Saturday, March 3, 2012

IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE

The Letter from the Holy Office 1949 clearly affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation.

Objection 7

The Letter from the Holy Office in 1949 clearly rejects the Rigorist position. In fact, it issues graves warnings to those who do not submit to the Church's understanding of this doctrine, and still insist on holding to the Rigorist view. Some external commentary and the letter of the Holy Office is presented in Appendix 7. And lest those inclined to be suspicious of the Vatican would suggest that the letter was not signed by the Pope himself but rather liberal prelates in the Vatican, it should be noted that one of the signatures was Cardinal Ottaviani, himself, a champion of the Traditionalist movement.-John Pacecho

Lionel : The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 clearly affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when it directly refers to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’.

LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Here is the ‘dogma’:

(Defacto) ... 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.)

‘… none of those existing outside the Catholic Church... can have a share in life eternal... unless before death they are joined with Her... No one... can be saved, unless he (Defacto) remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
 
(Dejure) ‘… when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire…’

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members,(Defacto) and those who are united to the Church only by desire (Dejure).- Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (Emphasis added).

There can be no explicit, defacto, known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma, unless, it is made an issue and made to appear as an explicit, known exception.

The Catholic Legate uses a defacto-defacto analysis of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.If one uses the irrational defacto-defacto analysis of the above magisterial texts instead of the traditional dejure-defacto interpretation it would mean the popes contradicted themselves and that Vatican Council II contradicted a defined dogma. It would be a criticism of the infallibility of the popes ex cathedra. It would also be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction. It is also heresy to claim that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

With the defacto-dejure analysis we see that the Magisterial texts affirms the traditonal  interpretation of the Church Fathers, the saints, the popes and Councils, including Vatican Council II. This was the traditional interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
 
Here are the popes affirming the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

POPE PIUS IX (Allocution December 9th, 1854)

Pope Pius IX held the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also affirmed the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, cases of which are unknown to us and so are not explicit exceptions to the dogma.

Pope Pius IX was saying: (Defacto):'We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge…’ and (Dejure): ‘we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord...'

Defacto (explicitly) everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and de jure (in principle) and known only to God, there could be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
 
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR

(Defacto) 8. ‘… no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church – Quanto Conficamur, Pope Pius IX 1863
 
(Dejure) 7. ‘… those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments...-Quanto Conficamur

VATICAN COUNCIL II

(Defacto) ‘The Church…is necessary for salvation… faith and baptism…for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.’-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

(Dejure) ‘…those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God…’ (Lumen Gentium 16)

‘Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church…’-LG 16
 
                                                                           APPENDIX 7
 
                                                                       Father Feeney Case
In its letter to Archbishop Cushing on the Boston heresy case (the protocol to which Pope Pius XII had so carefully attended), the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that "the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church." (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.

Lionel : The dogma quoted above does not mention explicit cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Neither is it claimed that there are any defacto exceptions. This was how the Church understood the dogma for centuries.

For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church ( , in , 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15). Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of Father Feeney (DS 3870): "It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God."

Lionel : ‘Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of Father Feeney’, where is the condemnation mentioned? It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in heresy for suggesting that the dogma had defacto, explicit exceptions. The heresy of the cardinal was to suggest that Fr. Leonard Feeney and the dogma were wrong because there were explicit cases known who were saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. This was the real Boston Heresy.

Just two decades later, the Second Vatican Council further clarified the position of the Magisterium: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience- those too may achieve eternal salvation. (LG #16).

Lionel : Perhaps Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits ‘forgot’ to insert it in Vatican Council II that invincible ignorance was an explicit exception to the dogma. Or maybe they were blocked by the conservatives. The present text of LG 16 is no problem, as long as it is not assumed that invincible ignorance is an explicit exception to the dogma.

It is interesting to note that the footnote for this very paragraph from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church refers to the protocol condemning the Boston heresy, which certainly lays to rest the popular claim among contemporary Feeneyites that the Protocol was simply a letter from one church bureaucrat to another with no particular force behind it.

