The faithful can learn what the still unpublished part of the Third Secret is and why attempts are made to mislead the faithful to dismiss Fatima by watching the YouTube documentary Akita and the Fatima Secret. After viewing this film you can also better understand why Our Lady of Fresno is crying in California (see the May 9 ABC News report or google Our Lady of Freso on YouTube). May the peace of our Lord be with you!

My post last night was after I read Lifesite News article; if that post get's published on here, this post is to admit that I should have read he original article before commenting. Lifesite took some liberites they should not have taken and hooked me into their terribly skewed interpretation. Lesson Learned. I still need time to re-read and reflect on the original in english, but I think my anger at Chris was a mistake.

What can one say about the shenanigans of our erstwhile Catholic Church leaders. What are they up to? What are they really after? After all, everything they do or say continues to enlarge the hole in the barque of Peter as it sinks ever deeper into apostasy.
One feels abandoned and disillusioned especially when someone like Benedict who is purported to be very astute, intelligent and steeped in tradition can speak in such psychobabble. It's as though he's thinking with only half his brain with a loss of the smallest bit of common sense. If it weren't for Christ Jesus' promise that the gates of hell would not destroy His church we could really go over the edge.
It's still fascinating to see our Popes and Cardinals twist themselves into intellectual pretzels to rationalize the destructive nature of their theology. It seems they only way they will ever be happy is when all of people give up on the Church and move on to something else. Why be a Catholic at all if we are saved as pagans, Protestants and atheists? When all the pews have emptied and the funds dry up, will they be happy then? How will these men steeped in luxury survive? Probably by selling off the bricks and stones of their abandoned churches.
At this point is doesn't matter who we think is the rightful Pope. It's enough to know they have all been inflicted with the Modernist disease. They are all the same. These men do things half-way. Even Benedict's brave Summorum Pontificum did not have the guts to provide a means to teach the Real Mass to the priests and to the laity.
The Church at one time was confident and thusly proclaimed the TRUTH. Jesus said "I am the Truth, the Light, The Way." Jesus also told us "the truth will set you free." Today the Church preaches from made-up 50 year old false premises that have nothing to do with our Dear Lord.
The flock has been abandoned by their shepherds. We are left to drift on our own. We must fight this diabolical - yes this is devil's work - thinking that has pervaded the leadership of the Holy Catholic Church. Our Lady of Good Success pray for us!

👏👏👏👏👏‼️

I still consider our Holy Father, Pope Benedict to be the Pope. Francis whom I call his "associate" basically has reminded us of two wonderful papacies of greatness, intelligence and humility. I truly believe that Pope Benedict was "forced" in to resignation for the good of the Church which is not entirely true. Everybody has skeletons in their closet and for whatever reason, I believe that he messed up someplace, somewhere at sometime in his life and when he started investigating the curia that was beating him down he got that phone call or visit saying resign or else! Same thing with our former Supreme Court Chief Justice, who changed the writing of a law to enable Obamacare. In this day and age it is easy to intimidate a law maker, and even a Pope. Pope Benedict, saintly and humble was looking out for the church. He like St. Celestine did not cherish the role and weight of being Peter. Even St. Peter who denied Christ 3 times must has felt the incredible weight of constantly watching his back and eventually ended up crucified like his Savior. I do not blame Pope Benedict for resigning however, I believe that God is sustaining him and keeping him alive to show him that his trust in HIM faltered. As St. John Paul II said; "Be Not Afraid" and our Holy Father was afraid and depressed and eventually caved in to the devil. Sad. But I probably would have fallen suit. As far as I am concerned, Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope. Resignation or not. He is the Pope! And I love him. Regardless. So what happened to that dossier left to Pope Associate Ambiguity? Maybe it ended up as paper to start the fire to a wonderful BBQ! See you on the other side my man, my Pope, BenedictXVI. I bet you outlive this guy.... God has a great sense of humor! Happy Easter!!!!!!

Infallible Athanasian Creed: "

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary
that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in
Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe
faithfully he cannot be saved."
So was the infallible creed in error?

Either the infallible CREED, the Athanasian Creed, ratified by 2 Councils, either made an error or it didn't. If it made an error, then the Catholic Church is not THE Church of Christ.

my head continues to spin

We've been spectacularly losing the battle for decades, and now get around the problem by deleting the battle.

Yes, Andrew Brown, of all people, actually has some real insight here.

