Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
Parts One and Two of Seven Parts
by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
[Editor's foreword: Although those who have been convinced that the distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made famous by the late Father Leonard Feeney is correct--and that all who disagree with it are execrable "heretics" who will be cast into Hell immediately upon their deaths, the truth is otherwise. Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., has been kind enough send me photocopies o of seven articles that he wrote on the authentic Catholic teaching on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. These articles appeared in The Remnant between November 3, 1973, and June 7, 1974. Those possessed of the false interpretation of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made the same arguments then, with the same demonic fury and pride, that are being made today by their successors.

[It is, therefore, with great joy that I present this series of articles for those who are open to learning the truth of Catholic teaching, and I thank Father Martin for his kindness in forwarding these articles to me.]Part I: The Church's Understanding of the Dogma, published on November 3, 1973

Introduction

Many years have now gone by since the eruption of the scandalous Boston College controversy of the 1940s over the interpretation of the Catholic dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation". It has recently been said that the original advocates of a false interpretation of that Dogma have "mellowed" with the passing years--yet they have not given up their erroneous notions, but have only become somewhat less belligerent and less vociferous.

But, if it is true that a supposed "mellowing" process has quieted down the original promoters of heresy, this is by no means true of all their present-time followers in various places. The fact is that there are misinformed and half-informed and uninformed "Catholics" who have been quite active in zealously peddling their warped interpretations of the Church's dogma of salvation.

There are, for example, parents (who should know better) who have been bugging genuine teachers of traditional Catholic doctrine (yes, some of these still exist!) with pesky attempts to foist on these teachers their own false notions of the Dogma of salvation and of the closely-related Catholic doctrine of Baptism of water, desire, and of blood. Children of such misguided parents, like the blind being led by the blind, have also been harassing their teachers in the classrooms.

In the confusion stirred up by such parents and their children, other parents have mistakenly suspected the orthodox teachers themselves of being guilty of unorthodox doctrine, and some have angrily threatened to remove their own children from the schools in question.

But behind the scenes have been the hard-core pushers of an erroneous "no salvation outside the Church" doctrine. Among them are some who, curiously enough, have been labelled "knowledgeable theologians", though they are neither knowledgeable in the right things, nor are they by any means genuine theologians.

For the sake of those who have been unwittingly misled, like blind and innocent sheep, as well as for those who desire to know how to give correct explanations, we will now take up, though rather briefly, the Catholic dogma of "no salvation outside the Church," showing how the Church, in the person of some her Popes, has always understood and interpreted this dogma. In the second part of this article, we will consider the traditional Catholic teaching and practice regarding Baptism of desire and of blood, showing also the ominous implications of a rejection of this teaching.

Teaching of the Popes

For a correct understanding and interpretation of the Catholic dogma, "outside the Church there is no salvation", we must turn to the Pope, the guardians of Divine Truth. It will be sufficient for our purposes here to quote two great and saintly Popes--Pius IX (1846-78) and Pius XII (1939-58).

There is no need to pile up a mountain of quotations, as the false prophets like to do, showing that "outside the Church there is no salvation" is indeed a dogma of our Holy Faith and that it was repeatedly upheld, even in the strongest terms, by many of the Popes. What the false prophets fail to note, while quoting the Popes, are certain key words and expressions that the Popes have used in proclaiming the dogma, such as "invincibly ignorant", and "knowingly", "wilfully", etc. And those false prophets seem not to take notice of any of those statements in which the Popes have expressly shown how the Church interprets her dogma of salvation.

We will quote Pope Pius IX, because he both upholds the dogma itself and, at the same time, explains how those of good faith outside the Church stand with God.

Like so many other Popes, Pius IX was most emphatic--jarringly emphatic--in maintaining that outside the Church there is no salvation. An example of this teaching is found in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur Moerore ("With what sorrow We are consumed . . .") of August 10, 1863.He first condemns as "absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching" the notion that "persons living in error and outside of the True Faith and Catholic unity can reach eternal life".

This might, at first sight, seem automatically to exclude from salvation all those who are not visibly and externally members of the One True Church through Baptism of water, regardless of their good dispositions and despite their genuine desire and search for the Truth. But it is immediately evident, from his very next sentence, that he is speaking of those who are knowingly and wilfully "living in error and outside the True Faith and Catholic unity. . ."

Here is what the saintly Pope Pius IX immediately goes on to declare (and we add emphasis):

We know and you know that those who are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT of our most holy Religion, and who, carefully observing the Natural Law and its precepts, placed by God into the hearts of all men, and being disposed to obey God, lead an honest and upright life, CAN, with the help of Divine Light and Grace, MERIT ETERNAL LIFE; for God, Who has perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and the deeds of all men, and He does not permit, in His sovereign Goodness and Mercy, any men NOT CULPABLE OF WILFUL SIN to be punished with eternal torment."

 

After that most clear declaration, the Holy Father reverts once again, in his next sentence, to the dogma of "no salvation outside the Church", as follows (with emphasis again added): "But this Catholic Dogma is equally well known: That no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and those who KNOWINGLY rebel against the teaching and the authority of the Church cannot obtain eternal salvation, nor can those who WILFULLY separate themselves from union with the Church and with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom the Savior has entrusted the safe-keeping of His vineyard."

From the way the Holy Father expresses himself, we can conclude that he is speaking of two Dogmas, for he says: "But this Catholic Dogma is equally well known. . ." This means that he regards it as a Dogma of the Faith that "outside the Church there is no salvation", and he likewise implies that it is a Dogma of Faith that those who are visibly outside the Church through "invincible ignorance" can be saved, if they have the proper dispositions.

