"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."

Is this an error? It seems to me most traditional Catholics believe this and do not condemn this as an error. They believe men in any religion can have an implicit faith and save their souls without believing in the Catholic religion, though they are saved despite of their religion and not because of their religion.

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."

Is this an error? It seems to me most traditional Catholics believe this and do not condemn this as an error. They believe men in any religion can have an implicit faith and save their souls without believing in the Catholic religion, though they are saved despite of their religion and not because of their religion.

Obviously it's an error ... condemned of course by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

Tragically, Archbishop Lefebvre articulated exactly this error in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics".  Unfortunately, that part only confused Catholics even more.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Obviously it's an error ... condemned of course by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

Tragically, Archbishop Lefebvre articulated exactly this error in his "Open Letter to Confused Catholics".  Unfortunately, that part only confused Catholics even more.

Yes, I just reread the Syllabus again yesterday. This error struck me because in my experience many traditional Catholics including many priests believe it. Even Lefebvre seemed to teach it and Fellay seemed to teach it and as the Dimonds point out all the time, most of the traditional Catholic priests they have talked to seem to teach this also. So I asked if traditional Catholics thought it was an error or if they believed in it.

Yes, there's cognitive dissonance of some kind here.  Many Traditional Catholics are familiar with the Syllabus.  In fact, the FIRST course we were required to take at the SSPX Seminary in Winona was a class called "Acts of the Magisterium", taught by Bishop Williamson in which we read and studied all the anti-Modernist Magisterial acts, including the Syllabus.

What I gather is that most Traditional Catholics read this and nod their heads, having in their minds the vision of those abominable ecuмenical gatherings such as at Assisi and think that it condemns things like that.

But if you read it, what is says is that there CANNOT BE SALVATION except in the Catholic religion.  Gasp ... it's "Feeneyism" (even though it makes no explicit reference to Baptism per se).

+Lefebvre EXPLICITLY articulated this EXACT error in his Open Letter and elsewhere.

If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals, perhaps through the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…

But Pius IX condemned that anyone can be saved IN their religion.  +Lefebvre changes Catholic teaching by saying that EENS really means there's no salvation except BY the Catholic Church, rather than no salvation except IN the Catholic Church.  He reduces the Church to merely an instrumental cause of salvation.

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire.  This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion.  They are saved in their religion but not by it.

Again with the "by" vs. "in" distinction.

So now "men of good will" are saved, i.e. that natural good will is salvific.  That's at least semi-Pelagianism.

Now most Trads will spit nails at me for suggesting that their infallible saintly hero may have misfired on something.  But it's just the hard truth.

And if you believe that all these men of good will outside the Church can be saved, there's ZERO doctrinal basis to oppose Vatican II.  That's why the Trad movement is in a state of stagnation and erosion, sliding inexorably back towards the Conciliar Church.

So there's no salvation outside the Church of "good will".

http://sspx.org and put in the search box "fewness of the saved"

Your search yielded no results

And yet they have time to write dozens of articles about the error of "collegiality."

On the fewness of the saved you can find two sermons about that on youtube by Father Bitzer who used to be an SSPX priest. He said that at the SSPX seminary they taught that few were saved but they said never to preach that to the faithful because they thought it would lead them to despair and other troubles.

 

That is beyond shameful for the SSPX priests. No wonder why their organization is unable to properly defend Catholic tradition. The many will not accept this hard truth of course, however that did not stop Christ to explicitly  preach it:

“Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it!”

In other instances, when Jesus spoke the truth, many found it hard to believe it or accept it (as when he was clearly teaching about the necessity of eating and drinking His Body and Blood to have life eternal). Many went away because it was not what they wanted to hear; and only very few stayed. Jesus did not stop preaching the truth, however hard or unpopular it was. The SSPX priests (and most traditionalists and conciliar) should do the same regardless of people's reactions.

I tried to defend implicit faith in another thread.

