Many of you have requested that I write more articles. I think I will continue to write short articles as "stream notes" for those who would like to quickly have access to the sources that I quote or for those who would like to quickly go over my material in a different format. This evening, I will be doing a stream on the same topic giving more extensive explanations and answering any questions that you have (check it out here)
These aren't extensively edited and are in quite "raw" form, basically my notes.
If you appreciate this, please do consider becoming a Patron or giving a one time gift. This is my full time job, and much of my income is reliant on the generosity of an army of $5 patrons, who I very much appreciate.
A common critique today against the Second Vatican Council is that it contradicts the traditional teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ('Outside the Church there is no salvation').
It is important to recognize, from the beginning, that this critique is novel. As I have pointed out elsewhere, to hold that one can be saved without a formal and juridical union with the Church (i.e., those in merely material schism/heresy) is not just the teaching of Vatican II, but the near unanimous teaching of Catholic Theologians going back to the Council of Trent.
Here, I wanted to do something *slightly* different than my typical approach and quote documents that are not typically employed in this discussion, i.e., the Acta of Vatican I, along with the explanations given to Mystici Corporis Christi by both its author (Sebastiaan Tromp, who, ironically, was also responsible for much of the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, including the infamous subsistit in) and the Holy Office under the direction of Ven. Pius XII.
General Explanation
Before I began the presentation of these texts, I wanted to give a general overview of some of the distinctions that will be presented.
When we speak about "necessity," we mean "that without which something cannot be obtained." So when we say "the Church is necessary for salvation," we mean that "the Church is that without which salvation cannot be obtained."
Necessity can be distinguished between necessity of precept and necessity of means. Necessity of precept refers to a certain command that is given so that something else is obtained. With a necessity of precept, the culpable omission of the precept hinders one from the end, whereas the inculpable omission of the precept does not hinder on from the end.
On the other hand, a necessity of means is something that supplies the effect as a cause and thus a simply inculpable omission does not suffice for acquiring the end. As an example, we can think of baptism. Baptism is necessary for salvation with a necessity of means. Thus, inculpable omission does not acquire the end. As an example, infants dying without baptism do not automatically or necessarily acquire salvation [1].
A necessity of means can be distinguished between an absolute necessity of means and a hypothetical necessity of means. An absolute necessity of means is something that is necessary from the very nature of the thing. Thus, sanctifying grace, charity, etc., are necessary for salvation. On the other hand, a hypothetical necessity of means is something that is necessary from the positive ordination of the one giving the ends and thus can be supplied for in certain cases.
Particularly, we label the hypothetical necessity of means as "disjunctive" necessity of means, since the effect is brought about EITHER through the actual application of the means OR through the desire for such. This desire can occur in two ways, wither explicitly OR implicitly. There are usually three means that are listed as disjunctively necessary, the Church, Baptism, and Penance.
This provides us was a fruitful apparatus for considering this question and helps us keep our distinctions sharp. Thus, for example, as was indicated in my article on implicit faith, "implicit faith" can be understood in a wrong way and a right way.
On the one hand, faith as a virtue is something that is necessary with an absolute necessity of means and, therefore, it, like sanctifying grace and charity, cannot be supplied for.
Yet, on the other hand, faith in certain objects is something that is necessary with a hypothetical necessity of means, and, therefore, it, like baptism, penance, and the Church, it is disjunctive, and, therefore, faith in such objects can bring about the end either actually or in desire, which can be either implicitly or explicitly.
Now that we have this out of the way, let's get into the particular documents.
Vatican I
For those who do not know the history of Vatican I, the council was, unfortunately, stopped early due to the capture of Rome by Italian forces during the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War.
This leaves us an interesting genre of texts. These texts were written by commissions and express the general will of the Council Fathers (especially of the Holy Father, Bl. Pius IX, who carefully oversaw the writing of these documents), yet did not receive their final form and approval by these Fathers.
Thus, in later theology, they are in somewhat of a magisterial limbo. These texts frequently are quoted by 20th century theologians in order to demonstrate some thesis as the teaching of the Church, even being snuck into later editions of Denzinger.
One of these documents is a constitution De Ecclesia that discusses the nature of the Church [2]. The first draft was produced by some of the greatest theologians of the era, while chiefly authored by Josef Kleutgen, the acta also lists Giovanni Perrone and Johann Baptist Franzelin, along with many other prominent and orthodox theologians hand picked by Bl. Pius IX. Interestingly, many of these theologians, in their theological writings, left tracts De Ecclesia, from which it would be quite simple to derive an explicit treatment of the exact topic of this article.
