The purpose of this essay is to deal in short order with the problems of a tract located at the website of our inquisitor, a very vocal critic of the Catholic Church. To aid in separation of the text, excerpts from this tract will be placed in Georgia font throughout the rest of this essay whenever referenced. However, before examining it in detail, here it is in full without commentary.

You Tell Us: Does Rome Provide Infallible Certainty About the Gospel?

The Council of Florence, the 14th Ecumenical (and hence "infallible") Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

Yet, section 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) says:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

In a similar way the Pope seemed to be in line with section 841 when he said,

VATICAN CITY, SEP 9, 1998 (VIS) - At today's Wednesday general audience in St. Peter's Square, the Pope spoke on the theme of The Spirit of God and the 'Seeds of Truth' in non-Christian Religions. The 'seeds of truth', said John Paul II, are 'the effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body', the wind 'which blows where it wills'. The Holy Father explained that in all authentic religious experiences, the most characteristic manifestation is prayer. ... Every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior. The attitude of the Church and of individual Christians with regard to other religions is characterized by sincere respect, deep kindness, and also, where it is possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator and Savior of the human race. Nor does it imply lessening the missionary effort to which we have an obligation, in obedience to the command of the Risen Lord: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. This attitude of respect and dialogue, concluded John Paul II, represents a due recognition of the 'seeds of the Word' and of the 'groans of the Spirit'. It also prepares the proclamation of the Gospel in awaiting the time when the Lord shows his mercy.

Yet, scarcely two years later, we encounter a Papal encyclical Dominus Iesus, which reads in part,

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

5. As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27); "No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him" (Jn 1:18); "For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9-10).

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which "makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently", then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute. This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

But, only a few months later, we get this:

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday 6 December 2000

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The theme of our General Audiences during this Great Jubilee Year has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence, we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the Kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The Kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world, and should be a source of serenity and confidence for our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes ? the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life ? will enter God’s Kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say: "Thy Kingdom come"; may this be the hope that sustains and inspires our Christian life and work.

Do you really think Rome clarifies the issues of the gospel, or does she muddle them?

This present essay will now examine the aforementioned tract and reveal its many problems.

You Tell Us: Does Rome Provide Infallible Certainty About the Gospel?

As to discuss ecclesiology in detail would detract from the subject at hand, the issue of infallibility (and its role in the ecclesiology subject) will only be touched on briefly in this essay. First, an examination of the title of this piece is interesting. According to the author’s Merriam Webster Third International Dictionary, "infallible" is defined as follows (all emphasis is that of the dictionary cited):

Infallible (adj) 1: not fallible: incapable of error: UNERRING. 2: Not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : SURE, CERTAIN, INDUBITABLE 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith and morals syn INERRABLE, INERRANT, INERRING [1]

Certainty is of course not contingent upon infallibility. Nevertheless, 'Mr. Critic' starts off his criticisms with a title as well as the first paragraph using the term "infallible". This is an obvious ploy on his part to try and unsettle the reader before he engages in his standard citation proof-texting coupled with context-switching. He utilizes such methods better than most of his theological allies. Of course something tells the author of this essay that it is a "talent" that will not be viewed as an asset on the day of Judgment for 'Mr. Critic' and his comrades in deception.

The Council of Florence, the 14th Ecumenical (and hence "infallible") Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:

The Council of Florence was actually the seventeenth Ecumenical Council, not the fourteenth. And while infallibility is involved in the universal resolutions of a lawfully ratified Ecumenical Council, this does not mean that the texts of the Council are either verbally inspired or that they necessarily state a teaching in the best possible way. There is also the element to interpretation known as the sitz im leben, an element that so often is lacking in 'Mr. Critic' and his associates when they look at texts. (Either from the Bible, the Fathers, or texts promulgated as Magisterial ala resolutions of an Ecumenical Council, papal encyclicals, etc.) After posting the citation from Florence, this present writer will supply the necessary sitz im leben that 'Mr. Critic' conveniently overlooks.

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

Since the author has written on this subject before (and discussed it in countless dialogues), there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. The following is an excerpt from the author’s treatise A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' and the criticism applied here applies to 'Mr. Critic' and his ilk every bit as much as to the self-styled 'traditionalist' who proof-texts Magisterial documents in true Protestant fashion ignoring proper context:

[T]he statement above was specifically directed towards the Apostolic churches which were re-aligning themselves with Rome in the fifteenth century. Those Apostolic churches who (seeking reunification with Rome) knew of the necessity of union with Rome for salvation. In this context, the decree from the Council of Florence must be assessed because otherwise it is not being properly understood.

