Skip to main content

Outside the Church There is No Salvation - Part 4

Recently, I gave a presentation to a Catholic Men's group made of a 'regular' Catholic Men, plus one priest (SJ) on the dogma of the Necessity of the Church for Salvation.

Previous articles on this topic can be found  at these links part 1part 2part 3).

There was general surprise when I pointed out that the Second Vatican Council reiterated the necessity of the Church for Salvation with the same caveat of Invincible Ignorance as noted by Pope Pius IX (see slides below - also note I mislabeled the source - it was LG16 not LG17) .

At one point, the comment was made that it is possible to quote these teachings however a person wants when taken out of context.  The complete text of LG 16 concerning the salvation of Jews and Muslims was quoted as an example.



Now, my objective was to demonstrate alignment between the pre-conciliar teaching and that of the Second Vatican Council. So, the ancillary statements I excluded from my slides.  I do not believe that I was experiencing 'confirmation bias'.  I remember seeing the following passage and noting the continuity between the prologue and the section that I quoted ('those also can attain ...').

Here is the quotation that was read from an iPhone:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. LG16
The commenter was, I believe, trying to prove that LG16 changed Church doctrine and that the Old Covenant is still salvic. That opinion was decisively ruled out in an earlier council of the Church (name escapes me).

I do admit that I am not a linguistic expert, however, the first sentence in the above quote introduces those who have not yet received the Gospel, and the the first sentence of the following paragraph explains how the aforementioned groups may (not will) be saved.  The teaching is a repetition of the doctrine concerning invincible ignorance.
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. (see slide 4)
What is necessary for non-Catholics to be saved (slide 0)?  First they have to be 'Invincibly Ignorant', have Super Natural Faith (at a minimum believe there is a God and that He rewards the good and punishes the bad), have at least an implicit desire to enter the Church (see below) and make a perfect act of charity / contrition. These requirements were clearly described in the letter to Archbishop Cushing.

At this point we analysed the state of a Jewish or Muslim person vis-a-vis the four points necessary.
  1. An unbaptized person (or even baptized non-Catholic) achieves a state of invincible ignorance, removing culpability for not entering the Church.
  2. By default a person of either the Jewish or Islamic religion, can achieve the minimum requirements for Supernatural Faith.  It is much easier for a protestant.
  3. If this person is trying to align his will to that of God as he understands it and manifests implicit desire. Meaning if he knew that the Church of Christ is the True Church, then he would transition from an implicit to explicit desire to enter the Church.
  4. Finally, based on the aforesaid items, if this person made a perfect act of charity / contrition then they will achieve a state of grace. 
If the person then died in this state, they would be saved.

These are the principles, however, there are four issues to remain aware of:
  1. A person will not know if they have achieved this state of grace via a perfect act of contrition until they've died. At this point, it is a little late if they fell short. 
  2. Nor will they know if they are invincibly ignorant.
  3. No one else will know if that person was saved via this path until they die in their turn.
  4. If the individual is saved, it is because of the aforementioned conditions, not because of anything salvic within their religion.
In other words, a non-Catholic person is saved in spite of their religion, not because of it (per se).

It is an interesting topic and actually consoling to see this is one area where the Church, aside from the rather fluffy prologue, is simply a repetition of prior doctrine.

Attached below are some of my slides.

P^3
Prayer
Penance
Patience


Slide 0



Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 4

Slide 5

Slide 6

Slide 7












Comments

  1. I would like to know what the qualifications are for a "Catholic traditionalist," please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to my blog!

      I don't think I quite understand your question.

      Could you be a little more specific?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Fr. Burfitt on Fr. Pfeiffer's Attempted Consecration

 + JMJ   Amidst the shadows cast by the publication of Traditionis Custodes, I am working on a map of the 'resistance' splinters to put their reaction in contrast with that of the SSPX.  In the midst of this, I just came across Fr. Burfitt letter on the attempted consecration. Breaking it down (see below)  items 2 and 3 are key.  Just as the consecrating bishop is 'doubtful', even if he hadn't muffed the first attempt, Fr. Pfeiffer remain doubtful and therefore this impacts those men is attempts to 'ordain'. There were rumours that Fr. Pfeiffer was seeking episcopal consecration for years as he cast about for various bishops (also doubtful) to help him achieve this goal. I wonder how he convinced the 'doubtful' bishop to provide (twice) the doubtful consecration. What a mess!  This creates a danger to the souls of his followers and wonder where it will end. Will he go full sede and have himself 'elected' pontiff as others have done before him