The Number of the Elect...Who Can Be Saved?...LaGrange...Dulles

I've cherrypicked quotes from both LaGrange, and Dulles. It you want the full context of the quotes, I've provided links to the complete works by both men.


Are these men essentially saying the same thing concerning the Elect? Are the statements orthodox, or heterodox? Are both men simply saying that men are saved by God's grace?


From the last paragraph of Who Can Be Saved by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. :
"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given."
http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/who-can-be-saved-by-avery-cardinal-dulles/

From LaGranges Life Everlasting, the chapter on The Number of the Elect; The Mystery of the Number:
"If the question is of the entire human race, the answer
must remain uncertain, for the reasons given above. But
even if, absolutely, the number of the elect is less
great, the glory of God's government cannot suffer.
Quality prevails over quantity. One elect soul is a
spiritual universe; Further, no evil happens that is
not permitted for a higher good. Further, among non-
Christians (Jews, Mohammedans, pagans) there are souls
which are elect. Jews and Mohammedans not only admit
monotheism, but retain fragments of primitive
revelation and of Mosaic revelation. They believe in a
God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with
the aid of grace, make an act of contrition. And even
to pagans, who live in invincible, involuntary
ignorance of the true religion, and who still attempt
to observe the natural law, supernatural aids are
offered, by means known to God. These, as Pius IX says,
[679] can arrive at salvation. God never commands the
impossible. To him who does what is in his power God
does not refuse grace. [680]

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is
better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage
the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to
expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too
superficial.

The important thing is to observe the commandments of
God. St. Augustine [681] said, and the Council of Trent
repeats: [682] "God never commands the impossible. But
He warns us to do what we can, and to ask of Him the
grace to accomplish what we of ourselves cannot do, and
He aids us to fulfill what He commands."
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/LIFE_EV.TXT

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial.

Feeneyism - too rigid
Dullesism - too superficial

It is no secret that Fr. LaGrange departed company with his theological Dominican mentor, St. Thomas Aquinas, on the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. The Church's recent ordinary teachings would seem to side with LaGrange, though the question is far from being settled; especially with the more robust tradition weighing in favor of Aquinas.

MRyan wrote:

We cannot arrive at certitude in this question. It is better to acknowledge our ignorance than to discourage the faithful by a doctrine which is too rigid, to expose them to danger by a doctrine which is too superficial.

Feeneyism - too rigid
Dullesism - too superficial

It is no secret that Fr. LaGrange departed company with his theological Dominican mentor, St. Thomas Aquinas, on the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus Christ. The Church's recent ordinary teachings seems to side with LaGrange, though the question is far from being settled when tradition would seem to side with Aquinas.

Must we give the "recent ordinary teachings" the assent of mind and will?

Roguejim wrote:
Must we give the "recent ordinary teachings" the assent of mind and will?

Certainly, but what is the precise teaching that we should be submitting to? Can you tell me?

If not, how are we to discern the level of submission required that includes the assent of the intellect? While the will remains submissive to the Church teaching, and is willing and open to be "moderated" by the same, is there any reason to believe that the Church teaches that those who will be saved will not necessarily finally come to an explicit faith in our Lord? Where does she teach that, exactly? While it might be suggested that an explicit faith is not always necessary, let's keep in mind the following:

Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium which are “set forth … in a non-definitive way”, “receive no other weight than that which they already possess” and “require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

While the Church's clear, explicit and frequent teachings on baptism of blood and baptism of desire leave no doubt, as far as I am concerned, as to the degree of required submission, the Church's teaching in the CCC, for example, that seems to suggest that an explicit faith in our Lord is not always necessary for salvation, is not as self-evident as might be thought; it does not have the same tradition as baptism of desire, and it would seem to be inconsistent with other magisterial teachings; even those of the same period.

In fact, I have reason to believe that the CCC make a very compelling case for an explicit faith being necessary to all men without exception for salvation; a case that is consistent with tradition and with other magisterial documents, both old and new.

I posted this before, but here is my "case" for demonstrating that the CCC teaches that an explicit faith is necessary for salvation:

Let's go to a heavily cited passage, CCC, 161, The Necessity of Faith:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"(43)

Footnote 43 cites VCI, Dei Felius, 3: DS 3012, three Scripture references, and the Council of Trent, DS 1532.

Dei Felius, 3 (DS 3012, [1793]):

[The necessity of embracing faith and retaining it]. But, since "without faith it is impossible to please God" [ Heb. 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except "he shall persevere unto the end on it" [ Matt. 10:22;24:13]. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.

