Can one be “inside” the Catholic Church without being a “member”?

 

A Review of the book, The Catholic Church and Salvation, by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

 

By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

 

*AN ARTICLE THAT DEALS WITH KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE CONTROVERSY, AND THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

 

*Note: this article deals with finer points and issues relating to the baptism of desire controversy and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.  Those who are not deeply interested in the finer points of the issue, and the refutation of subtle arguments made by the baptism of desire side, will probably find some of this article boring.

 

IN THIS ARTICLE:

 

- MSGR. FENTON CLAIMS TO HOLD THE DOGMA WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS – AND HE CORRECTLY ASSERTS THAT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION IS TO DENY THE DOGMA

- MSGR. FENTON REJECTS AS HERETICAL THE IDEA THAT THE CHURCH IS ONLY THE ORDINARY MEANS OF SALVATION, WHEREBY SOMEONE COULD BE SAVED EXTRAORDINARILY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

-MSGR. FENTON CORRECTLY REJECTS AS FALSE THE IDEA THAT ONE CAN BELONG TO THE SOUL OF THE CHURCH WITHOUT BELONGING TO ITS BODY, AND THUS REJECTS THE TEACHING OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM, ETC.

-MSGR. FENTON ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY THE MISTAKE OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE

-MSGR. FENTON CORRECTLY REJECTS THE FALSE IDEA THAT THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE KNOWINGLY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

-MSGR. FENTON’S APPARENT RIGOROUS FIDELITY TO THE DOGMATIC FORMULAS

-MSGR. FENTON’S MAIN ARGUMENT: ONE CAN BE “INSIDE” THE CHURCH WITHOUT BEING A “MEMBER”

-REFUTING A FALSE EXAMPLE OF BEING “INSIDE” WITHOUT BEING A “MEMBER”

-MAGISTERIAL EVIDENCE REFUTING FENTON’S MAIN ARGUMENT

-ANOTHER CLEAR REFUTATION OF FENTON’S ARGUMENT

-FENTON DEFENDS SUPREMA HAEC SACRA (PROTOCOL 122/49), WHICH DENIES THE DOGMA

-FENTON’S DENIAL OF THE DOGMA

-YOU TELL ME IF IT’S NOT RIDICULOUS

-FENTON ADMITS THAT BASICALLY EVERYONE WHO DENIES THE DOGMA CLAIMS TO AFFIRM IT

-END OF ARTICLE – [APPENDIX: AN ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT AGAINST BAPTISM OF DESIRE – BAPTISM OF DESIRE CONTRADICTS THE POPE’S PRIMACY OF SUPREME JURISDICTION]

 

Presented with the evidence that only baptized Catholics are members of the Church, one way by which defenders of baptism of desire attempt to “get around” this fact is by arguing that one can be within the Catholic Church without being a member.  This is the primary argument of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton in his book, The Catholic Church and Salvation.  I will now review this argument of Fr. Fenton, as well as many of the other things he states in his book.  Some of these are very interesting.  (Fenton’s arguments and book are promoted by Patrick Henry Omlor in The Robber Church.  Fenton, now deceased, was the editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review before Vatican II.  His book, which is still influencing many “traditionalists” today, was published in 1958.)

 

MSGR. FENTON CLAIMS TO HOLD THE DOGMA WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS – AND HE CORRECTLY ASSERTS THAT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION IS TO DENY THE DOGMA

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 124, 126: “The teaching that the dogma of the necessity of the Church for salvation admits of exceptions is, in the last analysis, a denial of the dogma as it has been stated in the authoritative declarations of the ecclesiastical magisterium and even as it is expressed in the axiom or formula ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’  It is important to note that such teaching is found in Cardinal Newman’s last published study on this subject… Obviously there could be no more effective way of reducing the teaching on the necessity of the Church for the attainment of eternal salvation to an empty formula than the explanation advanced by Newman…”

 

Fenton points out that Cardinal Newman, the famous 19th century theologian beloved by certain false traditionalists, denied the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation by holding that it does admit of exceptions.  This is very significant, for Fenton was the editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review.  Thus, even Msgr. Fenton was correctly admitting that heretical views on salvation were held by many prominent pre-Vatican II clerics, including the famous Cardinal Newman.

 

MSGR. FENTON REJECTS AS HERETICAL THE IDEA THAT THE CHURCH IS ONLY THE ORDINARY MEANS OF SALVATION, WHEREBY SOMEONE COULD BE SAVED EXTRAORDINARILY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 126: “Some Catholic authors attempted to explain the dogma of the Church’s necessity for the attainment of salvation by saying that the Church is only the ordinary means, and that it is still possible, in extraordinary cases, for a man to attain the Beatific Vision outside the Church.  At the same time they resolutely claimed, as Newman had done, that it is a Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church.  Manifestly, according to this explanation, the dogma would be nothing more than a vain formula, something which the very people who accept it as a dogma would be expected to treat, for all practical purposes, as untrue.”

