[Matt1618]
8. We should not conclude that religion does not progress in the Church of Christ. There is great progress! But it is truly the progress of faith, which is not change. The intelligence, wisdom, and knowledge of everybody should grow and progress, like that of the whole Church of the ages. In this way we might understand more clearly what we used to believe obscurely; in this way posterity might have joy of understanding what used to be revered without understanding. In this way the precious stones of divine dogma might be worked, adapted exactly and wisely decorated, so that they increase in grace, splendor, and beauty--but always in the same fashion and doctrine, in the same meaning and judgment, so that we can speak of a new manner rather than new substance.[19]
Notice what Pius says. Back in section 4 he says outside the church, no salvation. However, he says that it specifically refers to those who have abandoned the church.
==================
Section V.
Pope Pius IX says NO SUCH THING and makes NO such qualification in section 4 of this document. Mat.1618 is deceiving the reader into thinking such. Pope Pius IX only says that, due to the fact that:
"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"...THEREFORE, "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..."
This is not in any way whatsoever a qualification to what just preceeded it. It is a CONCLUSION. Shame on Mat.1618.
==========
[Matt1618]
Similarly, as in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, where he says those people who obstinately fight the pope have no hope of salvation. He writes in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore that one who is invincibly ignorant can achieve eternal life. Likewise, in this encyclical, in section 7 he writes "nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.". So therefore, those who are ignorant beyond their control CAN hope for salvation
=====================
Section VI:
Well of course the ignorant CAN hope for salvation. ALL MEN can hope for salvation, but ONLY those Baptized members of the Catholic Church who obey God's commands and persevere until the end will ACHIEVE salvation. And THAT is the topic at hand. So Mat.1618 changes the topic! How dishonest and misleading this man is.
Besides, if someone is HOPING for salvation, then he can no longer be considered invincibly ignorant! He knows that he needs to be saved, which means he knows that God exists, that something is wrong, that there must be a means to achieve salvation (i.e. a way), that he can't provide it himself, and on and on. So Mat.16 defeats himself with his own conclusion.
===============
Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 132 - Will a person outside the Church be saved? It is a most serious loss to be outside the Church, because outside one does not have either the means which have been established or the secure guidance which has been set up for eternal salvation, which is the one thing truly necessary for man. A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church.
Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Question 280 - If Baptism is necessary for all men, is no one saved without Baptism? - Without Baptism no one can be saved. However, when it is impossible to receive Baptism of water, the Baptism of blood suffices, that is, martyrdom suffered for Jesus Christ; and also the Baptism of desire suffices, which is the love of God by charity, desiring to make use of the means of salvation instituted by God.
=======================
Section VII:
Three points about this quote:
1.
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that the desire for Baptism
can suffice for salvation -NOWHERE!
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that there can be exceptions
for the necessity of holding the Catholic Faith for salvation -NOWEHERE.
*Nowhere has the Church infallibly taught that there can be exceptions
for the necessity of water Baptism for salvation -NOWHERE.
While on the other hand, the Church HAS infallibly defined the necessity of the latter two and has condemned those who would hold that they are optional.
Also, the infallible ex cathedra defintion of Pope Eugene IV (Bull, "Cantate Domino") in 1441 precludes the possibility "baptism of blood" (of an unbaptized person) as sufficing for salvation. This infallible definition ends with this:
"...moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can he be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
2. The same points made about the CCC apply to this catechism also. No catechism is a Magisterial document. ALL catechisms are the work of theologians. And theologians are not the Magisterium. God help us if they were! Nor do theologians determine for us WHAT the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium provides that for us in its OWN documents. Also, the concept of the "soul of the Church" is used in a false way here. Pope Pius XII gave us the orthodox way in which to understand this phrase in his encyclical "Mystici Corporis" where he makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church. There is also an implied misunderstanding of the nature of the Church. The Church is ONE and INDIVISIBLE in soul and body. Hence, one cannot be in her "soul" and NOT be in her "body" (i.e.membership which comes by water Baptism only)
3. This quote presumes that, for some, Baptism in water is impossible. But this is directly contrary to what the Church has infallibly defined.
