-----------------------
[Matt1618]
PART 4. MAGISTERIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND EARLY POPES
Pope Innocent II - To your inquiry we respond thus, we assert without hesitation on the authority of the Holy Father's Augustine and Ambrose, that the priest whom you indicated in your letter had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the church and the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly father land... Question concerning the dead, you should hold the opinion of the learned fathers, and in your church, you should join in prayers, you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. Denzinger
========================
Section I:
Preliminary point:
Mat.16 misleads his readers by entitling this section as "Magisterial Pronouncements." After having read all of these quotes, it is clear that these are not pronouncements in the proper sense and usage of the word. A pronouncement is, by definition, a universal declaration by the Pope binding on all the faithful. None of these quotes, as you will see, are universal in nature.
Nevertheless, by starting this section off with this word, he sets up in his reader's minds the (erroneous) notion that each of these NON-infallible statements carries as much weight as the infallible statements of the extra-ordinary Magisteriam concerning salvation. This, of course, goes directly against the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation, which in short, it is this: non-magisterial or non-infallible documents must be seen in light of and in subjection to infallible Magisterial documents of the Church.
There are a number of points to be made here concerning this particular quote.
1. First of all, this is merely a letter from Pope Innocent II to an unnamed bishop of Cremona. It is, by nature, a PRIVATE correspondance. This should be self evident by the fact that no letter written simply to another individual can be UNIVERSALLY binding. Also, the matter of the letter is not dogmatic, but involves a prudential and disciplinary judgment. So it is not even a matter of faith or morals. Liberals have taken advantage of this letter ever since it was included in Denzinger.
2. Any educated Catholic should notice a problem, or at least become suspicous when reading this. The concerned subject was a PRIEST! It has been defined that NO MAN can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders validly if he was not FIRST baptized (Council of Nicea, Canon 19). So either this man was already baptized and there was confusion on this, OR he was not a priest, which means there was confusion about his identity. Either way, something is terribly wrong with this whole episode. Do you recognize this? Hence, what is stated cannot be binding since: a) no binding document could contain such confusion as this, b) it deals not with doctrine per se.
3. It depends entirely upon the witness of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine for its conclusion. Yet, as has been conclusively proven in this critique (Part III) that St. Ambrose did not teach that Valentinian was saved without receiving water Baptism. He infact confirmed that Valentinian did receive what he desired, which was the actual Sacrament of Baptism. (The reference to St. Augustine dealt with his comments on St. Ambrose's comments on Valentinian. Notice the circle?)
Besides, St. Augustine elsewhere recognized the Catholic position which is opposed to what Pope Innocent III recommends, even though Pope Innocent says he is speaking on the authority of Augustine! And that position was that it is forbidden to offer sacrifices for an unbaptized dead man:
"The Church never prays for those souls lost without Baptism... Mass is offered only for the members of the Mystical Body." (City of God, Bk. XXI, chap.24)
Pope Innocent II must have forgotten what was disallowed at the Council of Braga (563), which was approved by Pope John III:
"Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism."
4. Lastly, there is even the question of who actually wrote this letter. Numerous authorities (including document sources) ascribe it to Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), others to Pope Innocent II. Denzinger even brings up this point in its footnotes. But a gap of 55 years separate the two pontiffs!
So, what do we have with this letter?
A PRIVATE LETTER, of UNCERTAIN DATE, UNCERTAIN AUTHORSHIP and UNCERTAIN DESTINATION, based upon a FALSE reading of Sts. Ambrose and Augustine having a recommendation which CONTRADICTS the teaching of a prior council approved by the pope of the time, all of which concerns an IMPOSSIBLE situation (an unbaptized priest) which directly contradicts innumerable indisputably valid, solemn and infallible documents.
I should not have to draw a conclusion for you concerning this example: not only is this NOT infallible, it does not even qualify as a document of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is merely a private letter from the Bishop of Rome to some bishop near the east.
=============
[Matt1618]
Pope St. Innocent III - A certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water, while saying I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.. We respond that since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as clearly gathered from the words of the Lord when said "Go baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Jew must be baptized again by another. If however such a one had died immediately he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament although not because of the sacrament of faith. (Denzinger section 413)
=========================
Section II:
A number of facts need to be pointed out here also.
a. This again, is a letter to another individual. And as pointed out above, no letter written simply to another individual can be universally binding.
b. It was THIS Pope, Innocent III, who prescribed the solemn Profession of Faith:
"By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside which we believe no one is saved." (DNZ 423)
c. It was at the Council of Lateran IV (1215) where THIS Pope solemnly and infallibly defined:
"One indeed is the Catholic Church of the faithful, outside of which no one AT ALL is saved..."(DNZ 430)
Ladies and gentlemen, in matters of Faith and Morals we are bound only to that which is infallible and universal. No one with a proper Catholic sense, with a proper Catholic understanding of authority, could even compare this private letter of Pope Innocent III to his solemn and infallible definitions, let alone use it AGAINST his infallible declarations.