Joseph Ratzinger is clearly struggling to come to grips with this problem; he right recognizes that the other nouvelle theologie solutions do not work. But for some reason, he seems very reluctant to embrace the Church's traditional soteriology.

Baptism is necessary for salvation, but from early centuries the Church has recognized as among her members catechumens who were martyred before receiving baptism by water (baptism of blood). The Council of Trent also states (6th session, Chapter 4) that justification is "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire" (baptism of desire).

In his 18th century Moral Theology, St Alphonsus wrote: "baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water." (You can read more on baptism of desire at http://www.catholicessentia... -- though I don't know the website, the authors it quotes from look good.)

It's worth noting that Benedict says "If it is true that the great missionaries of the sixteenth century were still convinced that those who are not baptized are forever lost..." In other words, Francis Xavier might have believed that those in foreign lands could perhaps be saved through an implicit baptism of desire, but he was impelled to preach the gospel anyways, since an implicit baptism of desire without the help of the Church is highly uncertain.

Got nothing to do with Baptism and everything to do with FAITH. Reread the infallible Athanasian Creed. No loop holes.

It would be very helpful and perhaps necessary to read an accurate translation of the entire interview in order to properly understand what Benedict is getting at, but from what you have quoted I think you have probably missed the point. I cannot imagine that Benedict would so blithely dismiss the necessity of salvation by faith, so I doubt that he did. Rather, it seems to me that he is pointing out how problematic such a claim would be. As he says, if pagans have an alternative path to salvation, why shouldn't believers who find Christianity too demanding have access to it as well? I don't read this as an endorsement, but as a pointed criticism.

As to the so-called evolution of dogma, I think the fairest interpretation is that Benedict is merely confirming a rather obvious fact about the limits of geographical knowledge a millennia ago. The dogma of the church has not changed in the sense that it has been contradicted, but it has in the sense that the modern Church must find answers to a problem - the imperative to evangelize billions of people - that never even occurred to the early fathers and medieval theologians.

"The dogma of the church has not changed in the sense that it has been contradicted, but it has in the sense that the modern Church must find answers to a problem - the imperative to evangelize billions of people - that never even occurred to the early fathers and medieval theologians."

"Billions of people" does not change the necessity of faith to the non-necessity of faith. The truth of the dogma does not depend on the number of pagans in the world. And the dogma continued to be proclaimed as the Church's infallible teaching long after the New World was discovered. Dogmas are not fact-dependent. They are revealed truths. You are confusing categories.

The obvious solution to the "problem" is stated even in the new Catechism: that in ways known only to God certain pagan souls are brought to the faith without which it is impossible to please God. That faith is a gift that must be accepted or rejected by every soul on the planet.

So what is your point - that Benedict is too stupid to understand the Catechism, or that he rejects it? Apparently you find either or both of those absurdities to be preferable to what I take to be the logical implication of his remarks, which is that he fully understands and subscribes to the Church's dogma on salvation, but is commenting on the reality that most people cannot easily reconcile the need for faith with the practical obstacles to evangelizing billions of people; and more specifically, what the implications of that disconnect are for Christians who question the relevance of faith in their own lives.

...the reality that most people cannot easily reconcile the need for faith with the practical obstacles to evangelizing billions of people.

And yet, it seemingly was not so impossible to reconcile for the Apostles, or generations of missionaries who came after them - all of whom faced even more daunting numbers and obstacles.

Perhaps there's a certain pride in modern man that's more invincible than that of our forebears.

Once again you confuse categories: You confuse "most people cannot easily reconcile the need for faith with the practical obstacles to evangelizing billions of people" WITH the "universal necessity of faith" for salvation, as Benedict calls it. The dogma states that no one can be saved without faith, and what most people think today is irrelevant to the dogma.

Benedict is NOT saying, however, that what most people think is irrelevant to the dogma, but rather that "there has been a profound evolution of dogma" because people today---specifically by the last half of the 20th century---have abandoned the conviction that without Christian faith souls will be lost.

There is absolutely no question that he thinks the dogma has "evolved" to allow for salvation "without it"---meaning Christian faith--and that de Lubac offers a solution to the problem of this "evolution" of dogma.

But dogma cannot evolve. Sorry, but that is the infallible teaching of the Church: dogma must always be understood in the same way, and with the same sense.