The Council of Trent, DS 1532, Session VI, Ch. 8:

In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

The CCC 161 also had side references to CCC 432, 1257 and 846:

432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation,(23) so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."(24 )

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.(59) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(60) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.(61) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation ["Outside the Church there is no salvation"], often repeated by the Church Fathers?(335) Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.(336)

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.(337)

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."(338)

Once again, what is that Faith, according to the CCC, without which it is impossible to please God? Once more:

CCC, 161, The Necessity of Faith:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please (God)' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"(43)

CCC 161, 846, 847 and 848 must be read together, otherwise, 846 alone might lead one to believe that inculpable ignorance is some sort of default state of salvation when the true Faith cannot be known by ordinary means (faith by hearing). 847 and 848 (with their footnotes and other complimentary teaching), however, complete the teaching by stating that God may bring that Faith, without which no one has ever attained justification, and without which it is impossible to please God, to those that “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”.

That is precisely what Pope Pius IX taught in his three separate documents all touching on this subject, while affirming, as the Church affirms today, that there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.

The CCC, 848 cited above also references Ad Gentes # 7, which reads:

This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."(17) Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.

Does anyone have a problem with the submission of the intellect and will to this teaching on the necessity of “Faith”? Someone else might take a more “liberal” understanding, and that's fine; but I am taking only what the Church gives me and following her instructions for the discernment of her will to the best of my ability.

MRyan wrote:
Certainly, but what is the precise teaching that we should be submitting to? Can you tell me?

There is no confusion as to the precise teaching as given infallibly by Pope Eugene IV, which requires the highest form of submission, that of faith, intellect and will.
The beauty of this one is that it cannot be overridden, watered down nor be subject to a different meanng other than the one it contains.

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.]


What could be simpler than this?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Certainly, but what is the precise teaching that we should be submitting to? Can you tell me?

There is no confusion as to the precise teaching as given infallibly by Pope Eugene IV, which requires the highest form of submission, that of faith, intellect and will.
The beauty of this one is that it cannot be overridden, watered down nor be subject to a different meanng other than the one it contains.

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.]


What could be simpler than this?

Unfortunately, when you say that it cannot be "subject to a different meaning other than the one it contains", the meaning that you say it contains is not the same meaning as the Church gives it and understands it. As such, you have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Church's dogmas, when the Church clearly teaches that there is only one authority for the correct "interpretation" of her dogmas; and, as you might have guessed, it is not subject to private interpretation.

In other words, you have proven to be very selective in picking and choosing what you will accept with respect to Church teaching, and you actually accuse the Church of not understanding her own dogmas "as they were once declared".

Your insistence, for example, that “Cantate Domino” infallibly declared that even the martyr who professes his Faith and love of Christ before he can be baptized is condemned to an eternity in hell "unless he has [first] persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" [by receiving water Baptism], is sheer private interpretation gone amok, for the Church has NEVER understood this dogmatic declaration in that manner and clearly teaches that this same martyr will be united to the Church by the very virtue of his suffering for Christ in martyrdom. This is what the dogmatic declaration means when it says "unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives". It does NOT declare that the only means by which one may be joined to the Church is by actual ablution in water baptism

In fact, your Pharisaical private interpretation makes a mockery of the Church for actually commemorating certain martyrs in her official Liturgical Martyrology who would appear to have been martyred without benefit of the sacrament of baptism.

Yours is pure Protestant private interpretation - that's all it is. Luther refused to be moderated by the Church; so did the "Old Catholics", and the sede's simply disown the visible Church of Rome.

Be careful with the company you keep; you and your little "remnant" of "true believers".

Mike,
Can you provide a few examples of the current ordinary teachings, however imprecise they may be, that might appear to be in conflict with the "explicit faith" position which you've just presented? Don't make any huge effort here. Just give us something we can refer back to.

I also want to throw this into the mix, in particular, the lower standard that Thomas seems to be proposing:

JAT:

"Here's where I think St. Thomas has something very important to say, right in the heart of his reflections on the necessity of explicit faith: "Some kind of belief in the mystery of Christ's incarnation has always been necessary for everyone, but diversely so, according to the diversity of times and persons" (Sum. Theol. II-II, 2, 7 - mysterium incarnationis Christi aliqualiter oportuit omni tempore esse creditum apud omnes, diversimode tamen secundum diversitatem temporum et personarum).

The "some kind of belief in Christ" (St. Thomas) and the "invincible ignorance of Christ" (CCC) initially appear as contradictory theses, but on closer examination of the context of ST II-II, 2, 7 helps diminish this appearance at least a little: St. Thomas describes Adam's assertion about cleaving to his wife as proof that he had some sort of knowledge of the Incarnation, which is the cleaving of Christ and the Church! This shows that St. Thomas might be employing a much lower standard than CCC in determining "knowledge of Christ." The appearance of contradiction diminishes because the lower part of the conceptual circle of "the some kind of belief in Christ" in the parlance of St. Thomas may overlap the higher part of the conceptual circle of "ignorance of Christ" in the parlance of CCC. In other words, it might be possible for some individuals to simultanous meet CCC's criteria for "ignorant of Christ" and St. Thomas' criteria for "some kind of belief in Christ," if they believe in something corrollary of or synonymous with belief in Christ."

