The staunchest of all apologists on the Catholic Dogma EENS was Fr. Michael Müller C.SS.R. (1825 – 1899). He always submitted his works to two Redemptorist theologians (as his rule required) and to his religious superiors before publication.
One of his many great Catholic books titled “The Catholic Dogma” defended the Church’s teaching of BOD. He wrote that an invincibly ignorant person cannot be saved by his ignorance, but can be saved outside the Sacrament of Baptism. He also defended the true meaning of Pope Pius IX’s teaching on this topic.
Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma, pp. 217-218, 1888:
“Inculpable or invincible ignorance has never been and will never be a means of salvation. To be saved, it is necessary to be justified, or to be in the state of grace. In order to obtain sanctifying grace, it is necessary to have the proper dispositions for justification; that is, true divine faith in at least the necessary truths of salvation, confident hope in the divine Savior, sincere sorrow for sin, together with the firm purpose of doing all that God has commanded, etc. Now, these supernatural acts of faith, hope, charity, contrition, etc., which prepare the soul for receiving sanctifying grace, can never be supplied by invincible ignorance; and if invincible ignorance cannot supply the preparation for receiving sanctifying grace, much less can it bestow sanctifying grace itself. ‘Invincible ignorance,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is a punishment for sin.’ (De, Infid. Q. x., art. 1). “It is, then, a curse, but not a blessing or a means of salvation… Hence Pius IX said ‘that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in his infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord who knows the heart and the thoughts of man will, in his infinite goodness, not suffer anyone to be lost forever without his own fault.’ Almighty God, who is just condemns no one without his fault, puts, therefore, such souls as are in invincible ignorance of the truths of salvation, in the way of salvation, either by natural or supernatural means.”
Fr. Michael Müller also wrote a catechism titled “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine.” He writes:
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation.
Your method of describing all in this piece of writing is genuinely nice, all can effortlessly know it, Thanks
a lot.
That is basically saying that you believe in invincible ignorance. There is a woman who grew up Protestant, but examined the Catholic faith, (your version and other versions), who got so ill with fear of not dying in a state of grace, (as she thought Catholicism MIGHT be right, but wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say it was right), that she was told to stop looking online and elsewhere for explanations. Her family and Christian leaders told her she should avoid all Catholicism because it was making her so ill. The more she looked into it, the more she lived in terror. She goes to a Protestant church now. So you’re saying she is damned to Hell?
I believe that God’s faithfulness surpasses human understanding and interpretation, (e.g. of the Bible).
SPERAY REPLIES: First of all, let me say that I agree with your last sentence. As for the first sentence, I believe that if a person who is invincibly ignorant, that person could be granted grace by God if God so intends to save such a person. Invincible ignorance doesn’t save, but is a terrible handicap. As for the rest of your comments: If a baptized person went to a Protestant Church because that person misunderstood or was given false information about the Catholic Church, but was of good-willed with right disposition, that person is Catholic in error only. However, if a person resists the Catholic Church with the knowledge or belief that the Catholic Church might be right, then yes, that person is in real trouble. However, God does the judging and could grant such a person final penitence if God chooses to do so based off the prayers of the Faithful, or something.
Yes that person could be granted grace by God to be saved however this person is a hypothetical case for you.You cannot meet any such person in 2016. You cannot know of any such person in the past.
So all need to formally enter the Church since you and I do not know of any one saved in invincible ignorance, and without the baptism of water.
So being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire is not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Over the years theologians have made it relevant.
They were not exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS. The Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston made a factual error.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see,know or meet any such case.These theoretical cases cannot be living exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church in 2016 to avoid Hell.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t know of any case. The fact remains that Christ can save outside the normal circumstances. That’s all you have to accept.
Rev. Michael Müller, God the Teacher of Mankind: Grace and the Sacraments, 1882, pp. 218-22
https://archive.org/details/graceandthesacra00mulluoft
8. Can the baptism of water be ever supplied?
When a person cannot receive the baptism of water, it may be supplied by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood.