After two years of work, this first draft was presented to the General Commission and approved in January of 1870. Then, it was presented to the Council Fathers the next month.
Since the elephant in the room was Papal Infallibility, they decided it would be wise to split this single document into two, the first constitution on Papal Infallibility (which was controversial among orthodox catholic theologians) and the second constitution on other ecclesiological matters (which were not controversial among orthodox catholic theologians).
The first was debated and revised throughout much of 1870 and was finally approved in July.
The second constitution was generally uncontroversial and there were minors critiques presented by the Council Fathers on matters of "tone, style, and structure" [3] along with the "selection of topics" [4] rather than anything strictly doctrinal.
What is important about all of this is that the second constitution contains a section explaining the traditional teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Beside this, there is an accompanying relatio written by Kleutgen which explains the text.
The topic of the Church's necessity for salvation is presented in chapters 6-7 of the first draft and chapter 6 of the second draft.
The first draft reads,
We teach that the Church is not a free association, as if it were indifferent to salvation—whether one knows it or is ignorant of it, whether one enters or leaves it; but rather, it is absolutely necessary. And this necessity is not only by the command of the Lord, by which the Savior prescribed that all nations must enter it, but also by necessity of means, for according to the order of the providential plan of salvation, the communication of the Holy Spirit, the participation in truth and life, is not obtained except in the Church and through the Church, whose Head is Christ. Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that outside the Church, no one can be saved. However, those who, through invincible ignorance, labor under an inability to know Christ and His Church, are not on account of this ignorance condemned to eternal punishment, since they are not held guilty of this before the eyes of the Lord, who wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and who does not deny grace to one who does what is in his power, so that he may obtain justification and eternal life. Nevertheless, no one obtains this who departs this life culpably separated from the unity of the faith or from the communion of the Church. If anyone is not in this ark, he will perish when the flood reigns. (Mansi 51:541-542)
There are a great deal of commentary given by the bishops on these chapters (cf., 788-806), but it is important to recognize that NONE of these bishops rejected the substance of the teaching presented here.
In fact, some of the critiques presented by the Bishops are of the fact that the phrase "necessity of means" can be misunderstood as indicating that external communion is necessary for salvation (!). For example,
The sense of the words, as gathered from the context, seems to require that it be necessary by necessity of means to be aggregated into the very body of the Church through external communion. No sufficient correction is applied in the following chapter, where invincible ignorance is discussed. For there, it is only asserted that those who suffer from this ignorance are not condemned for that reason, but not that they can be saved. (Ibid., 788)
Further,
From the context, it appears that no one at all has a path to salvation unless he has professed Catholic doctrine and has been incorporated into this divine external society through baptism. I am well aware that this rigid interpretation was by no means intended by the distinguished and excellent authors of the schema; nevertheless, the words and explicit form of the text seem to convey it, or at least do not exclude it. (ibid.)
I could multiple quotations endlessly, but you get the point. There is not a single Feenyite Council Father at Vatican I. Why? The answer is easy. Feenyism is a novelty.
The second version of the schema does not change at all in content,
Relying on apostolic doctrine, the clear tradition of the Fathers, and the decrees of our predecessors and councils, we define as a dogma of the Catholic faith: Outside the one Church of Christ, no salvation is to be hoped for. Moreover, we declare the meaning of this dogma to be this: All who die outside the Church—whether they were ignorant of it through their own fault, whether they knew it but did not enter, or whether they entered but did not persevere—cannot escape eternal destruction. However, if anyone, through no fault of his own, is ignorant of the Church, not only is he not subjected by the just God to punishment for this ignorance, but if, by divine help, he keeps the law written in his heart and is prepared to obey God in all things, he may, by the working of divine grace through the merits of Jesus Christ, attain justification and eternal life. Yet, if this occurs, it does not mean that such individuals are saved outside the Church, since they belong to it in spirit. And they can belong in spirit precisely because they are prevented from external communion only by circumstances beyond their will. (Mansi 53:311-312)
The relatio of Kleutgen explains the differences, noting that these differences are not doctrinal, but only in presentation, writing
In explaining the necessity of entering the Church, the explicit distinction between the necessity of precept and the necessity of means, which was much discussed in the observations of the fathers, has been omitted. This omission was made both because some justly remarked that it had a scholastic tone and to avoid even the appearance—though not the reality—of contradiction with what is later stated regarding inculpable ignorance. However, the matter itself is still presented in such a way that the same necessity, which was previously called necessity of means, is still affirmed.... ...Finally, regarding the explanation of the dogma, we hope that the most reverend fathers who wrote about it are satisfied. In the first part, where it speaks of those who die outside the Church through their own fault, special mention is made of culpable ignorance, because some fathers wisely advised that the grave obligation must not be left unspoken—namely, that anyone who has received some knowledge of the Church or has begun to doubt his own sect is bound to seek the truth. (Ibid., 323-324)
Mystici Corporis Christi
A second document that presents this teaching is Ven. Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi, written by the eminent Jesuit (and peritus at Vatican II), Sebastiaan Tromp.