One who does not grasp the distinction between these two Truths of Faith might be tempted to say that Pope Pius IX is contradicting himself--not just once, but twice. That is, he first tells us that outside the Church there is no salvation, then he says that outside the Church there is, or can be, salvation, and finally, he supposedly re-contradicts himself by saying once again that outside the Church there is no salvation.

But the Holy Father is NOT contradicting himself. What should immediately come to the mind of a thinking person is the obvious fact that the expression "outside the Church" must have a deeper and more mysterious meaning than at first suspected, and which an unthinking person would not detect. One should almost spontaneously ask: Just what is meant by that word "outside" in this particular case?

To be sure, the word "outside", in this case, cannot be taken in a mere visible and external and material sense. The word does not mean merely that a non-Catholic is standing outside the door of a Catholic Church. And it has a deeper meaning than the idea of standing outside visible membership in the Church.

We are face to face here with the Mystery of Grace. We are speaking here of one being"outside the means of grace"."

For a clearer view and understanding of the full picture of Divine Truth, we must bear in mind here these basic Dogmas of the Faith:

1) That there is One Redeemer of mankind;

2) That the One Redeemer of mankind founded One and only One True Church for the salvation of men;

3) That the One Redeemer established One and only One Treasury of Grace which He filled with the merits of His Sacred Passion and Death; and

4) That the One Redeemer entrusted His One Treasury of Grace to His One True Church.

Those who "wilfully separate themselves from union with the Church," also wilfully separate themselves from the Church's Treasury of Grace, as well as from the Redeemer Himself, and they cannot therefore be saved, because they have wilfully placed themselves "outside the means of grace."

It should now be clear that anyone who is not a visible and external member of the One True Church through Baptism of water, and who is living in the "invincible ignorance" of which Pius IX speaks, IS SAVED ONLY THROUGH THE GRACES WHICH THE CHURCH POSSESSES IN THE ONE TREASURY OF GRACE ESTABLISHED BY THE ONE REDEEMER. This means that such a person is not saved independently of the One True Church, but only through her.

So then, the Dogma, "outside the Church there is no salvation", could be worded in this way: "Independently of the Church, there is no salvation." Or, to express the fact even more fully, "Independently of the Catholic Church and of her divinely-given Treasury of Grace there is no salvation."

It should also be clear that those living in "invincible ignorance" outside visible membership in the Catholic Church are really NOT TOTALLY "outside" the Church. The fact is that they are in an invisible and mysterious way connected with the Church, or are "related" to her. They are "related" to the Church THROUGH GRACE, which the Most High can easily bestow on them, even without actual Baptism of water, provided that they are properly disposed. This is no problem for the Almighty.

It is precisely of this "relationship" with the One True Church that Pope Pius XII spoke in his encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ (Mystici Corporis) in 1943. In paragraph (of the NCWC 1943 edition), this saintly Pontiff of our own times speaks of "those who do not belong to the VISIBLE Body of the Catholic Church". (We deliberately give special emphasis to the all-important word "visible"). About half-way down the same paragraph, the Holy Father states (and we again add emphasis) that "by an unconscious desire and longing THEY HAVE A CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER. . ."

The "unconscious desire and longing", of which the great Vicar of Christ speaks, is obviously the doctrine of Baptism of desire, which we will take up in the second and concluding part of this article on "salvation outside the Church".

The teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pius XII make it as clear as could be just how the Church understands her Dogma, "outside the Church there is no salvation". Any erroneous or twisted interpretation of this Dogma-or of any Dogma or the Church for that matter--is equivalent to a denial of the Dogma itself, whether consciously or unconsciously done. And the rejection of any Dogma of the Faith is HERESY.

By conscious and willful heresy, a Catholic is automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. And a Catholic living in conscious and willful heresy cannot worthily nor lawfully receive the Sacraments.

Part II: Baptism of Desire and of Blood, published on November 15, 1973

"Unconscious Desire and Longing"

As we noted in Part I of this article, Pope Pius XII, in speaking of those in good faith outside the "VISIBLE Body of the Catholic Church", declared that "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer. . ."

The concept expressed here by the Holy Father is nothing else but the already ancient Catholic belief and teaching that eventually gave rise to the well-known expression, "Baptism of desire". The basic idea with Baptism of desire is that the grace of justification, or sanctifying grace, which is normally given by God through Baptism of water, can be, and is, given by Him to those who genuinely desire and strive to fulfill His will in all things, even though they may be as yet "unconscious", or unaware, of the One True Church and of the Sacraments, and of all the obligations connected with the True Faith.

This means that they have become pleasing to God already before receiving Baptism of water. Their "desire and longing" to do God's will in all things is what sets them out on the path to salvation, and this is what has led to countless converts into the True Church all through the centuries. Genuine converts to the True Faith have personal experience of this "desire and longing" which, by the grace of God, they have satisfied, despite great difficulties and obstacles and often long years of soul-searching and agony of heart.

But the expression, "Baptism of desire", is used especially in connection with those who are overtaken by death before they can attain to Baptism of water. Because of their genuine "desire and longing" to fulfill God's will in all things, including sincere repentance of their sins, they are saved by "Baptism of desire", and without Baptism of water, which is otherwise of strict obligation. As Pope Pius IX expressed it, such persons "merit eternal life" even though not belonging to the visible Body of the Catholic Church.