So, the only possible "solution" is not that of de Lubac, who has people being saved without ever arriving at Christian faith because the Church "substitutes" for their lack of faith, but rather that in certain cases these souls are *brought to faith* in ways known only to God, as the new Catechism says, and that no one can say how this happens so that no one should be "reflecting on it" as there is no revealed truth on the matter.

And notice that the interviewer says that the new Catechism does not reflect the new "perspective" and that it should, which is what prompts Benedict's "evolution of dogma" remark and his favorable references to de Lubac---who, by the way, Fr Fessio says is absolutely favored by Benedict.

And that is why we see today how wise Pius IX was when he said "all further investigation is unlawful" and that we must affirm the dogma, leaving the fate of the unbaptized to the inscrutable mercy of God. That is, there is nothing on which to "reflect", and this is the way God wants it. We have no right to take any definite position on the fate of the unbaptized unbeliever because God has not revealed whether and how some might be saved.

Finally, it is just a bit ridiculous to open the gates of Heaven to unbaptized unbelievers when even Catholics are warned to "work out their salvation in fear and trembling." That would mean that being Catholic makes it harder to be saved, as the unbelievers of the world are certainly not working out salvation in fear and trembling. As de Lubac would have it, they have nothing to fear. Only believers do! Utterly absurd.

I came away reading the "original" article with two things, Mr. Ferrara. One was that though Benedict mentioned the 'evolution of dogma' - I did not get the impression that he agreed with it. That impression of mine is based on reading many of his works, and to me, the interpretation that he is in favour of the 'evolution of dogma' is contrary to what I understood from reading much (though ofcourse not all) of his work. I have always found Benedict's thought (and words) to be consistent. Unlike his successor. [I have to qualify this, by saying that I have only read his work when Benedict was a Cardinal, and Pope - not when he was a young theologian].

The second thing - actually, it was the first, because, even before I read the article, I understood that the remarks were made at a conference organized by Jesuits. As such, I read the article very cautiously as my danger antenna went up. Quotes can well be taken out of context. Frankly, as a general rule, I trust not one iota of what comes out from the mouth/pen of a modern Jesuit regarding Church's teaching.( One of a few exceptions being Fr. James Schall, but only after I read his book on Benedict's Regensburg Lecture). [Btw, my university days were spent in an environment where there were a lot of Jesuits, (chaplains and teachers), and in my late teens, and early twenties, I came away totally confused about Catholicism, even though I was raised in an orthodox Catholic environment - hence my distrust of modern Jesuits.]

While I get that Benedict likes the work of de Lubac, does that mean he agrees with all of it? If Benedict believes that salvation can be had outside of the church, why did he make way for the Anglican Ordinariate? Also, Benedict XVI was the pope at one time, and he understood what his duties were - so aptly quoted in The Remnant's Appeal to Pope Francis:
"Your predecessor Benedict XVI, sitting for the first time in the Chair of Peter, reminded the Catholic faithful that “[t]he Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law,” but rather “the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word.” Accordingly, said Benedict, a Pope “must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”
If Benedict understood it as Pope, he surely, surely, still understands the importance of "not proclaiming his own ideas" now? From what I understand of Benedict, Truth and the search for it has always been paramount in all his undertakings.

Finally, I am in the process of reading The Great Façade. One of the reasons I bought it was due to Fr. Hunwicke's recommendation - and his thoughts on how you have revised your opinion of Benedict.( At least that was my interpretation of what he said - my apologies if I misinterpreted, as I am still in the early chapters of the book). As such, I admittedly was surprised to see this article of yours, as it seems to me to be somewhat a contradiction to what Fr. Hunwicke mentioned in his post on the Great Façade.

The term "Benedict" is ambiguous. As Pope, "Benedict" did not promote his own ideas, many of which were frankly Modernist. He explicitly said that as Pope one must not promote his own ideas. That is why my book changes its view on Ratzinger, noting that his old views became academic when he became Pope.

But now, as "Benedict" the Emeritus Pope, he speaks as a private doctor again, and is back to promoting his old ideas from the Communio days. There is no getting around it: he speaks uncritically of an "evolution of dogma" on account of a "new perspective" that arose in order to provide "a real answer to the question of human existence" that was not fully affirmed until the last half of the 20th century.

One has to do violence to the text of this interview to say that Benedict is criticizing a view he clearly approves or simply accepts as a given.