 

Fenton correctly rejects the position held by many, including many among the traditional movement, that the Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that non-Catholics can be saved “extraordinarily” outside the Church.  Fenton correctly rejects this as a denial of the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. 

 

MSGR. FENTON CORRECTLY REJECTS AS FALSE THE IDEA THAT ONE CAN BELONG TO THE SOUL OF THE CHURCH WITHOUT BELONGING TO ITS BODY, AND THUS REJECTS THE TEACHING OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM, ETC.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 127: “By all means the most important and the most widely employed of all the inadequate explanations of the Church’s necessity for salvation was the one that centered around a distinction between the ‘body’ and the ‘soul’ of the Catholic Church.  The individual who tried to explain the dogma in this fashion generally designated the visible Church itself as the ‘body’ of the Church and applied the term ‘soul of the Church’ either to grace and the supernatural virtues or some fancied ‘invisible Church.’…there were several books and articles claiming that, while the ‘soul’ of the Church was in some way not separated from the ‘body,’ it was actually more extensive than this ‘body.’  Explanations of the Church’s necessity drawn up in terms of this distinction were at best inadequate and confusing and all too frequently infected with serious error.”

 

Fenton correctly rejects the idea that one can be united to Soul of the Church without being united to the Body.  This is very interesting and significant because in rejecting this idea Fenton is rejecting the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism attributed to Pius X, and the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.  As we can see below, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism attributed to Pius X and St. Robert Bellarmine all taught that unbaptized persons can be inside the Church by asserting that such a person belongs to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body!  [Note: St. Robert Bellarmine only applied this idea to catechumens who believe in the Trinity and Incarnation, whereas these Catechisms applied it to those who don’t know the Catholic Faith.]

 

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Apostles’ Creed, “The Church in Particular,” Q. 29: “Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?  A. If 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 as 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.”

 

Baltimore Catechism No. 3, 1921, Imprimatur Archbishop Hayes of New York: “Q. 510.  Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church? A.  It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person (1) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul…. Q. 512  How are such persons said to belong to the Church?  A.  Such persons are said to belong to the “Soul of the Church”; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it.  Those who share in its Sacraments are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.”

 

St. Robert Bellarmine, De ecclesia militante, c. 2: “Again, some are of the soul and not of the body, as catechumens and excommunicated persons if they have faith and charity, as they can have them.”

 

It is extremely interesting to see that Fenton rejected this position, for we often receive the following complaint from the defenders of baptism of desire: “So you know more than the Baltimore Catechism!  So you reject the teaching of the Catechism of Pius X!  So you believe that St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, was in grave error!  That’s absurd.”  These same people are the type that holds that Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was a “wonderful, extraordinary, rock-solid, pre-Vatican II, Catholic theologian.”  So, are they going to follow their favorite 20th century, pre-Vatican II theologian, Msgr. Fenton, and reject the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, the Baltimore Catechism, etc.?  Or vice versa?  Who knows?  It’s just one of the many contradictions in which the defenders of baptism of desire are mired.

 

The idea that one can belong to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body is clearly false, as Fenton correctly states.  The Church itself is the Mystical Body.  To assert that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to assert that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.  Pope Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ.  This destroys the idea that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:  “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards.  No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

 

MSGR. FENTON ATTEMPTING TO JUSTIFY THE MISTAKE OF ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE

 

As we just saw, Fenton rejects the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, that one can be united to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body.  Since Doctors of the Church, like anyone else, can make mistakes, even relating to dogmatic issues, Fenton should have simply stated that St. Robert was wrong.  However, rather than honestly and plainly stating that St. Robert Bellarmine was wrong, Fenton dishonestly confuses the issue by trying to justify his teaching on the one hand, while rejecting it on the other.  He dishonestly argues that it was all just a misunderstanding:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 173-174: “Yet, despite the perfection [sic] of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante [St. Robert Bellarmine’s work] was destined to be a source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians.  The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post-Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms ‘soul’ and ‘body’ with reference to the Church.”

 

We already saw that Fenton flatly rejects the idea that the Soul is more extensive than the Body of the Church.  We also saw that St. Robert taught that catechumens could be of the Soul without being of the Body, thus making the Soul of the Church more extensive than the Body.  So, instead of being honest, and stating that St. Robert Bellarmine made an error, Fenton dishonestly says that this is an “unfortunate misunderstanding” of St. Robert’s “weak” teaching.  St. Robert’s teaching wasn’t merely weak; it was wrong.  Fenton even says:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 179: “It is one of the ironical twists in history that St. Robert, pre-eminent among the writers of the Catholic Church for the clarity of his expression, should have offered the occasion for such serious misunderstanding.”

