There is a systematic campaign in the media that gives false information on the Catholic ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation).
An appeal is made to the Thomas More Law Centre to take up this issue with the particular newspaper/website/TV and radio station.
There is freedom of expression in the USA. Howver a magazine cannot provide factually wrong information. Neither can they claim that it is the official teaching of the Church or that the information says something which it dos not. This falsehood can be verified objectively in the case of the Catholic ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is the ex cathedra dogma which 1) the media never claims is ex cathedra o 2) that it indicates everyone must be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell 3) and that Hell has fire which burns.
1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex cathedra.
2.“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.).Ex cathedra.
3.“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.) Ex cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS
Concerned Catholics are not asking for a religious interpretation of the dogma, since the Church has already given it. They would like to know if the dogma per se says all people need to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and so the secular media are wrong in their interpretations?
Secondly, the dogma’s contents are being misreported and Church Documents are being cited as being in accord with the distorted interpretation.
Then the media suggests that this distorted personal interpretation is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
For example Trinity Communications (Jeffrey A. Mirus, Ph.D., Trinity Communications, Trinity Consulting, Fax 703-636-7654,
jmirus@trincomm.org ) has placed a propaganda-piece on the Internet titled:
Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney by Fr.William Most.
It quotes Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) Vatican Council II. Then it suggests that LG 16 refers to explicit baptism of desire. So this message is that there are exceptions in reality to the ex cathedra dogma teaching. Yet the baptism of desire is always implicit for us since it is known only to God. We do not know of a single case in the present times or the last 100 years.
This report says that this teaching is approved by ‘official texts’ when the ‘official texts’ are an interpretation of Fr. William Most and Mr. Jeffrey A. Mirus. There is no official document which says that explicit baptism of water is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
Similarly Pope Pius IX is cited suggesting the pope rejected what the media terms ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma.
Pope Pius IX, (1863: DS 2866): "God...in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who are obstinately separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."
Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the archbishop of Boston indicated that all Jews in Boston are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church before they die. Pope Pius referred to this traditional teaching in the Letter when he called ‘the dogma’ the ‘infallible teaching’.
Like Pope Pius IX he acknowledged that ‘in certain circumstances’ a person can be saved with a genuine longing or in ignorance. This would be known to God only since this grace is given ‘in certain circumstances’. So for us this is hypothetical, a probability and not an actuality known in reality to anyone of us.
Yet Trinity Communications’ Jeffrey Mirus places ‘all people needing to enter the Catholic Church with no exception to avoid Hell in opposition to the belief that ‘non Catholics can be saved with the baptism of water or invincible ignorance etc’.
Yet we can also believe in the past that everyone needs Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions and if there is anyone with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience it will be known only to God. No Magisterial Document says that we must say everyone needs to enter the Church EXCEPT for those in invincible ignorance etc’ to mean that the latter refers to explicit baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience.
As mentioned in a earlier post ‘The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians’. Religious freedom for Catholics means freedom from calculated Misinformation. It has become propaganda against the teachings of the Catholic Church in the secular media.
The Oct.13, 1952 the U.S magazine
Times had a report
Religion: I Preach Hatred. It said the Archbishop of Boston suspended the Jesuit priest ( Fr.Leonard Feeney) because 'he took literally the Catholic doctrine that “outside the church there is no salvation” i.e. insisting that everyone who is not a good Catholic will go to hell...'
This is what the dogma actually says and it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.The Times report is a misrepresentation of the Catholic faith and an injustice to Catholics in general and many persons in particular.Times does not have the right to spread false information about the Catholic Church.
Yet this is also being done by the rest of the media in the USA and not only Times. They are using the media to create confusion.Catholics assume that this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Thomas More Law Center could ask a Judge if the dogma says everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell?
Jeffrey Mirus' Trinity Communications has placed this false information on the Internet and it needs to be legally checked.
TRAGIC ERRORS OF LEONARD FEENEY by Fr. William Most
What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell.
Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus.
Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance.(Trinity Communications).
Vatican Council II supports the ' rigorist interpretation' of the dogma yet this is not reported.Here is Ad Gentes 7 with the same message.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
The secular media never quotes Ad Gentes 7. The interpretation of Vatican Council II in the secular media, Catholics believe is the official teaching of the Church,even though there is no text in Vatican Council II which supports this interpretation.
