{editor: I like Dave as a person, I think he is sincere. But I also think his loyalty is sometimes misplaced for more emotional reasons, than logical ones, like his attachment to the Development of Doctrine theory by Cardinal Newman (which we have addressed here on this blog.) He defends his friends like a bulldog, which can be a virtue, if your friends are in the right, but not if they are in the wrong.
We will attempt to address his points on EENS. His article (below) came to our attention with his recent attacks on Taylor Marshall, and his new book: Infiltration. We at CFT agree with Taylor's theses, although we haven't had a chance to read his book. Some how Taylor's book caused Dave to republish his attack of EENS.
His article will appear in brown-- in full so we can't be said to take things out of context, our response will appear in black with documentation in blue.]
Various Thoughts on Salvation “Outside” the Church
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism patheos.com
Part of my job is to convince Protestants that the fullness of Christian faith and the apostolic deposit resides uniquely in the Catholic Church. The more a Protestant knows about this, the more responsible he or she will be to make a decision pro or con. Only God can finally determine if this is willful rebellion or invincible ignorance, and who will be saved or not.
Yes God is the final judge. We don't know what transpired in a soul before death. If the person is Sacramentally Baptized all that is needed is a perfect act of contrition, just before death, if one has access to the sacraments.
But to hold out the idea that being a member of the Catholic Church is by degrees, is just not true. (see Helping Mark Shea)
It is true that invincible ignorance can excuse one from a particular sin, but it is objectively breaking the moral order, thus it will lead to other sins the same person knows is wrong.
Lets take contraception, which is not such an obvious sin for secularists. Those who use it, and are not Catholics; have no idea it is a moral evil, (many Protestants too). They are not guilty of that sin. But invincible ignorance of this sin leads to other more obvious sins, e.g. abortion as a contraceptive. Abortion is such an obvious moral evil, it is culpable knowledge of a moral evil.
Pope Paul VI points out this principle in his Encyclical:
Pope Paul VI, HUMANAE VITAE, #17, July 25, 1968
Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards.
Human beings simply don’t have that knowledge. It’s not our “game,” to figure out who is saved and who isn’t. This is the game that many Protestants play, but usually not Catholics. Only God ultimately knows who will be saved and who won’t be, so why do we spend so much time wrangling about it? It’s like the debate over predestination and free will that people endlessly carp on and on about. God knows who are His and who aren’t. He knows His sheep.
Catholic councils and authoritative magisterial statements (bishops, popes) deal with heresy, not who is saved and not saved. The two questions are quite distinct. Even if someone believes something objectively wrong (a heresy), there is a separate question of their subjective culpability in so doing, which involves a host of variables.
He is just restating his point he already made, (and I addressed above) except for one detail. He says that "who is saved and who isn’t." is not the concern of councils and popes. This is not accurate. This has been a word game for awhile, of objective, and subjective salvation. It isn't Dave's idea it has been forming for awhile.
The Church does not pronounce who is in hell as a particular person but it does teach de fide who cannot be saved:
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...”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; link: Denzinger 714]
Could there be a Protestant who is not a heretic? Doubtful, but maybe possible. In any case, they must know they need to be Catholic to be saved. How else will they know this, if no one tells them?
For example can one deny Jesus is the Son of God and be saved? Even if subjectively they may not be guilty, they will fall into sins, they know are wrong, and cannot avoid unless joined to Jesus. No Salvation Outside the Church is a dogma just like Jesus is Lord.
Do I know Protestants that seem like great people? Yes. I consider them like the Samaritans were considered by Jesus. I respect them, but seek them to be united to the Church for their salvation.
God is merciful and just, and He judges people based on what they know and what they do with true knowledge and revelation about Him: how they act upon it. For example, in every passage I have found about judgment day or the last days when all will be judged, people were judged based on what they did: not simply because they cited a “correct formula” such as “I’m saved by faith alone” or “TULIP is the gospel” or “I accepted Jesus into my heart as personal savior.”
I agree we will be judge by our works. But salvific works flow from True Faith and the Grace of God. His argument goes too far and leads to a quasi-Pelagianism. It is both and. We need Faith to resist sin and do works, worthy of salvation. John 15:5:"I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." How many Protestants keep their souls clean after Sacramental Baptism? Many if not most don't think they need to repent from sins--"Once Saved Always Saved". Protestants stress too much Faith without works and consistent repentance.
