LETTER OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Archbishop Richard J. Cushing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Given on August 8, 1949 explaining the true sense of Catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.
This important Letter of the Holy Office is introduced by a letter of the Most Reverend Archbishop of Boston.

The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has examined again the problem of Father Leonard Feeney and St. Benedict Center. Having studied carefully the publications issued by the Center, and having considered all the circuмstances of this case, the Sacred Congregation has ordered me to publish, in its entirety, the letter which the same Congregation sent me on the 8th of August, 1949. The Supreme Pontiff, His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, has given full approval to this decision. In due obedience, therefore, we publish, in its entirety, the Latin text of the letter as received from the Holy Office with an English translation of the same approved by the Holy See.

Given at Boston, Mass., the 4th day of September, 1952.

Walter J. Furlong, Chancellor

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210

 

I have never read any Catholic writer that claimed what you are saying. You are the one that made the comment that it does not teach implicit faith of the School of Samanaca, so prove it from authoritative sources.

I am all ears/eyes.

I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.

Then post the quotes from Fr. Rulleau that say that he is opposed to implicit faith, that "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine". I just looked at the book (AGAIN), and he has a whole section on just Implicit faith, where he quotes from the School of Salamanca, which is opposed to the idea of the need for an explicit faith in the Incarntion and Trinity. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau say that he is opposed to implicit faith. Moreover, the SSPX teaches the same implicit faith in their seminaries, would you like to see the quotes again from Bp. Fellay and others?  

By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Quo Vadis Petre

I believe you are the one to need to prove Pope Pius XII in this 1949 Letter approved of implicit faith, since Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter. I haven't heard from anyone but you that this letter approves of implicit faith. I am all eyes and ears about how supernatural faith can be all implicit, according to what you claim the 1949 letter says.

Then post the quotes from Fr. Rulleau that say that he is opposed to implicit faith, that "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine". I just looked at the book (AGAIN), and he has a whole section on just Implicit faith, where he quotes from the School of Salamanca, which is opposed to the idea of the need for an explicit faith in the Incarntion and Trinity. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau say that he is opposed to implicit faith. Moreover, the SSPX teaches the same implicit faith in their seminaries, would you like to see the quotes again from Bp. Fellay and others?  

By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?

I personally agree in belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but it hasn't been decided by the Church; that is why I am careful to say "some revealed doctrine." As for Fr. Rulleau, he posts objections to the implicit faith hypothesis (probably fatal, but again not decided), leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side.

" leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side"?

Again, you posted nothing from Fr. Rulleau, so your comment that "Fr. Rulleau and Msgr. Fenton of the AER maintained one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, using this very letter", is again just your opinion. Nowhere does Fr. Rulleau personal object to the teaching of Implicit desire in his book. If the teaching is not taught in the 1949/1952 letter, he would not have taught implicit faith in his book, he would have said that was rejected by the letter, the same as he said about Fr. Feeney.

The SSPX teaches implicit faith and uses the 1949 letter, eveyone that defends implict faith uses the 1949 letter.

Quote from: bowler

By the way, have you now turned it into "one needs to have explicit faith in some revealed doctrine, without saying what that doctrine is?

I personally agree in belief in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but it hasn't been decided by the Church; that is why I am careful to say "some revealed doctrine." As for Fr. Rulleau, he posts objections to the implicit faith hypothesis (probably fatal, but again not decided), leading me to believe he is on the explicit faith side.

You say that personally you believe that at a minimum one must believe in the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation, but that you write "some revealed doctrine" because the Church has not decided.

I'm confused by what you write, because The School of Salamanca's Implicit faith theory has no revealed doctrine that must be believed, and the School of St. Thomas (Thomists) says the two revealed doctrines that must be believed, therefore, are you saying that the Church does not teach Implicit Faith since some revealed doctrine must be believed?