Almighty God is goodness itself. Hence he wishes that all men should be saved. But, in order to be saved, it is necessary to pass, by means of baptism, from the state of sin to the state of grace. Infants, therefore, who die unbaptized, can never enter the kingdom of heaven. The case of grown persons is somewhat different; for, when grown persons cannot be actually baptized before death, then the baptism of water may be supplied by what is called the baptism of desire.
There is an infidel. He has become acquainted with the true faith. He most earnestly desires baptism. But he cannot have any one to baptize him before he dies. Now, is such a person lost because he dies without the baptism of water? No; in this case, the person is said to be baptized in desire.
9. What is the baptism of desire?
An earnest wish to receive baptism, or to do all that God requires of us for our salvation, together with a perfect contrition, or a perfect love of God.
An ardent desire of baptism, accompanied with faith in Jesus Christ and true repentance, is, with God, like the baptism of water. In this case, the words of the Blessed Virgin are verified: “The Lord has filled the hungry with good things.” (Luke i, 35.) He bestows the good things of heaven upon those who die with the desire of baptism. We read of a very interesting instance, in confirmation of this truth, in the Annals of the Propagation of the Faith. It is related by M. Odin, missionary apostolic, and, subsequently, Archbishop of New Orleans, Louisiana:
“At some distance from our establishment at Barrens,” he says, “in Missouri, United States of America, there was a district inhabited by Protestants or infidels, with the exception of three or four Catholic families. In 1834 we had the consolation of baptizing several persons there : thus it was that the Lord was pleased to reward the kindness with which one of the most respectable inhabitants gave us hospitality every time we journeyed that way. This worthy man, who was not a Catholic, had three little children, who received with eagerness the instructions we never failed to give them. The tallest of the sons, only eight years old, especially showed such a particular relish for the word of God, that he learned by heart the entire catechism. Evening and morning he addressed his little prayer to the good God ; and if ever his little sister missed that holy exercise, he reproached her very seriously. Things were at this point when the Cholera broke out in the neighborhood. Then this good little boy said simply to his mother: Mamma, the cholera is coming here: oh! how glad I should be if the priests from the seminary came to baptize me! That cruel disease will attack me, I am sure it will, and I shall die without baptism ; then you will be sorry. Alas! the poor child predicted truly: he was one of the first victims of the dreadful plague. During the short moments of his cruel sufferings he incessantly asked for baptism, and even with his last sigh he kept repeating: Oh! if any one would baptize me! My God! must I die without being baptized? The mother, thinking that she could not herself administer that sacrament, although there was evident necessity, was in the greatest trouble; neither would the child consent to receive it from the hands of a Protestant minister. At last he died without having obtained his ardent wish. As soon as I heard of the cholera being in that part of the country, I hastened thither; but I only reached there some hours after the child’s funeral. The family was plunged in the greatest affliction. I consoled them as much as I could, and especially in relation to the eternal destiny of their poor little one, by explaining to them what the Church teaches us on the baptism of desire. This consoling doctrine much assuaged their grief; after giving the other necessary instructions, I baptized the mother and the two young children, and, some days after, the father failed not to follow the example of his family.” (Catholic Anecdotes, p. 547.)
Although it be true that the fathers of the Church have believed and taught that the baptism of desire may supply the baptism of water, yet this doctrine, as St. Augustine observes, should not make any one delay ordinary baptism when he is able to receive it; for, such a delay of baptism is always attended with great danger of salvation.
10. What is the baptism of blood?
Martyrdom for the sake of Christ.