We believe that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of Christianity and that ideally all Christians should become Catholics; but it doesn’t follow that if they don’t, they are all damned, or that the Church has taught this.
Obviously he has not seriously investigated what the Church teaches on this subject or what EENSers hold:
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).
The above is a relatively recent teaching from a pope. But there is far more than that.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, de fide:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 230;link: Denzinger 430.]
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, de fide:
“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…
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.”
[link: Denzinger, 468-469.]
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, de fide:
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, OUTSIDE OF WHICH THERE IS NO SALVATION, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.]
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, de fide:
“WHOEVER WISHES TO BE SAVED, NEEDS ABOVE ALL TO HOLD THE CATHOLIC FAITH; unless each one preserves this WHOLE AND INVIOLATE, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, pp. 550-553;"Athanasian Creed" link: Denzinger 39-40.]
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.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578;link: Denzinger 714.]
Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, de fide:
“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO ONE AT ALL IS SAVED, AND THEY ALL HAVE ONE LORD AND ONE FAITH.”--Notice "one in Faith," Protestants are not one in Faith.
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.]
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Trent's Profession of Faith, Nov. 13, 1565, de fide:
“THIS TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH, OUTSIDE OF WHICH NO ONE CAN BE SAVED… I now profess and truly hold…”Link: [Denzinger 1000]
I could go on with popes encyclicals but I think the point is made: One needs to hold and profess the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate to be saved. The only exception I know of is for baptized infants. That is a whole other subject. of Limbo.
What is taught (properly understood) is that the Catholic Church is involved somehow in the salvation of every saved person. They don’t have to necessarily be aware of that, just as every person who is saved does not necessarily have to hear the gospel or know about Jesus Christ Himself. Yet if they are saved it was only because of Jesus. For instance, all who were saved before Jesus, in the old covenant, were saved by Him without yet knowing specifically about Him.
I don't think he realizes what his saying? He writes :
"They don’t have to necessarily be aware of that, just as every person who is saved does not necessarily have to hear the gospel or know about Jesus Christ Himself." But he can't be serious. I don't think he can really thinks this. I think he is holding two thoughts that contradict, and hasn't seemed to notice. Romans 10:17"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ."
ST. FELIX III, COUNCIL OF ORANGE II 529 *
Confirmed by Boniface II (against the Semipelagians) Can. 5.
If anyone says, that just as the increase [of faith] so also the beginning of faith and the very desire of credulity, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and (by which) we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism (is) not through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but is naturally in us, he is proved (to be) antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles, since blessed Paul says:We trust, that he who begins a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus[Phil. 1:6]; and the following: It was given to you for Christ not only that you may believe in Him, but also, that you may suffer for Him[Phil. 1:29]; and:By grace you are made safe through faith, and this not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God [Eph. 2:8.] For those who say that faith, by which we believe in God, is natural, declare that all those who are alien to the Catholic Church are in a measure faithful [cf. St. Augustine]. * Link: Denzinger 178]Can. 13. The restoration of free will. Freedom of will weakened in the first man cannot be repaired except through the grace of baptism; cc once it has been lost, it cannot be restored except by Him by whom it could be given. Thus Truth itself says: If the Son liberates you, then you will be truly free" [ John 8:36 ; St. Prosper]. Denzinger 186]
BTW When ancient councils refer to "the grace of baptism" it is referring to the sacrament not the grace separate from the sacrament. Moderns have separated the Grace from the Sacrament.
But the Dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great, to Flavian confirms that the Church does not hold the possibility of separating the grace from the sacrament. :
Dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo the Great, to Flavian
"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] link
St. Thomas teaches the necessity of an act of explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity, and, more generally, in the mysteries of faith. To the question of how a man can be saved if he has not been evangelized by missionaries, he replies that God sees to it by giving an interior inspiration or by sending a missionary.
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, 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]
In other words, no salvation for the invincibly ignorant and no salvation for those of non-Catholic religions.
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…”
If anyone is saved, it’ll be on the basis of God’s grace, in faith, and because of some evidence of sanctity and the good works that must follow if true saving faith is present. We don’t frown on anything true in Protestantism (and there are tons of things that are true); we simply claim that we are the Church That Christ Founded: that possesses the fullness of Christian revelation and developed theology: handed down from Jesus to the apostles.