We do not say that such persons are saved "independently of" Baptism of water, but rather "without" Baptism of water. The fact is that their "unconscious desire and longing" to do God's will implicitly includes a desire for Baptism of water, even if they may not as yet know of it and of the strict obligation to receive it.

Heretics Reject Baptism of Desire

 

It is typical of heretics to defend their principal heresy with other errors and to reject truths that are closely connected with the main Truth of Faith which they are denying. And so it is no surprise that the advocates of a false salvation doctrine reject outright any idea of Baptism of desire. Why? Because it stands in the way of their heresy, of course! Some have even asserted, with juvenile brashness, that Baptism of desire is a "deplorable heresy", whereas they themselves are the ones who are in heresy.

The false prophets wrongly contend, among other things, 1) that the Catechism of the Council of Trent says nothing of Baptism of desire; 2) that there is no Scriptural basis for Baptism of desire; 3) that Baptism of desire is nothing but a modern invention and the product of the speculations of theologians; and, 4) that Baptism of desire and of blood make up to three Sacraments of Baptism.

Trent and Baptism of Desire

As for the Catechism of the Council of Trent, we must first warn the reader that the advocates of the false salvation doctrine (based with the so-called "Marian Publications", South Bend, Ind.) have published their own edition of that Catechism and have deceitfully added their own subversive appendix to it--an appendix that brazenly asserts that there is "No Baptism of Desire". Two letters of warning on that edition of the Trent Catechism appeared in the March 1, 1973, issue of The Remnant.

Taking an untampered McHugh-Callan edition of the Trent Catechism, we come upon the following clear statement of the concept of Baptism of desire, on page 179:

"Should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

 

With that statement, the Trent Catechism plainly tells us, 1) that it is possible for a person not baptized in the "salutary waters" to be saved; 2) that through no fault of his own a person could be prevented from receiving Baptism of water after being prepared for it while having every intention and desire to receive this Sacrament; 3) that the proper dispositions which would save a person in such a case are his "intention and determination" to receive Baptism" and "repentance for past sins"; and, 4) that such a person receives "grace and righteousness" from God without Baptism of water.

Those who think that the Trent Catechism favors their errors either have not read what that Catechism says about Baptism or they did not know what they were reading, or they merely looked for the words, "Baptism of desire", without looking for the concept that gave rise to that expression. There is serious doubt that they know what Baptism of desire is--or even Baptism of water, for that matter!

The authors of the Trent Catechism well understood that Our Lord was laying down a strict obligation binding on all men to receive Baptism of water, when He said to Nicodemus: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God" (Jn 3, 5), yet they did not interpret this Divine Law so rigidly as to exclude from "grace and righteousness" those who do not receive Baptism of water because of some "unforeseen accident". They well understood that the Law of God requiring Baptism of water for salvation is a positive law, and not a precept of the Natural Law. Baptism of water is of obligation because of the express will of God, and not because the very nature of things demands it.

The use of the word "Baptism" in connection with "desire" and "blood" does not mean that there are two additional Sacraments of Baptism. There is only one Sacrament of Baptism, while the grace of that Sacrament is one and the same grace that is given by God, under certain circuмstances, without the actual reception of the Sacrament.

The Trent Catechism, drawn up after the Council of Trent was over, teaches the doctrine of Baptism of desire because that is what the Council itself taught. In its 6th Session (Jan. 13, 1847), the Council of Trent described the justification of the sinner as a "translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, Our Savior".

And then the Council immediately declared (and we add emphasis): "This translation, however, cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration, OR ITS DESIRE, as it is written: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God'."

In view of this authoritative declaration of one of the greatest of the Ecuмenical Councils, Baptism of desire, far from being a "deplorable heresy," is a solid and unquestionably Catholic doctrine. In fact, the Council gives us good reason to say that it is an Article of Faith or of Dogma.

Scripture and Baptism of Desire

The concept of Baptism of desire is well founded on Sacred Scripture and goes right back to the beginning. It may be difficult to say at just what moment Our Lord's Law of Baptism of water began to be binding, but it is clear from His own words, "Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much" (Lk. 7, 47), that Mary Magdalen was justified before she was baptized with water. The Good Thief on the cross was justified and saved without Baptism of water. Our Lord did NOT say to him: "This day you will be with me in Paradise, provided you can get someone to baptize you with water."

A classic Scriptural example of how a person can be acceptable to God already before Baptism of water is Cornelius the Centurion, to whom God sent St. Peter for Baptism. By divine revelation, Peter saw the state of Cornelius' soul before Baptism, and he exclaimed: "Now I really understand that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him" (Acts 10, 34-35).

If only the misguided lambs, prey to the heretics, could now humble themselves also and exclaim: "Now I understand. . .!" And let them quit listening to unknowledgeable non-theologians!

Among the Fathers of the Church, long before modern theologians could supposedly invent Baptism of desire, the 4th century St. Ambrose of Milan said this in reference to the Emperor Valentinian II, who died without receiving Baptism of water: "I hear you express grief because he (Valentinian) did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is there in us except the will and petition? But he had long desired to be initiated (i.e,, baptized) before he came to Italy, and he expressed his intention to be baptized by me as soon as possible, and it was for this reason, more than any other, that he hastened to me. Has he not, therefore, the grace which he desired? Has he not received it because he asked for it"!

St. Augustine, who was baptized by St. Ambrose, once declared: "I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with love of God, before the baptized heretics."

