Pope Pelagius I, Profession of Faith, 557 AD, de fide:
"....the wicked, however, remaining by choice of their own with vessels of wrath fit for destruction[ Rom. 9:22], WHO EITHER DID NOT KNOW THE WAY OF THE LORD, OR KNOWING IT LEFT IT WHEN SEIZED BY VARIOUS TRANSGRESSIONS, He will give over by a very just judgment to the punishment of eternal and inextinguishable fire, that they may burn without end. This, then, is my faith and hope, which is in me by the gift of the mercy of God, in defense of which blessed PETER taught [cf.1 Pet 3:15] that we ought to be especially ready to answer everyone who asks us for an accounting."
[link :Denzinger 228a ]
So we see both are condemned- culpable and inculpable. In other words, it is proposed as de fide by Pope Pelagius to the whole Church, that a pagan or atheist etc...ignorant of the Christian Gospel at death does not in any way diminish the certainty that they will be damned.
Mr. Lofton goes on to quote Belgian theologian Albert Pigge (or Pighi) in 1542, who speculated that Muslims could be saved. How far are these BoDers willing to stretch the dogma of EENS? They won’t seem happy until it is twisted and drained of any meaning.
They seem to know no limits, and give lip-service to the dogma ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.’
Reformulating it as “Extra Ecclesiam nullus est” (“Outside the Church . . . nobody is!”)
He seems to instinctually realize his position doesn’t make any sense, because he renounces Karl Rahner later in the video, but with no real good reasons. But the crack of BoD in the dike of the Faith--EENS, always turns into a flood-- Universal Salvation. Bishop Barron is just another example.
The non-Sacrementally-Baptized are NOT members of the Church and are not subjects of the Pope. (covered above in Unam Sanctam)
Even St. Alphonsus Liguori, who (mistakenly) accepted “Baptism” of Desire as dogmatically taught in Trent says all Muslims are lost:
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Sermons (c. +1760):
“How many are born among the pagans, among the Jews, among the Mohometans and heretics, and all are lost.”
[Sermons of St. Alphonsus Liguori, Tan Books, 1982, p. 219]
Islam rejects, among many other dogmas, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Trinity, as taught by the Holy Office, as necessary for pagans. Its followers are outside the pale of salvation, so long as they remain Muslims. BoDers will quote a saint or pope but neglect to see that that same saint or pope disagrees with many parts of the BoDer's premise.
This makes sense because all those who support BoD are inconsistent and contradict themselves.
[42:44 minute mark]
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
This is where the BoDers think:
“ Aha! We have a dogmatic council on our side--case closed!!”
They simply ignore the EENSers position-- three EENS dogmatic statements (Fourth Lateran Council, Unam Sanctam, and Council of Florence), numerous popes and saints and Fathers of the Church; they ignore that Florence, which condemns pagans; they will quote St. Alphonsus Liguori to prove BoD, but ignore St. Alphonsus when he condemns Muslims (as quoted above).
It is unfortunate that St. Alphonsus, for all his great learning, and writing, was mistaken on Trent, and like St. Aquinas, has set in motion an error that many follow blindly without examination.
Let’s address the Council Trent. Here is the key passage quoted by BoDers:
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4:
“In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, AS IT IS WRITTEN: Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).”
[Denzinger 796;Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 672]
Mr. Loton has used a good translation of the above passage-- thank you.
The critical phrase, “this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it.”
This has often mistranslated phase changes “without” to “except through”:
“this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it…”
This mistranslation of the Latin word “sine” (without) – which is found in the original Latin [ the Latin found in Enchiridion Symbolorum edited by Denzinger, Latin Edition, 1937, no. 796]– to change “sine” to “except through” alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of “baptism” of desire, making it seem like either can be effective.
This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still being used all the time by “baptism” of desire apologists, including publications of the SSPX.
But as most scholars know the word “or'' can oftentimes mean “and” when preceded by a negative clause.
For example : “One cannot play baseball WITHOUT a bat or a ball”
Both are necessary to play baseball.
Trent is stressing the need for the “desire to receive” the sacrament.
Why? Because if one remembers, Trent was called to combat Protestantism, and at that time Protestants (Luther and Calvin) denied Free Will.
