Bellarmine on the Fallibility of Council Decrees

Robert Siscoe included a very pertinent quote from St. Robert Bellarmine's On the Authority of the Councils in a recent article for the Remnant:

“The great majority of the acts of [ecumenical] councils do not pertain to the faith. For neither the disputations that precede the decrees, nor the reasons that are adduced, nor the things that are introduced to explain and illustrate them, but only the bare decrees themselves are de fide—and not all decrees, but only those that are proposed as de fide. (…) It is easy to tell from the words of the Council when a decree is proposed as de fide; for they are always accustomed to say that they are explaining the Catholic faith, or that those who think the contrary are to be considered heretics, or—what is most common—they pronounce an anathema against those who think the contrary, and exclude them from the Church. But when they say none of these things it is not certain that the matter is de fide.”

https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4214-the-infallibility-of-the-ordinary-and-extraordinary-magisterium#_ftn11 

Why Canonizations are Fallible

John Henderson

Many of the prominent theologians of the last few centuries who argued that canonizations of particular individuals are infallible relied on an appeal to the concept of “ecclesiastical faith” to justify their position. It is worthy of consideration that several theologians whom Msgr. Fenton considered to be eminent outright rejected the validity of the concept of an infallibly certain mere “ecclesiastical faith.”¹ Faith rests on authority. If the authority we believe a particular doctrine on is God, then we are said to possess divine faith. If the authority we believe a particular doctrine on is human, then we are said to possess human faith. Msgr. Fenton includes a definition of ecclesiastical faith as “the absolutely firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself.” Proponents of a mere EF claim that teachings which must be accepted with EF are infallible. Fenton quotes Bishop Garcia Martinez, one of the eminent theologians who denied the validity of the concept of an infallibly certain mere EF, as insisting upon the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain assent of faith based on something other than the divine authority itself. Fr. Marin-Sola also opposed the validity of EF on the grounds that, “The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new doctrine, but only an explanation of the deposit of public divine revelation.” The reason why theologians have used the term “ecclesiastical faith” in reference to canonizations of particular individuals instead of “divine faith” is because “divine faith” pertains to believing doctrines which God has revealed as part of His public revelation that ended with the death of the last apostle, St. John. Very few would claim that canonizations of particular individuals, excepting perhaps the canonizations of St. Dismas and other unique cases, are contained within this public divine revelation. Hence the need for a new term, at least for those theologians who are bent on arguing in favor of the infallibility of canonizations, and for whom the term “human faith” would be very problematic.

Fr. Blaise Beraza, SJ is another theologian who Msgr. Fenton referenced that argued against the validity of an infallibly certain EF. Fr. Beraza appealed primarily to two magisterial documents in making his argument. The first of these documents is Pastor Aeternus. Fenton paraphrases Fr. Beraza's reasoning for claiming that the concept of EF as understood by the majority of its proponents is irreconcilable with Vatican I, “It would be idle to imagine that there could be any such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible teaching power as the ecclesia docens as a whole) precisely for the sake of guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to the Church as divine revelation through the Apostles.” Vatican I explicitly teaches that the Holy Ghost was not given to Peter's successors to make known any new teachings. The very fact that the proponents of the concept of “ecclesiastical faith” eschew using the term “divine faith” in reference to canonizations and other things customarily classified as “secondary objects” shows that they acknowledge that we cannot believe a particular teaching on the authority of God if that particular teaching is not contained within the deposit of faith. The problem with claiming that canonizations are infallible is that the attribute of infallibility was not given by God to the Church to make known novel doctrines.

The other magisterial document Fr. Beraza references is the Tridentine Profession of Faith. He points out that in this Creed we profess as an article of divine and Catholic faith that we firmly “admit and embrace the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances and constitutions of that same Church.” We also profess in the same Creed as an article of divine and Catholic faith that we “receive and admit the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid sacraments.” Fr. Beraza's reason for emphasizing those particular articles of the Creed is to demonstrate that some of what other theologians speak of as being entirely only the objects of mere ecclesiastical faith, such as the liturgical rites used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, are actually objects of articles of divine and Catholic faith. This perceptive observation of Fr. Beraza is very, very important because the concept of EF has been used by the liturgical revolutionaries to undermine divinely revealed dogmas concerning our ecclesiastical traditions, such as, for example, the dogma of the necessity of adhering to the received and approved liturgical rites of the Church, “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, accustomed to be used in the administration of the sacraments, may be despised or omitted by the ministers without sin and at their pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches, whomsoever, to other new ones, let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Session VII, On the Sacraments, Canon 13). 