The reason that I started this thread was because you said that the 1949/1952 does not teach implicit faith, and this thread I hope has proven to you that it does teach it. Here is material from Fr. Fenton in his defending of the 1949/1952 letter where he teaches implicit faith and explains that the "teachings" of  are what the School of Salamanca calls the minimum "doctrines" which must be believed:

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 69: “The divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements.  It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness  of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained or implied in other doctrines.  But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly and explicitly.  There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.”

In his defense of 1949/1952 letter pg103-104 he says that unconscious or implicit desire can put one mysteriously inside the Church only if the person has supernatural Faith.  So, once one sees what Fenton believes is the minimum requirement for supernatural Faith, that is precisely what he thinks a person must minimally and absolutely know and believe to be “inside” the Church without being a member.

Fenton begins by correctly stating that divine Faith can exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some truths of the Catholic Faith.  That is absolutely true: a Catholic doesn’t have to know or be aware of every Catholic teaching to have the Catholic Faith, but he cannot reject any of them.  Fenton then correctly notes that in order to have supernatural Faith, a person must distinctly grasp and know certain truths.  This is also true; there are certain mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.  An adult cannot be ignorant of them and be saved.

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:
“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

What are these minimum truths that an adult must know to be saved?  The Church has always taught, as the Athanasian Creed infallibly defined, that knowing the Trinity and the Incarnation is a necessity of means in order to be saved.  That is why missionaries risked everything to go and preach the Gospel to heathen in far off lands.  An adult who doesn’t know the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved, for these mysteries constitute “the Catholic Faith” if broken down and defined in terms of its simplest mysteries.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.
     “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  It is why the St. Thomas and the Thomist who believed in baptism of desire only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnation.

However, notice that Msgr. Fenton says:

Fenton, p. 69: “But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly and explicitly.  There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing , the existence of God as Head of the supernatural order,  the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the  Incarnation.”

Fenton list four things: 1) that God is the Head of the supernatural order; 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil; 3) the Trinity; 4) the Incarnation.  
Here’s the key: while listing these four things, Fenton says that a person only has to know two of these things in order to have true supernatural Faith, and be eligible for the “implicit” desire that puts you inside the Catholic Church! That is to say, according to Msgr. Fenton, a person can have “supernatural Faith” and be inside the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church by his “implicit desire” when he only believes that 1) God exists and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil, without knowing the Trinity and Incarnation!    .


Fenton interpreting and using the 1949/1952 letter, says it does not hold that it is necessary to know the Trinity and the Incarnation for salvation.  Fenton’s position does not exclude Jews and Muslims from salvation, for they believe in two out of the four.  Jews and Muslims believe 1) that God is the Head of the supernatural order; and 2) that God rewards good and punishes evil.  Fenton’s position is totally heretical and reduces the dogma to a meaningless formula.

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 87: “The non-members of the Church who have no explicit intention of joining or entering it can have the life of grace, but only if they are ordered or disposed toward the Church by a certain unconscious intention or desire.”

“A certain unconscious intention or desire,” Fenton teaches, as long as it is accompanied by belief in two of the four things – e.g. belief in God and that He is a rewarder and a punisher – is sufficient to put the person inside the Catholic Church (without being a member).  So, as long as the Jew or Muslim is “invincibly ignorant” and believes that God is the Head of the supernatural order and that He rewards good and punishes evil, he can be inside the Church and be saved.  The “unconscious intention” the Jew or Muslim has for the Church, even though he doesn’t believe in Our Lord, can grant him supernatural “Faith” which, when combined with his “implicit desire,” puts him inside the Catholic Church.

Therefore, both Fr. Rulleau and Fr. Fenton teach and defend the theory of implicit faith, and use the 1949/1952 letter to teach it.

I don't think it is fair to call Msgr. Fenton an adherent of "implicit faith." The reason why he says what he does, is, IMHO, because the Church has not touched the question about what doctrines must be believed in a person having implicit desire. He doesn't do anymore than just say what the Church says: one must have supernatural faith and charity to have implicit desire become efficacious. He doesn't say what he believes; he only says what Catholic theology allows to be believed. I repeat: he doesn't go into which two, since it is still an unsettled question.