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t105-explicit-implicit-faith-according-to-jat

Here are just two examples (there are many more):

Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1856, #7: "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."

Lumen Gentium 16: Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Some interpret these to mean that being invincibly ignorant of the knowledge of Christ (and His Church) “excuses” one from coming to such knowledge so long as they “sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

No need to “debate” this, you only asked for examples that can corroborate what I said in my previous post.

I am familiar with the argument JAT makes with respect to St. Thomas Aquinas, others have made it as well to argue that St. Thomas did in fact teach that while faith in our Lord was and is at all times necessary, “but diversely so, according to the diversity of times and persons".

I would only add that it seems a bit of a stretch to compare the diversity of times since the promulgation of the Gospel with the diversity of times that correlated with coming to a more and more revealing knowledge of Christ we find in the Old Testament. I suppose in theory such an argument could be made, but I never found it convincing, and I thought St. Thomas made a pretty clear distinction between the two Dispensations, and the faith necessary in each.

[quote="MRyan"]

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Certainly, but what is the precise teaching that we should be submitting to? Can you tell me?

There is no confusion as to the precise teaching as given infallibly by Pope Eugene IV, which requires the highest form of submission, that of faith, intellect and will.
The beauty of this one is that it cannot be overridden, watered down nor be subject to a different meanng other than the one it contains.

Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.]


What could be simpler than this?

MRyan wrote:
Unfortunately, when you say that it cannot be "subject to a different meaning other than the one it contains", the meaning that you say it contains is not the same meaning as the Church gives it and understands it. As such, you have set yourself up as the sole arbiter of the meaning of the Church's dogmas, when the Church clearly teaches that there is only one authority for the correct "interpretation" of her dogmas; and, as you might have guessed, it is not subject to private interpretation.

Ok Mryan. Lets keep this simple.
Roguejim had asked if the statements from LaGrange and Dulles were orthodox or heterodox. Obviously there is some confusion among Catholics as to what the Church actually teaches on certain matters, and in the matter of “who can be saved and how can they be saved” is not yet certain (according to how one interprets what the Church is saying).
I provide an infallible statement from Pope Eugene IV, and you maintain that I have not interpreted that statement according to the mind of the Church, and at the same time you give us the quote reaffirming that, “Teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium which are “set forth … in a non-definitive way”, “receive no other weight than that which they already possess” and “require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.”

Therefore, we now come up against an unending cycle of interpretations. We start with the dogmatic statement needing interpretation (even though the mind and will of the dogmatic statement “is” made manifest by; a) The nature of the document, b) The frequent repetition, i.e., supported by at least two other dogmatic statements), and c) By the tenor of expression), and then an interpretation of that interpretation infinitum.

In other words, you have proven to be very selective in picking and choosing what you will accept with respect to Church teaching, and you actually accuse the Church of not understanding her own dogmas "as they were once declared".

The infallible declarations of the Church are worth the picking as they provide the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained. If I’ve accused the Church of anything it is that she understands her dogmas at the time of their declaration.

Your insistence, for example, that “Cantate Domino” infallibly declared that even the martyr who professes his Faith and love of Christ before he can be baptized is condemned to an eternity in hell "unless he has [first] persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" [by receiving water Baptism], is sheer private interpretation gone amok, for the Church has NEVER understood this dogmatic declaration in that manner and clearly teaches that this same martyr will be united to the Church by the very virtue of his suffering for Christ in martyrdom. This is what the dogmatic declaration means when it says "unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives". It does NOT declare that the only means by which one may be joined to the Church is by actual ablution in water baptism.

So, here we go again. I’m now faced with an interpretation of an interpretaion but this time according to Mryam.

In fact, your Pharisaical private interpretation makes a mockery of the Church for actually commemorating certain martyrs in her official Liturgical Martyrology who would appear to have been martyred without benefit of the sacrament of baptism.

The operative word here being “Appear.”
My being guilty of making a mockery of the Church is a private, fallible statement by yours truly. In fact I could even interpret this to mean that all Pharisees are good, and mockery to mean a reverent imitation.

Yours is pure Protestant private interpretation - that's all it is. Luther refused to be moderated by the Church; so did the "Old Catholics", and the sede's simply disown the visible Church of Rome.

Not to worry about this as according to you it doesn't matter much so long as my “desire” is oriented towards the truth either implicitly or explicitly.
.