D.M. Drew of SS. Peter and Paul Roman Catholic Mission expounded upon how the concept of EF has weakened the ability of traditionalists to effectively defend our sacred liturgical rites, “The immemorial traditions of our Church have been repudiated by the conciliarist Church, our neo-Iconoclasts. How were they overthrown? They were reduced to objects of merely human EF and categorized as matters subject to the disciplinary discretion of the Church. If objects of EF are 'the firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself,' then they are necessarily contingent human truths. If the Church thinks the objects of EF are historical, contingent truths which have become outdated and no longer speak to the modern mind, then she can change them into other more relevant contemporary truths...Msgr. Fenton goes into some detail what the 'ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church' refers which the EF people reduce to a mere human authority. Take, for example, the most important of the immemorial ecclesiastical traditions, the Roman rite of Mass. It is not and never has been a mere object of Church discipline but that is where the idea of EF has taken us. Fr. Waters and Ss. Peter & Paul Roman Catholic Mission have made a public profession of divine and Catholic faith in our immemorial ecclesiastical traditions. We have refused to consider them as mere objects of human EF but hold them as necessary attributes of the faith which make it known and communicable to others. Since God commands the faithful to make public professions of faith and to worship Him in the public forum, every Catholic possesses a right to these immemorial ecclesiastical traditions that perfectly manifest the faith we hold in the internal forum.”²

Canonizations of particular individuals are, unlike certain aspects of the Church's liturgical rites, not objects of public divine revelation. The arguments against the validity of an infallibly certain mere EF are therefore relevant when discussing whether or not they are infallible. None of the modern popes from John XXIII on have been worthy of being canonized. The Ecumenical Council which John XXIII presided over has shown itself to be a source of widespread confusion and even heresy amongst Catholics. The consideration that all of the Popes from Paul VI on have participated in the great sacrilege known as the Novus Ordo Missae without showing any signs of repentance is by itself alone enough to at least question their worthiness of being considered saints. Those in the know who have done some serious studying of the modern pontificates would be aware that I am understating the case against the pretended saintliness of all of the modern popes. The truth is that every one of them has reigned over the Church in the exact manner one would expect a Masonic infiltrator to have reigned. Sure, they all at times have reiterated Catholic doctrines, but anyone who has studied the anti-Christian conspiracy is cognizant that deceivers need to say the truth every once in a while in order to give more credibility to their falsehoods. When Mary's Immaculate Heart triumphs, as she promised it eventually will, we can be certain that part of the restoration the Church is definitely to undergo will involve the anathematizing of these wicked men.   

1http://strobertbellarmine.net/fenton_ecclesiastical_faith.html

2 See poster “drew” http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/Catholic%20Controversies/Implications_1989%20POF_Religious-Submission_EF.htm

The Catholic Rule of Faith is Dogma

John Henderson

The word “Church” is often used ambiguously and it is important to define in what sense we are using the term when discussing the relationship between the post-conciliar crisis of faith and the Church's attribute of infallibility. Most of us Catholics have learned an Act of Faith that is substantially the same as what follows:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art one God in three divine persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; I believe that Thy divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.

It is clear from the Act of Faith that dogmas are the truths which the “Church teaches” that must be believed because “Thou [God] has revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.” Dogmas are the only truths that can be believed on the authority of God revealing. Vatican I teaches:

By divine and catholic faith, all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

We are said to believe dogmas by “divine faith” because of the authority of God revealing; by “catholic faith” because they are proposed by the Church as being “divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.” The ex cathedra definitions of popes, the canons of Ecumenical Councils, and the articles of Creeds are all “solemn judgments” proposed by the Church as being divinely revealed dogmas. Teachings that have never been defined by a solemn judgment but which have been held by Catholics always and everywhere as being divinely revealed are also dogmas that are knowable as such because they have been taught by the Church's “ordinary and universal magisterium.” Dogma is the Catholic's rule of faith and this is proven by the definition of a heretic as a baptized person who refuses to believe one or more dogmas of the faith. If a teaching is not a dogma, then no Catholic is bound to believe it with divine faith and it would be wrong to speak of it as being a “teaching of the Church” if we are using the word “Church” in the same sense in which it is used in the Act of Faith. If we use the word “Church” in this sense, then the false teachings of the modernists who have controlled the hierarchy for the last 50+ years do not present the slightest problem as regards the Church's attribute of infallibility because their teachings are their own and not the Church's. Their teachings cannot be believed with “divine and Catholic faith” because they have never been proposed as being divinely revealed by solemn judgment (The last time that a pope defined anything ex cathedra was when Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption in 1950. Vatican II did not include any canons or other definitions and was merely pastoral). Also, novel teachings, by definition, cannot be part of the ordinary and universal magisterium because the word “universal” includes the attribute of time.