From ancient times we can also find good examples of "Baptism of blood". Some martyrs whom the Church has long honored as Saints were never baptized with water. Among the various names that could be mentioned, there is St. Emmerentiana, whose feast has long been on the traditional liturgical calendar (on Jan. 23). She was put to death because of the Faith, before she could be baptized with water, when she was caught praying at the tomb of St. Agnes.

And there is is Solder No. 40 of the famed Martyrs of Sebaste in ancient Armenia (Feast, March 10). One of the original 40 soldiers chickened out on the ice, so a pagan guard, while off duty, saw in a vision only 39 crowns brought down from Heaven by Angels. Struck by the grace of God, given to him, without Baptism of water, he declared himself a Christian and joined the 39, winning for himself the 40th crown. The Church honors also this unbaptized martyr as a saint.

A Monstrous Doctrine

And now, before we conclude, we must point out that the awful implications of the denial of Baptism of desire and blood

Just imagine a prospective convert, "burning with desire of God", intensely desiring Baptism and well-instructed in the True Faith, being overtaken by death through some "unforeseen accident"; before Baptism of water could be administered to him. He comes before the Judgment Seat of God, only to hear the Most High say to him: "I'm very sorry about that accident that kept you from Baptism of water. It was no nice of you to prepare for Baptism and for the True Faith with such great love for Me, but you weren't baptized with water, so down into hell you must go!"

Or, imagine someone like St. Emmerentiana coming before the Divine Judge, only to hear the same kind of bad news!

Can anyone with a properly functioning thinking apparatus fail to understand the blasphemous injustice and cruelty that the heretics must attribute to the All-Just and All-Holy God because of their false doctrines? Can anyone with a sane mind embrace such a monstrous doctrine as that peddled by the advocates of no salvation without Baptism of water? Isn't their doctrine about as revolting as the wrong kind of predestination doctrine, which makes God choose some for Heaven and some for Hell, without considering at all their good or bad deeds?

If those who have fallen for the false salvation doctrine of the Feeneyites haven't yet fainted on seeing the sickening implications of that doctrine, it's about time that they do so. And then, let them come to and repent, and return to the True Faith and to a worthy reception of the Sacraments. Let them get back inside the Church, for outside the Church there is no salvation for them!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Camillus de Lellis, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


 
 

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation
Parts Five and Six of Seven Parts
by Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.
[Editor's foreword: Although those who have been convinced that the distortion and misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made famous by the late Father Leonard Feeney is correct--and that all who disagree with it are execrable "heretics" who will be cast into Hell immediately upon their deaths, the truth is otherwise. Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D., has been kind enough send me photocopies o of seven articles that he wrote on the authentic Catholic teaching on the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. These articles appeared in The Remnant between November 3, 1973, and June 7, 1974. Those possessed of the false interpretation of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made the same arguments then, with the same demonic fury and pride, that are being made today by their successors.

[It is, therefore, with great joy that I present parts five and six of this series of articles for those who are open to learning the truth of Catholic teaching, and I thank Father Martin for his kindness in forwarding these articles to me.]

Part V: The "Heresy" of Invincible Ignorance, published on March 1, 1974

Ever since the appearance of the two-part article, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation" (Remnant, Nov. 3 and Nov. 15, 1973), one thing that is increasingly clear is the intense dislike which those of the heretical Feeney persuasion have for such genuinely Catholic theological terminology as "invincible ignorance", "unconscious desire", "Baptism of desire", and the like. They apparently realize that the facts presented by such terminology are the death-blow to their heresy, and so their desire is to discredit it all by attributing it even to such monstrosities as modernism and Calvinism.

Not only Mrs. P. P., but scattered individuals from many sections of the country have taken violent exception to the truths represented by the above terminology--one of them presenting his protests with "righteous indignation", another scrawling "Shame on you!" on a Christmas card sent to the writer. In general, all of them use the same stereotyped reasoning, indicating that there is a common source of error to which they are drawn.

When they come face to face with any of the above terminology, or the concepts expressed by that terminology, either in papal docuмents or even in dogmatic declarations, they rashly presume to explain them away or brush them aside. Some of these critics have preferred to quote some particular writer's personal opinion as the "official teaching of the Church", even though the opinion be clearly at variance with papal teaching. Invincibly and inculpably ignorant non-Catholics, it has been alleged, can be saved only by such extraordinary means as that of an Angel from Heaven coming down to them to instruct and baptize them! And this is passed off as the "official teaching" of the Church!

In addition to this, a "knowledgeable theologian" (? ? ?) has been cited to the effect that the reward of invincibly and inculpably ignorant non-Catholics dying without Baptism of water is, simply stated, a more lenient punishment in hell!

As if that were not bad enough, there is also this: That the position taken in our November "Salvation" article is "identical to the interpretation given the dogma by Calvin at the time he broke from the Church". (!) This could only mean that the Popes quoted in the article are guilty of Calvinism! Of course, the truth is that Calvin represents the same kind of merciless rigorism that is manifest in the Feeney heresy, nor would he be in the slightest degree interested in the correct interpretation of the "Salvation Outside the Church" dogma that we have been upholding.

What stands out perhaps more than anything else in the protest letters received on the subject, is the unfortunate ignorance of the writers, a good percentage of whom are supposedly converts. One particular individual, who obviously has no idea just what "heresy really is, has charged that we are guilty of the "heresy" of invincible ignorance and that, moreover, a quack theologizer has "clearly" proven this to be so. The editor of The Remnant has also been admonished, in a sort of hush-hush, "let me tip you off" manner, of his responsibility to rectify this "terrible mistake".