 

Fenton even goes on to explain how an entire line of theological error stemmed from St. Robert’s mistake –oops, I mean, the “misunderstanding” of St.  Robert’s teaching:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 181: “The misuse of St. Robert’s terminology went a step farther at the beginning of the eighteenth century in a well-written manual Elementa theologica written by the Sorbonne professor, Charles du Plessis d’Argentre.”

 

This serves to show us again why Catholics don’t follow the teaching of theologians or Doctors of the Church except when they repeat and are perfectly in line with infallible Catholic teaching, or assert something that has been universally and constantly believed by Catholics from the beginning.  To obstinately cling to the teaching of theologians (no matter how great or esteemed they may have been), in the face of infallible teaching to the contrary, leads to grave error or worse.  As we can see, here we have one of the favorite theologians of those who defend baptism of desire, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, denouncing the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism attributed to Pius X, and St. Robert Bellarmine.  That is why the Catholic Church teaches:

 

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.”

 

Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII (Denz. 1320)

 

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”

 

MSGR. FENTON CORRECTLY REJECTS THE FALSE IDEA THAT THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE KNOWINGLY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

 

Commenting on the common misinterpretation of Pope Pius IX’s teaching, that the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation only applies to those “knowingly” outside the Church, Msgr. Fenton rejects this idea as contrary to the dogma:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 64-65: “…if the Church were necessary for the attainment of eternal salvation only in the sense that individuals contumaciously separated from it could not be saved, it would definitely not be true to say that no man could be saved outside the Catholic Church… It is only by doing manifest violence to the text of his [Pius IX’s] encyclical that his statement could be interpreted as applying only to those who are willfully separated from the faith and from Catholic unity.”

 

I mention this because many in the traditionalist movement believe exactly what Fenton rejects here.  For instance:

 

Bishop Robert McKenna, “The Boston Snare,” printed in the CMRI’s Magazine The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXVI, No. 83: “The doctrine, then, of no salvation outside the Church is to be understood in the sense of knowingly outside the Church… But, they may object, if such be the sense of the dogma in question, why is the word ‘knowingly’ not part of the formula, ‘Outside the Church no salvation’?  For the simple reason that the addition is unnecessary.  How could anyone know of the dogma and not be knowingly outside the Church?  The ‘dogma’ is not so much a doctrine intended for the instruction of Catholics, since it is but a logical consequence of the Church’s claim to be the true Church, but rather a solemn and material warning or declaration for the benefit of those outside the one ark of salvation.”

 

Thus, Msgr. Fenton correctly rejects the position advanced by the CMRI and Bishop McKenna as a rejection of the dogma.  If this heretical “understanding” were true, Fenton correctly notes that “it would definitely not be true to say that no man could be saved outside the Catholic Church,” as the Church infallibly does.

 

MSGR. FENTON’S APPARENT RIGOROUS FIDELITY TO THE DOGMATIC FORMULAS

 

Unlike most heretics who deal with the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation, who give almost no attention or respect to the dogmatic formulas (i.e. to the words of the infallible definitions) because their heretical positions are condemned by them, Msgr. Fenton gives much attention to the words of the infallible texts.  This is very interesting, first of all, because it shows how this theologian (as wrong as he is in some of his conclusions, as we will see) knows that no position can be advanced on Outside the Church There is No Salvation that contradicts, even in the slightest way, the actual words of the dogmatic definitions.  Fenton’s first chapter concerns the dogmatic definition from the Fourth Lateran Council.

 

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful (una…fidelium universalis ecclesia), outside of which nobody at all is saved (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur)…” (Denz. 430)

 

Based on this infallible declaration, Msgr. Fenton asserts:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 12: “The Fourth General Council of the Lateran brought out the fact that it is absolutely impossible to attain to eternal salvation if a man passes from this life ‘outside’ the true Church… (2)  There is absolutely no exception to this rule.  Otherwise the statement ‘no one at all (nullus omnino)’ is saved outside of the one universal Church of the faithful would not be true.”

 

Msgr. Fenton is adamant: there are absolutely no exceptions to the dogma that there is no salvation “outside” the Catholic Church.  He admits that it would be a rejection of the dogma to assert that anyone could be saved who is “outside” or not “inside/within” the Catholic Church.  Now, it is a fact that Msgr. Fenton believed in baptism of desire; he believed that people could be saved who were not baptized.  So, how does he handle the issue of whether the unbaptized, whom he believes can be saved, are inside or outside the Church?

 

MSGR. FENTON’S MAIN ARGUMENT: ONE CAN BE “INSIDE” THE CHURCH WITHOUT BEING A “MEMBER”

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:   “Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.”

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 10: “Furthermore, they [the Fathers of the Fourth Lateran Council] knew that there is no such thing as real membership in the Church militant of the New Testament, the true and only ecclesia fidelium [Church of the faithful], apart from the reception of the sacrament of baptism.”