The Church has never proposed by solemn judgement any false teachings. There is no reason to become a sedevacantist. All that is needed is a restoration of dogma as the Catholic's rule of faith.

The Undermining of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

John Henderson

In the May 2018 issue of Catholic Family News Matt Gaspers, the new editor of the newspaper, wrote an article titled “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” in which Gaspers quotes as if it were of great authority the 1949 Cardinal Marchetti-Salvaggiani Holy Office Letter to Archbishop Cushing regarding the controversy surrounding Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. The Letter teaches that “no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff.” This qualification completely undermines not only Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but the Catholicity of all dogma. It implies that souls can be saved outside the Church as long as they do not know that the Church was divinely established by Christ. Orestes Brownson, one of America's greatest Catholic apologists, wrote, “To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, is only generally true and therefore not a Catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit of no exception or restriction whatever.”1

The language used by the Church in her dogmatic definitions very clearly affirms that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Catholic dogma in the sense that it is universally true:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” (Lateran VI, Pope Innocent III)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

“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 have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. 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 remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV)

Catholic Family News has been criticizing Vatican II for a long time and it is doubtful that anyone who writes for them would be unfamiliar with Pope Paul VI's well known quote about Vatican II differing from other Ecumenical Councils in that it was pastoral and refrained from making any dogmatic definitions that are of themselves infallible. In saying thus, Paul VI was acknowledging that dogmatic definitions have been made at other Councils that are of themselves infallible. It logically follows that the first thing any Catholic who is confused as to what he must believe about a particular doctrine should do is look to the dogmatic definitions that have been made at the Church's first twenty Ecumenical Councils. Gaspers omitted entirely any reference to the of themselves infallible definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence. Instead, Gaspers quotes and emphasizes the modernist principle articulated in the 1949 Letter which teaches that, “dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.” The truth is that dogmatic definitions are the sense in which the Church understands divine revelation. To say that dogma must be understood in the sense that the “teaching authority of the Church” understands it is to, as D.M. Drew perceptively writes, “claim for the theologian an authority that belongs to the dogma itself. When this modernist proposition is accepted, there is no dogmatic declaration that can be taken as a definitive expression of our faith for it will always be open to theological refinement...”2 Vatican I teaches, “The sense 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.” This teaching from Vatican I on the immutability of dogma was quoted by Leo XIII in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae and by St. Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. The dogmatic definitions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made at Lateran IV and Florence give us the sense of the dogma which our “Holy Mother the Church has once declared” and which can never be “abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.”

The Manual of Christian Doctrine Comprising Dogma, Morals, and Worship teaches that the science of the true religion is the most excellent of sciences because it is the easiest and most certain.3 It is the easiest “because the Church presents it in clear, brief, and precise formulas, which the grace of God enables men of good will to understand.” It is the most certain “because it is founded on the word of God, who is truth itself.” For those who adhere to dogma as the rule of faith, Catholicism truly is the easiest and most certain of sciences. Dogmatic definitions are clear, brief, and precise formulas. The Catholic who adheres to dogma as the rule of faith can be absolutely certain that what he believes is true because every dogma is a formal object of Divine faith that can and should be believed on the authority of God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, revealing. One of the hallmark characteristics of the New Church has been its utter inability to teach anything in a clear, brief, and precise manner. The New Church thrives on prolixity, ambiguity, and deceit. The 1949 Letter is of the same kind as the scandalous documents that have come from the New Church and it should surprise no one that the 1949 Letter was referenced as a footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium. Nor should it surprise anyone that the 1949 Letter was inserted into the 1962 edition of Denzinger by the at the time editor of the book, Fr. Karl Rahner. With the Letter's rejection of dogma as the rule of faith, certainty as to what a Catholic must believe ceases to be possible and religion is reduced to a matter of mere opinion.