Be careful with the company you keep; you and your little "remnant" of "true believers".

So you're saying that those who adhere to the teachings of the Church are a remnant of true believers.?
Thank you. I feel quite privileged.

Mryan for what it's worth, I used to think that it was my fault and I was missing the meaning you were trying to convey. I now see clearly that your confussion outweighs mine. You chose to give assent to teachings without fully knowing what your actually assenting to. I, -on the other hand- have withheld assent to ceertain unclear teachings lest I give assent to a meaning which the Church never meant me to give assent to. This was explained well by Fr Ripperger (I posted the link somewhere) and untill a clearer understanding is forthcoming (in the form of a difinitive pronouncement) I will hold to what I can claerly understand from dogmatic declarations.
Your interpretations of interpretations are not necessarily the correct interpretations and to my mind they are flawed, for the simple reason that you yourself have not fully reconciled certain contradictins in your own mind. Pretending that you have doesn't serve the truth.

OK Columba, we'll try and keep this simple. First this, where you said::

You chose to give assent to teachings without fully knowing what your actually assenting to. I, -on the other hand- have withheld assent to certain unclear teachings lest I give assent to a meaning which the Church never meant me to give assent to.

That is NOT what I said. Submission involves both the assent of the intellect and the will. The intellect is not obliged to assent to that which it cannot reconcile with one's own understanding of the Truth as the Church has always presented or defined it, though, as we have seen, this “non-submission” is often a masquerade for “dissent” and for accusing the Church of teaching erroneous doctrines while refusing to be open to correction and moderation by the Church.

The will, however, is submissive to the authority of the ecclesia docens (the Church teaching), and is open to being corrected and moderated by the Church once the will of the Church (on a given teaching) is more clearly understood. THAT is what I said and that is what I have been saying all along.

And, as I have been saying all along, the Church leaves us room not only with respect to the respective degrees of assent, but also to withhold assent under certain conditions while we wait for a clarification from the Church on a confusing, or an apparently conflicting, non-defined teaching.

So I reject your assertion that I blindly assent to teachings without fully knowing what I am actually assenting to; and if you are going to re-state my position, please try and stick to the script of what I actually said.

Let's move on to your citation of Cantate Domino and your comment that:

The infallible declarations of the Church are worth the picking as they provide the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained. If I’ve accused the Church of anything it is that she understands her dogmas at the time of their declaration.

You clearly imply by this that the entire section of the Bull you cited is an ex cathedra dogmatic definition that requires no interpretation by the Church other than what the words clearly convey, and it is THAT understanding (at the time of its declaration) that you bind your intellect and will to (with the assent of Faith), and no other.

Now you only have to demonstrate the clear self-evident understanding of “the words” of the solemn ex cathedra definition(s) and how the Church understands, and has always understood, those words.

Good luck with that.

Always willing to help, let's begin by reviewing the purpose of the Bull.

It anathematizes the Manichaeans; it anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things; it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Valentinus, Arius, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, Eutyches the archimandrite, Macarius of Antioch and all similar blasphemers.

It condemns all these heresies and all of these heretics; and the one thing the condemned heretics have in common is that each and every one of them has heard the Gospel and obstinately refuses to listen to the Church – and are “outside the Church” by reason of having left her.

So what does the Bull infallibly declare by way of ex cathedra dogmatic definition?

It declares that “none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her".

This is dogma: None of those existing outside the Catholic Church can have a share in life eternal unless before death they are joined with Her.

Very clear; right? But, can you show me where this dogma defined that Catechumens or others who have been given the gifts of faith and charity, and who desire to enter the Church, cannot be joined to the Church before death (baptism of blood and baptism of desire) should they be deprived of the sacrament of Baptism? When and where has the Church ever defined such an exclusionary dogma and when has the Church ever understood her own dogma in such a “rigorous” manner; especially given the FACT that she has "always held the firm conviction" that baptism of blood and baptism of desire result in being "joined" to the Church in that very unity necessary for salvation.

Is the Church a two-faced liar, or simply the purveyor of material heresy?

Furthermore, does the Bull cover all aspects of salvation, such as the possibility of salvation for those who have never heard the Gospel and remain in invincible ignorance? Is the Church free to develop this aspect of the doctrine without rescinding from the meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was once declared? Does she have the power and the authority to do so?

So tell us, Columba, are you really suggesting that Cantate Domino “provide[s] the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained.”?

If so, what are the “for-all-time-teachings with the interpretations already explicitly contained”? In what part of this Bull do we find a clearly defined dogmatic definition? Where it defined that there is no salvation outside the Church? Where it defined that unless those who are outside the Church are joined to her before death, they cannot be saved? Agreed.