Another critic, after firing off at us a somewhat incoherent statement as to what we, as Catholics, are obliged to believe and accept, suddenly concludes his broadside on this note: "Can you tell me in which Council or in which Ex-Cathedra statement you find 'Baptism of desire' or 'invincible ignorance'?"

As for "Baptism of desire", which will come up again in another article, all the reader in question has to do is to read--this time attentively!--the Nov. 15th part of the "Salvation article (p. 15) to see what the Ecuмenical Council of Trent says about it.

It should be necessary to explain that a Council or an Ex Cathedra statement by a Pope need not, and would not be expected to, define as an article of faith the fact of "invincible ignorance" among non-Catholics before it can be considered in connection with authentic Catholic teaching. Since it was an encyclical letter that Pope Pius IX spoke of the possibility of "invincibly ignorant" non-Catholics being saved, it should suffice to recall here the following from the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) of Pope Pius XII:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

 

In view of such a clear-cut declaration by the Holy Father, who will be so brash as to by-pass the ordinary teaching of the encyclical and seek refuge in some more solemn declaration of a Council, or even an Ex Cathedra definition by a Pope? Heretics have tried this kind of escape maneuver before.

An emotionally disturbed soul, confessing confusion regarding the Church's salvation doctrine, warns: "Unless you come right out and tell us what constitutes 'invincible ignorance' . . . . you are putting more confusion on this most important mater,"--and then comes the unfinished sentence (exactly as the writer put it): "Unless you come out and specify what you mean by 'invincible ignorance' and 'unconscious desire'."

The charge of adding more confusion to this issue by using such an expression as 'invincible ignorance" is, of course, really directed at the Pope who used it--not to to mention the numerous traditional theologians of the past who have all made use of it in propounding genuine Catholic doctrine.

If it is necessary that we "come right out" and give the elementary explanation of what is meant by "invincible ignorance", then let us by all means come right out and say that it is a type of ignorance that cannot be so easily overcome or removed. and let us come right out and add that some of the well-known reasons for this kind of ignorance are: faulty upbringing, and education, lack of opportunities to learn, the disadvantages of the  place where one lives, the deficiencies of the persons with whom one regularly associates, slowness of comprehensions, etc.

As for ignorance of the True Faith and the True Church, this varies so greatly among men--from the most uneducated heathen in a totally non-Christian environment to the fairly well-informed non-Catholic Christian--that it is impossible for man to say how much, if at all, any one individual is to blame for such ignorance. Only the all-knowing God can know this perfectly ad He alone can pass correct judgment on all without exception, so it is not for man to intrude into this domain. It is not for man t determine just which ones will be saved or lost, or to suggest the percentage of saved or lost, or to set limits to the Divine Power and Goodness and Mercy, or to specify what particular means the Lord may or may not use in saving souls.

In speaking of non-Catholics who are "invincibly ignorant of our Holy Religion", Pope Pius IX was stressing the fact that such persons are not be held automatically culpable before God for their invincible ignorance of the True Faith and the True Church when the do not wilfully contribute to that ignorance. These, he said, can merit eternal life despite their ignorance, provided that they persevere to the end in observing God's "Natural Law and its precepts", from which no one can be excused, and provided that they are "disposed to obey God" in whatever the may learn to be His Holy Will, and provided that they "lead an honest and upright life . . ."

The Holy Father could go no further than to make this general statement of principle in regard to the salvation of those who are not visibly and externally members of the One True Church. he had to leave the final decision as to the state of soul of each individual non-Catholic to the Most High, Who alone has "perfect knowledge, examines and judges the minds, the souls, the thoughts and deeds of all men .."

 

The saintly Pope did not condemn outright to eternal hellfire all those who are not visible members of the One True Church through Baptism of water, as the Feeneyites do. Rather, he gave credit to God's "sovereign Goodness and Mercy", which, as he said, "does not permit...any men not culpable of wilful sin to be punished with eternal torment." He did not tie down the Almighty Power of God, so as to make Him incapable of granting the graces of justification and salvation to those who may, through no wilful fault of their own, be prevented from knowing in full the True Faith and the True Church and from receiving Baptism of water.

In contradiction to the teaching of Pope Pius IX, the Feeneyites make a crucial mistake in rashly assuming that God does not take into consideration the invincible and inculpable ignorance of non-Catholics who die without Baptism of water, no do they respect the fact that, despite such ignorance, there are non-Catholics who nevertheless carefully observe the Natural Law and its precepts, are disposed to obey God, and lead an honest and upright life. The Feeneyites make the further mistake of giving God no other choice than to have such persons baptized with water--even if it be after death!--if He wishes to admit them into Heaven

Pope Pius IX was not, of course, excusing those who wilfully keep themselves ignorant of the True Faith and of the True Church, or who are not interested in seeking the Truth nor in obeying God's Will nor in leading an honest and upright life. He was not excusing those--whether non-Catholic or Catholic--"who knowingly rebel against the teaching authority of the Church". He was not excusing those Catholics who "wilfully separate themselves form union with the Church of the Roman Pontiff", thus placing themselves in the company of culpable non-Catholics.

Furthermore, the Holy Father was not excusing those Catholics who, while apparently accepting the rest of the Faith, nevertheless reject or distort one or the other of its Dogmas. He could not excuse those who are told over and over and over again of the correct interpretation of the dogmatic statement, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", and who are provided with evidence from papal docuмents, yet who persistently and wilfully refuse to listen and refuse to accept the correct understanding of the Dogma.