No one is IN the Church if they have not at least received the Sacrament of Baptism, which is in water only as the Church has infallibly defined. Besides, Pope Innocent III himself made clear:
"In Baptism, two things are always and necessarily required, namely: the words [correct form: Mat.28:19] and the element [matter: water]... you ought not to doubt that they DO NOT have TRUE Baptism in which ONE of them is missing. (DNZ 412)
Which do we stand on: that which is private and fallible, or that which is infallible and universal? Obviously it is the latter. For Mat.1618, it appears to be the former.
==============
[Matt1618]
Pius IX, By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into, will perish in the flood. NEVERTHELESS equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty of this in the eyes of the Lord. (Denzinger, 1647)
========================
Section III:
Notice Ven. Pius IX restates the necessity of being in the Roman Church for salvation. He prefaces what follows with this dogma. Now ask yourself: do you REALLY think after reitering this necessity, that he would then go on to contradict what he just said in the previous sentence? Only an idiot or a dishonest person would do such a thing. Ven. Pius IX was neither.
This quote does not say what Mat.1618 makes the reader to believe it says. It does not teach what those who work on a PRE-concluded assumption that non-Catholics can be saved think it teaches. Read the above quote again very carefully. Where does Venerable Pius IX say that these souls will be saved in THAT state where they are? NOWHERE! It ONLY says that these souls are "not guilty for THIS" (i.e. for not joining the Church). The word "this" refers to the specific sin of not joining the Church. Ven. Pope Pius IX does NOT teach that these souls are excused from having Original Sin -which, by definition, is mortal, or from any of their other sins.
We know Pope Pius IX was not teaching what Mat.1618 says he was because Pius IX himself solemnly and infallibly condemned the following:
"that good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of those who are not at all in the true Church" (Syllabus of Errors, #17).
Hence, there is NO hope for eternal salvation for those outside the Church (wherein there is no entrance without water Baptism). Mat.1618 is reading into this statement a position which goes well beyond and contrary to what it actually states.
This proves -conclusively- that Venerable pope Pius IX was not teaching what Mat.1618 and others are trying to dupe people into believing: -that one one can be saved without actual water Baptism, true faith and thus REAL entrance into the Church.
These liberals trick their readers by having them read these NON-infallible statements with the PRE-ESTABLISHED view that there can be exceptions to what has been infallibly defined, RATHER than reading these documents inlight of what has been previously defined. This is directly contrary to the Catholic principle of interpretation and authority which I presented in the aforementioned post above. And this leads me to our third point.
Thirdly, and fatal to this whole piece:
Mat.1618, again completely ignores (rejects?) in this article the fundamental Catholic priniple of authority and interpretation. God will lead these people to the true Faith, to the Church and to the waters of Baptism (i.e. to those things HE requires) if they respond to His grace. THAT is how we are to understand what Pius XI teaches IN LIGHT OF what the Church has already infallibly defined. It's really that simple. Mat.1618 wants to make it complicated.
================
[Matt1618]
Pius IX
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom "the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior."[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: "If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;"[5] "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;"[6] "He who does not believe will be condemned;"[7] "He who does not believe is already condemned;"[8] "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them "false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction."[11]
9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.
POPE PIUS IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM, 1856.
4. You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children. There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God
7. The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, NOBODY CAN HOPE FOR LIFE OR SALVATION UNLESS HE IS EXCUSED THROUGH IGNORANCE BEYOND HIS CONTROL. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. Rather, it should act as an obedient and submissive servant, afraid of erring if it goes first and afraid of losing the light of interior virtue and the straight path of truth by following the consequences of exterior words.[18]
======================
Section IV:
First, it must be made clear that this was (is) not an infallible document. Therefore, it was NOT protected from error or even ambiguity since it was not definitive. And we must stand on what has been infallibly defined above ALL else.
Now, Pope Pius IX either made a mistake in this fallible letter, OR he worded what he wanted to say poorly OR it is a poor and misleading translation. Take your pick. It does not matter. Why? Again, this letter was not infallible. It was simply a letter to the bishops of Austria. It was not even universal in nature (i.e. simply directed to local bishops). So their was NO protection from error being provided here by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, we MUST subject THIS document to what has been infallibly defined, and NOT the other way around which is what Mat.16 is misleading his readers into doing:
1. by failing to point out the proper Catholic principle of authority and interpretation, and
2. by using this fallible and local document against infallible defintions and canons.