I think that it's definitely an error to say that a man can be saved in the practice of any religion except the Catholic religion. If implicit faith is a viable theological opinion, then the person must be an implicit Catholic, and practice all the absolutely necessary precepts of the Catholic religion. I also believe that anyone who explicitly denies a Catholic teaching cannot be a Catholic implicitly, i.e. if a Muslim explicitly denies that Christ is divine, then he cannot possibly be Catholic, because he openly denies the Catholic faith.

It's absolutely false to say that a Muslim can be saved by being a good Muslim, or a Jєω by being a good Jєω, or a Hindu by being a good Hindu, or an atheist by being a good atheist. In order for a "Muslim" to be saved, he would have to be a good Catholic, which is to say that he would not be a formal member of Islam at all, but only a material one.

It is ABSOLUTELY false to say that all the world's religions are different ways of "experiencing" God; that all the religions worship the same God but in different ways. Go read Pascendi again. This is THE principle of Modernism. Modernism starts by rejecting the notion that religion and revelation are received from God, from heaven; then it says that religion comes from a "religious impulse" or "sentiment" in man, that causes him to search for God or the Absolute or the Transcendent, or whatever, so all religions are different expressions of this religious desire immanent in man. THIS is Modernism, and it is everywhere. We must confess that the Catholic religion has been instituted by God, that it's doctrines are revealed by God, and that whatever superficial resemblances other religions might have to the true religion, they are impostors and the works of false shepherds. There is one true shepherd, Jesus Christ; and one true sheepfold, the Catholic Church.

Even though I am unsure about implicit faith and will tentatively defend it, I do agree that this "salvation in any religion" / denial of EENS is at the core of all the rot in the Church. Fr. Feeney was definitely right about that.

This idea that religion comes from within man, that its a process of "self-discovery", of man's discovering the divine or the transcendent with himself, etc. It leads to a kind of pantheism and self-deification of man. It is similar to ancient Gnosticism in some ways. It is deeply Satanic. In the satanic modern religion, God has been cast as a tyrant who only wants to limit man's freedom and punish man. Man, however, has been freed to discover and deify himself, find his purpose in life within himself. This is exactly what the Gnostics did. They said that the Creator of the world was evil, and that the serpent in the garden of Eden was man's liberator, because he taught us knowledge and how to become gods. Satan is using the same trick again and again. It's the same as in the garden of Eden. His strategy is to make man hate God and God's Law, and to make man a lawless worshiper of himself.

In order for a "Muslim" to be saved, he would have to be a good Catholic, which is to say that he would not be a formal member of Islam at all, but only a material one.

But that is no different from heretical Rahnerian Anonymous Christianity - your Muslim has no faith in Christ nor Trinity and is supposedly a Catholic without knowing it. If it is possible for a Muslim, so it must be for a Jєω, Animist, Buddhist etc. What you eventually end up with is that anyone can be saved in any religion, which reduces EENS to nothing.

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: St John Evangelist

In order for a "Muslim" to be saved, he would have to be a good Catholic, which is to say that he would not be a formal member of Islam at all, but only a material one.

But that is no different from heretical Rahnerian Anonymous Christianity - your Muslim has no faith in Christ nor Trinity and is supposedly a Catholic without knowing it. If it is possible for a Muslim, so it must be for a Jєω, Animist, Buddhist etc. What you eventually end up with is that anyone can be saved in any religion, which reduces EENS to nothing.

There were Arians and there were semi-Arians. There were Pelagians and there were semi-Pelagians. St. J the E is not a liberal, he is a semi-liberal.

Actually, I'm perfectly capable of accepting everything St. Augustine said, and believing in strict visible unity with the Catholic Church & water Baptism are absolutely necessary for salvation. It's just that I have to reconcile this view with the views of all the theologians of the last few centuries that have taught baptism of desire, often even implicit desire. These weren't all liberals either. I hope for greater clarity on EENS from the Magisterium.