When Pius IX spoke of those non-Catholics who are "disposed to obey God", he was implying that such persons have the genuine desire and good will to know the Truths which God has revealed and to accept them, even if they do not fully understand them. He was implying that such persons are genuinely prepared to obey the Will of God whenever it is made known to them.

Pope Pius XII (quoted in our Nov. 3rd article) was speaking of precisely the same favorable dispositions of soul in certain non-Catholics when he said that "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer".

Since we have been challenged to "come right out" and tell what is meant also by "unconscious desire", we again proceed to come right out and say that such a desire--a real desire, and not just a whimsy--is directed towards something of which one is not as yet fully or consciously aware. Thus, to get right to the point, non-Catholics of good will have in their souls the genuine desire to fulfill God's Will in all things, though they are not as yet aware of the specific details of the One True Faith which God requires them to accept. Their disposition of soul is such that they are prepared to accept whatever they find out God wants them to accept, even if they eventually find out that this is to accept the Catholic Faith and to be baptized, and thus become members of the One True Church, which they learn to be none other than the Roman Catholic Church. This genuine desire for the Truth is precisely what has led so many true converts into the One True Church.

It is merciless cruelty, as well as an awful and blasphemous insult to God, to insist that such persons, so well disposed to God, should be cast by Him into the eternal torment of hell if they die before they can learn the True Faith and be baptized in the Catholic Church.

Part VI: Those Three "Ex Cathedras," published on April 16,1974

The adherents of the Feeney heresy like to boast that they have incontrovertible proof for their erroneous position regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church in three declarations of the Popes are technically called "Ex Cathedra: declarations. "Ex Cathedra (pronounced CATH-e-dra) literally means "from the chair"-and, in this case,it means "from the Chair of Peter". A declaration of a Pope coming from the "Cathedra" or "Chair" of Peter is understood to mean a formal and official dogmatic declaration that is infallible and cannot be lawfully denied or rejected.

There are three "Ex Cathedra" declarations by three different Popes that the Feeney disciples triumphantly, though futilely, cite in their own favor, imagining that here they have evidence to show that their erroneous contention regarding the damnation of non-Catholics is the correct one.

We wish first to quote those three "Ex Cathedras" as they are presented in certain small pieces of pro-Feeneyism literature, sometimes in one arrangement, sometimes in another, and under such headings as "Ark of Salvation" and "Magisterium Ecclesiae" (in English: the Magisterium or Teaching Office of the Church).

Here, then, are those three "Ex Cathedras":

1. Ex Cathedra: "There is ut one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one can be saved."--Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

2. Ex Cathedra: "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.

3. Ex Cathedra: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull "Cantate Domino," 1441.

 

Before the Feeneyites can even begin to boast that here is proof for their heresy, they must first clearly and precisely state their own position, without taking refuge in generalities that can be interpreted to suit their purposes.

We have found the Feeneyites very reluctant to make any clear and precise definition of their real position. They will say, for example, that the words "Outside the Church there is no salvation" mean exactly what they say, yet they show that they do not want to understand what that dogmatic statement of the Church really does say. They take the word "outside" in an entirely shallow and external and naturalistic sense, seeing only the outer surface of the word, while failing to understand the supernatural Mystery of Grace to which the word refers. They scoff at the notion that the word is being used in connection with the Divine Treasure of Grace. They fear the deathblow to their heresy if they admit that "outside the Church" in this case is equivalent to "outside the Church's Treasure of Grace", so that anyone outside the Treasury of Grace, possessed solely by the One True Church, cannot be saved.

That is why it is useless for them to quote in their own favor the "Ex Cathedra" statement of Pope Innocent III, for they do not want to understand its real meaning. And it is particularly incongruous for them to use the "Ex Cathedra" of Pope Boniface VIII for their own purposes, because the glaring truth shining in their faces is the fact that their own founder and leader refused "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" when he disobeyed repeated summonses to appear in Rome by January 31, 1953, where his case was to be examined and adjudged by the Holy Office. As a result of his disobedience, he incurred the threatened penalty of excommunication for his refusal to subject himself to the will of the Roman Pontiff.

The decree of excommunication for disobedience to the repeated summons of the Holy See is dated February 13, 1953, after it had been approved by Pope Pius XII on the previous day, February 12, 1953. This decree was published in the Vatican's official organ, called the Acta Apostolicae Sedis ("Acts of the Apostolic See"), vol. 45, issue of Feb. 16, 1953, page 100.

Whether, or when, this particular excommunication was lifted by competent authority is entirely independent of the central issue, namely, the correct understanding of the Church's Dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Even if Fr. Feeney was possibly absolved from this excommunication, the fact is that never did give up his erroneous interpretation of the Dogma of Salvation, as is evident from his writings on the matter in recent months. He has never accepted the official explanation of the Dogma as expounded by the Holy Office in a letter to Archbishop Cushing, dated August 8, 1949, which had been approved by Pope Pius XII on July 29, 1949. Thus, it is also in this case that he refused "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff". An English translation of the complete letter of the Holy Office was published belatedly (with the Latin version preceding it) in the "American Ecclesiastical Review", vol. 127, issue of October 1952, pp. 311-315.