But do tell us Columba, if this part of the Bull is also a solemn ex cathedra “dogmatic definition” of the Church:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

You say that the Church understands her “dogmas” at the time of their declaration, but you will first have to prove that this section of the Bull is a defined dogma, and then you will have to tell us how the Church understands these words, as they were written at the time of their declaration, and in the context of what the Church means, in light of the specific heresies and heretics being condemned in the Bull, by “unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”.

Are you saying that these words do not or cannot suggest that the Bull might be addressing the futility of “martyrdom” for those who have not remained in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church; you know, like the obstinate heretics and schismatics already condemned by the Bull; and not only these, but those who have heard the Gospel and reject it?

However, if it turns out that the section of the Bull on martyrdom is not an ex cathedra definition on a binding matter of revealed truth, you are still obliged to tell us what the passage means with respect to the Catechumens and those who never had the opportunity to remain and abide within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

And while you are at it, perhaps you might enlighten us as to whether Columba is also bound to accept the following teachings of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:

8. … For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

And, from VCII, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Die Verbum:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Thanks

you guys, can't you all see that this back and forth isn't getting you anywhere? I have to agree with what mryan is saying because I see a more liberal Catholic Church as being a good thing. I'm glad that the Catholic Church now believes that those outside of the Catholic Church can receive salvation. I don't understand what took the Church so long to arrive at this truth, but I'm glad it finally did. Even many Christians who are not Catholic realize that many peoples in many different religions will be saved.

Saviorsheart wrote:you guys, can't you all see that this back and forth isn't getting you anywhere? I have to agree with what mryan is saying because I see a more liberal Catholic Church as being a good thing. I'm glad that the Catholic Church now believes that those outside of the Catholic Church can receive salvation. I don't understand what took the Church so long to arrive at this truth, but I'm glad it finally did. Even many Christians who are not Catholic realize that many peoples in many different religions will be saved.

Yes, I can see that this back and forth is not doing in any good because there are those who tend to read whatever they want to read into any given argument, like you; who actually appears to believe that not only is there salvation outside the Church, but that I promote such liberal heretical nonsense.

What part of this did you not understand:

This is dogma: None of those existing outside the Catholic Church can have a share in life eternal unless before death they are joined with Her.

MRyan wrote:

Saviorsheart wrote:you guys, can't you all see that this back and forth isn't getting you anywhere? I have to agree with what mryan is saying because I see a more liberal Catholic Church as being a good thing. I'm glad that the Catholic Church now believes that those outside of the Catholic Church can receive salvation. I don't understand what took the Church so long to arrive at this truth, but I'm glad it finally did. Even many Christians who are not Catholic realize that many peoples in many different religions will be saved.

Yes, I can see that this back and forth is not doing in any good because there are those who tend to read whatever they want to read into any given argument, like you; who actually appears to believe that not only is there salvation outside the Church, but that I promote such liberal heretical nonsense.

What part of this did you not understand:

This is dogma: None of those existing outside the Catholic Church can have a share in life eternal unless before death they are joined with Her.

with friends like Saviorsheart who needs enemies

Don't you think the general consensus of laity and theologians is there IS salvation outside the Church? Saviorsheart is just being real, dog.

Well said cowboy.

That's what I was just about to say.

That's nice, columba, but I hope you're working on a response to my specific questions and challenges.

Do I think that the general consensus of laity and theologians holds that there IS salvation outside the Church?

Yes, so it is no surprise that Saviorsheart is repeating only that which he believes is Church teaching NOW, as opposed to what she taught BEFORE, that there is no salvation outside the Church.

The answer, however, is not to revert to the excessive rigor-ism of an extreme Feeneyism, which holds that there is no salvation outside of a material and visible incorporation with the Catholic Church, where unity with Christ and His Mystical Body can be effected ONLY through water baptism and visible unity.

The answer to the liberalism which has Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus reduced to a meaningless dogma that applies only to Catholics who are culpable for having left the Church, or to non-Catholics who “knowingly” reject the Church that they know is the only hope of salvation, is proper catechetics.

And in these instances the Feeneyite version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is correct - there is no salvation outside of a material and spiritual incorporation with the Catholic Church for those who have left her and for those who knowingly and obstinately refuse to be joined with her.

But proper catechetics must also address the Church's teaching on the possibility of salvation by the grace of God for those who are invincibly ignorant of Catholic truth, and how God may bring these souls, by the divine light of grace, into the bosom of the Church in a way that may be known to God alone. But He will have no one finally saved without supernatural Faith and without being united to His Church – period.

The proper response, in other words, is to point out that the “mystery” of salvation for those who are outside of her visible structure cannot take place “unless before death they are joined with Her”, even if the bond of unity that is effected by the gift of grace (enabled by faith and charity) remains a mystery.