Lionel : Again, where is the ‘condemnation’ mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ? Fr. Leonard Feeney affirmed the dogma mentioned above, so how could he be in heresy? The dogma does not mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

In regard to the damnation of infants, tragically, Feeney cited a text of Pius IX (quoted below) saying that no one goes to hell without grave voluntary sin - babies of course have no voluntary sin. Feeney actually ridiculed the text of Pius IX and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"

Lionel : The International Theological Commission has said clearly that they do not know the fate of infants. They can only hope that infants will be saved. They have not ruled out Limbo. So there is no dogmatic statement on this issue either way.

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus refers to adults going to Hell who do not convert into the Church. Millions of non Catholics who do not die as Catholics, according to the dogma ,mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, are oriented to the fires of Hell. So this was not just Fr. Leonard Feeney’s rigorist interpretation it is a dogmatic teaching in the Catholic Church.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston 8 August 1949: DS 3866-72

THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office/August 8, 1949/Protocol Number 122/49.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside Church there is no salvation."

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their Opinions and complaints and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from, the fact that the axiom: "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.
 
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are propose by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792). Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.
 
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority' of the Church.(Emphasis added)

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt., 28:19-20).
 
Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Lionel : ‘Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, ..’ Yes and these cases will be judged only by God. We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance as opposed to those condemned who ‘know’.

The dogma says all need to enter the Church for salvation and not just those who 'know'. Neither does the dogma mention that those who do not ‘know’ (invincible ignorance) are de facto exceptions.

If the Letter assumes that those who are in invincible ignorance are de facto known and so are exceptions this would be an objective error of the cardinals who issued the Letter.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but also decreed the Church to he a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory. In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, ~o7).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes will to be conformed to the will of God.

Lionel : The Letter affirms the possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire. We know that the baptism of desire is unknown to us and so it is not an explicit exception to the dogma as it was assumed by the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits. This was the Richard Cushing Error; explicitly–known baptism of desire.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, "On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ" (AAS, Vol. 35, an. '943, p. i93ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as albers, and those who are united to the Church only by desire. Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, same August Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" AAS, loc. cit., 243).

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution "Singulari quadam," in Denzinger, nn. 1641, ff. also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter Quanto conficiamur moerore" in Denzinger, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Hebrew 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap 8): Faith is the beginning of a man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 80l).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical "From the Housetops," fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

Lionel : He is referring to an article by Raymond Karam. Neither did Raymond Karam, the Archbishop of Boston or the cardinals at the Holy See publicly make the defacto-dejure distinction, so they could have all been talking across to each other, in confusion. The Archbishop was using a defacto-defacto analysis. This was contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts, 20:28).

Lionel : This passage is unclear.

If the cardinals are saying that every one needs to enter the Church and there are no exceptions to the dogma then this is the teaching of the Magisterium and Fr.Leonard Feeney. ‘those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church’. This was the teaching of St. Benedict Center. It is also the centuries old interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation.

If the cardinals are assuming that the baptism of desire was known in particular cases and so was a defacto, explicit exception to the dogma this was an objective error. We do not know any such case.

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of Canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Lionel : It is true that Fr. Leonard Feeney was disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston. He refused a transfer, he refused to go to Rome to defend himself and he refused to accept the Archbishop’s heresy of there being defacto exceptions to the defined dogma.

He believed that since he held the traditional interpretation of the dogma, the interpretation of the popes and saints, he could not be wrong.

Now after some 60-plus years we know that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It was not even an issue relative to the dogma until the Archbishop and the Jesuits made it one.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religions, a priest and an ordinary member of the Church.

Lionel : Here is criticism of Fr. Leonard Feeney. It is unclear if the cardinals too like the Archbishop of Boston assumed that the baptism of desire was defacto known and so was an exception to the dogma.

In principle the baptism of desire is accepted. It is possible that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire. So de jure we accept the baptism of desire. In reality (defacto) we can never ever know a single such case saved in Heaven. So it is a non issue relative to the dogma.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church Authority; called the "imprimatur," which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Lionel :  The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing was not in a position to given an Imprimatur. He held the heretical position that there were explicit cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and so these were defacto exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He also did not issue a clarification when Boston’s Jewish Left newspapers reported that the Catholic Church had changed its interpretation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He also removed Fr. Leonard Feeney’s priestly faculties when he knew that the priest had the same interpretation of the dogma as the Church Councils who defined it.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them applies without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

Lionel : ‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’ The Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits held the position that there were some people on earth who did not have to submit to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff. They would be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. They were explicit exceptions. On this point the Letter could be a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston who was responsible for the Boston Heresy. The error of Cushingism has spread throughout the Catholic Church.