(Also the Spanish had a liking for forced baptisms. They did it in Spain and at times in the New World. For a Baptism to be valid, one needs to have no opposition, i.e. desire)
To twist this small use of the word, “desire,” used throughout Trent, as “defining” BoD is an abuse of hermeneutics, even if it is the great St. Alphonsus.
Also, how does it make sense that the council of Trent is defining BoD, and says nothing of “Baptism” of Blood? It is in fact stressing the opposite:
“AS IT IS WRITTEN” Jn. 3:5 [link] which would normally mean-- to be taken literally. When one wants to make a point he points to the definition and says: “That is what is written”
As we have seen above this is how the Church Fathers believed it.
Again if the council were “defining” BoD why would it reference canon 5 on baptism?:
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547, de fide:
“If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
[Denzinger 861]
Mr. Lofton has misunderstood, but at first seems to understand. He says the council is saying Sacramental Baptism is necessary for salvation. Then applies what he learned about BoD, and separates desire from the sacrament.
ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI
St. Alphonsus:
“Thus it is of faith (de fide) that men are saved even by the baptism of fire, according to c. Apostolicam, de pres. non bapt. and the Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4, where it is said that no one can be saved without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”
(St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
St. Alphonsus is not infallible. No saint of theologian is.
St. Augustine held that it was “de fide” that unbaptized infants suffer the fires of Hell and St. Cyprian held that it was de fide that heretics cannot validly baptize. Both were wrong.
If one is going to propose that a belief is DE FIDE, then one needs to prove it is Apostolic. You can quote saints and popes all day long but can the BoDer show it was held always and everywhere?
No Church Father held BoD, except Augustine, who later repudiated it. In fact, as Fr. Jurgen showed above, there is almost a unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers holding to the absolute necessity of it.
Augustine never brought up his teacher, Ambrose, to forward his theory of BoD. (as most BoDers do) Ambrose’s sermon used by BoDers is weak. Ambrose when teaching in theological treatises held to an absolute necessity for the Sacrament of Baptism. This appears dishonest from BoDers, to not bring this up too, although to Mr. Lofton’s credit he didn’t use Ambrose.
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“… no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism .”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1323]
St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1324]
St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390-391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed; but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of spiritual grace.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1330]
Ambrose’s “De mysteriis” paraphrased by St. Pope Leo the Great in his DOGMATIC letter to Flavian, not found in the Denzinger:
Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451:
“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2)… It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) IN OTHER WORDS, THE SPIRIT OF SANCTIFICATION AND THE BLOOD OF REDEMPTION AND THE WATER OF BAPTISM. THESE THREE ARE ONE AND REMAIN INDIVISIBLE. NONE OF THEM IS SEPARABLE FROM ITS LINK WITH THE OTHERS.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 81]
And if there is confusion, in the sense that the title of a document does not grant infallibility, Pope St. Gelasius clarifies it; that this entire document is infallible.
Pope St. Gelasius, Decretal, 495:
“Also the epistle of blessed Leo the Pope to Flavian… if anyone argues concerning the text of this one even in regard to one iota, and does not receive it in all respects reverently, let him be anathema.”
[Denzinger 165]
Ambrose and Pope Leo defined that in justification, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption cannot be separated from the Water of Baptism. Thus, there can be no sanctification by the Spirit or the Blood without the Sacrament of Baptism. They are ONE.
BoDers are continually trying to separate sanctification from the sacramental waters.
Mr. Lofton throws in the argument from silence. That many of the theologians have not been condemned who propose the BoD theory. But this is not a valid approach. The issue is clouded and needs to be discussed.
Much like the Immaculate Conception, Don Scotus was tolerated and Aquinas’ position was also tolerated and more popular. It wasn’t till many centuries later that clearity was restored. Aquinas was never condemned for wrong speculation.
But often “Feeneyites” are not even allowed to debate. When the internet first started, Catholic forums forbade EENS discussions.
We were kicked out of Catholic Answers Forums because we won every debate.We were not uncharitable. If you hold a strict view of EENS (which is an acceptable position according to CDF) your books will not be published, you will not be invited to speak or teach. The whole political machine of the Church is turned against you.