We don't frown on what is good in Protestantism. But we do claim the Catholic Faith is the True Faith outside of which no one can be saved. Error begets error. It is hard enough to keep Catholics in the true Faith and out of mortal sin. How are we to expect that Protestants will be able to?
It isn't as though we are saying, the Catholic Creed is sufficient, but it is necessary. In addition to belief, one needs to live one's faith, free of moral sin.
Though the Modern Catholic Church has scandalized many, Protestantism has opened the world up to many extremes: contraception. usury, the Enlightenment, abortion, communism...etc...and all the problems they lead to. It doesn't happen over night. It may take a few hundred years to see the ill effects.
Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923:
“The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales… he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.”[The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 242] Link
If there were no break from the Church most of those things would have been avoided or mitigated.
One drop of error to the pure Faith is to reject all Faith:
Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum--On The Unity Of The Church
Every Revealed Truth, without Exception, Must be Accepted
9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.
The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did NOT certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it.
Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times.
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)....
"...If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. "Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all" (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."
The flip side of that is when someone truly knows that Catholicism is true (all of it: not pick and choose, cafeteria-style “Catholicism”), and rejects it, we believe that he or she cannot be saved, because they would then be responsible for knowing the truth and deliberately rejecting it.
Flip side? They both can't be true. If a person is picking and choosing as a Catholic, that person obviously doesn't believe the Church or true Faith is necessary for salvation.
As quoted above from Pope Leo, no point of the Faith can be altered without endangering salvation.
But this also applies to Protestantism.
Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors, Dec. 8, 1864
"18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church." -- Condemned-- Link
At the same time, it’s never preferable to leave someone in ignorance. It is always better to evangelize than not to, because knowing the fullness of Catholic truth is better for a person than not knowing it. God looks at the heart. He knows how folks would have responded had they known the Gospel. That’s part of His omniscience.
Not sure his point here. Ignorance does not save. So obviously we are compelled by charity to preach, there is no salvation outside the Church.
I will assume he thinks invincible ignorance can save. The document from Pope Pius IX, frequently quoted by those who believe in salvation outside the Church, is Singulari Quadem, an allocution (a speech to the cardinals) given December 9, 1854:
“....those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.”[Denzinger 1647]
First of all, this is a speech of Pope Pius IX is to cardinals. It is not a dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical addressed to the entire Church. There are levels of authority even in the magisterium. The lower must be subject to the higher and more authoritative.
But is Pope Pius IX saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the “invincibly ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity, but they will still go to Hell. Read carefully the last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN THIS MATTER,” that is, in the matter of infidelity.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or disbelief in the Gospel).[cf. link St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10., A. 1] These other sins of the unbelievers serve as the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them--they have hardened their hearts by loving sin-- and which ultimately excludes them from salvation.
If one among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with graces and the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him. Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:
“the gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light…
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.”
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.”
Thus, Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not damned for the matter of infidelity. The fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
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]
It doesn’t follow, though, that we shouldn’t evangelize. God wants us to play our part in spreading His message. He wants to include us in the whole enterprise. We’re commanded to do so. God will sort everything out in the end. Our main task is to be obedient, follow His commands, have faith, worship Him, and spread the Good News of the Gospel and the Church.
Ok. I agree, we must evangelize, but he seems to be going back and forth. It's either necessary or not.
We don’t even have to assume that anyone is “lost.” We only have to assume that it is better for them to hear the gospel and message of the fullness of Catholicism, than to not hear it. God will determine in the end who is lost and who isn’t. We don’t have to — indeed, cannot — figure it out (thank heavens!). We simply need to be obedient about proclaiming the message. We share the truth and God can use that. The “chips” will fall where they may, but we’ve done our duty and have followed God’s command.
Actually we must assume all are lost outside the Church.
Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus, Preparation For Death, (c. +1760):
“How thankful we ought to be to Jesus Christ for the gift of faith. What would have become of us if we had been born in Asia, Africa, America, or in the midst of heretics and schismatics? He who does not believe is lost. This, then, was the first and greatest grace bestowed on us: our calling to the true faith. O Savior of the world, what would become of us if Thou hadst not enlightened us? We would have been like our fathers of old, who adored animals and blocks of stone and wood: and thus we would have all perished.”
[Saint Alphonsus Maria De Liguori, Preparation for Death, unabridged version, Redemptorist Fathers: Brooklyn, NY, 1926, p. 339]
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.