The secular media interpretation of Vatican Council II also indicates that Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) contradicts the infallible teaching when in reality LG 16 supports it.
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.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II.
We do not know any case of explicit Baptism of desire. Only God can judge.So why has implicit Baptism of Desire to be placed in opposition, as an exception, to everyone needing Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water, with no exceptions for salvation? There is no Catholic Magisterial document which recommends it.
Everyone with no exception needs to be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hel and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire, invincible ignorance or a good conscience, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) it will be known only to God.
This interpretation of Vatican Council II is in accord with the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and other Church Documents (Dominus Iesus 20, CDF, Notification, Fr.Dupuis S.J, 2001, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc)
The media reports say that in the Letter Pope Pius XII indicated that everyone does not need to be a formal, visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell. This is false propaganda repeated again and again. It is also a misrepresentation and misreporting of the ex cathedra Catholic teaching.
The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston states:
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 Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church…-Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (Emphasis added)
Pope Pius XII was referring to the ex cathedra dogma which indicated that
all Jews in Boston are on the way to Hell unless before they die they enter the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XII was affirming the very teaching of Fr. Leonard Feeney so how can the Jewish Left media keep repeating that the Letter of the Holy Office contradicted Fr. Leonard Feeney.
Another falsehood that is not checked legally by Catholics is the claim that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Ottaviani during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII indicated that a person could be saved with the Baptism of desire. Hence the claim is made that Fr. Leonard Feeney and so the ex cathedra dogma is wrong since it says everyone with no exception needs to be a formal member of the Church with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water.
We know that the Catholic Church has always accepted implicit Baptism of desire and the possibility of someone being saved in this condition ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and which is known only to God. So if someone has been given this grace it does not conflict with the infallible teaching that everyone on earth needs to enter the Church with no exception.
So even Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II was referring to an implicit baptism of desire or invincible ignornance and so LG 16 does not contradict the infallible teaching.
Secondly there is no such thing as an explicit Baptism of Desire as some reports suggest. We cannot see a Baptism of desire as we can see the Baptism of water. We cannot judge if someone has the Baptism of desire. We do not know explicitly or even implicitly (in principle) if there is a baptism of desire in the present times or over the last 100 years. All we have is a concept of the Baptism of desire. We accept it as something hypothetical, probable and known only to God.
Even the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney in New Hampshire, USA reject explicit and implicit baptism of desire. However this community, the St. Benedict Centre on its website Catholicsm.org has placed a definition of the Baptism of desire which is acceptable to them (and yet the media claim that they and Fr. Leonard Feeney are in heresy)
So can the Thomas More Law Centre ask the magazine
Times how can it say in its Oct.13, 1952
Times report
Religion: I Preach Hatred that the Archbishop of Boston suspended the Jesuit priest because 'he took literally the Catholic doctrine that “outside the church there is no salvation” i.e. insisting that everyone who is not a good Catholic will go to hell...'. This Times-CNN report has been available today on the Internet even though it originated in the 1950s. Hence this is calculated propaganda to mislead Catholics.
This is what the dogma actually says per se and it is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The Times report is a misrepresentation of the Catholic faith and an injustice to Catholics in general and many persons in particular. Times does not have the right to spread false information about the Catholic Church.
Can the St. Thomas More Law Centre ask a Judge if the dogma per se says everyone with no exception needs to enter the Church to avoid Hell?
Jeffrey Mirus' Trinity Communications has placed this false information on the Internet and it needs to be legally checked. He implies that Fr.Leonard Feeney created a new doctrine and that the dogma says otherwise.The report also refers to official church teachings without mentioning that they are interpreted according to Mirus or someone elses interpretation. There is no official Magisterium teaching to support them.
The disinformation continues on the Internet against Catholic teaching. Access extra ecclesiam nulla salus on the Internet and Wikipedia gives you this:
The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned.
Can the St. Thomas More Law Centre take up this case on an individual basis against the different newspapers or online websites which carry this disinformation campaign against the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching?
Do not Catholics have the right to have the truth of their Catholic teachings expressed on the media and not fed someone’s personal interpretation of what they should believe?