But I meant what I said when I agreed with Saviorsheart “that this back and forth is not doing in any good because there are those who tend to read whatever they want to read into any given argument”, for not only did Saviorsheart subvert my arguments, colomba and cowboy have as well.

Columba said that I “chose to give assent to teachings without fully knowing what your actually assenting to”.

This is false.

Cowboy wrote: “I think there is some reason to doubt that baptism of desire and baptism of blood are dogmatic.”

That's just great, because NO ONE on this forum ever said that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are “dogmatic”, except as it relates directly to the translation to justification “by the desire thereof” as it is dogmatically described in Sess 6. Ch. 4 of Trent.

Cowboy also wrote: “One thing I have been thinking about is we are saved by Grace not our actions/works … So desire seems to be "MY" work not God's it is "I" that desire and am causing the grace. Same with baptism of blood it is "MY' sacrifice that saves me.”

You don't have to think too hard about it, this insight is a dogma of the Church. Prior to the translation to sanctifying grace, we cannot be saved by the merit of our own works, including the “work” of Baptism. Our cooperative efforts are themselves a grace that helps to form our free wills in such a manner that we will not want to choose any other good than the will of God. The only “merit” we can earn at this stage is one of entreaty whereby God cannot resist our faith and charity-filled responses to His grace. Session VI, Ch. 5 of Trent spells this out quite succinctly:

CHAPTER V. On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

Chapter VII (What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof) also touches on this cooperation that merits grace by entreaty:

… the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation.

The cause of grace in Baptism of Desire is not "MY" work, it is God's work, but He does not distribute grace without man's cooperation who “moves himself unto justice” with the aid of grace.

It is the same with Baptism of Blood which has no meritorious or salvific value of its own, but must be joined by charity to the sacrifice of our Lord, whose Blood Redemption alone is meritorious and salvific. By freely assenting to and co-operating with the grace of martyrdom, the martyr “converts himself to his own justification”, and “moves himself unto justice in His sight”.

Those who claim that baptism of blood/baptism of desire is just a warmed over version of the heresy of semi-Pelagianism simply do not know what they are talking about. I've run into a few of these hard-case Feeneyites who claim to be followers of St. Augustine's system of grace, and they are a scary lot.

MRyan wrote:
That's nice, columba, but I hope you're working on a response to my specific questions and challenges.

Free time is a luzury at present but I will indeed make a reply to your specific questions and challenges as soon as I can. First I'll make a few comments on your latest post.

Do I think that the general consensus of laity and theologians holds that there IS salvation outside the Church?

There are reasons why the general consensus of laity and theologians hold to this view and baptism of desire/baptism of blood certainly have a part to play in ths.

The answer, however, is not to revert to the excessive rigor-ism of an extreme Feeneyism, which holds that there is no salvation outside of a material and visible incorporation with the Catholic Church, where unity with Christ and His Mystical Body can be effected ONLY through water baptism and visible unity.

The general consensus among the laity (and debatably among theologians) pre Vat II was the opposite to todays common consensus. There definately has been a shift from the traditional understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

The answer to the liberalism which has Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus reduced to a meaningless dogma that applies only to Catholics who are culpable for having left the Church, or to non-Catholics who “knowingly” reject the Church that they know is the only hope of salvation, is proper catechetics.

I'm of the view that Invincible Ignorance is itself a liberalism and reduces (at least in practice if not in theory) "no salvation outside the Church" to a meaningless dogma.

But proper catechetics must also address the Church's teaching on the possibility of salvation by the grace of God for those who are invincibly ignorant of Catholic truth

Before proper Catechetics can be fruitful, proper theology (or even logic) must be brought to bear on the theory of "Invincible Ignorance."
If God is God and Christ the Son of God founded a Church and gave that Church the command, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations," and God does not command the impossible, then there can be no such thing as invincible ignorance.
There can only be a lack of response to the command with the resulting loss of souls who remain ignorant because of the neglect of believers. I haven't tim right now to develope this but no doubt you can see where I'm going.

The proper response, in other words, is to point out that the “mystery” of salvation for those who are outside of her visible structure cannot take place “unless before death they are joined with Her”, even if the bond of unity that is effected by the gift of grace (enabled by faith and charity) remains a mystery.

The "Mystrey" is the unquantifiable part and as the operation of this mystery can be known only to God then the presumption that God does actually save souls in this way is just that, "presumption."
How can a presumption become part of a required matter of belief when even Limbo is not a required matter of belief though it can be presumed that it does indeed exists.

