From "Baptism and Baptism of Desire," by Raymond Taouk

A dilemma that we pose for those who deny this teaching (baptism of desire) is that when Pope Boniface VIII declared that there "Outside the Church there is no salvation nor remission of sins"[28]. We all agree that a person can be justified outside the Church. However, this justification means remission of sins, because it puts one in the state of grace. Thus, if we are to take this Bull rigorously as the Feeneyites wish[29], then we must say also that there can be no justification/remission of sins before entrance in the Church/water Baptism. How is it that such persons will often admit that one can be justified before baptism of water and then at the same time declare that such justified persons are still totally outside the Church and are not members of the Church in any sense of the word? This goes directly against the words of Pope Boniface VIII who made it clear that "Outside the Church is no salvation nor remission of sins". This must obviously mean that those who are justified without water baptisms are indeed members in some sense of the term or else one could never admit that a person could be justified (have the remission of their sins) before baptism (by water).

A good point made here. Not only is there no salvation "outside" the Catholic Church, but, on the plain terms of Pope Boniface's famous Bull, there is no "remission of sins" either.

It's late, but I'll post Trent on what justification entails in the future: it includes remission of sins. If there cannot be "salvation" outside the Church (and there can't), can there be "remission of sins" outside the Church? And if not, and justification can happen before water baptism (even Feeneyites concede this), are not those justified before baptism "inside" the Church?

tornpage

That is why I believe Bill Strom is on to something when he proposes that there is no justification before water baptism. It definitely makes more sense in light of what Unam Sanctam says.

So in order to preserve the “true meaning” of a dogmatic Bull “as it is written” and “once declared” that declares outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, and to reconcile this dogmatic truth with the dogmatic proclamation and universal teaching that one may be translated to justification by “the desire thereof”, let’s not turn to the Church in order to understand how she reconciles these doctrines; and let’s not turn to the teaching of theologians, Doctors and Saints such as Aquinas and Bellarmine; no, let’s turn instead to someone named Bill Strom who apparently believes that the translation to the justice of His love is, in all actuality, a legalistic and mechanical system of justification whereby no man may be justified even prior to baptism, for God refuses to unite himself with a soul in the bonds of faith and charity without these same virtues being transmitted through the instrument of water Baptism.

In other words, without incorporation with the visible institutional Church through actual ablution in water baptism, there can be neither salvation nor justification (the remission of sins).

And these people want to be taken seriously.

Btw, this is the same Bill Strom that proposed (in his dogmatic schema for VCIII) that:

In individual cases, however in numbers known only to God, validly baptized persons might not be guilty of the sins of heresy and/or schism, owing to "invincible ignorance"( non-culpible ignorance) of the true Faith, (Canon 5) in these cases they may belong to the Catholic Church by desire…

So, someone who is validly baptized as a child but as an adult is invincibly ignorant of the true faith and is not subject to the Roman Pontiff may belong to the Catholic Church by desire.

According to this “Feeneyite”, the lack of divine and Catholic Faith, the lack of unity with the visible Catholic Church and the lack of subjection to the Roman Pontiff are not barriers to an invisible “membership” in the Catholic Church in what must be called a “virtual incorporation” with the true Church; no, the true bonds of unity in this “extraordinary” case are baptism and an implicit desire for the true faith and an implicit desire for incorporation with the true visible Church.

And what about the Martyr or the Catechumen, both of whom are filled with the love of God, who actually profess the true faith and who truly desire baptism and incorporation, but death overcomes them before they can be baptized in water?

Sorry Charlie, according to the doctrine of Bill Strom (if what Duckbill and Rasha say is true) the baptized non-Catholic can be saved as an adult without profession of the true Faith while remaining outside of the visible Catholic Church; but neither the Martyr nor the Catechumen can be saved since there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins outside the visible Catholic Church; meaning no one can be justified or saved without water baptism.

This is where the "private judgment" of arm-chair theologians leads when the universal teachings of the Doctors and the authoritative teachings of the Magisterium are simply swept aside in favor of one's legalistic system of grace and one's private interpretation of dogmas "as they are written" and "once declared".

Rash and Duckbill; are you serious?