Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archives

Mystical Body

PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY

“A COMPARITIVE STUDY OF BELLARMINE’S
DOCTRINE ON THE RELATION OF SINCERE
NON-CATHOLICS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”

By JOHN A. HARDON, S.J.

ROME 1950

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following is a list of those works and authors which are actually cited in the thesis.

I.  COLLECTED WORKS

Acta Apostolicae Sedia

            Benedict XV, Litterae Encyclicae: Maximus Illud, vol. II, 1919.

            Pius XI, Litterae Encyclicae: Rerum Ecclesiae, vol. 18, 1926.

                        Litterae Apostolicae: Provincentissimus Deus, vol. 23, 1931.

            Pius XII, Litterae Encyclicae: Sertum Laetitiae, vol. 31, 1939.

                        Litterae Encyclicae: Mystici Corporis, vol. 35, 1943.

                        Instruction of the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement, vol. 42, 1950.

Acta et Decreta Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacensis, Friburgi Brisgoviae, vol. VII, 1892.

Acta Sanctae Sedis

            Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum Modernorum, vol. 3, 1867.

            Leo XIII, Litterae Encyclicae: Satis Cognitum, vol. 28, 1896.

                        Litterae Apostolicae: Apostolicae Curae, vol. 29, 1896.

                        Litterae Encyclicae: Divinum Illud. vol. 29, 1897.

            Pius X, Decretum S. Officii, Lamentabili, vol. 40, 1907.

                         Litterae Encyclicae: Pascendi, vol. 40, 1907.

Bellarmine, Robertus

            Opera Omnia, Milano, 1857, sqq.

                         De Controversiis Christianae Fidei, vol. I - IV.

                         De Ecclesia Militante, vol. II.

                         De Gratia et Libera Arbitrio, vol. IV.

                         De Laicis, vol. II.

                         De Notis Ecclesiae, Vol. II.

                         De Poenitentia, vol. III.

                         De Romano Pontifice, vol. I.

                         De Sacramento Genere, vol. III

                         De Sacramento Baptismi, vol. III.

                         De Sacramento Eucharistae, vol. III.

            Opera Omnia, Napoli, 1856, sqq.

                         Apologia ad Librum Jacobi Regis, vol. IV.

                         Pro Sacramento Fedelitatis, vol. IV.

                         De Lumine Fidei, vol. V.

                         De Moribus Haereticorum, vol. V.

                         De Nativitate B.M.V., vol. V.

Codex Iuris Canonici, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1920.

Corpus Iuris Canonici, Lipsiae, 1879-1881.

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vindobonae, 1866, sqq.

            Tertullianus, De Baptismo, vol. 20.

Fontes Codicis Iuris Canonici, Roma, 1924.

            Pius IX, Litterae Encyclicae: Nostis et Nobiscum, vol. II, 1849.

            Allocutio: Singulari Quandam, vol. II, 1854.

            Litterae Encyclicae: Quanto Conficianur Moerore, vol. II, 1863.

            Leo XIII, Litterae Encyclicae: Longinqua Oceasi, vol. III, 1895.

Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio, Florentiae, 1759 sqq., vol I, XXII, XXXI.

Migne, J.P.

            Patrologia Graeca, Paris, 1886 sqq.

            S. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, Catecheses, MG 33.

            S. Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orstio 40 in Sanctum Baptism, MG 36.

            S. Joannes Chrysostomus, Homilia 4 in Matthaeum, MG 36.

            Patrologia Latina, Paris, 1878, sqq.

            S. Cyprianus, De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, ML 4.

            S. Ambrosius, De Abraham, ML 14.

                         De Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, ML 16.

            S. Hieronymus, Epistle 1 ad Damasum, ML 22.

            S. Augustine, Epistula 43, ML 53.

                         De Vera Religione, ML 34.

                         Tractatus XXII in Joannem, ML 35.

                         Sermo 267, 268, in die Pentecostaes, ML 38.

                         Breviculo Collationia, ML 38.

                         De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatius, ML 42.

                         De Baptismo, ML 43.

                         De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, ML 44.

                         De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, ML 44.

            S. Fulgentius, De Fide ad Patrum, ML 65.

            S. Bernardus, Epistula 77 ad Hugonem de S. Victore, ML 182.

Suarez, Francisus, Opera Omnia, Paris, 1856, sqq., vol. XII, Disputatio XII, De Fide.