Meanwhile heretical personages are allowed free reign, like Fr. Martin. Ignatius Press has no problem publishing a heretical tome on universalism, by Von Balthazar, with introduction by an equal erring Bishop Barron.
So how is this an honest debate?
St. Robert Bellarmine
When saints attempt to explain speculative things that are not clearly taught by the Church, they are bound to make mistakes. So Catholics must not follow St. Robert in his difficult attempt to explain "baptism" of desire.
He was clearly confused by it:
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Ecclesia Militante:
“Concerning catechumens there is a GREATER DIFFICULTY, because they are faithful [have the faith] and can be saved if they die in this state, and yet outside the Church no one is saved… THE CATECHUMENS ARE IN THE CHURCH, THOUGH NOT IN ACTUAL FACT, yet at least in resolution, therefore they can be saved…”
[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 3, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75; ]
Why is he confused? Because Bellarmine defined the Church as precisely as he could and BoD was not a possibility. His definition is considered a classic:
St. Robert Bellarmine (16th century): De Ecclesia Militante:
"The Church is one, not twofold, and this one true [Catholic] Church is the assembly of men UNITED IN THE PROFESSION OF THE SAME CHRISTIAN FAITH AND IN THE COMMUNION OF THE SAME SACRAMENTS, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular, that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. First part excludes all infidels, those who were never in the Church such as Jews, Turks, and pagans, or those who once were in it and later fell away, like the heretics and apostates. THE SECOND PART EXCLUDES THE CATECHUMENS and excommunicated, SINCE THE FORMER ARE NOT ADMITTED TO THE SACRAMENTS and the latter are excluded from them…"
[De Ecclesia Militante, Book III, Ch. 2, opera omnia, Naples 1872, p. 75]
St. Bellarmine’s “difficulty” in attempting to explain the fallible position that catechumens can be saved,(as opposed by Agustine above) when catechumens are excluded from the sacraments of the Church by his own definition; is simply because the idea that an unbaptized person can be part of the Church is found nowhere in any council or statement from the Infallible Magisterium.
As we have shown above both Ambrose and Pope Leo the Great disagree with Bellarmine. Sanctification and membership cannot be gotten without Sacramental Baptism. Even Ott says that catechumens are not members of the Church.
Fr. Ludwig Ott:
“3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, BUT DO NOT EFFECT INCORPORATION INTO THE CHURCH… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895). The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”
[Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309]
St. Liguori also says BoD does not give the Sacramental Seal, i.e. Incorporation into the Church, thus they are not incorporated into the Church and are not members:
St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“As the Council of Trent says (Sess. 14, Chap. 4), it takes the place of the latter with regard to the remission of the guilt, but does not imprint a character nor take away all the debt of punishment.”
(St. Alphonsus, Moral Theology, Volume V, Book 6, n. 96)
“… he that confirmeth us with you in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts.” (2 Cor. 1:21-22)
St. Gregory Nyssa, c. 380 A.D.:
“Make haste, O sheep, towards the sign of the cross and the Seal [Baptism] which will save you from your misery!”
[Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graecae, 46:417b, Fr. J.P. Migne, Paris: 1866]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven? A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 810a.]
St. John Chrysostom, 392 A.D.:
[ Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2: 1206; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1905, Vol. XIII, p. 197. ]
So we see the Seal and Sacramental Baptism are one; and that this seal is not given in BoD as almost all BoDers agree. We also know from Unam Sanctam that there is NO remission of sins OUTSIDE the Church.
So how can BoD save? Ambrose and Leo the Great, say you cannot separate the Grace and the Water; St. Alphonsus says they receive no seal; the Fathers say the seal, baptism and salvation are one.
GRACE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
Mr. Lotfton shows he doesn’t understand our position very well. He again insinuates and insults us that we are Jansanists, and we think that no grace is given outside the Church. We have already covered this above.
Of course we believe that graces are given outside the Church; they are just not salvific. And if he thinks graces are salvific, outside the Church, he is denying the dogma, because he is saying “Grace” outside the church is salvific. In other words, that there IS salvation outside the Church.
He mentions he doesn’t necessarily agree with Bellarmine. ??? He doesn’t explain why. We think he sees problems with the BoD position, but has no where to go. Will he be ostracized by his friends at Catholic Answers? You bet !!