Mr. Ferrara, from what I understand, implicit in your comment above, is the suggestion that Benedict (the man) is disingenuous: i.e. he said one thing in his capacity as Pope, now he says another thing as "a private doctor". This in no way fits with my take on Benedict - who, in my reading of his work, has always pursued Truth ( and therefore Our Lord, who is Truth, as in "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life"). Truth remains the same, whether Benedict is "Pope" or is "a private doctor".

I do not question your ability in Italian. At the same time, as I alluded to in my comment above, I consider it extremely suspect that this text originated in a conference by Jesuits, last October, around the same time when the dubious Synod on the Family was taking place. Furthermore, I consider it even more suspect that this text is only now being released just before the Exhortation of the Pope was/is due [Supposedly due March 19].

The context in which Benedict gave his interview is of the utmost importance. Given the choice of doing "violence to the text", and impinging on the character of Benedict as a result of a text that was produced in a Jesuit conference, I choose the former.

For heaven's sake, he said what he said. There is nothing 'disingenuous' about it. That's what he thinks. It's what he has always thought, as Fr. Fessio insists.

There is nothing more I can say.

Oh please. If dogma cannot evolve, then it is absurd to say that there is "no question" that Benedict actually believes that this dogma has evolved. It would be impossible for Benedict to be in error over something so fundamental. Obviously, Benedict means something else. Why don't you provide us with a complete translation of the interview so that we don't have to guess at what he is trying to say?

" If dogma cannot evolve, then it is absurd to say that there is "no question" that Benedict actually believes that this dogma has evolved. It would be impossible for Benedict to be in error over something so fundamental. Obviously, Benedict means something else."

Obviously? Then what does he mean by the statement "There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma" if not "there is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma"?

I am not prepared to ignore the plain meaning of words in a transcript Benedict revised and approved just because you declaim that he must have meant something else.

Please don't give me "the whole translation" jazz. I read the whole interview in Italian---unlike nearly all the others who rushed into print on this---and have translated entire books from Italian into English. I can tell you there is nothing in the answers to the other questions that has to do with the answers I quote above, except another sentence that reinforces what I discussed in the article.

I have now read the entire article as well, using an on-line translation program that did a surprisingly good job. It seems perfectly clear to me what Benedict is getting at, and it has nothing to do with denying or revising any settled dogmas. The question was explicitly posed to him as "a sort of development of dogma" - which is to say that it was not actually a development of dogma. Pope Benedict unsurprisingly seems to have understood the question in that sense as well. His point, which he couldn't possibly be more clear about, is that back when the Church (wrongly) assumed that there were relatively few pagans in foreign lands, missionaries thought that it was both possible and necessary to baptize every last one of them in order that they may be saved. The Church now recognizes that there are billions of pagans who will never be evangelized and baptized, and yet may still be saved through God's grace. That is not a new or developed dogma, except in the non-technical sense that it was essentially irrelevant back in the days when it was erroneously assumed that all men could be physically and personally ministered to.
But Benedict raises this point only to make another one, which is the paradox of the universal necessity of the Christian faith and the opportunity for some men to be saved without it. This is a challenge to modern Christians, who may question the relevance of saving faith to pagans and even to themselves. He does not say that is an acceptable state of affairs, but rather that the modern Church cannot easily explain why it is necessary to make heroic (and in purely numeric terms, largely futile) efforts to personally evangelize the billions of non-Christians who can and hopefully will be saved through some alternative channel of grace. I can't explain it either. But perhaps you can. If so, I am sure Benedict would like to hear about it.

I give up. I am longer going to waste time arguing with somebody who, based on a Google translation--are you kidding me?---continues to insist that Benedict's words do not mean what they say:

"There is no doubt that on this point we are faced with a profound evolution of dogma."

The dogma "evolved," says he, because it did not provide "a real answer to the question of human existence." How many times must I repeat that a dogma cannot undergo a "profound evolution" merely because there are billions of pagans in the world?

Your crowning absurdity it this: "the modern Church cannot easily explain why it is necessary to make heroic (and in purely numeric terms, largely futile) efforts to personally evangelize the billions of non-Christians."

Really? The Church cannot "easily explain" the necessity of her own mission? How foolish of God to have launched it then! It is "futile" evangelize billions, when there are already a billion Catholics in the world, the Church exists on every continent, the whole world knows about the Pope, and even the Hindus and the witch doctors who flew to the Assisi events---TO MEET THE VICAR OF CHRIST---have access to the Internet and know of Christianity?