There is still another case in which a person may be justified and saved without having actually received the sacrament of baptism, viz. : the case of a person suffering martyrdom for the faith before he has been able to receive baptism. Martyrdom for the true faith has always been held by the Church to supply the sacrament of baptism. Hence, in the case of martyrdom, a person has always been said to be baptized in his own blood. Our divine Saviour assures us that “whosoever shall lose his life for his sake and the gospel, shall save it.” (Mark viii, 35.) He, therefore, who dies for Jesus Christ, and for the sake of his religion, obtains a full remission of all his sins, and is immediately after death admitted into heaven.
St. Emerentiana, while preparing to receive baptism, went to pray at the tomb of St. Agnes. While praying there, she was stoned to death by the heathens. Her parents were greatly afflicted, and almost inconsolable, when they learned that their daughter had died without having received baptism. To console her parents, God permitted Emerentiana to appear to them in her heavenly glory, and to tell them not to be any longer afflicted on account of her salvation, “for,” said she, “I am in heaven with Jesus, my dear Saviour, whom I loved with my whole heart, when living on earth.” (Her Life, 23d Jan.)
St. Genesius of Arles is also honored as a saint, because, for refusing to subscribe to a persecuting edict of Maximilian, he was put to death, though, at that time, he had not been baptized.
Mr Speray, Do you have access to Bp Zubizarreta’s four-volume manual of dogmatic theology? The great people at MHTS and True Restoration say “it is certain that Fr. Muller denied baptism of desire because Zubizarreta said so”. A priest told your friend Introibo that it was hogwash.
As you can see, it is certain that Fr. Muller did NOT deny baptism of desire as he actually taught it in his own catechism. Just because some bishop or theologian makes a claim about someone or something doesn’t make it true. Msgr. Fenton was terribly wrong about Bishop Ryder. Van Noort was terribly wrong about a teaching from Trent. Always look up the sources.
Turns out he just denied Prots in good faith, who are extra ecclesiam, could never saved. That was what Bp. Zubizarreta said was a grave error.
True Restoration /Sanborn spun it to ‘he denied BoD. Reinforces my decision to cut out the R&R sedes of the Nine line and stick with CMRI.
Mr Speray, I’ve seen your article on Van Noort and Trent but what was the issue between Ryder and Fenton?
Msgr. Fenton is referring to an exchange between Bishop Ryder and Ward. Fenton said, “[Bishop] Ryder had foolishly characterized himself as a Gallican”? In Fr. Ryder’s Letter (1868) to Ward, he explicity acknowleges that Gallicanism is a condemned position and that the theory he held was not Gallicanism.
In the immediate 2 previous sentences, Ryder wrote: “As must be the case with almost all Mr. Ward’s Catholic readers in this country, I have ever conceived myself to be an Ultramontane. Gallicans, as a party, have pretty well disappeared, although no doubt the principle still exists; but you may not unfrequently hear the name Gallican or moderate applied to the older and more undemonstrative of the Clergy, both here and on the continent.”
First of all, Ryder considers himself an Ultramontane. He, then, refers to the name “Gallican or moderate” being used as an antagonistic expression that originated with the group. Ward had called Ryder a “moderate” the same as “Gallican.” Ryder takes the accusation and spins it on its head.
Ryder had no sympathy with the principle of Gallicanism that’s condemned. He’s quite aware how wrong Gallicanism was but the “Gallican” expression that’s now used has something right. Concern for the enemy and truth outweighs the pettiness of opinions. For this, Ryder takes the name as a badge of honor in comparison to Ward’s opinion of himself and ideas. His English wit is almost mocking Ward.
Yet, Fenton writes, “Ryder had foolishly characterized himself as a Gallican. Newman will not condemn even this absurdity.”
Ryder did not FOOLISHLY do so, and it was not absurd. He brilliantly characterized himself (along with every right-minded Catholic) with a particularly Catholic spirit that’s found in the expression that an orthodox Catholic like Ward should have had. The fact that Newman didn’t condemn Ryder is a positive for Newman, not a negative as Fenton makes it out to be.
What we’re seeing is the wit of the English Bishop Ryder. Apparently, it went right over the head of Fenton.