 

Msgr. Fenton readily admits that one cannot be a “member” of the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism, but he “cleverly” asserts that being “inside/within” the Church (which everyone must to be saved) is not the same thing as being a “member.”

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation.  According to the teaching of the Church’s own magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this Church.  The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”

 

This is the central argument of his book: one can be “inside” the Catholic Church without being a “member” of the Catholic Church.  I’m sure many simple Catholics of good will immediately reject this theory as patently ridiculous and contradictory.  That’s because it is ridiculous, contradictory and false, as we will see. 

 

The Catholic Church never taught what Fenton said about non-members being inside the Catholic Church.  This is precisely why he can quote nothing from the Traditional Catholic Magisterium to back it up.  He also asserts the blatant falsehood that the Church’s Magisterium has declared that salvation can be and has been attained by persons who were not members of the Church.  This is simply not true.

 

To refute Fenton’s main argument, that one can be “inside/within” the Church without being a member of it, I will first examine how he defines the word “member.”  He discusses it on page 79 and following:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 79: “In what is still its primary meaning as indicated by some dictionaries of the English language, and in what originally appears to have been its only proper significance, the term ‘membrum’ had an anatomical connotation and served to indicate a living part of a physical body…. Later, however, the term ‘member’ in common parlance came to mean in a proper, and not merely in a metaphorical way, one of the individuals composing a society.  In accordance with this tendency, and particularly through the influence of prominent theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine and Francis Sylvius, the Catholic schools came to abandon the practice of restricting the meaning of the term ‘membrum ecclesiae’ to Catholics in the state of grace and to use it to signify also what had previously been designated as ‘pars ecclesiae.’  This change, originally made to avoid any ambiguity or confusion that might have followed from the earlier use of the term, was accepted everywhere.  So it is that the ‘members of the Church,’ spoken of in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, are all of the individual human beings who together constitute the organized society which is, in fact, the true and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth in the dispensation of the New Testament.  When, in this book, the term ‘member of the Church’ is employed, it is always and everywhere used with this meaning.”

 

Fenton begins by noting that the term “member” (membrum in Latin) has an anatomical significance.  For instance, my arm is one of my members.  But “member” also has another meaning, and this second meaning is the one that he intends by the word when he uses it (as he says above).  He explains that the meaning of “membrum ecclesiae” (member of the Church) came to mean – and was adopted “everywhere” to mean – the same thing as “pars ecclesiae.”  Pars ecclesiae means “part” of the Church.  Thus, according to Fenton’s own definition, the “member” of the Catholic Church signifies that he is “part” of the Catholic Church.  This is corroborated, for instance, in Cassell’s Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary.  If you look up “member,” after giving the anatomical definition, it gives you:

 

“2- [member] = part of a discourse, or of a verse, a clause, membrum (e.g. of body, of a speech), pars…” 

 

The word “member” means a “part,” as Fenton himself admits.  Therefore, Fenton’s central argument is that one can be “inside” the Catholic Church without being a “part” of the Catholic Church!  THIS IS COMPLETE NONSENSE AND A DIRECT CONTRADICTION.  One cannot be “inside” something without being a “part” of it. 

 

Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi futura prospicientibus (# 7), Nov. 1, 1900:  “Christ is man’s ‘Way’; the Church also is his ‘Way’… Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.”

 

Pope Leo XIII teaches that it is false to think that one could find salvation “apart” from of the Catholic Church – member means part – thus contradicting Fenton’s assertion that the Church has never taught that being a member (i.e. being a part) of the Church is necessary for salvation.

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#16), June 29, 1943: “… so for this reason above all the Church is called a body, that it is constituted by the coalescence of structurally united parts….”

 

This is further demonstrated when we consider the verb separate.  If you are parted or separated from the Church, you are outside of her.  In the following quotation, we find Pope Leo XIII teaching precisely that to be separated (not a part) is therefore to be outside:

 

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896: “For this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest.  They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold…”

 

Notice that Pope Leo XIII teaches that to be “separated” from the Church (i.e., to have no part/membership) is THEREFORE to be outside of her.  You cannot be inside of that in which you have no part.  Leo XIII uses the concepts of being “separated” and being “outside” interchangeably.  And Pope Leo XIII is not merely applying this to Bishops who have obstinately separated themselves from the Church, as some may argue; he is giving the example of Bishops who have separated themselves from the Church, and then declaring that to be separated is therefore to be outside. 

 

REFUTING A FALSE EXAMPLE OF BEING “INSIDE” WITHOUT BEING A “MEMBER”

 

In defense of Fenton’s idea, that one can be inside of something without being a member, some may attempt to give the example: “you can be inside my house without being a member of it.”  This is a specious example, but it appears convincing because of the ambiguity of the terms. 