Clearly, we have exhausted this topic. You will simply go on writing paragraph after paragraph obfuscating the obvious. We are in troll territory now.

Over and out.

Probably the main source for holding that dogma cannot evolve is in Pascendi Dominici Gregis 28, where St. Piux X quotes from Vatican I (quotes in italics):
"The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement - on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues: Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."

This clearly rules out any evolution of dogma which abandons the previous sense of the dogma, while allowing for limited development (regarding knowledge concerning the faith).

One of the clearest dogmatic formulations of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Eugene IV's 1441 bull from the Council of Florence, Cantate Domino:
"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her...No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

At first glance, the meaning of this dogma seems clear. However, Father Feeney was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949 for taking an extremist position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He ignored, rejected, or distorted subsequent teaching on invincible ignorance and how baptism of desire can, in some providential way, join people to the Church (see my other recent comments for more details). It's worth recalling that the Council of Florence was an attempt to heal a schism, so it emphasized the danger of not submitting to Rome: even martyrdom would not suffice to save someone who, "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14). The Council of Florence took place before the discovery of the Americas, and was not primarily concerned with those who had never heard the Gospel.

As St. Pius X taught, we must not abandon the sense of the dogma in Cantate Domino. But the dogma can be said to have evolved with Bl. Pius IX's Quanto Conficiamur Moerore and Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi, because, without abandoning the original sense (since being joined to the Church is still required for salvation), it expanded our understanding of how one can be joined to the church. As the Catechism of St. Pius X says (article 9, question 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 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

This is the sort of legitimate development or evolution of dogma that fits the description in Dei Verbum 8:
"This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth."

I think this is what Benedict means when he speaks of an evolution of dogma.

When I was growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, I was raised in a somewhat religious Protestant family. In that environment, it was simply taken for granted that the Catholic Church was genuinely WRONG, false, and mistaken. That is how I was raised. Period. The Catholic Church was wrong and a false pseudo-church. I knew nothing else.

Suppose I had died during that time. What then? I genuinely had no reputable and accurate knowledge of Catholicism. I was sixteen years old before I even began to have any inkling that there might be anything outside the (narrow) Protestant religious world in which I grew up. In fact, the so-called "baptism" I received as a baby might not even have been considered valid by even liberal Catholics of the day. (The pastor would dip his fingers in a bowl of water and place them against the baby's head, with no running water.)

So are those who literally grow up in an environment in which the Catholic Church is actually condemned as false and even, yes pernicious if not satanic, to be consigned to hell from sheer ignorance and malice over which they had no control?

Today (as I write this) being Good Friday for westerners (it is not for many Orthodox who still follow the Julian calendar and ancient Paschalion), there may not be as much attention to this forum as on other days. I understand.

As for my " return Home," I have mentioned elsewhere here in The Remnant forums that I later abandoned Catholicism for Orthodoxy and even later fell away from anything calling itself Christianity. I am sure I am not alone. (I myself am personally acquainted with three "cradle Catholics" in their thirties who are now Muslims.)

As nearly as I can tell, the Catholic Church is simply hemorrhaging believers in some places, and to some extent has been ever since V2. I entered the Church in 1972 with the best and most sincere of intentions, but what I experienced, in retrospect, was so different from what I expected and hoped to find that it was actually rather appalling in traditional terms. (And my personal mental instability, which I have also acknowledged, probably had a lot to do with my departure.) So yes, people do leave the Catholic Church, sometimes after they entered it as converts, and the situation is so bad I wonder how they can be blamed.

Aside from the quote from the Council of Trent in an earlier comment (justification "cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire"), you might want to look at a detailed critique of his position (http://archives.sspx.org/mi... ) and numerous references to the teachings of early fathers, Church Doctors, and popes who accepted baptism of desire (http://archives.sspx.org/mi... ). Both of these links are from the SSPX, and then-Father Ottaviani (no liberal) signed the Holy Office letter that condemned Father Feeney's teaching.

Read the infallible Athanasian Creed then get back with us.

The antithesis of extra ecclesiam nulla salus would be something like Rahner's thesis that "every man who accepts himself is a Christian even if he does not know it" or the idea that "all religions, each in their own way, would be ways of salvation." Both of these are positions that Benedict clearly rejects (admittedly in academic language, since this is in the context of a theological conference), pointing out that they neglect the importance of conversion to Christ.

