Well, it seems someone mentioned me in a letter to the latest Catholic Telegraph:
Editor:
How sad that Father Martin Fox missed the whole point of Mr. Daley's well-written column (Letters, March 4). In its concern for ecumenical dialogue as well as relationships with non-Christian religions, the Second Vatican Council made bold steps toward eradicating centuries of hostility. The documents from this Council clearly indicate a broad interpretation of the formulary of St. Cyprian: extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church there is no salvation).
In his opening remarks, Mr. Daley cited this phrase with the explanation that a very narrow interpretation had dominated Catholic thinking for many centuries. Such thinking hindered any kind of dialogue with other Christians, much less non-Christians.
However, a broader understanding of this phrase was enunciated in a letter from the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston in 1949, which became the foundation for further exploration in the Second Vatican Council. That "open door" led to fruitful discussions and relationships with other denominations and religions.
While there is not sufficient space here for a more detailed discussion, Mr. Daley's use of the the phrase was most appropriate. And he was right on the mark by noting that the Catholic Church has taken a leading role in promoting interreligious dialogue. This, too, is one of the things that keeps me Catholic.
Father Raymond C. Kellerman
Holy Trinity Parish, Norwood
OK; here's the letter I wrote:
Editor:
Michael Daley, a religion teacher at St. Xavier High School, began his article in the Feb. 25 edition of the Telegraph with the phrase Extra ecclesiam nulla salus — outside the church there is no salvation.
In the column that followed, it did not seem to me that he explained what this means to us as we continue to teach this as a doctrine of our church — which we do. Yet without further explanation, it certainly gives rise to confusion.
So what do we mean when we say that? “Outside the church” refers to the Body of Christ understood in its fullest sense. We don’t know how many will be saved ultimately. We hope for vast numbers, but we don’t assume it will be everyone. But whoever is ultimately saved will be members of the Catholic Church in eternity, whether or not they are full members in this life.
In this sense, no one who is saved will be “outside” —salvation means they are “inside.” This is our hope for those who never hear about Jesus in this life, as well as those who, while not receiving actual baptism, may share a “baptism of desire” or “of blood.”
Likewise, reason tells us that if someone rejects Christianity — or the Catholic Church in particular — because of misinformation, then Christ knows the difference between that, and someone who rejects the truth, yet knowing it to be true.
Here is what Vatican II said: “This Sacred Council...teaches that the church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His body, which is the church, is the one mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Lumen Gentium 14).
Whoever is saved, can only be saved through the merits of Christ, and will be united with Him. No one can be united to the head, yet not part of the body: so those who will be saved will indeed be, not “outside,” but “inside” the church.
The question remains, does it matter whether we are full members of the church in this life? Certainly. Baptism matters. The sacraments are powerful helps to salvation, as is the teaching office (i.e., magisterium) of the church. More help is more help. God acts in the lives of those not full members of the Catholic Church, and He knows their hearts.
Having the fullness of the Catholic faith isn’t a golden ticket for Catholics; it makes us more accountable. But it would be dangerous to think, “Oh it doesn’t matter, I’ll get to heaven somehow.”
Seeking Christ in His church is a wiser course.
Father Martin Fox, pastor
St. Mary and St. Boniface parishes
Piqua
(If you want to see the original article, go here.)
OK, well, let me offer these comments:
> I didn't miss the point of the original article; I didn't address it all. I simply observed that the author didn't really address the meaning of the "extra ecclesiam" doctrine. I think that's a statement of simple fact.
> I am certainly aware of what the Second Vatican Council had to say, as I quoted it.
> It could be that Father Kellerman thinks I was finding fault with Mr. Daley's column. Well, re-read my letter and please show me where I criticized Mr. Daley's essay? I suppose the very fact that I wrote the letter seems an implied criticism--i.e, that Mr. Daley ought to have explained the doctrine. Well, OK, maybe he should have, or else handled it differently. But columns need to be brief, so adding such explanations are hard to do and I don't blame Mr. Daley for not explaining it. And if my letter didn't need to be brief, I might have said as much when I wrote the Telegraph.
> In any case, the question of Church teaching on salvation "outside" the Church does often gives rise to misunderstanding. Or so I have found; perhaps Father Kellerman has had a different experience. I offered some clarity, which as far as I can tell, Father Kellerman finds no fault with.
> I'm sorry to hear Father Kellerman is sad. I hope he cheers up!
21 comments:
Father Fox,
Your original letter as well as your follow up are very charitable in tone as well as educational in nature. Your simply trying to shed some light and clarificaiton on a subject that is easily misconstrued
Thank you for the time and energy you spend in these type of teachable moments, we are most grateful
Keep up the good work, Father! There will always be those who disagree, but those are slowly falling into the minority. God bless!