II.  AUTHORS

S. Alphonsus Liguori, Opera, Roma, 1905.

            De Baptismo, vol. I.

            De Praecepto Fidei, vol. I.

Arragui, Summarium Theologiae Moralis, Westminster, 1944.

Bainvel, De Ecclesia Christi, Paris, 1925.

            Is There Salvation Outside of the Church?, St. Louis, 1923.

Bellarminus, S. Robertus, Dichiarazione Piu Copiosa della Dottrina Christiana, Roma, 1824.

Billot, De Ecclesia, Roma, 1921.

Calvin, Jean, Institution de la Religion Chretienne, Brunsvic, 1865.

Cano, De Locis Theologicis, Paris, 1678, vol. I.

Capetran, Le Problèm du Salut des Infidèles, Toulouse, 1934.

Cappello, Summa Iuris Cancaici, Roma, 1945, vol I – III.

D’Alès, Baptêms et Confirmation, Paris, 1928.

de Guibert, De Christi Ecclesia, Roma, 1928.

Denzinger-Bannawart, Enchiridion Symbolorum, Friburgi, 1942.

Glenn, Apologetics, St. Louis, 1931.

Gruden, The Mystical Christ, St. Louis, 1936.

Hugon, Hors de l’Englise point de Salut, Paris, 1927.

Hurter, Theologiae Dogmaticea Compendium, vol. I, Oeniponte, 1893.

Lamennsia, Essai sur l’Indifference en Matière de Religion, Paris, 1823.

Le Bachelet, Bellarmin Avant son Cardinalat, Paris, 1911.

Lennerz, De Sacramento Baptismi, Roma, 1948.

Lercher, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. I, Oeniponte, 1927.

Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua, London, 1890.

Pelczar, Pio IX e il Suo Pontificato, Torino, 1909.

Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, St. Louis, 1924.

Pope, The Church, St. Louis, 1928.

Rauschen, Patrologie, Paris, 1906.

Tanquerey, Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium, Oeniponte, 1893.

St. Thomas

            Catena Aurea, Parma, 1860.

            De Veritate, Taurini, 1927.

            In Joannem, Taurini, 1925.

            Quaestiones Quodlibetales, Taurini, 1924.

            Suma Theologica, Roma, 1894.

Verneesch-Creusen, Epitome Iuris Canonici, Tom. I, vol. II, Mechlina-Roma, 1949.

Von Frentz, Vita di S. Roberto Bellarmine, Isola del Liri, 1930.

Vonier, Anscar, Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist, London, 1961.

III.  PERIODICALS

From the Housetops, vol. III, Cambridge, 1949.

Homiletic and Pastoral Review, New York, 1949.

L’Osservatore Romano, Roma, 21-22 agosto, 1950.

Theological Studies, New York, March, 1945.

Unitas, Rome, January-March, 1949.

CONTENTS

Part I - Exposition of Bellarmine's Doctrine

Chapter I - General Principles on Church Membership

1. Definition of the Church
   
   
2. Difference between the Catholic and Heretical Definitions of the Church
   
   
3. The Body and Soul of the Church
   
   
   1. Analysis of the Concepts
   2. Basis for the Doctrine on Christian Tradition
      
      

Chapter II - Application of Principles on Church Membership

1. Membership of the Unbaptised
   
   
   1. Unbaptised Infidels
   2. Unbaptised Catechumens
      
      
      1. Statement of the Problem
      2. Membership in the Church is Necessary for Salvation
      3. Catechumens are not Actual Members of the Church
      4. Solutions of the Problem
         
         
         1. Unsatisfactory: Catechumens are not saved
         2. Unsatisfactory: Catechumens belong to the Church of the Faithful
         3. Bellarmine’s Solution: Catechumens belong Voto the One Visible Church.
            
