Father Chad Ripperger was recently interviewed by Terry Barber and Jesse Romero on their podcast, “Full Sheen Ahead.” A small excerpt of the interview was turned into a short stand-alone video on YouTube and entitled, “Exorcist Explains How Catholics/Non-Catholics Are Saved.”
That clip begins with Terry Barber mentioning the concept of “limited papal infallibility” (meaning that the Holy Father can possibly be wrong when not invoking his unique charism of infallibility) and asking Father Ripperger about a recent statement of Pope Francis to the effect that all religions are paths that lead to God. Father ultimately and truthfully answered the question by denying the assertion that God positively wills non-Catholic religions and that they are all paths to God. He called them “false religions.”
Before giving that response, though, Father Ripperger prefaced his remarks by bringing up the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He stated that this dogma is undeniably Catholic teaching, taught by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence (just for the record: he did not mention Pope Bonifice VIII’s Unam Sanctam). He affirmed strongly that this doctrine has been formally defined and has been otherwise taught by numerous popes and doctors of the Church.
AMDG
8 comments:
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation is a formally defined doctrine of the Church. Unless you are a formally baptized Catholic in the Church you cannot be saved. The ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church says Fr. Ripperger. All other religions by their nature are not means to God the Catholic Church is the only established means of salvation.
I agree with Fr. Ripperger. The Councils did not mention any exceptions and in real life, we humans cannot know of any, in particular for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which he cited.
The following points he mentioned refer to hypothetical cases only. They refer to invisible cases in 2024 for us human beings. So they did not contradict the dogma EENS which he quoted.
1. It does not mean that a Protestant can be saved but they are not saved by virtue of their religion. (Lionel: If there was any such person in 2024 it would only be known to God.)
2. Trent refers to the baptism of desire. (Lionel: The baptism of desire is always invisible for us human beings. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective error. It projected invisible- in- 1949 cases of the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.)
3. There are those go give their life for Jesus even though they were not formally baptized.(Lionel: With good will we can hope that there are such cases but in 1949-2024 we do not known of any practical case. So ‘the baptism of blood’ is not an objective exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which the exorcist cited)
4. The Apocalypse refers to people of every nation and race who will be saved. (Lionel: Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. So Vatican Council II is saying that in Heaven there are only Catholics. This is also the message of the Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the teaching of the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.)
5. If a Protestant happens to be saved how do you reconcile this with ‘no salvation outside the Church’? (Lionel: It is an invisible case for us. So it does not contradict the dogma EENS. Before 1949 they knew that there was no explicit case of St. Thomas Aquinas’ implicit baptism of desire. There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall.)
6. If anyone is saved outside the Church they are saved by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. (Lionel: Yes, theoretically speaking. In reality we do not know of any case in 2024)
7. If a Protestant is saved he is saved by mediation of the Catholic Church. (Lionel: Yes but this should not projected against the dogma EENS. Since we cannot see or meet a Protestant saved outside the Church, since 1949)
8. If a Protestant is validly baptized they have Sanctifying Grace and are part of the mystical union of the Church,” even though visibly they might be outside the Church”. (Lionel: Yes, hypothetically. De facto there is no such known case for us).
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
9. If they formally do not reject the Catholic Church, which does not mean that they do not believe in it…, they can be saved.(Lionel: We have to make the distinction between what is implicit and explicit, unseen and seen, unknown or known. There are no such known cases. We cannot say that any particular Protestant or non Christian will go to Heaven even though visibly outside the Church)
10. It is possible for a Protestant to be saved because of invincible ignorance and if they have not committed a mortal sin. (Lionel: Theoretically, yes. But a possibility is not a formal exception for the dogma EENS).
11. God gives all people who have reached the age of reason sufficient grace to be saved, so even the Buddhist in Tibet who has never heard of the Catholic Church, is going to be given sufficient grace to be saved and they can be saved.(Lionel: A possibility is not a known exception. We cannot say that any particular Buddhist in Tibet or elsewhere will be saved without the ordinary means of salvation).
12. The minimum bar is that if some in ignorance lived according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, if they knew, they could be saved. They would want to be baptized. (Lionel: Yes theoretically, but this should not be mentioned with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is irrelevant. It is what the apologist John Martignoni would call ‘a zero case’.
13. There is the ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation, in the sense God is still mediating through the Catholic Church. (Lionel: The extraordinary means of salvation can only be known to God. There is no extra ordinary salvation known to us humans. We cannot say that a St. Emerentiana is in Heaven without the baptism of desire. She is in Heaven and is declared a saint. But no one can confirm that she was there without the baptism of water.)
14. So through the extraordinary means they can be saved “and there are cases in which they are saved”. (Lionel. Hopefully there are such cases in which they are saved through the extra ordinary way but they are unknown to people on earth, in for example, 1965-2024. So these unknown cases should not be posited as exceptions for the Councils, which defined EENS and did not mention any exception.)
15. If a non Catholic or Protestant is saved they are saved in spite of their religion. (Lionel: O.K but this does not contradict the dogma EENS mentioned by the Council of Trent, the Baltimore Catechism etc. Possibilities known only to God are not formal exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed etc.- Lionel Andrades
I don't understand your headline. It claims Father Rippinger "fails to affirm EENS" but the article seems to say he affirmed it.
Apparently, you didn’t read the whole article, Lionel.
Crackpots and crockpots
Dear Tancred,
Thank you for posting the above 15 points which I am unable to post on the website Catholicism.org since I remain banned out there.So this issue cannot be discussed there.
The important points are , with reference to Brother Andre Marie's article on Fr. Chad Ripperger is that:-
1. LG 8,14,16,UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II and the 15 theoretical points mentioned in this video, are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. I think the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, agree with me here.However they have not commented on this point formally.
2. We know the dogma EENS which the excorcist has affirmed cannot have visible exceptions in 2024. Since if someone dies and is saved outside the Church it can only be known to God. So LG 8 etc cannot be a visible exception for the dogma EENS. The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made an objective mistake. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire in 1949 could not be visible exceptions for the Council of Florence 1442, on EENS.
3.However the traditionalists and liberals continue to interpret LG 8,14,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being practical exceptions for the dogma EENS. In other words, these are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.This was how Cardinal Ratzinger would interpret Vatican Council II, which was a break with the understanding of EENS of the 16th century, for him.
This is how Pope Francis and Cardinal Fernandez and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican interpreted Vatican Council II, i.e irrationally, confusing what is invisible as being visible and then accepting liberal conclusions- in the Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano case for schism.
Unfortunately this is also how the traditionalists interpret Vatican Council II and then reject the non traditional conclusion.
Since I interpret invisible cases as being only invisible, there are no practical exceptions in Vatican Council II, for the dogma EENS which Fr. Ripperger has affirmed in public. I will continue to interpret Vatican Council II, as such. This is the only rational option we have.
Why should we interpret Lumen Gentium 16, for example, as being a visible example of salvation outside the Church in 1965-2024 and so an explicit exception for the dogma EENS and the past exclusivisit ecclesiology of the Roman Missal ? This is unethical.Yet the St.Benedict Centers, both groups, have been interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma EENS, all these years. In other words, LG 8,16 etc, are visible exceptions for Tradition ( Athanasius Creed etc). Do not the SSPX make the same objective mistake, for you ? -Lionel Andrades
- Lionel Andrades
Nobody read your blog, and nobody reads your irrelevant comments either, Lionel.
Regarding Comments on a Blog: Rule # 1
Keep it brief. No one will read your endless musings.
Post a Comment