So we see both are condemned- culpable and inculpable. In other words, it is proposed as de fide by Pope Pelagius that a pagan or atheist etc...ignorant of the Christian Gospel at death does not in any way diminish the certainty that he will be damned. Many miss this de fide statement, especially, Fr. Sullivan--liberal & Fr. Most --Conservative, who are held as THE authorities on this topic, which is certainly a serious flaw in their scholarship, and Dave's.
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." [Denzinger 228a]
Where it becomes wrong and “counterproductive” is where (the false kind of) “ecumenism” becomes a cover for relativism and laxity concerning evangelization and apologetics. Too often that is the case, because it is the “either/or” mentality again. It’s thought that if we look to common ground and whatever unity we can achieve, therefore, no one should defend and proclaim one position as superior to another. It’s disdained as “proselytizing.”
Common ground must be sought if we are to have a discussion. This has never been a problem. The problem is compromising the Faith--agreeing to what is false as true; or what is necessary as unnecessary.
Not sure what “proselytizing” has to do with anything? If he is using it in the pejorative meaning and thinks "proselytism" refers to attempts at conversion by unjust means that violates the conscience of the person, such as by coercion or bribery, then the Church has never taught this.
While the Church teaches that all who die as non-Catholics are lost, it also teaches that no one should be forced to embrace baptism, since belief is a free act of the will.
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (#36), Nov. 1, 1885:
“And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.’”[The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 115] Link
No! We can do both. We are commanded to do both. The Church has stressed ecumenism in recent decades, but it has also stressed side-by-side with that, the truth that there is no salvation outside the Church. Both/and. I do both things myself, all the time. I practice both ecumenism (the authentic Catholic variety, not the theologically liberal, so-called “progressive” touchy-feely gobbledygook) and I also do my apologetics and evangelism. I don’t see the slightest contradiction, if they are both rightly understood. The Church doesn’t see it, either, and I follow her model and guidance.
From many passages in the Bible (I have found fifty of this nature), we know that Jesus judges on the last day based on actions. We also know how God looks at people who have different degrees of knowledge or ignorance, from this passage:
Romans 2:6-16 For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them [16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.If we apply this passage to, for example, a Muslim, if he or she has never heard of Christianity or never had a chance to properly understand it, and lives a life pretty much according to God’s moral law, they could very well be saved in the end. If, on the other hand, they have not only heard but understood Christianity (and Catholic Christianity) and know that it is true, and reject it, then they cannot be saved. There is only an “exception clause” due to ignorance, and the causes of that are myriad. God judges people by what they know and how they act upon it, and He is completely fair and just (“no partiality”).
I think he is confused here. We are saved by GRACE not by knowledge. If we seek God, God will answer by revealing Himself. Yes we can attempt to remove obstacles to Grace but it is a Grace none the less, no matter how convincing we think our points.
There is confusion with two questions:
1.) Will a person who is invincibly ignorant of the true Faith or the Catholic Church be condemned precisely on account of that ignorance.
No one is guilty of what one does not know.
The more accurate question should be:
2.) Can a person invincibly ignorant of the True Faith, outside the Catholic Church, and living and dying, in that state, be saved?
No.
It is true, as we have seen above, they will not be condemned because of infidelity and for not joining the Catholic Church, of which they are invincibly ignorant. But faith in Christ, though an essential condition of salvation, is but one condition, others also are required. True Faith is salvific and not a burden, preaching the Gospel brings life to the dead. Dave seems to think that if they don't know, they are better off, that some how the Gospel is a burden.
And though invincible ignorance will certainly save a man from the sin of not believing; it will not give salvation. Otherwise preaching the Gospel would be a curse to a non-believer. If he could be saved by ignorance, then leave him to that. Those outside the Christian Faith abide in sin:". . . he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." [John 3: 36].
Not knowing God is not a blessing but a curse. By God's Grace he has sent us to preach-- to save those who are drowning.
"The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven, with the Angel of His power, in a flame of fire, yielding vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall suffer eternal punishment in destruction, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His power," [2 Thess. 1: 7].
Christians-- ones validly Baptized--are true members of the Church, and those who die young, in their Baptismal innocence, shall undoubtedly be saved. But as to those among them who come to the years of discretion, are educated in a false faith, and live and die in an apparent state of separation from the communion of the Catholic Church, we do not have good hope. Since, they have no access to the other sacraments and true Faith; they will fall into serious sins, without the graces given only within the Catholic Faith.