            
      5. Non-Catechumens who are not infidels
         
         
2. Membership in the Church for Heretics
   
   
   1. Formal Heretics
   2. Material Heretics
      
      
      1. Possibility of being in Good Faith
      2. Membership in the Catholic Church
         
         

Part II — Comparative Analysis

Chapter 1. Pius IX, 1846-1878

1. Doctrine of Pius IX on non-Catholics in Bona Fide
   
   
2. Comparison of Bellarmine with Pius IX
   
   
   1. Confirmation of Bellarmine on Voto members in the Visible Church.
   2. Expansion on Bellarmine, on the Limits of Voto Membership
      
      

Chapter 2. Vatican Council, 1862-1875

1. Progress of the Theory of an Invisible Church, up to the Vatican Council
   
   
2. Theologians of the Vatican Council on Membership in the Visible Church
   
   
   1. Membership Constituted by External Profession of the Catholic Faith
   2. Confirmation of Bellarmine on the Conditions Necessary for Actual Membership
   3. Further Confirmation of Bellarmine on the Necessity of External Profession
      
      
3. Theologians of the Vatican Council on the Relation of Non-Catholics to the Catholic Faith
   
   
   1. Exposition of Doctrine
      
      
      1. Necessity of Membership in the Catholic Church for Salvation
      2. Relation of Non-Catholics to the True Church
         
         
   2. Comparison with Bellarmine’s Doctrine on the Membership of Non-Catholics in the True Church
   3. Actual Approval of Bellarmine’s Distinctions between the Body and Soul of the Church, and Re or Voto Membership in the Church.
   4. Expansion of Bellarmine’s Doctrine
      
      
      1. On the Limits of Voto Membership
      2. On the Nexus between Voto Membership and Justification
         
         

Chapter 3. Leo XIII, 1878-1903

1. Doctrine of Leo XIII on Heretics in Good Faith
   
   
2. Comparison of Bellarmine’s Doctrine with Leo XIII
   
   

Chapter 4. Benedict XV, 1914-1922

1. Doctrine of Benedict XV, regarding Non-Catholics in their Relation to the Church are Embodied in the Code of Canon Law
   
   
   1. Statement of Canon Law
   2. Doctrine of Canon Law Explained
      
      
      1. Canon 87
      2. Canon 1322
      3. Canon 1323
      4. Canon 1325
         
         
2. Comparison between Bellarmine and Canon Law, on the Membership of Non-Catholics in the Catholic Church
   
   
   1. Regarding Baptism as an Condition for Membership
   2. Regarding the Definition of Heresy
      
      

Chapter 5. Pius XII 1939 to the Present

1. Definition of the Church and Conditions for Membership
   
   
   1. Doctrine of Pius XII
   2. Doctrine of Pius XII compared with Bellarmine
      
      
2. Identification of the Catholic Church with the Mystical Body of Christ
   
   
   1. Doctrine of Pius XII
   2. Doctrine of Pius XII compared with Bellarmine
      
      
3. The Body and Soul of the Church
   
   
   1. Doctrine of Pius XII
      
      
      1. The Body of the Church
      2. The Soul of the Church
         
         
   2. Comparison between Bellarmine and Pius XII
      
      
      1. Bellarmine vindicated in his concept of the Body of the Church
      2. Bellarmine vindicated in his concept of the Soul of the Church
         
         
4. Re and Voto Membership in the Church of Christ
   
   
   1. Re refers to the Visible Catholic Church
      
      
      1. Doctrine of Pius XII
      2. Comparison of Bellarmine with Pius XII
         
         
   2. Non-Catholics as Voto Members of the Catholic Church
      
      
      1. Doctrine of Pius XII
      2. Analysis of the Doctrine of Pius XII and Comparison with Bellarmine
         
         
         1. Non-Catholics in Bona Fide are not Actual Members of the True Church
         2. Non-Catholics in Bona Fide are not Actual Members of the Mystical Body
         3. Non-Catholics are Voto Members of the Church

Part III --- Critical Comparison

Chapter 1. Introduction

1. Instruction of the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement
   
   
2. Method of Procedure
   
   

Chapter 2. First Theory: Non-Catholics are Entirely Outside the Catholic Church

1. Complete Exclusion of all Non-Catholics from Membership in the Catholic Church
   
   
   1. Statement of Doctrine
   2. Analysis of the Doctrine
   3. Criticism of the Doctrine
      
      
      1. Denies the Universality of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
      2. Based on a Misconception of the Soul of the Church
      3. Claims that Membership in the Church is only a Precept
      4. Implies that infants can be saved without Baptism
      5. Misinterprets Invincible Ignorance in Non-Catholics
         