 

In this statement, “you can be inside my house without being a member of it,” the “house” which the person is “inside” is clearly the building; but the “house” which the person is not a member of is not the building, but the family which owns the house. What the person is saying in the above example is that “you can be inside my house without being a member of my family which owns the house,” and that is perfectly true; for in that case you can be inside of one thing (the house) without being a member of a different thing (the family which owns the house).  Therefore, we are talking about two different things in this case.  In order for the example to work, it must show that one can be inside, yet not a member, OF THE EXACT SAME THING, for instance, the Catholic Church – not two different things which have a close relationship.  But the fact is that it is always the case that if you are truly inside of something, then you are also necessarily a part (member) of that very thing.

 

MAGISTERIAL EVIDENCE REFUTING FENTON’S MAIN ARGUMENT

 

Remember, Fenton’s main argument is that one can be “inside” the Church without being a “member” of it.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 9-10: “It is not, and it has never been, the teaching of the Catholic Church that only actual members of the Church can attain eternal salvation.  According to the teaching of the Church’s own magisterium, salvation can be attained and, as a matter of fact, has been attained by persons who, at the moment of their death, were not members of this Church.  The Church has thus never confused the notion of being ‘outside the Church’ with that of being a non-member of this society.”

 

But Pope Pius XII crushes Fenton’s argument and his entire book by teaching that the Church is the members!

 

FENTON CONTRADICTED BY POPE PIUS XII

 

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (#30), June 29, 1943: “…it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had already been under the complete sway of Christ.”

 

Pope Pius XII equates the Church with “all the members of His Mystical Body”!  Therefore, only the members are in the Church!  Since the Church is THE MEMBERS, and there is no salvation outside the Church, there is no salvation outside being a member.  Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.

 

To further prove the point, let’s look at the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, Chap. 7.

 

FENTON CONTRADICTED BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

 

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on Justification: “Hence man through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives in the said justification together with the remission of sins all these gifts infused at the same time: faith, hope and charity.  For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites one perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body.” (Denz. 800)

 

The justified man is ingrafted into Christ.  The concept of being “ingrafted” is again that of membership: all the justified are ingrafted into Christ as members.  This is proven by the Council’s declaration that becoming a living member of the Church doesn’t happen “unless” (‘nisi’) hope and charity are added to faith.  That means that if and when hope and charity are added to faith, one is made a living member of the Church.  Well, hope and charity are added to faith in every justified person. 

 

A person simultaneously receives faith, hope and charity infused into his soul at the moment of justification, as Trent says above.  Therefore, every person who is justified, since they all have faith, hope and charity, is made a living member (‘vivum membrum’) of the Church.  This totally contradicts the teaching of Msgr. Fenton and Suprema haec sacra, which is that one can be justified by baptism of desire (and thus have faith, hope and charity) without being a “member” of Christ’s Body.  Msgr. Fenton is simply wrong.

 

FENTON CONTRADICTED THE COUNCIL OF BASEL

 

To further refute Msgr. Fenton, let’s take a look at what the Council of Basel, the 17th General or Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, says about “members” of the Church.  [Note: the Council of Basel (approved by Pope Eugene IV) is oecumenical, which means a binding General Council of the Catholic Church, up to the 25th Session.  This is noted in The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Councils,” Vol. 4, pp. 425-426.]

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Sess. 22, Oct. 15, 1435: “The holy synod especially condemns and censures… the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred Council of Constance, namely the following: Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ, but only the elect, who finally will reign with Christ forever.  The members of Christ, from whom the Church is constituted… [are]…those who are called according to his purpose of election [condemned]… To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity; some other union is needed [condemned].” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 493)

 

This Decree of the Council of Basel is extremely important for this discussion.  In fact, this Decree serves to eliminate the entire theory that one can be within the Catholic Church and be saved without being a member.  Everyone agrees that, in order to be saved, one must be united with Christ in the bond of charity.  As Fenton explains:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, pp. 103-104: “… no will or desire of entering the Church can be effective for the attainment of eternal salvation unless it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and animated by perfect charity.”

 

According to Fenton, the person who receives baptism of desire is inside the Church and united with Christ in the bond of charity without being a “member.”  But this is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Basel, as we can see. 

 

The Council of Basel condemns the proposition that to be a “member” of Christ it is not enough to be united with Him in the bond of charity.  If to be a member of Christ it is enough to be united with Christ in the bond of charity (Basel), this means that everyone who is united with Christ in the bond of charity is a “member” of Christ!  But Fenton’s argument is that one can be united with Christ in the bond of charity without being a “member”!

 

To summarize: Since no one can be saved without union with Christ in the bond of charity (as all admit), and it is not possible to be united with Christ in the bond of charity without also being a “member” of Him (as the Council of Basel teaches), this proves that no one can be saved without being a “member” of Christ.  (And please note: to be “in Christ” is to be “in the Church,” as Fenton admits on page 23; likewise to be a “member of Christ” is to be a “member of the Church.”)