The denial of the correct interpretation of a Dogma of the Faith is obviously equivalent to a denial of the Dogma itself, which is heresy. According to Canon law (Can. 2314, 1), one who contumaciously and openly teaches heresy automatically (or "ipso facto") incurs excommunication from the Church. Whether or not Fr. Feeney has incurred this excommunication--which holds as lon as one persists in heresy--is something that only the proper ecclesiastical authority would have to declare officially. We can limit ourselves here solely to stating these two facts: 1) that there is an automatic excommunication for open heresy, and that, as we have said, 2) a rejection of the correct interpretation of a Dogma of Faith is the equivalent to a rejection of the Dogma itself.

Since the Feeney followers like to shy away from exposing their true position clearly and precisely, let us do it for them, even using some of the authoritative language of Pope Boniface VIII to make it more emphatic--as follows:

"We of the Feeney persuasion declare, say, define and pronounce that all non-Catholics without exception who not visibly join the One True
Church before death, will be eternally lost; that all those who at death are not visibly and externally members of the One True Church through Baptism of water shall be condemned to hell; that there is no such thing as Baptism of Desire nor Baptism of Blood to save those who, through no wilful fault of their own, cannot receive the sacramental Baptism of water before death; that no one outside the visible membership in the One True Church, not even a little child, is ever invincibly and innocently ignorant of the One True Faith; that God may not, and indeed cannot, impart the graces of salvation to men except through Baptism of water; that unbaptized infants, including today's countless victims of abortion, are condemned to the fire of hell forever."

 

The disciples of Feeneyism have shown themselves horror-stricken, and some have burst into flames of unrighteous indignation, at seeing such precise and undeniable statements of their heresy. And Charley even shouted "Libel!" when confronted with the truth that Feeneyism must of necessity condemn unbaptized infants to eternal hellfire if Baptism of water is absolutely and unconditionally necessary for salvation--yet he failed to say just where such infants do end up. What else could their false and mercilessly rigorous interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" mean but an eternal hell for unbaptized infants?

These modern rigorists, who have taken such liberties with the Dogma of Salvation, have shown themselves unable to see anything but two extremes--that is, either ou must insist that all non-Catholics, whether or bad will or of good will, are automatically headed for eternal hellfire, or else you must of necessity maintain that all men can equally be saved. They apparently cannot or do not want to see the fact that ONLY those non-Catholics can e saved who are invincibly and innocently ignorant of the One True Faith and are properly disposed for it, and who, through no wilful fault of their own, are at death still outside visible membership in the One True Church.

To the "Ex Cathedra" of Pope Eugene IV the propagators of Feeneyism apply the same vague generalizations, that is, "It means just what it says", which they apply to the Dogma, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", but without reading it carefully in the light of the supernatural Mystery of Grace and in light of actual historical facts.

Thus, in order to protect this heresy, they are here again forced to give their own shallow interpretation to the Pope's words, "none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal". To them the expression, "existing outside the Catholic Church", can have only that same superficial and external meaning of theirs which does not recognize the supernatural and invisible workings of God's Grace in the souls of those non-Catholics whoa re in good faith and who genuinely desire and seek God's Truth and the fulfillment of His Holy Will.

Similarly, the conditional clause, "unless before death they are joined with Her", excludes for the Feeneyites the possibility of any invisible sanctification in the souls of those who are properly disposed for it. To the Feeneyites, the word "joined" means only a visible joining or union with the Catholic Church through Baptism of water, whereas the Catholic Truth is that properly disposed non-Catholics are invisibly joined to, or "related to", the One True Church through the grace of an invisible sanctification and, if they are thus at all properly disposed at death, they can be saved.

Speaking of "those who do not belong to the VISIBLE Body of the Catholic Church, Pope Pius XII said, in his Encyclical on the Mystical Body (Mystici Corporis, 1943), that "by an unconscious desire and longing THEY HAVE A CERTAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER" (emphasis added). This means that they are, through an invisible sanctification, "joined" to the Catholic Church, though not actual members of it, while the obligation remains to be baptized with water and to enter the One True Church formally and visibly.

The followers of Feeneyism have every reason to shudder if they thoughtfully read what Pope Eugene, in his "Ex Cathedra", says of the importance of the unit of the Catholic Church, and how "only those REMAINING within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation. . ." The know all too well that their own founder and leader failed to "remain" within the unity of the Catholic Church by rejecting the correct interpretation of her Dogma of Salvation and by refusing "to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" when ordered to come to Rome in 1953. According to their teaching, the word "remain" means just what it says. How can they consider themselves as "remaining" within the unity of the Church if the follow such a disobedient leader and if they accept his errors? How can they consider their "works of Christian piety" as worthy of "eternal recompense" if they "remain" in their errors? How can they presume to call themselves "Slaves of Mary" or "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary", if they remain slaves of error and disobedience?

Pope Eugene adds even greater emphasis to the nee of "remaining within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" by declaring that not even the most generous almsgiving or philanthropy, nor even martyrdom for the sake of Christ, can merit eternal salvation for one who separates himself from the Church through heresy. This tells us that there are genuine martyrs--that is, martyrs for the Truth--and there are false martyrs--that is, martyrs in defense of error. There is no merit for salvation in doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

So, then, it is evident that those three "Ex Cathedras" to which Feeneyites appeal are actually a condemnation of their errors.

It has been asked, "Just what is the REAL REASON why Father Feeney, who once taught the correct doctrine of salvation, suddenly switched to a rigorous and merciless interpretation of 'Outside the Church there is no salvation'? Was it possibly because of an intense hatred for certain groups of non-Catholics whom he could not stand seeing in Heaven?"