"And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, Who is the image of God, should not shine upon them," [2 Cor. 4: 2].
As I read Romans 2, it seems to me that it is a general statement. “Gentiles” pretty much covers all who were not Jews. Nowhere in the passage do I see that Paul refers to these “Gentiles” necessarily being Christians. They certainly aren’t Jews, because they are “without the law” (2:12, 14, etc.). Nor is the Church mentioned in the entire chapter.
Now, it is true that some commentators apply their predisposition in theology to the passage and interpret it accordingly: some claiming that it is impossible to be saved without literally hearing about Christ and the gospel. But most commentators hold that it is referring to pagans or heathen.
Some think God is such a Being that He would either predestine millions to hell with no choice of their own, or predestine to hell all the multiple millions who have never heard of Jesus or the gospel simply because of that fact. I don’t think the Bible reveals such a merciless, arbitrary God. I think that it teaches that those who follow their conscience according to what they know, can be saved, even if they have never heard of Jesus or Christianity.
There he goes again, with his quasi-Pelagianism. We are not saved as a RIGHT but as a gift--Grace. Our conscience will not save us, nor our good works, but the Blood of Jesus Christ, united to our works and virtues. Nothing we do has value, if it is not joined to Christ.
And we are joined to Him by Sacramental Baptism, receiving the Mark or Sacramental Seal on our souls-- making us sons of God. Thereby our souls are redeemed; our good deeds have salvific value.
Cyril of Jerusalem-- Lecture 1--Catechetical Lecture 1, #2:
"Come for the mystical Seal, that you may be easily recognised by the Master; be numbered among the holy and spiritual flock of Christ, to be set apart on His right hand, and inherit the life prepared for you. For they to whom the rough garment of their sins still clings are found on the left hand, because they came not to the grace of God which is given through Christ at the new birth of Baptism"
Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (# 43), Nov. 20, 1947:
“In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ"
We must also distinguish between the following two propositions:
A) Whoever is saved is saved by the gospel of Jesus and His death on the cross, and must, additionally, formally be a member of the Catholic Church; otherwise he or she is damned.
True and one is not a member of the Church if one is not sacramentally Baptized. As seen above the Moderns separate the Grace of Baptism from the Sacrament, but Pope Leo the Great in his Dogmatic Letter says this is not true. The Grace, the Blood, and Water Baptism are ONE.
Even though Ott held to a so called "Baptism" of Desire, he was honest enough to admit it does not make you a member of the Church.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church:
“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]
(further reading on the Baptismal Seal)
B) Whoever is saved is saved by the gospel of Jesus and His death on the cross, and also by means of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ, whether or not he or she literally hears the gospel of Jesus or about the Catholic faith, or becomes a formal member of the Catholic Church.“No salvation ‘outside’ the Catholic Church” doesn’t reduce to the scenario of A; it means B. The confusion results from not grasping the following distinction:
Untrue. This was never taught authoritatively by the Church it is the speculation of theologians--and a weak one at that.
A1) Whoever is directly affected by a particular cause must be personally aware of it.Clearly, I think, it is a general truth that we need not be aware of all causes to be affected by them. For example, our house could catch on fire while we were asleep, but rains came and put the fire out. So we were saved by the rain without being aware of it. We didn’t have to be conscious of the rain to still be saved by it. Likewise, one can be saved by the blood of Jesus without being aware of it and without ever hearing the gospel. Jesus made salvation possible. Everyone who is saved is so, because of what Jesus did.
B2) Whoever is directly affected by a particular cause can be so influenced whether or not he or she is aware of that cause.
God gives every person a conscience and a knowledge of natural theology. All truly know that there is a God (Romans 1 and 2). What they do with this innate, God-given knowledge will determine if they are saved or not. But Jesus is the cause of the salvation. So is the Catholic Church, as no one is saved without being saved through the Catholic Church, whether they know that or not. They don’t have to know it in order for this to be the case.
Again this is a word game. Not Dave's, it is an old game, mainly Jesuits and Modernists. There is a big difference between "through the Church" and being "outside the Church." One is outside if you are not sacramentally Baptized, there is no "through" without being "IN" 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.”
[Denzinger 696; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 542]
Romans 2 is the clearest biblical teaching that I am aware of, with regard to this particular aspect of someone being saved who didn’t hear the Christian message of faith. St. Thomas Aquinas makes elaborate arguments about implicit faith, invincible ignorance, and so forth. Many of the Church fathers allude to the possibility of salvation without hearing the gospel. But if a person truly knows that Catholic teaching is the truth (only God knows all these particulars), and rejects it with a full consent of the will, then they will be damned and cannot be saved. They are judged by what they truly know, and how they have acted upon that knowledge.