BTW MRyan, I know you don't share the same outlandish beliefs as those of saviorsheart but speculation as to how God may save souls (known only to Him) and raising this speculation to the status of a doctrinal belief (which you say it is and I say it isn't) can (and does) result in scandal to the faithful in the form of confussion and (as has been seen) renders the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus meaningless.
baptism of desire/B and invincible ingnorance are now the dogma and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has been demoted to the school of speculative theory. An inversion of the proper order of things; the same inversion of order we see going on in society at large.

So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?
and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentacost?

When does a validly baptized infant lose her/his membership, if they grow-up in a say... a Lutheran family, for example? Or do they ever lose membership?

Can a person be a partial member or is this just for institutions?

Membership I think is the key to the whole baptism of desire & baptism of blood debate.

One thing I have been thinking about is we are saved by Grace not our actions/works … So desire seems to be "MY" work not God's it is "I" that desire and am causing the grace. Same with baptism of blood it is "MY' sacrifice that saves me.”

That saving desire and willing sacrifice are willed by God before his creatures follow through voluntarily and willingly to effect His will - because He who created the agent wills that the agent act freely and voluntarily; He controls both the ends and the means. MRyan and I agree on this but we nuance it somewhat differently.

The real question is why would He will the justification and salvation of some without them coming to the fount of baptism? You want to corner the Potter? Good luck with that. He would answer you like He answered Job: where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

The whole issue is the Authority says through its errorless ordinary and universal Magisterium that He can and He may very well do that; you may deny it, but the Authority says this.

To base any argument contra on the unknown and impenetrable "whys" of the Almighty - as in "why" He wouldn't save someone without the sacrament of baptism (He's almighty; He instituted baptism and made it the law; nothing is impossible for Him) - is a loser.

They believe in a God who is a supernatural rewarder, and can thus, with
the aid of grace, make an act of contrition.

Think about that. Father GL: sparks fly from everything that his mind hits upon.

Thinking about that made me think about this: the three persons of the divinity are one. After all, he who sees me has seen the Father, etc. By the same token, he who sees the Father sees the Son.

I keep getting softer and softer as 50 dawns on me. I'm just glad JAT's not here to witness this - he probably made the above argument in an argument with me.

duckbill wrote:So MRyan are you saying :
1. that the Hypothetical Catechumen is a member of the Church?

You mean the hypothetical Catechumen who dies before the baptism he desires can be realized. He is not a "member" in the formal sense, but he is united to the Church by the bonds of faith, charity and intention - through the bond of sanctifying grace.

duckbill wrote:and/or
2. those in invincible ignorance are members of the Church?

No, not until they are united to the Church by the ordinary means of visible unity; or through the invisible bonds of faith and charity. But the latter means is not formal "membership" as it is understood and defined by the Church.

duckbill wrote:Would you say that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation, since Pentacost?

Yes, but I would say it like this: I would say that no one can be saved who is not finally joined to the Mystical Body. Formal membership in the institutional Church is the divinely instituted ordinary means of salvation, which all men are obliged to join without exception; but, like the sacraments, as a divinely instituted aid or instrument of sanctification, it is not necessarily intrinsic to salvation as is sanctifying grace, supernatural Faith, and Charity, which cannot fail to unite one to our Lord and His Mystical Body, outside of which there is no salvation.

duckbill wrote:When does a validly baptized infant lose her/his membership, if they grow-up in a say... a Lutheran family, for example? Or do they ever lose membership?

I don't know exactly when they cease becoming a member, we can only theorize; except to say that a Protestant who rejects (inculpable or not) the truths of the Catholic Faith is no longer a visible member of the Catholic Church.

duckbill wrote:Can a person be a partial member or is this just for institutions?

No one can be a partial formal member of the Church. One is either a member of the visible Church, or one isn't.

duckbill wrote:Membership I think is the key to the whole baptism of desire & baptism of blood debate.

For a Feeneyite, formal membership is the key, for they recognize no other possible unity with the Church; at least none that can result in salvation. And in this, they are in error.

tornpage wrote:
I keep getting softer and softer as 50 dawns on me.

You were predestined from all eternity to grow soft in your "old" age. No use "resisting" it, what was preordained will infallibly come to pass.

Now, you just need to soften to the wonderful doctrine of Fr. Joseph Matthias Scheeben on predestination; which was also preordained, you just don't know it - yet. Ha!

Now, you just need to soften to the wonderful doctrine of Fr. Joseph Matthias Scheeben on predestination; which was also preordained, you just don't know it - yet. Ha!

No chance. Not as in it was preordained, but as in, it won't happen.

MRyan, my replies to your specific questions.
I don't think they will bear any fruits but here goes.

Let's move on to your citation of Cantate Domino and your comment that:

Columba wrote:
The infallible declarations of the Church are worth the picking as they provide the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained. If I’ve accused the Church of anything it is that she understands her dogmas at the time of their declaration.

