Jeff Mirus continues to place Baptism of desire as opposed to the dogma which says that everyone needs to be a visible and formal member of the Church. He is unable to interpret Vatican Council II as saying that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church to avoid Hell and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God.
We have no problem with Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) as long as he does not assume that we could know of any case of explicit baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. So if Lumen Gentium 16 refers always to implicit Baptism of Desire it does not contradict the infallible teaching which says everyone must be a formal member of the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to avoid Hell (Ex cathedra Cantate Domini, Council of Florence 1441, Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II).
So when Pope Pius XII, as Mirus says ‘in his great encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, explained that those outside the visible structure of the Church can “have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” by means of “an unconscious desire and longing” pope Pius XII was not contradicting himself in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which referred to ‘the dogma’ , the ‘infallible’ teaching ; that taught that everyone needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.
Similarly St. Thomas Aquinas taught the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,i.e de facto everyone needs to enter the Church for salvation and yet he also mentioned in principle(de jure) the case of the man in the forest in invincible ignorance who could be saved. There was no conflict.
There is no Church Document which refers to those saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as referring to ‘substantial membership in the church’ as Jeff Mirus would like to believe, which could replace, formal membership.
Here is the actual ex cathedra dogma referred to by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 and which Fr.Leonard Feeney affirmed.
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 http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
The ex cathedra teaching says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church.
...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, 302.). Ex Cathedra
...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…
..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
Jeff Mirus denies the above infallible teaching which says everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church with no exception. It is an error to place the belief in the dogma that everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church in opposition to those being saved with invincible ignorance and baptism of desire.
It is also mixing up Lumen Gentium 16 with Ad Gentes 7 as if they are opposed to each other.
It is correct to say all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water to go to Heaven (Ad Gentes 7) and if there is anyone in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) it will be known to God only and he will provide the helps necessary for salvation.
Catholic Culture and the Jewish Left media repeat a heresy.
If we interpret Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) as refering to explicit baptism of desire and so contradicting the dogma, then we need to observe that it is always explicit only for God. There is no explicit, external Baptism of Desire that we can humanly know of. So LG 16 always refers to implicit Baptism of Desire, ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and so is known only to God. Baptism of desire is only a concept for us and so in this sense it is implicit.So it does not contradict the infallible teaching which says everyone needs to be a visible, formal member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
We cannot place LG 16 against AG 7 since we do not know any case of the Baptism of Desire or invincible ignorance.
So when Jeff Mirus says non Catholics need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation except for those…it does not make sense since explicitly or implicitly we do not know any particular case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. Neither can we know whom Jesus will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgment.
To repeat the above confused statement would also be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is opposed to an infallible teaching which for centuries said everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. It is rejecting the dogma of the infallibility of the pope ex cathedra.
So it makes sense to say: everyone needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church with no exceptions and if there is anyone with the Baptism of desire or invincible ignorance it will be known only to God.
The ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in accord with Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16, Ad Gentes 7), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (N.845,1257) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Salvation for Non-Catholics and Limbo
By Dr. Jeff Mirus
August 11, 2010 12:55 PM
Continuing my survey of Sound Off! comments on Salvation for Non-Catholics: Not a New Idea, I see that Laudeturjc1162 notes a similarity in this discussion with the problems surrounding the salvation of unbaptized infants and the theory of limbo. This is worth pursuing.
In this context, limbo is a state of natural happiness for unbaptized infants who cannot be guilty of personal sin. The theory is that since the human person lacks the supernatural capacity to enjoy God before he is baptized, and since infants and very young children cannot receive this supernatural gift through baptism of desire, then after death they must enjoy a maximum of natural happiness, but not the vision of God—hence limbo. Although this has been a widespread idea in Catholic circles for a long time, it has never attained any official status; at best it was a common theological opinion.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not offer the theory of limbo; instead, it sugggests that we may hope that God has a way we do not know to “let the children come to me” (see #1261; cf. Mt 19:14). Similarly, the most recent major Vatican study of the the question of salvation for unbaptized infants (the 2007 document issued by the International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized) concludes that there are good grounds for abandoning the concept of limbo.
This is highly relevant not because we know the answer, but precisely because we do not know exactly how salvation works for unbaptized infants. The situation is similar in some ways to the question of salvation for adults outside the visible borders and sacramental structure of the Church, but there are some differences. When I refer to infants and adults, of course, I really mean all those who are incapable of personal sin on the one hand and all those who have matured sufficiently to sin personally on the other. Indeed, this is the first difference: Since no rational adult can claim innocence, there is no need to worry about the fate of rational adults who are completely guiltless. That, if you will, is the dark side of this question.
On the bright side, however, such adults can do more than sin; they can also desire God, and the Church does officially teach a way of salvation for adults outside the visible structure of the Church. This way is often called baptism by desire. Thus Pius XII, in his great encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, explained that those outside the visible structure of the Church can “have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer” by means of “an unconscious desire and longing” (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) (#103). It is this teaching that has led theologians to examine the possibility of “substantial” membership in the Church even where “formal” membership is lacking. (There is also, of course, baptism by blood—martyrdom—but that applies only to believing Christians who are killed for their faith before being baptized.)
The two cases—unbaptized infants and adults who, as Vatican II put it in Dei Verbum, “perseveringly do good in search of salvation”—have in common the key fact that even the Catholic Church does not know everything about how God works to draw all men to Himself (cf. Jn 12:32). What we as Catholics do know is what we might call the ordinary, programmatic and certain way—and definitely the easiest way—to grow in holiness and union with God and be rewarded with eternal life. But the Church does not know exactly, in all its details, how God works to save those who have no chance to seek Him, or who do seek Him diligently but cannot, through no fault of their own, follow the Catholic high road to heaven.
Moreover, the Church is very conscious of her limitations here. Without completely understanding how God does it, she knows, as St. Paul put it, that God “desires all men to be saved” (1 Tim 2:4), and so it is unthinkable that He would damn those who have not incurred the guilt of rejecting that salvation. For this reason, she is able to hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants and she is able to state without doubt that those who “perseveringly do good in search of salvation” can be joined in some mysterious way to herself and so attain eternal salvation in Christ. (Emphasis added)
Posts