-Lionel Andrades

ALL THE CATECHISMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THE RIGORIST VIEW OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Objection 4

No Catholic Catechism has ever taught the Rigorist view. In fact, three major catechisms of the Church clearly affirm that salvation is not restricted to formal membership. See Appendix 4 for the evidence from the Catechism of St. Pius X, The Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the recent Catechism.-John Pachecho.

                              
                                 APPENDIX 4

Catechisms

Catechism of the Council of Trent (1)  
Lionel: The above passage refers to those who who can be saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogmatic teaching in the Catechism that every one needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation. Since we do not know any case in particular of a person saved with the baptism of desire.


We accept as a possibility that a person can be saved with the baptism of desire. However we do not claim to know any such case which would contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation.


Pope St. Pius X Catechism (2)
Lionel: Q.132. Here the Catechism of St. Pius X affirms the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation when it states ‘outside one does not have either the means which have been established or the secure guidance which has been set up for eternal salvation’.

Question 280 (3)

Lionel:Q 280: ‘Without Baptism no one can be saved.’ Defacto every one needs the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, for salvation. This is the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by the Church Councils, the popes, the saints, Vatican Council , magisterial documents after Vatican Council II and Fr.Leonard Feeney.


Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC 846 (4)

Lionel: The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus just as the other Catechisms before Vatican Council II.


CCC 846 also says:
Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
There can be those saved who have received the baptism of water with Catholic Faith and there are those who are saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc.

Those who are saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the teaching in CCC 846 that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

So CCC 846 still teaches the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

CCC 846 affirms the dogma : (4)
CCC 846 repeats Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. They all need to enter the Church ‘as through a door’. As through a door was term used by the Church Fathers for outside the church no salvation.

CCC 847 (6) - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church...(LG 16) 
Lionel: Those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and his Church will be judged by God only and only God will know these cases. We do not know who they are in particular. So CCC 847 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need convert into the Church.

The Catechism also mentions the person ‘ who finds himself outside without fault of his own’. That such a person can receive salvation is accepted in principle. The Catechism does not say that we know these cases or that they are exceptions to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades
____________________________________
1.
"It was ordered by the Council of Trent, edited under St. Charles Borromeo, and published by decree of Pope St. Pius V (1566). Pope Leo XIII recommended two books for all seminarians: St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica and The Catechism of the Council of Trent…Question 132 - Will a person outside the Church be saved? It is a most serious loss to be outside the Church, because outside one does not have either the means which have been established or the secure guidance which has been set up for eternal salvation, which is the one thing truly necessary for man. A PERSON OUTSIDE THE CHURCH BY HIS OWN FAULT, AND WHO DIES WITHOUT PERFECT CONTRITION, WILL NOT BE SAVED. BUT HE WHO FINDS HIMSELF OUTSIDE WITHOUT FAULT OF HIS OWN, AND WHO LIVES A GOOD LIFE, CAN BE SAVED BY THE LOVE CALLED CHARITY, WHICH UNITES UNTO GOD, AND IN A SPIRITUAL WAY ALSO TO THE CHURCH, THAT IS, TO THE SOUL OF THE CHURCH.

2.
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

3.
Question 280 - If Baptism is necessary for all men, is no one saved without Baptism? - Without Baptism no one can be saved. HOWEVER, WHEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECEIVE BAPTISM OF WATER, THE BAPTISM OF BLOOD SUFFICES, THAT IS, MARTYRDOM SUFFERED FOR JESUS CHRIST; AND ALSO THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE SUFFICES, which is the love of God by charity, desiring to make use of the means of salvation instituted by God.
4.
Outside the Church there is no salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through

5.
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

6.
CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. (LG 16)