Whatever be the answer to these and other questions, the real reason for the sudden transfer form the correct Catholic doctrine to an intolerable rigorism could not possibly have been zeal for Truth. And we know that behind every heresy and every other kind of religious error lurks the shadow of the author of all heresy and error and lies and disobedience. It makes no difference to him what extreme of error be espoused by men, whether it be on the left or the right or in some other direction from the Truth, just as long as souls are ensnared in error and enslaved to him.

We can only hope that those who strangely call themselves"slaves" of Mary and her Immaculate Heart, while invincibly and innocently ignorant of the errors into which they have been misled, may show enough humility and good will so as to merit being led back to the Truth and to the Ark of Salvation by Our Lady, Destroyer of All Heresies. But they cannot merit this grace if they continue to close their eyes and ears and hearts to the Truth.

 

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Camillus de Lellis, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


 

For years I have been seeing the Feenyites pretend that they don't know if Feeney was excommunicated.

They continue in their obstinate rebellion to ignore that Feeney was summoned to Rome to speak with Pope Pius XII about his [false] teaching.  Feeney refused to respect and obey the Holy Father, and he was excommunicated for this.

So now these heretics are busy trying to make Pope Pius XII an anti-pope.  What else can they do?  Except damn evey innocent little baby to Hell and every sweet and pure soul who co-operated with God's Grace to Hell.  

Also, they make a mockery of all of the zillions of prayers we say for the dying, etc.  They deny God's love for souls.

The

This Stepanich is a heretic.  His understanding of 'invincible ignorance' is entirely heterodox, and takes the teachings of Pope Pius IX out of context.  And Pius XII was neither saintly nor a pope, but a heretic.

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "For it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God."

Ignorance itself will not excuse a person from the guilt of infidelity to the true religion, such as subjecting oneself to a heretical antipope, but invincible ignorance alone. Notice also that the following teaching of Pius IX does not state that such persons will be exonerated from the guilt of original sin or other sins against morality. Pope Pius IX never taught that a person in the state of invincible ignorance of the true Faith could be saved, but that their just punishment would not include punishment for the sin of infidelity.

For years I have been seeing the Feenyites pretend that they don't know if Feeney was excommunicated.

They continue in their obstinate rebellion to ignore that Feeney was summoned to Rome to speak with Pope Pius XII about his [false] teaching.  Feeney refused to respect and obey the Holy Father, and he was excommunicated for this.

So now these heretics are busy trying to make Pope Pius XII an anti-pope.  What else can they do?  Except damn evey innocent little baby to Hell and every sweet and pure soul who co-operated with God's Grace to Hell.  

Also, they make a mockery of all of the zillions of prayers we say for the dying, etc.  They deny God's love for souls.

The

Do you really think that I am like that?

Yes, Elizabeth, however there were forces in this country that were working against Feeney, slandering him. He was being set up by the powerful clergy of Boston/AmerChurch at the time. All of whom were ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. These prelates had the ear of Pius XII, lied to him about Feeney. Feeney was trapped in quicksand. I know nothing about the cult that exists now.

I am sorry, I do not want to sound mean but would like to know where Catholic Martyr and Vladimar received their theological training.

The anti-pope Paul 6 lifting the alleged ex-communication of Fr Feeney only gives credence to the idea that the 'ex-communication' was legitimate in the first place which it was not.

The Feast of the Holy Innocents.

How do you explain that?

What is there to explain?  The Holy Innocents were martyred before Christ established the law of baptism, and before it went into effect, the Great Commission.

CM who the hell are you, some mighty theologian?

No, Elizabeth.  I'm neither mighty, nor a theologian.

Now if you will once again read the text I provided just before your irrational outburst, you will see that my analysis of the objective sense of the text is accurate.

...damn evey innocent little baby to Hell... They deny God's love for souls.

There are no innocent little babies who are unbaptized Elizabeth.  Or do you not believe in the dogmas of Holy Mother Church?

Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree on Original Sin, #4: "4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,--whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, --let him be anathema."

Guess what Elizabeth?  You deny the dogma of the inherited personal guilt of original sin.  Please repent and convert.

...Pius IX does not teach that salvation can be attained by invincible ignorance alone.  In fact, no pope ever has.

Very good.  You are right.

In contrast however, no pope has ever explicitly stated that those, though invincibly ignorant of the Truth that is Catholicism, are condemned to hell.

I'm sorry, but Pope Eugene IV dogmatized the Athanasian Creed, which infallibly asserts that explicit belief in the Trinity, Incarnation, Second Coming, Resurrection, Salvation of the Just and Damnation of the wicked is necessary for salvation.

...we can safely assume both Justin and Clement believed in Baptism of Desire...

You can assume, and deny the objective sense of dogmatic decrees by favouring the writings and speculations of holy men who would undeniably assent to the same dogmatic decrees if they had seen them.  I will stick to the dogmatic decrees, which are truly and properly the Words of God, and reject anything the contradicts them.

So, as CM says, Ignorance itself will not excuse, however, invincible ignorance coupled with a valid baptism of desire, would be sufficient in terms of what is 'required' for salvation.

Try valid baptism of water.  That's the only way, ever since the Great Commission.

This in no way means 'Everyone saved', as ultimately there must still be a response to the Lord's grace, but the possibility exists and we should ultimately pray that God's will be done with such individuals, and be our lord's hands and feet in bringing to them the truth of Catholicism.

No.  Catholics do not simply pray for people's salvation.  They go out into the world and look for them and preach the Gospel unto them as well.  But not people who think that water baptism is not the only way, these people are more likely to get lazy.