Karl Keating is fanatically opposed to any position on EENS other than the liberal one. He will not debate the topic, but will work to destroy anyone who opposes him.
How is it that Catholic Answers has no problem with Bishop Barron, nor the heresies published by Ignatius Press--”Dare We Hope ”?
IMPLICIT FAITH vs EXPLICIT FAITH
Let’s return to Mr. Lofton. He continues to talk about implicit faith and explicit faith. Suarez cites St. Aquinas as his support on this, but Aquinas says that explicit faith is necessary, since pentecost:
St. Thomas, Summa Theologica:
“After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to EXPLICIT faith in the mysteries of Christ, ”
[St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 2., A. 7]
This line of thinking, of implicit faith without Sacramental Baptism, leads to the error of belonging to the “Soul of the Church” and not to the Body. This was popularized with Cardinal Newman and others of the 19th century. This idea is rampant today and is held by multitudes of “traditionalists.”
There is a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.” The “Soul of the Church” is the Holy Spirit, it lives in the Mystical Body--the Church-- It is not an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.
Two popes clarified this. Pope Leo XIII quotes Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:
“… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Spirit is her soul.’”
[Denzinger 2288]
Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body and the Soul dwells in the Body.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896:
“For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”
[The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 388]
The denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the heresy that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928; Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 64), June 29, 1943.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 64), June 29, 1943.
“From what We have thus far written and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible…”
FR. JUAN de LUGO-- father of Rahnerism
Mr. Lofton brings up Fr. Juan De Lugo, S.J., who back in 1646 was already anticipating Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christians’ theory. Is it any wonder why the Jesuits are the worst heretical community in the Church? Mr. Lofton had reservations about Bellarmine but says nothing about the radical nature of De Lugo?
De Lugo’s theory is so ludicrous, do we need to address it? He says Jews and Muslims can be saved, even though the council of Florence says the exact opposite.
Mr. Lofton says that de Lugo was never condemned, btw neither has Rahner, nor Kung for that matter.(Kung was forbidden to teach but never formally excommunicated). This is an argument from silence. But the Church through the centuries is constantly putting out fires of heresy that are immediate problems. This kind of speculation seemed harmless to most, so it never got the attention it should have.
But when the Council Fathers spoke of “Jews”, they had in mind the religious, not the ethnic. And the meaning they attached to that word was indisputably those persons who profess Judaism.
As Vatican I has declared the meaning that the Church first held must be retained:
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Canons on Faith and Reason, #3, 1870, de fide:
“If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS UNDERSTOOD and understands: let him be anathema.”
POPE PIUS IX-- INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE
It is interesting how BoDers never tire of quoting Pius IX in two cases that are a little obscure.
Even theologians of the times fought back against the false interpretation of Pius IX. Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R. at that time, wrote a lengthy defense for Pius IX and against Invincible Ignorance being salvific. [Link here]
We have dealt with this argument before in depth. [Link Here] Needless, to say Pope Pius IX holds there is salvation for the ignorant where they are, is wrong; he says that God will send “lights”--i.e. missionaries and Baptism to them. He is following what Aquinas says.:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4:
“If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”
In Singulari Quidem to the Bishops of Austria, Pius IX offers no qualifications to the phrase "except with the excuse of invincible ignorance," as he did in Singulari Quadam fifteen months earlier, and as he will do in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore seven and one-half years later. We may certainly assume that this was not an intended omission by the Holy Father. And we remind the reader again that there was no engagement here of his grace of infallibility.
BoDers almost never quote this part of the allocution.
Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem:
“For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains, ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3:2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.”
[Denzinger 1647]
Pius IX here is saying these things seem to be unclear-- HOW can God bring those outside the Church to be in it?
When Pius IX say that there is not GOOD HOPE for those dying outside the Church, He is insinuating that Divine Grace leads those outside the Church to enter the Church; but we must not presume that outsiders don’t need Sacramental Baptism or missionaries.
The error that non-Catholics can be saved by “invincible ignorance” wasn’t really a problem before the 1800's, since the teaching of Catholic Tradition that no one can be saved who is ignorant of the Gospel was quite clear and maintained by most.