The Church has solemnly defined as a dogma that God does not command and/or require anything which cannot be fulfilled. Here's the source: Council of Trent, "On Justification" (ch.11):
"God does not command impossibilities, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, to pray for what you cannot do, and [He] assists you that you may be able... For God does not forsake those who have once been justified by His grace, unless He be first forsaken by them." AND "If anyone shall say that the commandments of God are, even for a man who is justified..., impossible to observe; let him be anathema." (Canon 18).
Now, in exposing this presumption, not only is this catechism shown to be in error on this point, but the entire argument in support of "Baptism of Desire" (as being sufficient for salvation) falls. The "baptism" of desire position presumes that God has commanded and required that which is impossible for some. But this is contrary to defined dogma and has in fact been condemned. Therefore, God's command to be Baptized can never be "physically or morally impossible" for anyone, no matter what the circumstance -unless God is NOT ALL-MIGHTY.
=============
[Matt1618]
Pope Pius XII, (1943: DS 3821): "They who do not belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church... [we ask them to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though THEY ARE ORDERED TO THE MYSTICAL BODY OF THE REDEEMER BY A CERTAIN DESIRE AND WISH of which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish to do what God wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."
===================
Section VIII:
This is a mistranslation. This very quote and translation is dealt with in "Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation," (Saint Benedict Center, 1995) pp.152-156. In those pages it is conclusively proven that Pope Pius XII was not teaching what this mistranslation makes it appear to be teaching (i.e. allowing for exceptions to what has been infallibly defined.)
To buttress this point, this fact, Pius XII elsewhere in this encyclical makes it very clear that:
"only those are to be included as REAL members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded from it by legitimate authority for serious faults." (Denz. 2286)
=============
[Matt1618]
Vatican II, #16: (1964 AD) For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
=========================
Section IX:
Can any man attain salvation? Yes, of course! This is not the precise issue. Again, IF this NON-infallible statement is read and understood in light of and subject to what has been previously and infallibly defined, THEN we will understand it as teaching that 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 LG #16.
==============
[Matt1618]
Pope Paul VI - 1968 - THE CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD - 23 -We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.
======================
Section X:
Ah, but read what Pope Paul VI stated in his intro to this: that it was NOT definitive dogmatically (# 3). That's right, this is what he prefaced this profession with.
In light of what has been infallibly defined, I believe God kept Pope Paul VI from making this dogmatic and definitive because of the above somewhat misleading phrase. I say "somewhat misleading" because it is ambiguous in what it EXACTLY means, so it does not necessarily contradict what has been infallibly defined, NOR teach what Mat.1618 think it teaches. (Thank God for dogmatic defintions because here the Church IS telling us EXACTLY what it is She means.)
For both of these quotes (Vat.II and Paul VI's profession) the same applies: Yes, All men CAN obtain salvation as they say, of course. So, in light of what has been defined, this profession STILL could be interpreted as saying that God will somehow get the Faith to these certain individuals and provide for them the waters of Baptism IF they "seek God sincerely under the influence of His grace." Do you see it?
However, due to its ambiguity, liberals use it to fool and mislead the faithful (as well as potential converts).
=============
[Matt1618]
John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the church... . For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."
=============
Section XI:
This is an excerpt from Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Redemtoris Missio" (Redeemer of Man: RM from here on) section # 10. This encyclical is not an infallible document. Therefore it is not absolutely binding on the consciences of Catholics.
Here's proof:
The Holy Father himself states its purpose in #2 (p.11 of the St. Paul edition): "The present document has as its goal an interior renewal of faith and Christian life."
The word "interior," by definition, means one's personal faith. One's personal faith is not that which is binding on all others -objectively. It is simply how one responds to and cooperates with the Holy Spirit. So he is not dealing with doctrinal/dogmatic Faith per se. The Holy Father's concern is with, as he says, praxis (life) and not dogma. Two paragraphs later the Holy Father then lists some other reasons for this document. All of them are motivational and pastoral in nature. By definition, this means that this is not a solemnly binding, let alone infallible, document. This should be clear to you.