He ends the interview with a worthwhile quote on the importance of the sacrament of penance: "It means that we always allow ourselves to be moulded and transformed by Christ and that we pass continuously from the side of him who destroys to the side of Him Who saves."

Not one of those statements says one can be saved without Christian faith. Pius X says only that they are "on the way of salvation." But they need FAITH to be saved. That is why the Holy Office said supernatural faith, not just good faith and good behavior, are necessary for salvation. So, what kind of faith do these people have, given that faith is an infused grace that brings acceptance of propositions, not some vague religious sense?

"I think this is what Benedict means when he speaks of an evolution of dogma."

No, that is NOT what he means. He means just what he said: that the missionaries' conviction that souls would be lost without faith and baptism was "definitively abandoned" after Vatican II because that conviction does not provide "a real answer to the question of human existence" given the number of pagans in the world. So we need some theory of how they can be saved without Christian faith.

We need no such theory, nor is any such theory possible. The Magisterium has held nothing more than that those who are not formal members of the Church through no fault of their own can be joined to her in ways known only to God, but that joinder MUST involve supernatural faith, not just being a good egg.

While not magisterial, it's interesting to read St Thomas Aquinas on the question of explicit faith in Christ. He considers Gentiles who, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, received salvation through the ministry of angels and writes:
"Many of the gentiles received revelations of Christ ... If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him" (ST II-II q. 2, a. 7, ad 3)

St. Thomas is rightly being tentative here, since this a realm of mystery. This position is compatible with holding that Hebrews 11:6 states the bare minimum for salvation. Of course, the gift of supernatural faith is needed, and is perhaps quite rare where the Gospel has not been preached. Perfect charity is also needed, which is very challenging without the help of the sacraments.

(For anyone else following this discussion, in my comment below that begins "(Also in reply", I present an alternate reading of what Benedict is doing in this interview.)

St. Thomas is talking about Gentiles BEFORE Christ. Also, supernatural Faith is comes to us AFTER the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity, so the Protocal Letter has an error in theology, which is not surprising for a fallible document.

Believe me, I'm following this discussion! Thanks!

To be precise, the conviction that Benedict refers to as definitively abandoned since Vatican II is "he who is not baptized is lost forever" (cf. LG 16). He is not abandoning the Great Commission given by our Lord in Matthew 28; Lumen Gentium 16 also says that "the Church fosters the missions with care and attention" because many (who have not heard the Gospel) are deceived by the Evil One and fall into idolatry, and others despair in a world without God.

The evolution of dogma (which can result in a changed understanding, provided earlier dogma is not contradicted) that Benedict describes does not begin at Vatican II. In his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, Blessed Pius IX wrote about the invincibly ignorant: "Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments." He added, however: "Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter."

Similarly, in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pius XII refers to "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church" and says: "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."

In 1949, the Holy Office condemned Fr. Feeney's interpretation of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" in a letter, Suprema haec sacra: "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. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God." It also said, however: "It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him' (Heb. 11:6)."

These texts provide a possible way forward in the crisis Benedict refers to. Missionary commitment is still essential, because without the helps of the Church for salvation, how many of the invincibly ignorant will be animated by perfect charity? This is a bit like the possibility of salvation for those who die without confessing a mortal sin: it can happen with perfect contrition, but delaying confession when you're conscious of grave sin is a very dangerous gamble.

"by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." That is, they are given Faith in Jesus Christ and Grace. As far as the "condemnation", which was just a private protocol letter never published in the AAS, the statement: "Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith" is theologically erroneous because supernatural Faith comes AFTER the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.

This is enlightening and interesting information that you provide. Thank you.

"To be precise, the conviction that Benedict refers to as definitively abandoned since Vatican II is "he who is not baptized is lost forever"

Please read the Italian:

"Se è vero che i grandi missionari del XVI secolo erano ancora convinti che chi non è battezzato è per sempre perduto, e ciò spiega il loro impegno missionario, nella Chiesa cattolica dopo il Concilio Vaticano II tale convinzione è stata definitivamente abbandonata. Da ciò derivò una doppia profonda crisi.... Negli ultimi tempi sono stati formulati diversi tentativi allo scopo di conciliare la necessità universale della fede cristiana con la possibilità di salvarsi senza di essa."