Mr.Lionel Andrades
E-mail:
lionelandrades10@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
24 Frank Lloyd Wright Drive
P.O. Box 393
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Telephone: (734) 827-2001
Facsimile: (734) 930-7160
E-mail:
info@thomasmore.org
______________________________________________________________________________
New Ideas on the Church and Salvation
by Brother André Marie August 13th, 2010
Dr. Jeffrey A. Mirus, of Catholicculture.org, has authored three commentaries on that site concerning the doctrine no salvation outside the Church: 1) Salvation for Non-Catholics: Not a New Idea, 2) Sound Off! Comments on Salvation for Non-Catholics, and 3) Salvation for Non-Catholics and Limbo. If all one had ever read on this issue were Dr. Mirus’ work, he would not know that there exist three infallible pronouncements on the issue (one of Lateran Council IV, one of Boniface VIII, and one of the Council of Florence). Nor would one possibly be left with the impression that, as the last of those infallible definitions states, “those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock…”. One cannot always cite every source germane to a matter of dogmatic theology in three short articles, but to leave readers without a clue of these authoritative teachings is to ignore too much.
The arguments the good Doctor uses are striking for their inapplicable proof-texting, disregard of relevant magisterial pronouncements, weak arguments from analogy, sentimentalism, and sacrificing the objective truth in favor of subjective conditions that are inherently unknowable. With these, Dr. Mirus passes off a theological paradigm shift away from perennial (and binding) magisterial teaching in favor of its very opposite.
The first of the three articles is my interest here. The major thrust of Salvation for Non-Catholics: Not a New Idea, is that St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans and the Fathers of Vatican II in Dei Verbum all teach that non-Catholics and non-Christians can be saved without conversion to the true Faith. The text from Dei Verbum says nothing of the sort, and neither does the passage cited from St. Paul.
Here is the Vatican II passage exactly as Dr. Mirus cites it:
God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after the fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7).
As a result of God’s care for the human race, what did He do? Among other things, He gave us divine revelation, which is the subject of Dei Verbum, so that we could have faith and thereby have eternal life. Nowhere in the text cited or the larger context do the Fathers “[assert] the possibility for salvation for non-Catholics and even for non-Christians,” as Dr. Mirus gratuitously claims they do. Nowhere does the document say, as Dr. Mirus asserts, that “those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation” need not Christian Faith or Catholic sacraments for salvation. This reduces to a “works only” salvation; the good work of searching is now the unum necessarium.
At the end of the passage of Dei Verbum, the document references Romans 2:6-7. Dr. Mirus says this citation is the main reason he quoted Dei Verbum, for it was St. Paul who asserted this notion that Christian Faith is not necessary for salvation:
For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. (Rom 2:6-8) (portion cited by the Council in italics) [All this is exactly as it appears in Dr. Mirus' column.]
Dr. Mirus then quotes a much longer passage from Romans (2:8-16), after which he immediately declares this startling non-sequitur: “It is not at all a new idea, then, that salvation is possible to those who do not know Christ or His Church.” This is not the first time someone has attempted to use St. Paul’s words to the Romans to this effect. Father Brian Harrison, in an excellent paper entitled, “Can an ‘Implicit Faith’ in Christ Be Sufficient for Salvation?,” explains that Romans in no way speaks of salvation for non-Christians:
It is true that in Romans 2: 6-8 and 13-15 the Apostle speaks of the possibility of gentiles who have lived “without the law” being “justified” by following the natural law “engraved in their hearts,” since, as he says, it is “not the hearers, but the doers of the law, who will be justified” (v. 13). However, St. Paul has in mind here not the contrast between those who have and those who have not yet heard the Gospel of Christ, but rather, the contrast between Jews, who have received the Law of Moses, and gentiles who have not. Moreover, keeping the law has to do with charity (good works flowing from love of God and neighbor) as a requirement for salvation, rather than the prior requirement of faith. It is obvious that Paul cannot be understood to be contradicting here the teaching he emphasises so strongly elsewhere, namely, that justification is not a reward for previously having kept the Law, but always has been, and always will be, an unmerited gift for which the primordial condition is faith in God’s revealed Word. So this passage of Romans by no means proves that those gentiles living after the coming of Christ can be saved if they die in ignorance of him. It would seem to mean nothing more than that gentiles (i.e., non-Jews) living either before or after Christ can die with the virtues of faith and charity, and if so will be saved on Judgment Day, even if they have never been catechized with the written law of the Decalogue.