Also Not true. St. Aquinas did support the so called "Baptism" of Desire, but not ignorance (see above).
The Church Fathers held as a whole to the absolute necessity of Sacramental Baptism. While there may be a few who were confused on the matter, the almost unanimous teaching was, Baptism of Water was absolute-- with no exceptions:
Fr. William Jurgens --Church Fathers expert:
“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 Spirit 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.”
[Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31]
St. Paul discusses the theme of unwitting ignorance in 1 Corinthians 12:2: “You know that when you were heathen, you were led astray to dumb idols, however you may have been moved.” In writing to the Ephesians, he implies again that many pagans are more ignorant than they are willfully opposed to truth:
Ephesians 2:11-13 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands — [12] remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. [13] But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ.Unwitting ignorance is a common biblical theme. St. Peter, addressing the Jews in the temple, largely excused even the killing of Jesus in the same fashion: “now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17; cf. Jesus on the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” — Luke 23:34). In one of his own epistles, Peter likewise stated:
“As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,” (1 Peter 1:14). And again: “For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2:15). He casually mentions “the ignorant and unstable” (2 Peter 3:16).
But relentless manifested ignorance is something that should give one pause, since it can indeed lead to willful rejection of God and disobedience, as Peter argues in 2 Peter 2:10-22 (including Christians who fall away, in the last three verses). Peter refers to “reviling in matters of which they are ignorant” (2:12) and “waterless springs and mists driven by a storm” (2:17) and “men who have barely escaped from those who live in error” (2:18) and “slaves of corruption” (2:19).
St. Paul applied this state of mind or lack of knowledge to the Jews who rejected Christianity: “being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Romans 10:3). Paul even applied it to himself, referring to his earlier persecution of Christians: “I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief,” (1 Timothy 1:13). It should also be noted, however, that Paul (like Peter above) does also tie in ignorance with culpable unbelief:
Ephesians 4:17-19 Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; [18] they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; [19] they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. (cf. 2 Tim 3:1-9)I would contend that these passages are merely additional instances of the sort of statement that Paul makes in Romans 1: not intended in the first place to be absolute or universal in application. The entirety of a person’s thought must be taken into consideration before we pontificate on the meaning of one instance of it. There are indeed people who have rebelled against God, and are, therefore, hardened and given over to self-conscious wickedness. They are referred to here.
But there are others who are simply ignorant. Since Paul (like Peter) refers to both classes, we know that he acknowledges both of them, and so we can’t sensibly take a view that Paul universally blames each and every pagan as culpably wicked and worthy of hell, and that he sees no other category where pagans (or today’s atheists, by extension) are concerned.
Paul says (again writing to highly pagan-influenced Greeks) that pagans did not “know” God or “know the truth” (in other words, they were ignorant):
1 Corinthians 1:20-22 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. [22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, (cf. 1 Cor 15:34: “…For some have no knowledge of God.…”)Likewise, elsewhere, Paul writes:
Galatians 4:3-9 So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. [4] But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, [5] to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. [6] And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” [7] So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. [8] Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; [9] but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?Men do not specifically know about the gospel of Jesus Christ; God uses Paul and others to spread this good news:
1 Thessalonians 4:5 not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; (cf. James 4:17)
1 Timothy 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (cf. 4:3)
2 Timothy 2:25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, (cf. Heb 10:26)
2 Corinthians 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumph, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. (cf. 2 Pet 1:16)What formerly was mysterious has now been made known:
Ephesians 1:9 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ. (cf. 1:17-18)Lastly, it should be noted that Jesus and Paul and John all rebuke those who falsely claim to “know” God, but who don’t prove it by their deeds):
Ephesians 3:3-6 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. [4] When you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, [5] which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; [6] that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (cf. 2 Pet 1:3)
Matthew 7:21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (cf. 25:41-46)***
Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
Titus 1:15-16 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. [16] They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.
1 John 2:3-4 And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.
1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
(originally from 2012)
I don't think I will bother to respond to his personal scriptures, that he thinks supports his position. I may latter. But I think he is holding two contradictory positions and doesn't really know what the Church has taught and defined on the matter. I may return to this later.