He is saying abandonment of the conviction has caused a missionary crisis, but his answer to the crisis is not to return to the missionary conviction but rather to explore "different attempts aimed at reconciling the universal necessity of Christian faith with the possibility of saving oneself WITHOUT IT."

The issue is not just baptism, but the Christian faith it requires. He is saying that Christian faith is universally necessary for salvation but that it is possible to be saved *without the universally necessary faith.* This is absurd.

The Magisterium has never said this! FAITH IS NECESSARY WITHOUT EXCEPTION, and God has not revealed that anything but faith in Christ suffices. Therefore, pagans must somehow be brought to that faith to the extent any of them are saved, but we do not how how this happens because God has not revealed it to us.

Now, if faith is a gift, why would God grant that gift, which involves knowledge of what is believed on faith, without revealing to these hypothetical ignorant pagans, who supposedly never heard of Christ, the nature of the God in which they have just been given faith?

Does anyone really think that these hypothetical pagans acquire knowledge of Christ only after death, and that countless millions of them are saying "Who knew?" before the pearly gates?

"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."
It seems to me that this is I what I learned as the "baptism of desire".

No one is saved by "an unconscious desire and longing." There is no such thing as an unconscious faith. Pius is not saying these people are saved by their unconscious desire, for without faith it is impossible to please God. At some point a certain number may receive the gift of faith, but without the helps of the Church can they keep it?

Thank you for quoting the letter from the Holy Office which demonstrates my point:
"Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: 'For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him' (Heb. 11:6)."

Supernatural faith involves an infused virtue, an extrinsic gift, that must be accepted in a moment of decision. It is not thrust upon anyone unconsciously. No one can say, or "speculate," that this faith is not faith in Christ. The one who accepts the gift of faith assents to given propositions. This is the assent of faith. One cannot have faith without knowing that one has it, or without knowing what one has faith in.

But "he who believes not shall be condemned." Neither Our Lord nor the infallible Magisterium added: "except for several billion pagans who can be saved without believing in Christ."

All of which shows, once again, that we must affirm the dogma and cease the kind of useless speculation in which this interview indulges. De Lubac does not have any answer for us. Faith and baptism are necessary for salvation, and we leave to the mercy of God those who are outside the visible Church, who may be brought to faith in a manner known only God, as the new Catechism says. May! Not will.

Which is why we MUST assume souls will be lost without faith and baptism. Assume otherwise, and you destroy the mission of the Church. Yet Benedict says that conviction was "definitively abandoned" after Vatican II, and he does NOT say that this is wrong but rather that it was supposedly necessary to provide "a real answer to the meaning of human existence."

(Also in reply to the later comment that begins "Pius IX's statement...")

Regardless of the interviewer's intent, I read Benedict here as a theology professor presenting an unresolved question, and using provocative language to inspire reflection. He says: "Lately several attempts have been formulated in order to reconcile the universal necessity of the Christian faith with the opportunity to save oneself without it." When he says without faith, I think he simply means without explicit faith in Christ.

While discussing de Lubac, Benedict says: "What the human person needs in order to be saved is a profound openness with regards to God, a profound expectation and acceptance of Him." That parallels Hebrews 11:6 pretty closely. Supernatural faith is necessary and is a free gift, but the Magisterium has not definitively taught that explicit faith in Christ before death is necessary for salvation. As you point out, the salvation of anyone who has not heard the Gospel is mysterious.

I think Benedict took his interviewer's question, which was focused developing dogma, and pointed out the crisis of presumption that has accompanied the abandonment of "those who are not baptized are forever lost." To avoid presumption, I don't think it's necessary to assume that the unbaptized (by water) are damned, but rather to assume that their chance of being saved is very precarious. That should be sufficient to promote evangelization. (That said, he's also concerned with modern man's sense that God might be unjust, which is why he talks about "a real answer to the meaning of human existence." Again, I see him here as primarily presenting a question which he doesn't fully resolve, and seeking to engage a wide audience in reflection.)

I addressed evolution of dogma in an earlier comment; sorry for this disjointed conversation. By the way, I just discovered the Remnant (from your recent comment on Eye of the Tiber), and I appreciate depth of theological analysis that can be found here. Also, if you want bold or italics in Disqus comments, you can use < strong> < /strong> and < em> < /em> (removing spaces).