On the other hand, #10 from RM is difficult to reconcile with infallible and definitive de fide teaching of the Church. Now, you will have to put your thinking cap on and follow this closely. Every sentence I see in #10, except for one part of one sentence, when seen in light of and subject to what has been infallibly defined can be reconciled to those dogmas which teach the necessity of holding the Catholic Faith, of Church membership and of receiving Holy Baptism for salvation without exception. That one sentence from #10 is this:
"For such people [i.e. those brought up in different religious traditions] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accomodated to their spiritual and material situation."
Now, dear reader, there ARE graces which do not on their own make one a member of the Church. These are those "preveniant" actual graces which lead one on the path to: recognize his errors and sins, to repent, to seek the true Faith, etc. The Church has defined these graces for us (see Councils of Orange: Dnz. 177,180; Trent: Dnz.797-98,811-813).
But, these actual graces ALONE cannot and do not save anyone. These actual graces do not justify-sanctify, nor do they save. They simply LEAD us to recognize the truth and eventually, if we cooperate with them, to Holy Baptism and sanctifying grace. And if one cooperates with these graces he will find the true Faith. God promises such (see Mat.7:7ff; Jn.18:37). The problem is that the Holy Father appears to give the impression that this grace, "which does not make one formally a part of the Church," can save these people WHERE THEY ARE: outside of the Church and without water Baptism. But he doesn't actually say this. And WE KNOW the Church has infallible defined that these are necessary for salvation.
However, again remember, the Holy Father's purpose here is to motivate and give pastoral encouragement. So his language is not definitive, and therefore is open to improvement. It is no doubt ambiguous, at least in this section.
But this sentence does not NECESSARILY contradict what has been infallibly defined by allowing exceptions to those dogmatic definitions and canons. For the clause "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace" does not necessarily mean salvation can be finally achieved by this grace alone, nor where they are. "Accessible" is one of those ambiguous terms which can be understood either in a heretical sense or an orthodox sense. Notice the Holy Father actually never says they WILL be SAVED. Only that salvation is accessible. Well, OF COURSE! Salvation is accessible to ALL men precisely because of that "actual" grace which the Church calls "prevenient." If men cooperate with it, then this grace will lead them to those things which the Church has defined as necessary for salvation, for God's grace ALWAYS works in union with His revealed Truth -Christ always comes to men "in grace and truth" (John 1:14).
The Pope's language can be understood to mean this -ESPECIALLY when seen in light of and subject to what has been infallibly defined. He just writes in a very complicated way because he is more of a philosopher than a teacher. Mat.1618 again fails (refuses) to point out this ALL important principle of interpretation. He also fails to recognize that it does not NECESSARILY follow from what the holy Father states that there can be exceptions to the necessity of water Baptism and Church membership for salvation.
===============CONCLUSION====================
Does the reader now understand how, dispite the ambiguities of a number of these Papal statements (which is what happens when something is NON-definitive), none of these NECESSARILY provide for or teach that there can be exceptions to the defined necessities of holding the true Faith, of water Baptism and Church membership for salvation? This should be even more clear ESPECIALLY when understood in light of what has been previously and infallibly defined. (I know, I have said this a lot, but the point must be driven home.)
These statements appear to allow for such exceptions because liberas such as Mat.1618 have, BEFORE they provide these statements, impressed in the minds of their readers their false views (i.e., that exceptions exist to what has been defined because dogmatic definitions do not mean what they literally state) and THEN they provide their readers with these selected statements, thus making these statements APPEAR as supporting their heretical views; when in reality, they don't NECESSARILY do such. Crafty these liberals are!