HI Father -- Are you a Neo-Cath? You have to watch out for them, you know... or so I have been told. Sadly, I don't know who/what they are and so I have to stick to the plain old Church, like you do. I appreciate your thorough and charitable letter.
Gail:
That "neo-Cath" terminology is interesting, I think this is what's going on with that...
In politics, for some time we've had the terms "conservative" and "neo-conservative." Along the way, there were conservative folks who looked with growing suspicion at the "neos"; the reasons for that aren't necessary to go into, but it boiled down to two concerns:
1) "neo conservatives" aren't really conservatives when it counts, and
2) these "neos" are hijacking the movement and wrecking it.
So one response was for folks to label themselves "paleo conservatives"...and so forth.
OK, so here's what I find interesting. Folks are taking these political, ideological terms--which have their place--and imposing them onto the Church.
And I find that interesting; and offensive.
I worked in politics, and it took me awhile, in making the move to the seminary and then the parish, to sort out in my own mind what pertained, and what didn't. And here's one of my insights.
Politics necessarily and properly involves creating division. There are choices to be made, different plans and visions, and it serves the public to clarify where folks stand so they can choose. Of course we all want to be unified as Americans; but it doesn't serve the public interest to muddy up the differences that are there.
The fact is, an essential element (not the only element) of politics is that it is a civilized substitute for warfare. Politics involves the acquisition of power; and either that is done through force (we call that war), or through rules that everyone agrees to as "fair." Still, when someone wins, s/he gets to use that power to do things that the losers have to go along with.
But the Church is not like that!
Christ did not send us, saying, make sure you sort out the purest sheep and send away the impure; that parable is nowhere to be found. He reserves that to Himself (Matthew 24). What he told us--especially pastors--was the parable of the lost sheep: the one who wanders away.
So I have to question someone who tries to fit the Church into the Procrustean Bed of ideological combat. I think folks who approach it that way should some soul-searching. Are they really about the Church, herself; or are they about an ideological vision that they wish to reshape the Church to match? I might point out that this problem exists among those who are labeled "progressive," and you can see it on display almost daily at the National Catholic Reporter. And what I think has happened is some folks have reacted to that by being similarly political, but in opposition. Wrong answer, in my opinion.
I think "neo-cath actually refers to The Neocatechumenal Way.
Anonymous: why wouldn't they be called "neo-cats?"
I gather from the Wikipedia article on "Neo-Catholicism" that the term was invented by traditionalists to refer to "Spirit of Vatican II" blokes. I don't take Fr. Martin to be either.
Hey, Martin. I would have described the problem this way: (1) Ignorance, especially invincible ignorance, is a valid excuse; (2) Failure to cooperate with the truth received by us will get us into trouble.
I have no idea why Fr. Kellerman didn't take kindly to your remarks.
Personally, I like what you said about eschatological membership in the Church.
Father:
Keep it up.
DLA
CONTINUED
Since we do not know any case of a person saved in invincible ignorance Fr. George Puthoor is getting rid of another modernist sacred cow- the lie about a priest, Leonard Feeney.
When Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there is no baptism of desire (that we know of) he was correct. There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of because of the very nature of baptism of desire. It is de facto only for God and never de facto known to us.
Fr.Leonard Feeney taught: everyone needed the baptism of water (given to adults with Catholic Faith) for salvation – and there were no exceptions, de facto.
He was affirming Cantate Domino. So how could he be excommunicated for heresy?
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma Cantate Domino indicates all Jews in Boston ( and other non Catholics) need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
With Vatican Council II and Fr.Leonard Feeney ‘out of the way’ we are back to the centuries-old intrpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The centuries old teaching of the popes and saints is affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846(Outside the Church no Salvation) says all people need to enter the Church as ‘through a door’. This does not conflict with CCC846 also saying all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church i.e. there are those 1) saved explicitly with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and there are those saved 2) implicitly through the baptism of desire etc. and which is known only to God.
Fr. George Puthoor is the second Catholic priest in Rome who within a few weeks has affirmed Cantate Domino, which the Church has not retracted through any Magisterial document.. Earlier Fr. Francesco Giordano an Italian diocesan priest said the same.
Unlike these Catholic priests, the American sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, assume that the baptism of desire is known to us in the present times. They seem unaware that it can only be accepted in principle. It can only be a concept for us and real for God. So it does not contradict Cantate Domino. The sedevacantists reject the baptism of desire. This is heresy. They could be correct though, in saying that Catholic clergy, educational institutions and websites are in heresy and general apostasy on the issue of outside the church there is no salvation. .Since they deny Cantate Domino because they believe, like the sedevacantists, in a de facto baptism of deny known to us personally.
-Lionel Andrades
Post a Comment