         
2. Conclusion
   
   

Chapter 3. Second Theory: Sincere Heretics are Formal Members of the Catholic Church but they Lack Juridical Communion with the Faithful

1. Statement of Doctrine
   
   
2. Analysis of Doctrine
   
   
3. Criticism of Doctrine
   
   
   1. Eliminates the term ‘Soul of the Church’ without Sufficient Reason
   2. Based on an Inadequate Distinction between Membership and Communion in the Catholic Church
   3. Based on the Concept of a Purely Invisible Church

Chapter 4. Third Theory: Actual Catholics are Members of the Body of the Church; Non-Catholics are Members of the Soul of the Church

1. Statement of Doctrine
   
   
2. Analysis of Doctrine
   
   
3. Criticism of Doctrine
   
   
   1. Background of the Theory
      
      
      1. Statement of the Problem
      2. Solution of the Problem
         
         
   2. Basis of the Theory
      
      
      1. Presupposes that Membership in the Visible Catholic Church is not necessary for Salvation
      2. Assumes that the Body and Soul of the Church are Distinct and Independent Entities
         
         

Chapter 5. Fourth Theory: Non-Catholics are not Members of the Church in any Sense. Therefore with Rare Exception They Cannot Attain to Salvation

1. Statement of the Problem
   
   
   1. Explicit Faith in the Catholic and in her teachings is Necessary for Salvation
   2. There is only One Kind of Membership in the Catholic Church
   3. Those who remain separated from the Catholic Church cannot be saved
   4. All Protestants are Formal Heretics
   5. Justification before Baptism possible only with an Explicit Desire to enter the True Church
   6. Sanctifying Grace before Baptism is not sufficient for Salvation
   7. Single Exception when Baptism of Desire is sufficient for Salvation
   8. All Non-Catholics guilty if they die before becoming Actual Members of the Catholic Church
      
      
2. Criticism of Doctrine
   
   
   1. There is only one Kind of Membership in the Catholic Church and that is Actual
   2. With a Single Exception, Actual Baptism is necessary for the Salvation of all men
   3. Sanctifying Grace without Actual Baptism is not sufficient for Salvation

INTRODUCTION

Bellarmine represents a landmark in the history of Catholic theology. His life of seventy-nine years, from 1542 to 1621, spanned the time immediately following the Protestant Revolt. Luther died in 1546, Henry VIII in 1547, Melanothon in 1560, Calvin in 1564. St. Robert was therefore a contemporary of the original rebels against the authority of the Church and historically became the first comprehensive exponent of Catholic doctrine against the attacks of the Protestants. This fact is important to keep in mind in studying his doctrine on the relation of non-Catholics to the Church. Living during the period of a mass rebellion against Papal authority and having personal experience for many years in Northern Europe with first generation apostates from the faith, it was inevitable that his attitude toward non-Catholics should be one of uncompromising rigor in opposing their errors, softened only by his love for them as “the straying sheep” with whom he pleaded to return, at the cost of salvation, to their Father’s house.

We are particularly interested, in the present study, in one phase of Bellarmine’s ecclesiology which has not received the attention it deserves, namely, his doctrine on the membership of non-Catholics in the Catholic Church. His distinction between the body and soul of the Church, and between re and voto membership in the Church have become the standard method of explaining the salvation of non-Catholics who die outside the Catholic Church. Unfortunately these distinctions are often misused, because they have not been examined in their proper context. The first purpose of this study, therefore, is to supply the context and, consequently, explain the distinctions. Moreover Bellarmine’s doctrine has been confirmed by the Church and somewhat refined, notably in the last century. So the second purpose of this study will be to compare his doctrine on non-Catholic membership in the Church with the corresponding doctrine of recent Popes, starting with Pius IX and the Vatican Council. Finally, certain basic elements in Bellarmine’s teaching, like his body-soul and re-voto distinctions, have been misapplied because they have not been understood. The third purpose, therefore, will be to examine these misinterpretations of St. Robert, limiting our analysis to modern Catholic writers in the United States.

The order of procedure in handling the problem will be different for the different sections. In the expository part, the sequence will be the same as that which Bellarmine follow in De Ecclesia Militante, where he deals with the subject of Church membership. In the comparative section, the order will be chronological, from Pius IX to Pius XII. In the last part, the critical analysis will cover the period, roughly, from 1900 to the present day.