But thanks to the growing modernism in the 1800’s, combined with the liberals’ hijacking of Pope Pius IX’s weak statements, the heretical theory of salvation for the invincibly ignorant exploded, and became the belief of many priests in the latter half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.
This has culminated in our situation today, with almost 100% of Catholics, even traditionalists (SSPX), believing that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. can be saved - if they are good people--i.e. Pelagianism (which Protestants accuse Catholics of--salvation by works) We can thank the heretical idea of salvation for the “invincibly ignorant” for this.
FR.FEENEY AND THE PROTOCOL LETTER 122/49
This can be a complicated topic. We are dealing with dogma, canon law, politics, moral and sacramental theology.
We have dealt with this topic in depth [Link] But let's put it into perspective. Doctrinally it is insignificant. It was a private letter from two Vatican Cardinals to an Arch-bishop in Boston.
It was never published in Acta Sanctae Sedis (AAS). On 23 May 1904 the AAS was declared an organ of the Holy See to the extent that all documents printed in it were considered "authentic and official". Thus if not found there, it was not considered official.
So we must hold that this letter, regardless of its fame, is still of a dubious nature. It was never in Latin (official language of the Church especially for official Vatican documents, before Vatican II) Karl Rahner translated it into Latin and put it in the Denzinger (conflict of interests?), which gave it a sense of “dogmatic importance”
In reality, the Letter, while it is certainly open to the ‘implicit faith’ thesis, it also remains open to the contrary ‘explicit faith’ thesis.
The expression “implicit desire for the Church” clearly does not mean the same thing as “implicit faith in Christ”.
While there may be some of the Baptized that are of good will, such as St. Josaphat of Ukraine, who said of himself that he was always Catholic, though brought up in a schismatic church.
Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St. Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923,#9:
“OUR SAINT [JOSAPHAT] WAS BORN OF SCHISMATIC PARENTS BUT WAS VALIDLY BAPTIZED AND RECEIVED THE NAME OF JOHN. FROM HIS EARLIEST YEARS HE LIVED A SAINTLY LIFE. Although he was much impressed by the splendors of the Slavic liturgy, he always sought therein first and foremost the truth and glory of God. Because of this, and not because he was impressed by arguments, EVEN AS A CHILD HE TURNED TOWARDS COMMUNION WITH THE ECUMENICAL, THAT IS, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. OF THIS CHURCH HE ALWAYS CONSIDERED HIMSELF A MEMBER BECAUSE OF THE VALID BAPTISM WHICH HE HAD RECEIVED. What is more, he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”
Pope Pius XI says here in Ecclesiam Dei that St. Josaphat was born of Eastern Schismatic parents in an area which was separated from the Chair of Peter, but Josaphat accepted the Papacy implicitly anyway. St. Josaphat was validly baptized as an infant (and thus became a Catholic). As he grew up, he attended the Eastern Schismatic Slavic liturgy with his parents, but was still a Catholic and even “saintly” according to Pope Pius XI. He was a Catholic, even though he was attending a schismatic church building, because he had not obstinately embraced the Eastern Schism by rejecting the Papacy.
His baptism as an infant made him a member of the Church (and subject to the Roman Pontiff) and he did not cease to be a member, unless he obstinately embraced schism or heresy, which he did not, even though he was attending a schismatic church with his parents. This is a precise articulation of our position on when the baptized children of heretics become schismatics and/or heretics: it is not at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace schism or heresy.
This is what could be meant by Fr. Harrison’s “desire for the Church” which may be in line with the strict understanding of the dogma.
Fr. Brian Harrison, a pontifical theologian, takes the approach that draws the line at Sacramental Baptism. [Link here] BoDers, on the other hand like Mr. Lofton, have no lines.
Fr. Harrison’s thesis is the most liberal we could accept. Saying all the Sacramentally Baptized are in some way connected to the Church, until they obstinately embrace schism/heresy.
But the Letter to Boston is usually read to mean the Church says there is salvation outside the Church.