I will go out on a limb and say that none of the Fathers or Doctors of the Church who commented on the book of Romans saw in it what Dr. Mirus does, namely, the idea that “salvation is possible to those who do not know Christ or His Church.” I say this “idea” that Dr. Mirus claims is “not new” is indeed new, that it did not enter theological discourse until the sixteenth century, and not with the sanction of the magisterium. Further, it contradicts the clear content of the infallible pronouncements cited above.
According to Rev. Sebastian Bullough, O.P., M.A., S.T.L, the “main theme” of Romans is this: “The Gospel is the power of God unto everyone (inculcating the universality of Redemption) that believeth (since it is through Faith that we can benefit by the Redemption), to the Jew first (since the Jews received the revelation) and to the Greek (i.e., the Gentile world, to whom Redemption is open equally).” (Saint Paul and Apostolic Writings, p. 134, emphasis and parenthesis in original.) Romans 2:6-7 does not exempt anyone, neither Jew nor Gentile, from the necessity of Faith.
In fact, elsewhere in his inspired corpus, St. Paul says of his contemporaries, the Jews who rejected Christ, that “to this present day a veil (over their hearts) remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away. . . . [W]henever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed” (2 Cor 3: 14-16). In the next chapter, he declares that “even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing” (4: 3). Thrice the Apostle says, “The just man liveth by faith” (Rom. 1:7, Gal. 3:11, and Heb. 10:38, all citing Habacuc 2:4). In Hebrews, he declares that “Without faith is is impossible to please God” (11:6). Vatican I cites this passage in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, leaving no doubt that the “faith” spoken of by St. Paul is identical to that “divine and catholic faith” which is the subject of the constitution.
Regardless of St. Paul’s insistence on the necessity of Faith, Dr. Mirus suggests that the Apostle’s rebuke of presumptuous Jews is applicable to Catholics who insist on the necessity of Faith:
The Conciliar reference, again, is to Romans 2:6-7. St. Paul is rebuking Jews who think they will be saved by the Law while those without the Law will, by that fact alone, be damned. This is very similar to the case of those who trust in juridical (external) membership in the Church, as if all formal members are pleasing to God and all those beyond the bounds of formal membership are reprobate.
So much is wrong with this passage. In the Old Testament, the Mosaic Law was not necessary for salvation (except negatively, inasmuch as it bound those who were under its covenant). St. Paul, in fact, consistently points out its inadequacy for salvation. To do this, he cites the example of Abraham (Gal. 3), who, before he was circumcised, was reckoned “a just man” because he lived by faith. It is a very weak analogy to liken Catholics, who have something universally necessary for salvation (faith in Christ), to Old Testament Jews, whose boast was something not universally necessary. Further, Dr. Mirus would seem to be saying that those who hold that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church are guilty of a sort of pharisaic legalism for boasting of their “juridical (external) membership in the Church, as if all formal members are pleasing to God …”. Since when is membership in the Mystical Body of Christ according to the requisites classically enumerated by St. Robert Bellarmine (faith, baptism, and adherence to the lawful government of the Church) something merely “juridical” and “external”? Those who hold the “strict interpretation” of extra ecclesiam nulla salus are also generally desirous of their neighbor’s conversion, not complacent that they are better off. None that I know are presumptuous enough to think that all “formal members” of the Church are pleasing to God.
This is a classic straw man argument, built on a weak analogy, and resting on a seriously flawed reading of St. Paul. (Catholicism.org)
______________________________________________________________________________
Psychology and Salvation
by Brother André Marie August 17th, 2010
In
New Ideas on the Church and Salvation, I addressed the positions taken by Dr. Jeffrey Mirus in his piece,
Salvation for Non-Catholics: Not a New Idea. Here, I will make some observations concerning the first of his two follow-ups:
Sound Off! Comments on Salvation for Non-Catholics.
Dr. Mirus proffers the opinion that, to be damned for their unbelief, not only do people need to have heard the teachings of Jesus and the Church, they must have been convinced of them. Without such a conviction, the person left “in darkness” (Dr. Mirus’ phrase) is not culpable and, therefore, is — we are left to conclude — on the path of salvation. After making this point, the good Doctor declares, quite truly: “We are lost in the depths of human psychology here.”