 

Nothing more really needs to be said to refute Fenton’s argument that one can be inside the Church, and therefore saved, without being a member.  Fenton’s argument is thoroughly false and contrary to the teaching of these Magisterial Decrees.  This also proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra (the 1949 Letter against Fr. Feeney, which is adhered to by the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI) is contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, for it teaches the same thing on membership in the Church.

 

“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.”

 

It is also interesting to note that the Council of Basel (quoted already) condemns the proposition that “Not all the justified faithful are members of Christ.”  In view of this, baptism of desire advocates would have to argue that one can be inside the Catholic Church without being one of the “faithful,” since all the faithful are members; but this is clearly ridiculous in view, not only of the Fourth Lateran Council’s infallible definition that the Church is “of the faithful,” but also of the countless Papal documents which speak of the whole Church as all “the faithful.”  For instance:

 

Pope Clement XI, Vineam Domini Sabaoth, July 16, 1705, binding the whole Church to his apostolic constitutions: “…let it be known that by this constitution of ours, to be valid forever, the obedience which is due to the aforesaid apostolic constitutions is not satisfied by any obsequious silence; but the sense of that book of Jansen which has been condemned in the five propositions mentioned above… must be rejected and condemned as heretical by all the faithful of Christ…” (Denz. 1350)

 

We see this again in Vatican I’s dogmatic teaching:

 

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “For this reason ‘it has always been necessary because of mightier preeminence for every Church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere’, so that in this See, from which the laws of ‘venerable communion’ emanate over all, they as members associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.” (Denz. 1824)

 

Notice, Vatican I infallibly defines that from the See of Rome communion emanates over “all.”  “All” what?  “All” in the Church, of course.  Vatican I: “all… as members associated in one head” form one bodily structure.  All in the Church are “members”!  Putting aside what has been covered above which totally refutes the idea, in the face of the above infallible teaching of Vatican I, the baptism of desire advocate is forced to argue that communion doesn’t emanate from the See of Peter over “all” in the Church, but only over those in the Church who are members! – not over the “others” supposedly inside the Church without being members!  How ridiculous is this!

 

ANOTHER CLEAR REFUTATION OF FENTON’S ARGUMENT

 

We’ve seen how Fenton’s argument and the teaching of Suprema haec sacra are refuted by numerous Magisterial Decrees.  They are especially refuted by the teaching of the Council of Trent, the Council of Basel and Pope Pius XII’s declaration in Mystici Corporis that the Church is the members.  Now we will see that the very quotations Fenton uses to support his idea also refute his idea.  Fenton applies his false idea, that one can be within the Catholic Church without being a member, not only to unbaptized catechumens, but also to those who have an “unconscious or implicit desire of entering” the Church.  Later on, I will show that Fenton’s meaning here is heretical and reduces the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation to a meaningless formula.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 87: “…this supernatural life of sanctifying grace can be possessed only by those who are in some way ‘within’ or in vital contact with the Catholic Church.  The non-members of the Church who have no explicit intention of joining or entering it can have the life of grace, but only if they are ordered or disposed toward the Church by a certain unconscious intention or desire.”

 

Fenton thinks that he finds support for his idea that one can be “within/inside” the Church without being a member in Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis.  This passage from Mystici Corporis that the liberals love to quote is weak, but not heretical.  Here is Fenton’s translation of the passage in Mystici Corporis, and his comments on it: 

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 85: “[Fenton quoting Pius XII] ‘As you know very well, Venerable Brethren, from the beginning of Our Pontificate, We have entrusted even those who do not belong to the visible structure of the Catholic Church to the heavenly protection and direction, solemnly asserting that, following the example of the Good Shepherd, We wanted nothing more than that they should have life and have it more abundantly.  Begging the prayers of the entire Church, We wish to repeat Our solemn declaration in this encyclical letter in which We have praised the great and glorious Body of Christ, most affectionately inviting each and every one of them to co-operate generously and willingly with the inward impulses of divine grace and to take care to extricate themselves from that condition in which they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation.  For even though they may be directed towards the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention, they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.” [End of quote from Pius XII)

     “[Fenton’s comments on Pius XII’s statement] “The people whom the Holy Father describes as not being ‘secure’ about the affair of their own eternal salvation are non-members of the Church who have no clear or explicit intention of entering this society…. [p. 87] Pope Pius XII asserts true Catholic doctrine by teaching that a non-member of the Church who is within the Church only in the sense that he has an unconscious or implicit desire of entering it as a member can possess the supernatural life of sanctifying grace.”

 

This is a very important part of Fenton’s book, for a careful examination of it serves again to refute his position. 

 

First, it must be made clear that Pius XII did not say that these non-Catholics who have a certain “unconscious desire and intention” are united or joined in any way to the Church.  He simply said that this “desire and intention” could direct them or dispose them or order them toward the Church.  In other words, the only thing this unconscious desire and intention can do is set them in order for entrance into, or return to, the Church.  Thus, Fenton states another blatant falsehood when he asserts that Pius XII taught that such people could be in the state of grace.  Pius XII taught no such thing.