Protocol 122/49 is not an infallible or binding teaching of the Catholic Church. Protocol 122/49 was not signed by Pope Pius XII either, and has the authority of a correspondence of two Cardinals (Marchetti-Selvaggiani who wrote the letter, and Cardinal Ottaviani who also signed it) to one archbishop-- Cushing of Boston – which is none. The letter, in fact, and to put it simply, is fraught with problems, and ambiguity. Immediately after the publication of Protocol 122/49, The Worcester Telegram Newspaper ran a typical headline:
"VATICAN RULES AGAINST HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False"
[Bro. Robert Mary, Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation, p. 21]
No defense of the Dogma was made by any American Bishop, including Fulton Sheen, who was friends with Fr. Feeney. Remember this was the time of John Kennedy running for President. American bishops have rarely had a backbone.
Feeney’s position at that time had nothing to do with BoD. That would come later. His keen mind analyzing what just took, place, in his supposed "excommunication," for proclaiming a defined dogma? Forced him to study primary sources and documents of the Church and the Fathers, he saw inconsistencies with BoD.
Fr. Feeney (and his few followers) was a modern day Athanasius-- defending Church dogma against the world. This Athanasius unfortunately was not a bishop. His power was trivial in the Church bureaucracy.
Fr. Feeney died reconciled to the Church. He was never asked to recant his position. His funeral mass was celebrated by the bishop of Worcester.
The whole fascinating story is well documented in the book by Bro. Robert Mary, “Father Feeney and The Truth About Salvation”,
Where Mr. Lofton and other BoDers go off track is saying “implicit Faith’ is enough for salvation. What Fr. Harrison (who we don’t necessarily endorse, but is at least trying to do theology--working within the framework of dogmatic teachings) is saying one needs an EXPLICIT Faith-- in the Trinity and Jesus as Lord and Savior, but an IMPLICIT desire for the Church--doing what God wills, and also Sacramental Baptism.
We will need a dogmatic council to work this out.
VATICAN II AND EENS
Many use Vatican II to say that non-Catholics can be saved. When we say non-Catholics we will limited it for now for the sake of argument to the non-sacramentally-baptized and/or without explicit Faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Let us look at the full paragraph of Vatican II :
[BTW In the footnote of this section of Vatican II, in paper book form, the letter concerning Father Feeney is appended (Protocol Letter 122/49), but minus the phrase which treats of "implicit" desire's acceptability before God. Abbot Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., in his book, The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation, comments on this deletion in the text: "The suppression of the votum implicitum is probably due to disenchantment with the term, especially since it was used indiscriminately to describe the situation of both separated Christians and the "unevangelized" in their diverse relations to the Roman Catholic Church." Furthermore, this "footnote" did not appear in the Relationes --- the reports which accompanied the official schemata. Evidently, it was added later by a peritus. Our consciences are not bound to a footnote that is not even part of the actual Constitution --- a footnote, btw, that also does not even contain the objectionable phrase which strict EENSers had as their main problem. (We are indebted to the scholarly research of Brother Thomas Mary Sennott. whose unpublished manuscript, "The Father Feeney Case", contains this revealing information.)]
Vatican II; Lumen Gentium 16:
“Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. 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.”
Draw your attention to the above quote:
"Whatever truth is found among them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel." Notice it says a preparation for the Gospel.
So, a person of good will involved in invincible ignorance can indeed be saved, but not where he is. The Council continues:
[it is to such persons that the Church] "...to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all such men... painstakingly fosters her missionary work."
So the Council is saying that these people outside the Church receive graces (Actual Grace aka Helping Grace) to follow these inspirations to the Church. They need to hear the Gospel that is why the Church works so hard at evangelization and procure their salvation!
To understand it otherwise would be to go against the WHOLE continuity of the Faith. Even the arch-liberal Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. is honest enough to admit this:
"...we have to admit...that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church.
For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already 'Christianus', and also that
certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism.
Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire. "
(Rahner, Karl, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church, Translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40,41, 57 Or. 40, 23 (PG 36, 3890), 58 'Sermo contra dilationem Baptismi' (PG 46, 424), 59 Cf. Fr. Hoffmann, Der Kirchenbegriff des hl. Augustinus (Munich 1933), pp.221 sqq., 381 sqq., 464 sqq., New York, The Seabury Press, 1975.)