There is also the fact that the statement itself, while definitive, is not formally so. (Instead it is definitive statement because it was reiterating the dogma extra ecclesia nulla salus as previously defined by Lateran IV and particularly by Pope Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum.) In that sense the exposition element of the teaching would not necessarily fall under the mantle of infallible teaching - particularly since this Decree was to a particular church and not one promulgated to the universal church either expressely or tacitly.

Those who are not culpably aware of their obligations within this realm were not the intended target of this decree which if it is read in full context becomes quite obvious... Removing one small sentence from a Bull several pages in length and divorced from the time period and target audience guarantees an error in proper interpretation because the sitz im leben would be undermined. [2]

Yet, section 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) says:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Yes the Lord in desiring to save all men has thereby made the grace available for all men to be saved. This includes the Muslims as well as the Jews potentially as individuals though not corporately. (And further, it is in spite of their errors and not because of them if they held them in good faith: a concept that excludes willful obstinance.)

In a similar way the Pope seemed to be in line with section 841 when he said,

VATICAN CITY, SEP 9, 1998 (VIS) - At today's Wednesday general audience in St. Peter's Square, the Pope spoke on the theme of The Spirit of God and the 'Seeds of Truth' in non-Christian Religions. The 'seeds of truth', said John Paul II, are 'the effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body', the wind 'which blows where it wills'. The Holy Father explained that in all authentic religious experiences, the most characteristic manifestation is prayer. ... Every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior. The attitude of the Church and of individual Christians with regard to other religions is characterized by sincere respect, deep kindness, and also, where it is possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator and Savior of the human race. Nor does it imply lessening the missionary effort to which we have an obligation, in obedience to the command of the Risen Lord: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. This attitude of respect and dialogue, concluded John Paul II, represents a due recognition of the 'seeds of the Word' and of the 'groans of the Spirit'. It also prepares the proclamation of the Gospel in awaiting the time when the Lord shows his mercy.

To fortify the earlier contextual placing of the Decrees of Florence, some work from the late great catechist Fr. John Hardon will be referenced:

Alongside this strong insistence on the need for belonging to the Church was another Tradition from the earliest times that is less well known. It was understandable that the early Christian writers would emphasize what is part of revelation, that Christ founded "the Catholic Church which alone retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the home of faith; this, the temple of God." They were combating defections from Catholic unity and refuting the heresies that divided Christianity in the Mediterranean world and paved the way for the rise of Islam in the seventh century.

But they also had the biblical narrative of the "pagan" Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was "an upright and God-fearing man" even before baptism. Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were "God-fearing" people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. Ambrose and Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions. By the twelfth century, it was widely assumed that a person can be saved if some "invincible obstacle stands in the way" of his baptism and entrance into the Church. [3]

Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable." [4]

Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for." [5]

Thomas Aquinas restated the constant teaching about the general necessity of the Church. But he also conceded that a person may be saved extra sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by reason of his at least implicit desire to belong to the Church. [6]

Yet, scarcely two years later, we encounter a Papal encyclical Dominus Iesus, which reads in part,

Before addressing the citation, another error by 'Mr. Critic' needs to be dealt with. Dominus Iesus is not a Papal encyclical letter. It is a Declaration from the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith (or CDF) which was approved in content by the Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II who subsequently ordered its publication. (Thus it is not as authoritative in the hierarchy of magisterial statements as an Apostolic Letter, an Encyclical Letter, or an Apostolic Exhortation.) For someone who is seeking to discredit the Catholic Church, 'Mr. Critic' is amazingly sloppy on the most minor and easily verifiable details. The reader should therefore not presume that he is more precise in the areas where greater nuance is required.

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability — while recognizing the distinction — of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

5. As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27); "No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him" (Jn 1:18); "For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9-10).

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which "makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently", then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute. This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

This is really not that difficult to reconcile. To put it in layman’s terms, no solution that proposes a salvific action of God apart from Jesus Christ's mediation is acceptable to the Catholic faith. Salvation is not achievable by any other name except that of Jesus Christ the God-Man. The error outlined by the CDF in the Declaration Dominus Iesus was in fact condemned by Bl. Pope Pius IX of immortal memory back in the mid-nineteenth century. To quote this writer’s essay on the Syllabus of Errors:

Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall
consider true. — Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851...

Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at
eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846...

There is a difference between being free to embrace an error and the Church permitting people to reach an erroneous conclusion without coercion. This is the principle of double effect, or the understanding that for the sake of concession on a major error that a minor error may have to be tolerated. Pope Gregory XVI did this with the territories he governed before Italy seized the Papal States. To quote the secular historian Sir Nicholas Cheetham with regards to Gregory XVI "no concessions to democracy could be envisioned within the territory governed by him, though [in Gregory’s mind] they might regrettably have to be tolerated elsewhere" (History of the Popes, c. 1981, pg. 255). Also, since religion cannot be confined by the light of reason (but by its very object manifests truths which transcend human reasoning), human reasoning alone cannot be the barometer from which someone embraces a given religion...

Likewise, the Pope St. Pius X Catechism (written by the saintly pontiff of happy memory) dealt with the question of "if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?" (Pope St. Pius X Catechism: Question 29 from the section titled The Church in General, c. 1910). The response given in the catechism was that "[i]f he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation (ibid. Response to Q 29, c. 1910). And as this author has outlined in a thesis on Justification, charity and not faith alone saves a man precisely as all the NT personages teach (including the often-misrepresented Saint Paul). Therefore, since neither Vatican II nor the post Council popes teach that salvation by any religious profession is possible, it cannot be credibly asserted that point sixteen of the Syllabus has been contradicted in teaching since the Council. (Even if some who misunderstand the Council’s teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism have taught this — either out of ignorance or deliberate malice.) [7]

Now we have already gone over the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. For those who know their history, St. Thomas died in 1274 and Florence was in session on and off from 1439-1445. In the interim period there are two significant milestones that undermine the attempts of 'Mr. Critic' to manufacture contradictions between Florence and the papal magisterium of Pope John Paul II. Those events were (i) the definition of Pope Boniface VIII in the Apostolic letter Unam Sanctum of 1302. ("We proclaim, we pronounce, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation for all creatures to be in submission to the Roman pontiff") and (ii) the solemn canonization of Thomas Aquinas in 1323. (By Pope John XXII.)

You see gentle reader, the definition of Pope Boniface VIII is verbatim from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Furthermore, it was not a new concept by any stretch. To quote the non-Catholic historian Phillip Schaff on the subject of the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum:

It marks an epoch in the history of the declarations of the papacy, not because it contained anything novel, but because it set forth with unchanged clearness the stiffest claims of the papacy to temporal and spiritual power. It begins with the assertion that there is only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. The pope is the vicar of Christ, and whoever refuses to be ruled by Peter belongs not to the fold of Christ. Both swords are subject to the Church, the spiritual and the temporal. The temporal sword is to be wielded for the Church, the spiritual by it. The secular estate may be judged by the spiritual estate, but the spiritual estate by no human tribunal. The document closes with the startling declaration that for every human being the condition of salvation is obedience to the Roman pontiff.

There was no assertion of authority contained in this bull which had not been before made by Gregory VII. and his successors, and the document leans back not only upon the deliverances of popes, but upon the definitions of theologians like Hugo de St. Victor, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas.[8]

Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull "In Ordine;" Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull "Pretiosus," and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull "Mirabilis" that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull "Verbo Dei," affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."… Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error. [9]

Therefore, it can most logically be asserted that St. Thomas’ doctrine was not contrary to the dogmatic judgments of Lateran IV or else all the popes after Lateran IV endorsing St. Thomas were in error as to the "true" intentions of that Ecumenical Council. (On the dogma "no salvation outside the Church".) Likewise, if there was a contradiction between St. Thomas’ doctrine and the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctum (which used verbatim the words of St. Thomas in its solemn definition), surely there is no way the Angelic Doctor’s doctrine would have been used in the formulation of the dogmatic judgments of the Ecumenical Council of Vienna in 1311-1312. (Less than ten years after Unam Sanctum was promulgated.) Also, the Angelic Doctor would never have been canonized solemnly less than a decade after Vienna if his orthodoxy was suspect. (Especially by a real hardnose pontiff such as John XXII.) Yet a rigorous interpretation of Lateran IV and Unam Sanctum in the vein of standard non-Catholic objections would make contradiction in the two positions unavoidable.