Regarding the nature of dogma, Cardinal Henry Manning wrote, “It is not enough that a truth should be definitely conceived; for if a teacher know the truth, and is not able to communicate it with accuracy, the learner will be but little the wiser. And therefore God, who gave His truth, has given also a perpetual assistance, whereby the Apostles first, and His Church from that day to this, precisely and without erring declare to mankind the truth which was revealed in the beginning; and in declaring that truth the Church clothes it in words, in what we call a terminology: and in the choice of those terms the Church is also guided. There is an assistance, by which the Church does not err in selecting the very language in which to express divine truth. For who does not see that, if the Church were to err in the selection of the words, the declaration of truth must be obscured?...Therefore a dogma signifies a correct verbal expression of the truth correctly conceived and known.”4 The very selection of words is protected from error in the definition of a dogma. Lateran IV defines that “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” It is very, very significant that this definition refers to the Church as being composed “of the faithful.” In the Missal there is a distinction made between the “Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful.” Catechumens are those who are preparing to enter the Church through baptism. The “faithful” are those who have already entered. The definition says that no one at all can be saved who is not a member of the Church of the faithful. This ought to end all speculation about souls being saved by “baptism of desire.” Souls can be justified (possess sanctifying grace) prior to the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism, but they cannot be saved unless they persevere in this state and enter the Church. We must, with St. Augustine, “Perish the thought that a person predestined to eternal life could be allowed to end this life without the sacrament of the mediator.”5

Traditional Catholic prayer books do not include prayers with petitions for the repose of any souls other than the “faithful departed.” “May all the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace...” It would be uncharitable for the Church not to pray for the repose of the souls of those who were not members of the “Church of the faithful” if such non-members could make it to Purgatory. The Council of Braga decided that, “Neither commemoration nor chanting is to be employed for catechumens who have died without Baptism.” St. John Chrysostom wrote, “...For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful. He has not the same Head, he has not the same Father, he has not the same City, nor Food, nor Raiment, nor Table, nor House, but all are different; all are on earth to the former, to the latter all are in heaven. One has Christ for his King; the other, sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which decays and perishes; one has worms' work for his raiment, the other the Lord of angels; heaven is the city of one, earth of the other...If it should come to pass, (which God forbid!) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be no other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble."6

Sacred Scripture, the Nicene Creed, and the Council of Vienne all infallibly teach that there is only one baptism. The Council of Trent defines as divinely revealed dogmas: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon II). “If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema” (Session VII, On Baptism, Canon V). It is noteworthy that Trent refrained from defining the necessity of receiving the Eucharist for salvation in a like manner as it had done in regards to the necessity of Baptism. Reception of the Eucharist is necessary for salvation, but only by a necessity of precept. Baptism is necessary by a necessity of means. The necessity of Baptism for salvation has been defined as a Catholic dogma because Baptism is universally necessary for all men regardless of particular circumstances. This is what is meant when something is said to be necessary by a necessity of means. The Eucharist has never been defined as being absolutely necessary for the salvation of every creature because its necessity is not universal but admits of exceptions based on circumstance.

Catholics who want to read more in depth defenses of the true sense of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would do well to read Fr. Leonard Feeney's Bread of Life and Fr. James Wathen's Who Shall Ascend. Adherence to this foundational salvation dogma is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity.


1Orestes Brownson, Brownson’s Quarterly Review. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. April, 1874
2D.M. Drew “Open Letter to E. Michael Jones: Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition” http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm
3https://archive.org/stream/manualofchristia01brot#page/6/mode/2up
4Cardinal Henry Manning, The Glories of the Sacred Heart
5Brian Kelly “Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of St. Augustine” http://catholicism.org/baptism-of-desire-its-origin-and-abandonment-in-the-thought-of-saint-augustine.html
6St. John Chrysostom “Homily 25 on the Gospel of St. John” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240125.htm

A Poem for the Month of May

 VIRGIN MOST PRUDENT

May after May I see by candlelight
 Above an icon that I kneel below,
Her head in shadow nodding left and right,
 Most sweetly and discreetly nodding No.

Year after year I must agree to let her
 Decide what to provide me for my good;
Pray as I may, I cannot ever get her
 To grant what would be wonderful if she would.