Is Vatican II saying in the quotes above that there is salvation outside the Church? No, because that would be a heresy. This teaching in Vatican II must be understood in continuity of all the Church teachings something like this:
' yes, all of human history is part of God's plan, which may allow people to fall into sin and infidelity even though sin is not God's active Will he allows it and it is part of His world plan of salvation. God will save those outside the Church by their response to Actual Graces which He sends them, which leads them to the Sacrament of Baptism and membership in the Catholic Church.'
Vatican II states:
"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation (Actual Grace) to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace (Actual Grace) strive to live a good life.""
In other words:
' Those of good will by doing the best they can, by God's Providence, and by their response to the Actual Graces He sends, will be led to join his Church.'
So even though someone is not a Catholic we should treat all of them with respect and love because they are made in the image of God and God loves them and ALL having the potential, by God Providence, of entering the Church before they die, either by inspiration or receiving an Angel (Acts 10:4) or a teacher to them.(Acts 8: 26) so they may receive the Sacrament of Baptism, thus entering the Church'
Remember Sanctifying Grace is not possible for those outside the Church:
"Pope Pius XII MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI--"On the Mystical Body of Christ," 1943; #57:
"Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He [ the Holy Spirit] yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body."
And only the Baptized are members of the Church”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943; # 22:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration ( i.e. Sacrament of Baptism) and profess the true faith.”
And the Council of Trent agrees that only the Baptized are members:
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap.II:
"The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ "
The Catechism, under a topic heading, The Necessity of Baptism, teaches the following:
#1257-"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."
The Catechism is honest enough by saying:"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude." This is a fact. Our Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation(John 3:3-5). He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them (Mark 16:15,16.). Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and for those who have not heard it--both.
So there is good reasons to remain skeptical about these theories.
God has not informed us of His response in these matters. Therefore, we must believe and act only according to what we do know, with certainty. He has taught us dogmatically through His Church the necessity of Baptism:
The Council of Trent;SESSION THE SEVENTH,Canons on Baptism:
CANON II.-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.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
Any theorizing beyond certain teachings, is wrong, for we are then probing into the unrevealed realm of God's Providence and Mercy, much like the predestination controversy. That being said we are sure, absolutely sure, that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
Fr. William Jurgens a conservative who supports "Baptism of Desire," agrees with liberal Rahner that explicit membership by baptism was the unanimous agreement of the Fathers and seems a little confused as to why the excuse for ignorance was missing, but he honestly states:
“If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”---- Fr. William Jurgens (A major researcher of the Father's of the Church)-- "The Faith of the Early Fathers", Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31.
So two theologians, one an arch-liberal and the other "orthodox" conservative Catholic seem to agree the sacrament of Baptism and Church membership was considered absolute by the Church Fathers.
Another thing is that the Church has always required orthodox faith for membership and salvation:
Pope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, AD GENTES---ON THE MISSION ACTIVITY OF THE CHURCH, # 7:
"Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity."
So Vatican II, says that without Faith it is impossible to please him. Does this sound like what we usually hear about the invincibly ignorant? Is it any kind of Faith like New Agers use the word, or a concrete creed? According to scripture and tradition it is a concrete creed of all that Jesus taught.
The Athanasian Creed states:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith..."
Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum #14. May 5, 1824:
“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos #13. Aug. 15, 1832:
“With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (Athanasian Creed)."
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832:
#5."You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the apostles, martyred St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: "Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God." Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ."
Let us give the last word to this same pope and encyclical of happy memory. He shows that there was already a movement to destroy the belief in the dogma "no salvation outside the Church" that he felt compelled by passion to defend this dogma:
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio, May 27, 1832,#2, on no salvation outside the Church:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life… You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation…
Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.’ Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.’
Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you.But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”
In conclusion, “Baptism” of Desire is a cancer in the Church. While She worked to treat other more obvious ailments to the Mystical Body of Christ, BoD grew.
Brian Kelly sums up the disease in his great article : Has the Church Changed Its Teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church?
He writes:
“From one loophole, many will be spawned — salvation can be achieved from explicit baptism of desire to implicit baptism of desire,
from implicit baptism of desire to explicit rejection of Christ and baptism,
from rejection of Christ to the implicit “anonymous Christian” who espouses explicit atheism.
There you have it: inclusivity to the total exclusion of exclusivity.”
We hope this article is helpful.