It is absolutely illogical to presume that the popes after John XXII (and prior to Florence) would have given St. Thomas’ doctrine such a ringing endorsement of orthodoxy if he had contradicted either the definition of Lateran IV or the solemn definition of faith promulgated in Unam Sanctum. (As the teaching in both cases is the absolute necessity of the Church for salvation.) And as Pope Leo XIII noted in his Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris:

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, FLORENCE, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. [10]

But, only a few months later, we get this:

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday 6 December 2000

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The theme of our General Audiences during this Great Jubilee Year has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence, we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the Kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The Kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world, and should be a source of serenity and confidence for our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes ? the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life ? will enter God’s Kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say: "Thy Kingdom come"; may this be the hope that sustains and inspires our Christian life and work.

Let us see, there is no name except that of Jesus Christ in which we are saved. However, at the same time those who live the Beatitudes are living in Christ Jesus whether they are aware of it or not. What is so difficult to understand about this??? (It is in essence what Paul outlined in Romans 2.) This present writer asserts that there are no contradictions or clarity difficulties whatsoever. (And further that this essay proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Do you really think Rome clarifies the issues of the gospel, or does she muddle them?

Frankly the one "tilting at windmills" the entire time is ‘Mr. Critic’. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that yet again he has no idea what he is talking about. But to those of us who have followed his arguments over the years, is this really all that surprising???

We are dealing with a concept here that is not difficult to understand. That it is often misunderstood is unfortunate. Further, that many deliberately distort this teaching to strip it of its authentic meaning is abominable. The full scope of the doctrine of "outside the Church there is no salvation" cannot be realized until two concepts are understood: we know with certainty where the Church is; we are without certainty as to where the Church is not. When churches and ecclesial communities broke away from the one, true church, they cannot help but take doctrines and certain rites with them, and many, to this day, still retain their efficacy. Obviously the degree of grace in each situation differs somewhat. For example, where there is still a valid priesthood all the Fountains of Grace (Sacraments) are available. If Apostolic Succession is lacking, there is still the valid Rite of Baptism. And even where the Rite of Baptism is denied, there is still the Holy Scriptures, which can excite in the believer a love for Our Lord and a longing to be a member of His Body the Church. All of these gifts, as the Second Vatican Council taught, come from the one Church of Christ and receive their efficacy from her.

Does this understanding actually contradict Florence??? Let us take one last look at the citation that opened this essay, the citation which supposedly "proves" that Rome "muddies" the Gospel rather than clarifying it.

It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church. [11]

Let us examine the two threads that permeate this section and observe the manner in which opponents of the Catholic Church read into the text assumptions that are not stated. Here is the first part of the summary statement of the Decree Cantante Domino:

It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; [12]

 In reality, anyone who reads the full Decree (which is about seven pages) would notice that this is a summary statement where the Council recapitulates all past condemned heresies and schismatic groups. The emphasis therefore is corporeal as this writer noted earlier, not individual. Only later on in a Decree on Justification would the Council of Trent outline what was necessary for individual salvation. The sacraments of baptism and penance are required either in re or in voto (reality or desire) and obviously the actual reception whenever the person is aware of its necessity and it is reasonably possible to receive them is required. Now to cover the second part of the Florence statement referenced by 'Mr. Critic' and his allies:

that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has perservered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. [13]

Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is 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 (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), 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. [14]

The Catholic Church emphasized the necessity of belonging to her for salvation at Florence specifically in the manner that is objectively necessary for salvation. The Copts in agreeing to the Decree Cantante Domino likewise recognized the objective necessity of communion with the Roman Church. As this essay noted in a few spots, there has always been some recognition that salvation is possible for those who have some invincible obstacle in their way of receiving baptism and entrance into the Church. In St. Augustine’s time he made the distinction between formal and material heretics. By the twelfth century, this understanding was nearly universal though it was not often spoken of explicitly. The reason for this should be obvious: just because it is possible does not mean that it is either likely or preferred. Since this was seen as extraordinary, it was not going to be given the same degree of attention as the normative necessity of ecclesial unity in the bosom of the Church.

