Two quick hits on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Reading biographies of pre-20th century Saints, martyrs, religious, and priests reveals that, at least then, a widespread literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus predominated. 

by Tantumblogo

I also saw at FideCogitActio a post from a 1940s Missal regarding salvation for those outside the Church. It was not quite as clear and forthright a definition as I would have liked. Of course, there were some in the Church at that time – and even well before, and especially in this country – who claimed that the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church” was being compromised and watered down in many ecclesiastical circles, and they were no all “Feeneyites”! Orestes Brownson in the preceding century had lamented the indifference and squishiness of the Church in the United States on that very point.

Nevertheless, not so much as a rebuttal, but perhaps as a bit of a rejoinder, I present the following quotes from two biographies of 19th century missionaries, one of the great Fr. de Smet, and the other of the martyred Fr. Just de Bretenieres. First, from Fr. de Smet:

“But he who lifts his thoughts above the passing things of the world to consider truth, which all nature speaks, and desires the salvation of the many souls who would love and serve their Creator and be saved if they but knew Him – he sees in the privations of the desert and in the dangers and perils one encounters there, but slight inconveniences, far preferable to the sweets of indolence and the dangers of riches.”

The following is from the biography of Just de Bretenieres, but is from the forward, by Maryknoll Father James Walsh:

“……I hope that the present volume will fulfill its purpose…….to raise up Catholic souls who will push the standard of the Cross further into the regions now held by the hosts of satan.

Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call upon Him, in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom X)

Reading biographies of pre-20th century Saints, martyrs, religious, and priests reveals that, at least then, a widespread literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus predominated. Perhaps something to keep in mind, before you get any tattoos.

 

https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/two-quick-hits-on-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus/




Reading biographies of pre-20th century Saints, martyrs, religious, and priests reveals that, at least then, a widespread literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus predominated

Lionel:

Tantumblogo could also affirm the literal interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus if he:-

1) Interprets Vatcan Council II without the false premise which originated with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which he issued.

2) Interprets Vatican Council with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism. Feeneyism says there are no exceptions to the dogma, Cushingism, like Marchetti, says there are known exceptions to the dogma.

3) Realize that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma. If you consider them exceptions then you imply that these cases now in Heaven are visible exceptions to the dogma. This is irrational and fantasy. This was the mistake Marchetti and Cushing made.

4) It was not Fr.Leonard  Feeney but Cardinal Marchetti and Cushing who were really in heresy. They were rejecting a defined dogma with an irrational observation.

5) The magisterium after 1949 has accepted the error and so there is a conflict with the pre-1949 magisterium which affirmed the literal interpretation of  Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

-Lionel Andrades