 

Second, and most important, notice that Fenton says that this group – the group which has the “unconscious desire or intention” which directs it toward the Church – consists of non-members who are within the Catholic Church. 

 

Fenton, p. 87: “Pope Pius XII asserts true Catholic doctrine by teaching that a non-member of the Church who is within the Church only in the sense that he has an unconscious or implicit desire of entering it as a member can possess the supernatural life of sanctifying grace.”

 

Fenton considers this group to be an example of those very people he is talking about: men who are inside/within the Catholic Church by their implicit desire, without being “members” of the Church.  But if we examine what Pope Pius XII says about these people, we see that Pius XII clearly teaches that this group is not “in” the Catholic Church! 

 

Pius XII: “…they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.” 

 

This totally refutes Msgr. Fenton’s argument, for Pius XII (speaking of the very group that Fenton says is inside the Church without being members) indicates that they are not “in” the Church.  And no one who is not “in” the Church can be saved, as Fenton repeats vociferously throughout his book.  Thus, those with the “unconscious desire or intention” – according to the very teaching of Pius XII, upon which Fenton claims to base himself – are not “in” the Church and cannot be saved.

 

These facts suffice to disprove the false idea that one can be “inside” the Catholic Church without being a member of it.  Now we must examine how far Fenton goes with his grave error.  What does Fenton mean by those people he says can be inside the Church by “an implicit desire”?  Does he mean only catechumens who know the Trinity and Incarnation, but who have an implicit desire for the Sacrament of Baptism?  Or does he mean more than that?

 

FENTON DEFENDS SUPREMA HAEC SACRA (PROTOCOL 122/49), WHICH DENIES THE DOGMA

 

It is squarely on the teaching of Suprema haec sacra that Msgr. Fenton bases his false teaching on “membership,” which we have just shown is refuted by the teaching of the Magisterium.  His teaching that people can be inside Church by “unconscious desire” and “invincible ignorance” is also based on Suprema haec sacra (SHS).  “Traditional” groups, such as the SSPX, SSPV and CMRI, also accept and use the heretical teaching of SHS for their “understanding” of Outside the Church There is No Salvation.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 128: “The only method by which the dogma can be explained satisfactorily is that employed in the Suprema haec sacra.”

 

Suprema haec sacra (a.k.a., Protocol 122/49) was the Aug. 8, 1949 letter of Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to the Archbishop of Boston regarding the Fr. Feeney controversy.  Suprema haec sacra was written by Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani to contradict Fr. Feeney’s reaffirmation of Catholic dogma that all who die as non-Catholics will not be saved.  Suprema haec sacra (Protocol 122/49) was a false and heretical letter which gave the entire world the impression that it’s wrong to teach that only those who die as Catholics can saved. 

 

That’s why immediately after the publication of this heretical letter (Suprema haec sacra), The Worcester Telegram ran a typical headline:

 

VATICAN RULES AGAINST [FR. FEENEY] HUB DISSIDENTS – [Vatican] Holds No Salvation Outside Church Doctrine To Be False

 

Suprema haec sacra was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis) but in The Pilot, the news organ for the Archdiocese of Boston.  Suprema haec sacra was not infallible, as even Fenton admits.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 103: “This letter, known as Suprema haec sacra… is an authoritative [sic], though obviously not infallible, document.  That is to say, the teachings contained in Suprema haec sacra are not to be accepted as infallibly true on the authority of this particular document.”

 

In other words, according to Fenton, the teaching of Suprema haec sacra is not infallible and must be found in earlier documents; but it isn’t.  Fenton is simply wrong when he says that Suprema haec sacra is nevertheless authoritative.  Suprema haec sacra is neither authoritative nor infallible, but heretical and false.  We already saw that its teaching on membership (which is the focus of Fenton’s book) is contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium.  Now, we will see that SHS denies the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to attain salvation.

 

In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII denounced those who would deny the dogma by reducing to a meaningless formula “the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain salvation.”  Fenton has an entire section on Humani Generis in his book.  Fenton fully acknowledges that it is the teaching of the Church that one must “belong” to the Catholic Church in order to gain salvation, but he defends SHS which denies the necessity of belonging to the Church in order to gain salvation, as we see here:

 

“Cardinal” Marchetti-Selvaggini, Suprema haec sacra, “Protocol 122/49,” Aug. 8, 1949: “Towards the end of the same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church (qui ad Ecclesiae Catholicae compagnem non pertinent), he mentions those who are ‘ordered to the Redeemer’s Mystical Body by a sort of unconscious desire and intention,’ and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but, on the contrary, asserts that they are in a condition in which, ‘they cannot be secure about their own eternal salvation,’ since ‘they still lack so many and such great heavenly helps to salvation that can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church.’” (quoted and translated by Fenton, p. 102).”