And as far as "clarity" it seems to this author that the Church has clarified herself continually when certain tenants of the faith are misrepresented. This has been accompanied by a development in doctrine and understanding, another area that 'Mr. Critic' has proven to be incapable of understanding. (And a subject that is beyond the scope of this essay to adequately cover.) But hopefully to the reader of this essay, they can understand the importance of reading any text - be it the Bible, Council documents, etc. in proper context. 'Mr. Critic' and his allies propose an interpretation of Florence as every individual outside the body of the Catholic Church being condemned to hell. Such a ridiculous interpretation of Florence — one that the Council itself nowhere teaches nor infers — is what "muddies" the Gospel, not the Magisterium making necessary clarifications at times to keep people from seriously erring on the side of either presumption or dispair. As for what constitutes "invincible ignorance", perhaps Dr. Art Sippo put it best:

As long as people do not KNOWINGLY place obstacles between themselves and the will of God, they are acting in good faith and they MAY be excused for their errors. [15]

There was a clear development in doctrine from Bl. Pope Pius IX and his successors up to and including Vatican II, which crystallized the developments in a Dogmatic Constitution of no small degree of magisterial weight. The authentic understanding of this teaching has further been expounded upon in the magisteriums of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. In referring to the possibility of salvation for those either not joined to the ecclesiastical body of Christ or who are in some sense ignorant of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the earlier sources certainly had this notion in mind as well, though it was not often explicitly noted. The very text of Vatican II states that "[t]hose 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" (Lumen Gentium §16). From the texts of Unam Sanctum as well as Florence, it is clear that these are not the kind of people that those documents were addressing. Unam Sanctum and Florence addressed those who were either not unaware or who had knowingly placed obstacles between themselves and the will of God. Vatican II and Pope John Paul II in the documents cited above were not referring to those of this mentality at all. Therefore, unless it can be proven that these documents (Unam Sanctum and the Decree from Florence) were specifically addressed to those unaware of the Gospel in its fullness, the assertions of contradiction made by 'Mr. Critic' and his allies are without merit and stand refuted by this essay.

Dedicated to St. Thomas Aquinas

Bibliography:

[1] Infallibility: as defined by the Merriam Webster Third International Dictionary, fifteenth edition, Volume II pg.1157 (c. 1966).

[2] I. Shawn McElhinney: From the author’s treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (c. 2000)

[3] Fr. John Hardon, SJ: From his essay "On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" (c. 1998)

[4] St. Thomas Aquinas: "Summa Theologiae", III, 66, 11 (c. 1273)

[5] St. Thomas Aquinas: "Summa Theologiae", III, 68, 2 (c. 1273)

[6] Fr. John Hardon, SJ: From his essay "On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" (c. 1998)

[7] I. Shawn McElhinney: From the author’s essay "The Counter-Syllabus Canard" (c. 2001)

[8] Phillip Schaff: From his multivolume work "History of the Christian Church" Volume VI chapter 1 (c. 1882)

[9] Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter "Aeterni Patris" §21 (August 4, 1879)

[10] Pope Leo XIII: Encyclical Letter "Aeterni Patris" §22 (August 4, 1879)

[11] Council of Florence: Decree of Union with the Copts (c. 1443)

[12] Council of Florence: Decree of Union with the Copts (c. 1443)

[13] Council of Florence: Decree of Union with the Copts (c. 1443)

[14] Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" §14 (November 21, 1964)

[15] Dr. Art Sippo: From his article "Religious Liberty, Other Religions, The Pope, and the Second Vatican Council" (c. 1998)

Other Notes:

The tract examined in this essay can be found at the following link: http://aomin.org/YouTell.html

The definitions of the word "infallible" were taken from "The Merriam Webster Third International Dictionary", G & C Merriam Co. (c. 1966)

The author’s essay on the "Syllabus of Errors" can be read at the following link: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

The author's treatise "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" can be read at the following link: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/shawn.html

Fr. John Hardon’s article "On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church" can be read at the following link: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM

The first citation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologiae" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406611.htm

The second citation of St. Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologiae" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/406802.htm

The citation from Phillip Schaff’s "History of the Christian Church" was obtained at the following link: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/6_ch01.htm

The citation from Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Letter "Aeterni Patris" was obtained at the following link: http://www.geocities.com/papalencyclicals/Leo13/l13cph.htm

The citations from the Council of Florence’s Decree "Cantante Domino" were obtained at the following link: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum17.htm

The citation from Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" was obtained at the following link: http://www.rc.net/rcchurch/vatican2/lumen.gen

The citation from Dr. Art Sippo was taken from his article "Religious Liberty, Other Religions, The Pope, and the Second Vatican Council" located at the following link: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3517/sippo/quest1.htm

©2001, "'Mr Critic' and Salvation Outside the Catholic Church", written by I. Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.
 
 

Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this article to I. Shawn McElhinney ismac@lycos.com