LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

After having examined all the docuмents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other docuмents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).

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 Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circuмstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, <On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ> (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, <Singulari quadam>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, in <Denzinger>, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical <From the Housetops>, fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "<imprimatur,>" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain,

Your Excellency's most devoted,

F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.

A. Ottaviani, Assessor.

Pius XII was a heretic?

Was Pius X as well?

Was Catechism of Trent heretical too?

Are there any non-Feeneyites who are NOT heretics?

Pius XII was a heretic?

Was Pius X as well?

Was Catechism of Trent heretical too?

Are there any non-Feeneyites who are NOT heretics?

The Catechism of Trent did not teach "implicit faith"!  (Show me where?!)  As for Pius X, maybe he should have corrected Pius IX.  Why, I do not know.  Hindsight is always 20/20.

The real problem is the other docuмent allegedly ex-communicating Fr Feeney. It is signed by no Ecclesiastical Authority. This tells me there are those who resorted to dirty tricks against Fr Feeney and makes me suspicious of the above docuмent added on to Mr Potter's account.

I don't know alot about Gary Potter othr than his book gets an A+ imo as a historical effort. What is his conflict of interest?

At the very least,CM is betrayed by his 1-- malicious attack on St Alphonsus and 2-- his dirty trick in the Boniface 6/7 discussion.

The links you posted the second time were not the same as the first.

Yeah, that Catechism of St. Pius X is not encouraging.  What is an "implicit" desire anyway?  Anyone can have an "implicit" desire, we all have immortal souls that occasionally reach out blindly towards something we think is God, even if we are atheists.

But you see, you can quote eight million people who don't understand baptism of desire, and this still doesn't disprove baptism of desire.  It just shows that Modernist and liberal clergy were constantly trying to deform the EENS doctrine out of all recognition.  You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It is also interesting that you defend Pius IX for this:  

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. "

The interpretation on your website makes sense, mostly.  But let me tell you, if you showed the same quote to 100 people, I'll bet nearly all 100 would believe it is teaching you can be a "good person" and be saved by following the law of your heart.  Very few would interpret it the way you did -- that it is talking about prevenient grace that will lead the ignorant to seek conversion -- because that is not the predominant impression that this paragraph leaves you with.  

When St. Thomas teaches the same thing, look at how much more clear it is:

"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance."

If cornered, Pope Pius IX could have said exactly what you did:  "Uh, it's about prevenient grace!  That's obvious!  I was referring to St. Thomas."  But in reality, that he is talking about prevenient grace is very far from obvious.  To COMMON SENSE it looks as if he is saying you can be saved by the natural law, by common morality, without even knowing Christ.  The proof is that Pius IX's statement not only gave birth to the numerous heresies we see in VII about invincible ignorance, but that even some of the traditional clergy have taken it in that sense, that you can be saved as a "good person" outside the Church.  

Take Pius IX's statement again:

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. "

Now section 847 of the 1983 "Code of Canon Law":

"Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION".

Doesn't one just seem to lead naturally to the other?

Considering Pius IX was a Freemason before becoming Pope, do you really think this confusing paragraph which led to such havoc and doctrinal disorder was just a coincidence?  

Do you think that he, though cleverly staying free of heresy by leaving multiple interpretations open, was being deliberately vague and leaving the door open to misunderstandings that would only later blossom into outright heresy?  

Do you think his constant attacks on the Freemasons could have been a means of hiding in plain sight, exactly as Paul VI did when he said "The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary," to take the attention off of himself?  

Notice I am only asking questions, not making any pronouncements.  Except to say that Pius IX praised George Washington twice that I know of, sketchy behavior for someone who was supposedly an expert anti-Freemason ( CMRI praises the Founding Fathers too, disturbingly ).

I'll leave it there for tonight, with more questions raised than answers provided.  Because I don't have the answers and am becoming very, very disturbed at just how deep the rot appears to go.

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness on Pius IX:

His first political act, on July 16, was that of granting an amnesty of political prisoners, which was contested by some who now denounced the new pope as one working with the Freemasons.

I do not know why you posted this.  Once again, show me the doctrine of 'implicit faith' prior to 1800, and I will believe!  Note the abscence of ANY references to the writings of the Fathers of the Church, only to the heretic Pius XII and that should give you a clue.

Well, I'm sure St Thomas Aquinas must have been cited before, but a quick search of the forum shows that some folks here consider him unreliable too.

However, for what it's worth:

Summa Theologica

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, "He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment," a gloss says: "He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism."

He was around before 1800!