Spring comes, and little birds make warble.
 Snow thaws, but not Our Lady of the Snows.
 Tapers I melt before relentless marble.
 Poems I write from what to live is prose.

- Fr. Leonard Feeney, The Leonard Feeney Omnibus 

A Poem for the Feast of the Annunciation

SAINT ANNE’S DAUGHTER

       “Snow-bright Lady Girl, where have you been,                 

You look so troubled, so pale and so thin?

What has become of my daughter’s eyes,

So secret and beautiful now, and so wise?

         “Moon-white Innocence, where have you flown?
Say you’ve not left me or I’ll be alone!

Come to me, darling, and tell me your woe

And I’ll be your mother whatever I know.”

“Mother, my mother, oh, never!

I’m your White Innocence ever.

The Wind and the Flame and the Wings of a Dove

Have sought me and found me and filled me with Love.

“My eyes are the Morning Star, my lips the Rose,

My arms are a Garden where the lonely repose;

The bright Gates of Heaven have opened apart

And God is a Baby sleeping under my heart.”

Fr. Thomas Butler Feeney (brother of Fr. Leonard Feeney and supporter of his doctrinal Crusade), When the Wind Blows

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Invincible Ignorance is a Punishment for Sin”

“Invincible ignorance is a punishment for sin.” - St. Thomas Aquinas (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.)

 "Still we answer the Semipelagians, and say, that infidels who arrive at the use of reason, and are not converted to the Faith, cannot be excused, because though they do not receive sufficient proximate Grace, still they are not deprived of remote Grace, as a means of becoming converted. But what is this remote Grace? St. Thomas explains it, when he says, that if any one was brought up in the wilds, or even among brute beasts, and if he followed the law of natural reason, to desire what is good, and to avoid what is wicked, we should certainly believe either that God, by an internal inspiration, would reveal to him what he should believe, or would send some one to preach the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius. Thus, then, according to the Angelic Doctor, God, at least remotely, gives to the infidels, who have the use of reason, sufficient Grace to obtain salvation, and this Grace consists in a certain instruction of the mind, and in a movement of the will, to observe the natural law; and if the infidel co-operates with this movement, observing the precepts of the law of nature, and abstaining from grievous sins, he will certainly receive, through the merits of Jesus Christ, the Grace proximately sufficient to embrace the Faith, and save his soul." - St. Alphonsus Liguori, A History of Heresies and their Refutation

“Brothers, you must know that the most ancient belief is the Law of God, and that we all bear it written in our hearts; that it can be learned without any teacher, and that it suffices to have the light of reason in order to know all of the precepts of that Law. That is why even the barbarians hid when they committed sin, because they knew they were doing wrong; and they are damned for not having observed the natural law written in their heart: for had they observed it, God would have made a miracle rather than let them be damned; He would have sent them someone to teach them and would have given them other aids, of which they made themselves unworthy by not living in conformity with the inspirations of their own conscience.” - St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Sermon on the Fewness of the Saved

Abbot Gueranger on Penitential Works Performed Outside the Church

“...Many passed two, three, and even four consecutive days, without tasting any food; but the general practice was to fast from Maundy Thursday evening to Easter morning. Many Christians in the east, and in Russia, observe this fast even in these times. Would that such severe penance were always accompanied by a firm faith and union with the Church, out of which the merit of such penitential works is of no avail to salvation!”

Abbot Gueranger O.S.B. The Liturgical Year. VI Passiontide

Pope Gregory XVI Encyclical on Liberalism

”Now We consider another abundant source of evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ may those fear who contrive that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever.”

Encyclical Mirari Vos http://www.papalencyclicals.net/greg16/g16mirar.htm

The Catholic Dogma: Outside the Church there is no Salvation

“To us there is something shocking in the supposition that the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, is only generally true and therefore not a Catholic dogma. All Catholic dogmas, if Catholic, are not only generally, but universally true, and admit no exception or restriction whatever.” - Orestes Brownson,  Brownson’s Quarterly Review. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”. April, 1874.

The language used by the Church in her dogmatic definitions affirms that Outside the Church there is no Salvation is a Catholic dogma in the sense that it is universally true:

“There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” (Fourth Lateran Council. Pope Innocent III, 1215)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302)

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith.” (Athanasian Creed)