Exactly. And human psychology is not dogmatic. So let us remain on the terra firma of revealed truth so that we don’t get “lost” in those depths.
It is true that one will not be damned for rejecting a Gospel he never heard preached in the first place. It is also true that, “without Faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). Dr. Mirus simply disregards the doctrine of Original Sin. His unstated first premise seems to be that man comes into this world with a “default setting” of “saved,” and can only jeopardize that by some explicit, knowing rejection of the divine law. But man comes into this world with a different “default setting”: damned. To be delivered from that, the free and unmerited grace of Jesus Christ is necessary.
There is a place in the sacred sciences for human psychology; it is moral theology, which studies the the law of God as it binds us to do the good and avoid the evil. Within that study, there are subjective considerations involving the individual conscience, moral imputability, formal and material sin, etc. And that study does cross over into the dogmatic considerations of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, at least in this regard: someone who refuses to convert, knowing full well the veracity of the Catholic Church, is far worse off than one who has never heard of the Church before. For, in addition to having Original Sin on his soul, he also has the actual sin of rejecting the known truth. However, to establish that the former is worse off does not prove that the latter is saved without Faith.
Justification is necessary for salvation; Faith is necessary for justification. This is dogma. 1
How did St. Thomas approach this question of the fellow who has not heard the faith preached? First, let’s see what he says about the necessity of Faith:
“After grace had been revealed both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation.” (Summa Theologica , II-II, Q. 2, a. 7.) And also: “…once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.” (Q. 2, a. 7.)
Addressing himself to those who have not heard the Gospel, St. Thomas makes it clear that they cannot be saved in that state, and not because they rejected a Gospel they never heard, but for quite other reasons:
“If we consider unbelief as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character of punishment, not of sin, because such ignorance is a result of the sin of our first parents. When such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, not because of their sin of unbelief.” (II-II, Q.10, a.1.)
We cannot leave sin — neither actual nor original — out of the question. Which brings us to Dr. Mirus’ next piece, the one on Limbo.
We will save that for next time.
Proofs:
Necessity of Justification. The sixth session of the Council of Trent gives us the celebrated decree on Justification, which defines justification as: “a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior” (Session 6, Chapter IV, Decree Concerning Justification). Elsewhere (Chapter VII) that same Decree says that justification “is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.” Mere “children of Adam” are not heirs to Heaven. God’s “enemies” are not saved. They have Original Sin on their souls. (To deny this is Pelagian.) In order to be delivered from that sad condition, to be made God’s “friends” and “sons,” members of our race need the grace of justification, for which Faith is necessary.
Necessity of Faith. Against the Protestant heresy, the Council of Trent stated that Faith is not the only thing necessary for justification, but it is indeed necessary: “But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons;…” (Session 6, Chapter VIII, Decree Concerning Justification). ↩
(Catholicsm.org)
______________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Mirus Uses Vatican II and Saint Paul to Contradict Defined Dogma on Salvation
by Brian Kelly August 06th, 2010
I wonder sometimes why conservative Catholic thinkers like Dr. Mirus find the literal sense of the dogma, No Salvation Outside the Church, so distasteful. They have no problem giving an “uncertain sound” on their trumpets by giving non-Catholics a hope for salvation where they are: outside the Church. And they call this “charity.” Charity rejoices in the truth, Saint Paul teaches, and what Jeff Mirus has written in his column for today is not the truth. It is an affront to charity. For now, my refutation will be to post the teaching of an infallible doctrinal council (Vatican II, as every theologian knows, and several popes have affirmed, was not a defining council). The reader can easily see that what Mirus alleges to be the teaching of Vatican II contradicts the teaching of the Council of Florence and Eugene IV’s bull Cantate Domino, which was issued during the council in 1441.
“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.”
Catholic Culture reports: The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) cites St. Paul’s letter to the Romans when it asserts the possibility for salvation for non-Catholics and even for non-Christians. The assertion is made in the process of explaining the stages of Revelation. I’ve argued many times that this possibility has always been held by the Church. Indeed, the Letter to the Romans shows that a proper understanding of the question was already outlined in Sacred Scripture itself. (Catholicism.org)
____________________________________________________________________________
Posts