 

In the process of giving its false analysis of Mystici Corporis, Suprema haec sacra teaches that people who “do not belong” to the Body of the Church can be saved.  Remember, even Fenton admits that one cannot say that the Soul of the Church is more extensive than the Body.  Hence, to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Body is to say that it is not necessary to belong to the Church.  Therefore, by its statement above, SHS taught the heresy that it is not necessary to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved, the very thing denounced by Pius XII.

 

Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (#27), 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same.  Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

 

This is extremely significant, for it proves that the teaching of Suprema haec sacra – and therefore the teaching of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who defended it – is heretical.  They both deny the necessity of “belonging” to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

 

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:

“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.  That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 646.)

 

FENTON’S DENIAL OF THE DOGMA

 

So far we’ve seen that, in defending Suprema haec sacra, Msgr. Fenton’s position is that it is not necessary to belong to the true Church in order to gain salvation.  We’ve also seen that his teaching that one can be inside the Church without being a member is refuted by the teaching of the Magisterium.  But Msgr. Fenton’s insistence on fidelity to the dogmatic formulas which declared Outside the Church There is No Salvation creates the impression that he believed that one must possess belief in the essential mysteries of the Catholic Faith, the Trinity and Incarnation, to be saved.  This impression is further created by statements Fenton makes in the book, such as the following:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 22: “In fact one may say that the central message of the New Testament is the fact that salvation and the remission of sins are possible only in and through Our Lord.”

 

This seems to indicate that Fenton holds that an adult cannot be ignorant of Our Lord and be saved, as the Church has always taught.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 116: “In the love of charity, as distinct from the merely natural love of God which definitely does not suffice for the attainment of eternal salvation, there is a love of friendship for God known, at least in a confused way, in the Trinity of His Persons.”

 

This seems to indicate that Fenton holds that an adult cannot be ignorant of the Trinity and be saved, as the Church has always taught.

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 34: “The people who do not come into salvific contact with Our Lord do not avail themselves of the salvation which is in Him alone.  As a result they are not saved, and they remain in the condition in which they have come into the world, or in the condition in which they have placed themselves through their own personal and mortal sins.”

 

This seems to indicate that Fenton holds that those who die ignorant of the Gospel are lost, as the Church has always taught.  However, all of this is thrown out the window by Msgr. Fenton on page 69:

 

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, 1958, p. 69: “The divine public revelation is composed of a certain number of truths or statements.  It is quite manifest that genuine and supernatural divine faith can exist and does exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness  of some of these truths, but who simply accept them as they are contained or implied in other doctrines.  But, in order that faith may exist, there certainly must be some minimum of teachings which are grasped distinctly by the believer and within which theology holds that it is possible to have genuine divine faith when two, or, according to some writers, four, of these revealed truths are believed distinctly and explicitly.  There can be real divine faith when a man believes explicitly, on the authority of God revealing, the existence of God as Head of the supernatural order, the fact that God rewards good and punishes evil, and the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation.”

 

This is perhaps the most important passage in Fenton’s entire book, for Fenton says (in his defense of Suprema Haec Sacra on pages 103-104) that unconscious or implicit desire can put one inside the Church only if the person has supernatural Faith.  So, once one sees what Fenton believes is the minimum requirement for supernatural Faith, that is precisely what he thinks a person must minimally and absolutely know and believe to be “inside” the Church without being a member.

 

Fenton begins by correctly stating that divine Faith can exist in individuals who have no clear and distinct awareness of some truths of the Catholic Faith.  That is absolutely true: a Catholic doesn’t have to know or be aware of every Catholic teaching to have the Catholic Faith, but he cannot reject any of them.  Fenton then correctly notes that in order to have supernatural Faith, a person must distinctly grasp and know certain truths.  This is also true; there are certain mysteries of Faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.  An adult cannot be ignorant of them and be saved.

 

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:

“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

 

What are these minimum truths that an adult must know to be saved?  The Church has always taught, as the Athanasian Creed infallibly defined, that knowing the Trinity and the Incarnation is a necessity of means in order to be saved.  That is why missionaries risked everything to go and preach the Gospel to heathen in far off lands.  An adult who doesn’t know the Trinity and the Incarnation cannot be saved, for these mysteries constitute “the Catholic Faith” if broken down and defined in terms of its simplest mysteries.

 

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance; for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, their glory is equal, their majesty coeternal...and in this Trinity there is nothing first or later, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that in every respect, as has already been said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity must be worshipped.  Therefore let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity.

     “But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

 

Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703:

 

“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind.  Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice what has been commanded him.

    “A.  A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.” (Denz. 1349a)

 

This is why every Doctor of the Church held that no adult could be saved without knowledge of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  It is why the Doctors of the Church who believed in baptism of desire (although they were wrong about this) only extended it to unbaptized catechumens who believed in the Trinity and Incarnati