ATHANASIUS CONTRA MUNDUM

There is a blog Athanasius Contra Mundum it says

Firstly, it is an infallible doctrine of the Church that Outside the Church there is no salvation. That means to attain salvation, one must become a member of the Church, and to do this they must receive the sacrament of baptism before their death. Thus in heaven there are no protestants, there are no muslims, there are no buddhists, etc. Christ gave us one Church, and all who are incorporated into her as members are Catholic, and enter heaven as Catholics.

This is what Fr.Leonard Feeney also taught. Everyone with no exception needs the baptism of water to avoid Hell. And if there was someone who did not need the baptism of water we would not know. We know everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptims of water (Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II, CCC 1257 etc).

Then Athanasius makes the familiar U-turn.

That being said, it is also an error to say it is impossible for a buddhist, a muslim, or some other type of pagan etc. to be saved.

Is he talking about de facto salvation (baptism of desire)?

Is he talking about de jure salvation ( baptism of desire etc)?

If he means de facto, in actual reality when I meet a non Catholic and judge him as having the baptism of desire then it is obviously false and irrational. It is saying this is the general means of salvation.It means non Catholics do not have to convert then it is irrational. It is contrary to the ex cathedra dogma, it is contrary to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14), it is contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257 The Need for Baptism) and it contrary to other Church documents (Dominus Iesus 20 etc, Redemptoris Missio 55).It s contrary to rationality-how can I judge him, since only Jesus knows.
It is also interpreting Vatican Council II as opposing the extra cathedra infallble teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is saying that Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16) refers to de facto salvation.

If he means it is de jure, in principle, as a concept, in certain circumstances (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God then it is a possibility (Lumen Gentium 16).We know it is not de facto and knowable to any of us.

The title of Athanasius’ post is provocatively called : The Lunacy of Feeneyism.

Athanasius Contro Mundum quotes some of the Church Fathers and refers to the baptism of desire (implicit faith).He assumes it is all a reference to de facto salvation.

The popes who gave us the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus were also familiar with the writings of all the Church Fathers. They considered implicit faith not as referring to de facto salvation.

This is obvious from the dogma itself; everyone needs to enter the Church with no exception to avoid Hell. Everyone de facto needs to enter the Catholic Church as Athanasius himself states.

So the popes were saying that if some one is saved in certain circumstances, known only to God it would be de jure salvation.

God would make it possible for this person to be baptized and know the Catholic Faith through someone he would send or God would inspire him as said by St.Thomas Aquinas.

Since implicit faith was there in the writings of the Church Fathers and also in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office it was NOT mentioned for the first time in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and then repeated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So if Athansius interprets implicit faith (baptism of desire) and Vatican Council II as referring to de facto salvation - and so opposing the dogma we are under no obligation to follow the error.He is not contro but pro mundum.