Catholics stand on definitions; liberals stand on INdefinitions. I hope it is now clear to you how Mat.1618:
1. in practice rejects the Catholic principle of authority and interpretation
2. has mislead his readers by:
a. pitting non-magisterial documents against magisterial documents AND non-infallible documents against infallible documents;
b. even worse, by subjecting the infallible definitive documents to those which are fallible (i.e., not protected from error) and NON-definitive, thus turning upside down the benefits of both authority and infallibility, and
c. by preparing his readers with false notions before hand in order that they would approach and interpret all the non-infallible documents in ways contrary to what the words in infallible documents actually declare.
4. has been dishonest in HIS presentation by failing to quote the actual infallible definitions, decrees and canons on this very topic! (i.e., Vienne, Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Trent's Canons 2 and 5 On Baptism, etc.)
Dear Reader, think about how misleading this neglegence is: Would you take seriously, or as a reliable representation, the answer someone gives about the dogma of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception even though that person fails to even make reference to, let alone quote the infallible definition made by Ven. Pope Pius IX in his Bull, "Ineffabilis Deus"? Surely you wouldn't. No right reasoned and reasonABLE person would. Yet MAt.1618 is guilty of this very same negligence.
5. has presumed exceptions to those infallible definitions and canons which allow for no exceptions.
What dishonesty! What arrogance and deception it is to set up before his readers NON-infallible and non-definitive statements as the FINAL judge against those Church documents which have NO judge, but which ALL ELSE is to be judged by -the infallible and definitive dogmatic decrees, canons and definitions of the infallible Magisterium. Do you see? They turn completely upside down the nature of authority. Do you recognize this crafty/misleading technic now? This is what Mat.1618, Karl Keating, James Akin (and all at "Catholic" Answers), Peter Kreeft, Fr. William Most, Colin B. Donovan (and all at EWTN) and others have done. They are doing exactly what Pope Pius XII warned the faithful about:
"Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation... ("Humani Generis": Some False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine Catholic Doctrine)
They are also doing what Pope St. Pius X warned the faithful about in "Pascendi Gregis" (1907):
"[Modernists] have put into operation their designs for the Church's undoing, NOT from without but FROM WITHIN. Hence the danger is present almost IN THE VERY VEINS AND HEART of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the fact that their knowledge of her is more inimate. Moreover, they lay the ax NOT to the branches and shoots, but TO THE VERY ROOT, that is, TO THE FAITH AND ITS DEEPEST FIBERS. Having once struck the root, the proceed to difuse poison THROUGH THE WHOLE TREE [i.e. the Church], so that THERE IS NO PART OF CATHOLIC TRUTH which they leave untouched."
Pope Paul IV stated in his general audience (8/12/1974):
"There are ferments of infidelity to the Holy Spirit existing both here and there in the Church today and, unfortunately, attempting to undermine her FROM WITHIN."
These quotes should make you stop in your tracks. They describe exactly what Mat.1618, and all these liberals, including many priests and bishops, are doing. They appear to be orthodox for this reason:
By functioning within a climate (both socially and ecclesiastically) of such out-right explicit dissention, rebellion and rejection of Church teaching, their subtle underminings of these dogmas on what is necessary for salvation, where:
a. they "allow' for exceptions where none are provided for and
b. where they "allow" for meanings which go beyond the very words of what has been defined, are NOT noticed as unorthodox and against de fide teaching. The surrounding climate of liberal dissention provides a smoke screen for their "conservative" Modernist errors. Satan has provided the perfect cover for their errors.
In the decree approved by Pope St. Pius X, Lamentabili (# 24), the Church solemnly condemned those who hold that a theologian is not to be corrected who:
"constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are doubted, even though they do not directly deny a dogma."
By definition, the BOD position does exactly this. Therefore, Mat.1618, and ALL those who hold it must repent from their error and believe the dogmas of no salvation outside the Church and the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation without exception precisely as the Church has infallibly declared and defined them.
As Pope Pius IX infallibly declared:
Wherefore, if ANY should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than has been DEFINED by Us, which God forbid, let them know and understand that THEY ARE CONDEMNED BY THEIR OWN JUDGMENT; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith.