SJB, in a thread devoted to the usual debate over baptism of desire, quoted an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia written by Very Reverend Francis-Joseph Solliers.  His motive was to deny my proposition that it is heresy to say that one can be saved outside the Church through an act of charity or of love.

Here is my response to him, which I'll open in a new thread as it would have disrupted the other.

*********

That article from the Catholic Encyclopedia you quoted is fascinating, SJB, although you didn't even quote the portion where charity is spoken of as being relevant to salvation ( it is there ).
For the record, and for others reading the post, what he quoted is from the article about Love, not the one about Charity.

As I have shown, bold heresies occasionally slipped into the mostly-reliable Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.  Run a search for Pohle and predestination and my post about that should turn up.

My next investigation will have to be about this Very Reverend Francis-Joseph Solliers.  This article could have been written by a prototype of Ratzinger or JPII.  

SJB, it's pretty troubling that a sedevacantist like yourself is enamored of the most Karl Rahner-like maunderings.  But that is the whole point of what I've been saying about the sedevacantist clergy; they teach what JPII taught about salvation outside the Church, just couched in more conservative-sounding terms, and that barely.  

This article by Sollier, however, is not even more conservative-sounding.  It is precisely the kind of mesmeric gobbeldygook that is regurgitated in streams by Ratzinger, like a mangled mass of barfed-up theological tapioca.  Whether or not any heresy is being taught, you hear words like "man" and "love" repeated over and over and you kind of nod your head and go "Yep, sounds holy."  That is until you whip out the magnifying glass and go over it carefully.

So with that purpose in mind --  :detective:

(1) Its origin, by Divine infusion. "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost" (Romans 5:5). It is, therefore, distinct from, and superior to, the inborn inclination or the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order.

Nodding head... Falling asleep... Sounds good... WAKING UP!  Who has ever spoken of "the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order"?  Loving God is "an acquired habit," like smoking cigars?  

And the natural virtue of charity is "superior to" loving God?  WHOA!  HOLD ON THERE BUCKO!!!  Then why does God send charitable people to hell, as we know from the infallible decree of Eugene IV, who said that even shedding your blood for the name of CHRIST outside the Church, an act of charity if there ever was one, is not enough for salvation?

"(2) Its seat, in the human will. Although charity is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue."

This is so incredibly Ratzingerian.  I wonder if Ratzinger took lessons from this forgotten harbinger of la nouvelle théologie?   Precisely, and I mean precisely like Ratzinger, he uses two methods of the worst kind of sophistry at once: ( a ) Mixes two strands of argumentation, in this case, whether charity is either emotional or intellectual, and whether or not it is possible for humans to exemplify it i.e. an "impossible virtue" and ( b )  Sets up little straw-man sub-arguments  and then fights against them to make himself sound conservative.  Who has ever said charity is an "impossible virtue" in the first place?  

Oh, knight in shining armor, you have saved charity!  Kneel so that the lady-fair might bedeck thee with a crown of roses!

"(3) Its specific act, i.e. the love of benevolence and friendship. To love God is to wish Him all honour and glory and every good, and to endeavour, as far as we can, to obtain it for Him. St. John (14:23; 15:14) emphasizes the feature of reciprocity which makes charity a veritable friendship of man with God."

In ( 1 ) Sollier had said charity was "distinct from, and superior to, the acquired habit of loving God in the natural order," a mish-mash of concepts.  But nevertheless, here he is acting as if charity is always connected to the relationship between man and God.  I thought it was distinct?

Gee, I'm so confused... I think I'll just agree with whatever it is he's saying even though I don't know what he's saying, since this was printed in the Catholic Encyclopedia... Same with Ratzinger, I'm too sleepy to read his stuff, but it must be Catholic, the Pope couldn't posssibly err, that's how I know...
( sarcasm )

"(4) Its motive, i.e., the Divine goodness or amiability taken absolutely and as made known to us by faith. It matters not whether that goodness be viewed in one, or several, or all of the Divine attributes, but, in all cases, it must be adhered to, not as a source of help, or reward, or happiness for ourselves, but as a good in itself infinitely worthy of our love, in this sense alone is God loved for His own sake. However, the distinction of the two loves: concupiscence, which prompts hope; and benevolence, which animates charity, should not be forced into a sort of mutual exclusion, as the Church has repeatedly condemned any attempts at discrediting the workings of Christian hope."

Firstly, if you can pick through the verbiage, what he is saying here has been condemned by the Church.  He's saying that "in all cases" we shouldn't "adhere" to God's goodness for our "help, or reward, or happiness of ourselves" but only out of pure love of God.  Translation out of the Chinese:  We should do God's will out of love for Him rather than out of duty, or because we are trying to win salvation, which he calls "help, or reward, or happiness of ourselves."  

By saying that "in all cases" we are to love God in Himself and for Himself, he is denying that the fear of God is an incentive to faith -- this is condemned.  Imperfect love of God is still love of God and is still faith.  It is MORE PERFECT to love God because He is good, rather than because He can punish and destroy you.  But if you only love him because He can save you, that is enough.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself.  "Concupiscence, which prompts hope"?!  That's enough of Sollier.  Congratulations on your discovery of the Piltdown Man of la nouvelle théologie, though, SJB.  This guy was the Missing Link!  One day soon I predict even the common Catholic, the man in the street, will be immune to this kind of pseudo-intellectual bullying, and will demand the simple and clear language that has always been spoken by the real Popes and saints.

Ah! So you've done away with and narrowed Catholicism even more, eh?  :baby: :heretic: :heretic:

Translation out of the Chinese:  We should do God's will out of love for Him rather than out of duty

I can't see what's wrong with this. The love of God is the reason that we do follow the law and do our duties to him. God's grace enables us to follow his law to near perfection. The opposite view is close to the casuistic-legalistic one which views morality as obedience to an external law that is repressive instead of seeing obedience to the law as the outward sign of the internal reality.

His motive was to deny my proposition that it is heresy to say that one can be saved outside the Church through an act of charity or of love.

One CANNOT be saved outside the Church. I am saying an act of perfect charity is only possible with true supernatural faith. You equated that perfect charity with that of being smitten with a cute little labrador puppy.

It is not "in all cases" that we must have that perfect love; since that perfect love tends to grow out of the imperfect fear of punishment.

This type of fear is servile. Filial fear is the one that leads to perfect love of God.

I answer that, Servile fear proceeds from self-love, because it is fear of punishment which is detrimental to one's own good. Hence the fear of punishment is consistent with charity, in the same way as self-love is: because it comes to the same that a man love his own good and that he fear to be deprived of it.

Now self-love may stand in a threefold relationship to charity. On one way it is contrary to charity, when a man places his end in the love of his own good. On another way it is included in charity, when a man loves himself for the sake of God and in God. On a third way, it is indeed distinct from charity, but is not contrary thereto, as when a man loves himself from the point of view of his own good, yet not so as to place his end in this his own good: even as one may have another special love for one's neighbor, besides the love of charity which is founded on God, when we love him by reason of usefulness, consanguinity, or some other human consideration, which, however, is referable to charity.

Accordingly fear of punishment is, in one way, included in charity, because separation from God is a punishment, which charity shuns exceedingly; so that this belongs to chaste fear. On another way, it is contrary to charity, when a man shrinks from the punishment that is opposed to his natural good, as being the principal evil in opposition to the good which he loves as an end; and in this way fear of punishment is not consistent with charity. On another way fear of punishment is indeed substantially distinct from chaste fear, when, to wit, a man fears a penal evil, not because it separates him from God, but because it is hurtful to his own good, and yet he does not place his end in this good, so that neither does he dread this evil as being the principal evil. Such fear of punishment is consistent with charity; but it is not called servile, except when punishment is dreaded as a principal evil, as explained above (A2,4). Hence fear considered as servile, does not remain with charity, but the substance of servile fear can remain with charity, even as self-love can remain with charity.

I answer that, Fear is of several kinds, as stated above (Article 2). Now it is not "human fear," according to Augustine (De Gratia et Lib. Arb. xviii), "that is a gift of God"--for it was by this fear that Peter denied Christ--but that fear of which it was said (Matthew 10:28): "Fear Him that can destroy both soul and body into hell."

Again servile fear is not to be reckoned among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, though it is from Him, because according to Augustine (De Nat. et Grat. lvii) it is compatible with the will to sin: whereas the gifts of the Holy Ghost are incompatible with the will to sin, as they are inseparable from charity, as stated above (I-II, 68, 5).

It follows, therefore, that the fear of God, which is numbered among the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, is filial or chaste fear. For it was stated above (I-II, 68, 1,3) that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are certain habitual perfections of the soul's powers, whereby these are rendered amenable to the motion of the Holy Ghost, just as, by the moral virtues, the appetitive powers are rendered amenable to the motion of reason. Now for a thing to be amenable to the motion of a certain mover, the first condition required is that it be a non-resistant subject of that mover, because resistance of the movable subject to the mover hinders the movement. This is what filial or chaste fear does, since thereby we revere God and avoid separating ourselves from Him. Hence, according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 4) filial fear holds the first place, as it were, among the gifts of the Holy Ghost, in the ascending order, and the last place, in the descending order.

Invincible or Inculpable Ignorance Neither Saves nor Damns a Person by Father Michael Müller, C.Ss.R.

http://www.cfnews.org/invig.htm

Invincible Ignorance is a privation and a punishment, not a "Get Out of Hell Free" card.

The problem with this type of theologizing is that it usually sweeps under the rug the dogmas pertaining to Original Sin.

Has the Church ever proclaimed another remedy for Original Sin than Baptism?