You clearly imply by this that the entire section of the Bull you cited is an ex cathedra dogmatic definition that requires no interpretation by the Church other than what the words clearly convey, and it is THAT understanding (at the time of its declaration) that you bind your intellect and will to (with the assent of Faith), and no other.

Now you only have to demonstrate the clear self-evident understanding of “the words” of the solemn ex cathedra definition(s) and how the Church understands, and has always understood, those words.

Good luck with that.

That's easy.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 578; Denzinger 714.]

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215:
“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 230; Denzinger 430.]

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, 468-469.]

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312.
“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 386.]

So; What is unclear about the above pronouncements?

Always willing to help, let's begin by reviewing the purpose of the Bull.

It anathematizes the Manichaeans; it anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things; it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, Valentinus, Arius, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, Eutyches the archimandrite, Macarius of Antioch and all similar blasphemers.

It condemns all these heresies and all of these heretics; and the one thing the condemned heretics have in common is that each and every one of them has heard the Gospel and obstinately refuses to listen to the Church – and are “outside the Church” by reason of having left her.

What you're saying then is that “Cantate Domino” was not directed to the Universal Church but rather directed specifically to heretics and schismatics who have already placed themselves outside the Church?
Silly me. I thought dogmatic pronouncements were directed towards and binding on all the faithful.

....can you show me where this dogma defined that Catechumens or others who have been given the gifts of faith and charity, and who desire to enter the Church, cannot be joined to the Church before death (baptism of blood and baptism of desire) should they be deprived of the sacrament of Baptism? When and where has the Church ever defined such an exclusionary dogma and when has the Church ever understood her own dogma in such a “rigorous” manner; especially given the FACT that she has "always held the firm conviction" that baptism of blood and baptism of desire result in being "joined" to the Church in that very unity necessary for salvation.

It's implicit in the statement.
Can you show me where it excempts certain non-visible members?

Is the Church a two-faced liar, or simply the purveyor of material heresy?

No.... That's why she has dogmas. Lets us all know what to believe.

Furthermore, does the Bull cover all aspects of salvation, such as the possibility of salvation for those who have never heard the Gospel and remain in invincible ignorance? Is the Church free to develop this aspect of the doctrine without rescinding from the meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was once declared? Does she have the power and the authority to do so?

The bull (and subsequent infallible pronouncements) covers all who are to be considered legitimate members of the Church. No exceptins were mentioned, for the simple reason that none exist.. You imply one way, I imply another.

So tell us, Columba, are you really suggesting that Cantate Domino “provide[s] the clear, universal and for-all-time-teaching with the interpretation already explicitly contained.”?

Yes. As does "Munificentissimus Deus" on the Assumption

If so, what are the “for-all-time-teachings with the interpretations already explicitly contained”? In what part of this Bull do we find a clearly defined dogmatic definition? Where it defined that there is no salvation outside the Church? Where it defined that unless those who are outside the Church are joined to her before death, they cannot be saved? Agreed.

But do tell us Columba, if this part of the Bull is also a solemn ex cathedra “dogmatic definition” of the Church:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

You say that the Church understands her “dogmas” at the time of their declaration, but you will first have to prove that this section of the Bull is a defined dogma, and then you will have to tell us how the Church understands these words, as they were written at the time of their declaration, and in the context of what the Church means, in light of the specific heresies and heretics being condemned in the Bull, by “unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”.

Are you saying that these words do not or cannot suggest that the Bull might be addressing the futility of “martyrdom” for those who have not remained in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church; you know, like the obstinate heretics and schismatics already condemned by the Bull; and not only these, but those who have heard the Gospel and reject it?

However, if it turns out that the section of the Bull on martyrdom is not an ex cathedra definition on a binding matter of revealed truth, you are still obliged to tell us what the passage means with respect to the Catechumens and those who never had the opportunity to remain and abide within the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

Fr Feeney dealt with your concerns without contradicting any doctrine. I know you have a good grasp of his arguments (even though you disagree) but you can count me as in agreement with the good Father without me having to post his works.

And while you are at it, perhaps you might enlighten us as to whether Columba is also bound to accept the following teachings of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis:

8. … For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

This statement actually favors what I've said. The unwillngness to accept "No Salvation Outside the Church" has been the cause of many innovative theories to get round this hard teaching.

21 … For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

As contained in her definitive dogmatic prounouncements.

And, from VCII, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Die Verbum:

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Thanks

[/quote]

This statement makes it even more clear that the Church will never contradict the Word of God. "Those who believe and are Baptized wil be saved; Those who do not believe will be condemned." so again you've added even more weight to the proper interpretation of Cantate Domino.