Tromp himself was the author of an Ecclesiology manual titled Corpus Christi quod est Ecclesia. [5]
The relevant section of this document is #103
As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.
This is reflected clearly in the parallel texts cited in the footnotes, especially Summi Pontificatus, where he states
Nor can We pass over in silence the profound impression of heartfelt gratitude made on Us by the good wishes of those who, though not belonging to the visible body of the Catholic Church, have given noble and sincere expression to their appreciation of all that unites them to Us in love for the Person of Christ or in belief in God. We wish to express Our gratitude to them all. We entrust them one and all to the protection and to the guidance of the Lord and We assure them solemnly that one thought only fills Our mind: to imitate the example of the Good Shepherd in order to bring true happiness to all men: "that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly." (n. 16)
These texts became very important during the pontificate of Ven. Pius XII when a novel understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus arose from an American priest named Fr. Leonard Feeney. The Holy Office, under the close watch and direction of Ven. Pius XII, formulated a refutation of the doctrine of Fr. Feeney (which can be read in its entirety here.
In fact, the author of the text (Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani) was a boyhood friend of Ven. Pius XII.
Supporters of Fr. Feeney will claim that this document is "non-magisterial" since it was not included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, yet, this is nonsensical since the document was promulgated in proper form,
the most Eminent and most Reverend cardinals of our Supreme Congregation decreed in plenary session on Wednesday 27 July 1949, and the Sovereign Pontiff, in an audience on the following Thursday, 28 July 1949, deigned to approve the sending of the following doctrinal explanations, invitation and exhortations.
It is also important to note that Fr. Feeney's excommunication is also present in the AAS (cf., vol. 45, pg. 100).
The text begins with an important note on the proper explanation of magisterial texts, which is given to the magisterium itself and not to each individual trusting in their own judgement,
This dogma, however, has to be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. The Saviour, in fact, entrusted explanation of those things contained in the deposit of faith, not to private judgement, but to the teaching of the ecclesiastical authority.
Interestingly, this statement closely follows the schema of Vatican I when it continually references the "explanation of the dogma."
Then, the document clarifies that the Church is necessary by a necessity of precept, saying
The Church teaches that in this matter there exists a very strict mandate from Jesus Christ...The least of these commandments is not that which orders us to be incorporated through baptism into Christ's Mystical Body, which is the Church, and to remain united with Him and with His Vicar, through whom, He Himself governs his Church in visible manner here below, That is why no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ's Vicar on earth.
But, as highlighted above, the Church is not only necessary by a necessity of precept, but ALSO by a necessity of means.
He writes,
Not only did our Saviour order all peoples to enter the Church, but He also decreed that it is the means of salvation without which no one can enter the eternal kingdom of glory.
Yet, as stated above, there are two distinct types of necessity of means, one absolute and from the nature of things, and another that is hypothetical and from the positive will of the one instituting. Thus, it goes on to say
It [is] a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man's ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution.
From this, he concludes that the means are disjunctive, i.e., either from actual incorporation or from desire. Thus, it is said,
In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man's ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of "desire" or of "hope". This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807). The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.
Yet, as stated above, this desire is not only an explicit desire, but also an implicit desire. He writes,
However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul's good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God.
After this point, the document goes on to demonstrate all of this from previous magisterial texts.
[1]: This is why the current CCC, along with the ITC document on the matter, only calls forth "hope" for the salvation of infants, rather than grounds of certain knowledge, "it must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die." (n. 79)
[2]: For the historical details listed, cf., https://www.marquette.edu/library/theses/already_uploaded_to_IR/fisch_k_1968.pdf
[3]: Ibid., 17.
[4]: Ibid., 21.
Comments