A final point to be noted is that the writer does not intend to examine the question of the salvation of those who die outside the visible unity of the Church. Where the question is treated at all, it will only be incidentally, in its bearing on the main theme of this study, namely, whether and to what extent, in the light of Bellarmine’s principles, non-Catholics in bona fide may be considered members of the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, for the sake of conciseness, not all such non-Catholics are the subject of our examination, but only heretics and the unbaptized, whether they desire to enter the Catholic Church or not.

PART I - Exposition of Bellarmine's Doctrine

Chapter I - General Principles on Church Membership

I. Definition of the Church

In opposition to Calvin’s theory of two Churches founded by Christ, the one interior and invisible, the other exterior and sensibly perceptible, Bellarmine declares that, “According to our doctrine, there is only one Church, not two. And this one and true Church is the assembly of men, bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.” [1]

Bellarmine’s whole ecclesiology is synthesized in this formula, consequently also his doctrine on the problematical membership of non-Catholics in the true Church. “From this definition,” he observes, “we can easily decide what people belong to the Church and what people do not. For there are three parts to this definition, namely:

• Profession of the true Faith
  
  
• Communion of Sacraments, and
  
  
• Subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate Pastor.

“By reason of the first part are excluded all unbelievers, as well those who were never in the Church, like the Jews, Pagans and Turks, as those who were formerly in the Church, like but have left it, like heretics and apostates.

“By reason of the second part are excluded Catechumens and those who are excommunicated; the first because they have not been admitted to a participation of the Sacraments, the second because they have been debarred from them.

“By reason of the third part are excluded Schismatics, who have the Faith and the Sacraments, but are not subject to the legitimate Pastor; and therefore, they profess the Faith and receive the Sacraments outside (the true Church).” [2]

St. Robert visualizes no other possibilities. “All other people,” he says, “even when they are wicked and abandoned criminals, are included” as members of the Church. [3]

Since so much depends on a proper understanding of this definition, it will help to compare it with another less familiar formula to be found in Bellarmine’s Dottrina Cristiana, published in 1597-1598, about ten years after the appearance of the first volume of the Controversies.

In answer to the question: What do we mean by the Church? – he explains, “By the Church we mean a convocation and congregation of men, who are baptized and make profession of the faith and laws of Christ, under obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff.” Why is it called a convocation? “Because we are not born Christians as we are born Italians or Frenchmen or of any other nationality. But we are called by God and enter into this congregation by means of Baptism which is, as it were, the door of the Church. However, it is not enough to be baptized to be in the Church. It is also necessary to believe and confess the holy faith and laws of Christ, as the pastors and preachers of the Church teach us. Nor is even this enough. It is also necessary to be subject in obedience to the supreme Roman Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ, which means, to recognize and regard him as the highest superior in place of Christ.” [4]

If we analyze this second definition, it will be seen to break down again into three elements, as follows: The Church of Christ is composed of all those

• Who are baptized.
  
  
• Who profess the faith and laws of Christ, that is, who believe internally and confess externally the Christian faith and laws, not as subjectively conceived but as taught by the official pastors and teachers in the Church.
  
  
• Who make this profession or confession under obedience to the Pope, because they recognize in him the Vicar of Christ and the Supreme Ruler, in spiritual matters, in place of Christ.

II. Differences Between the Catholics and Historical Definitions of the Church

The fundamental “difference between our definition (of the Church),” says Bellarmine, “and all others, is that all the rest require only internal virtues to constitute a person in the Church, and therefore, they make the true Church something invisible. Whereas we also believe that in the Church are found all the virtues: faith, hope and charity, and all the rest. However, for anyone to be called in some sense a part of the true Church, of which the Scriptures speak, we do not think that any internal virtue is required, but only an external profession of faith and communication of the Sacraments, which can be perceived by the senses themselves. For the Church is an assembly of men, as visible and palpable as the assembly of the Roman people, or the Kingdom of France, or the Republic of the Venetians.” [5]

Two things are to be noted in the comparison which Bellarmine makes between the orthodox and heterodox definitions of the Church. First is that he omits mentioning submission to the Pope, in repeating the elements of the true Church. Instead, he identifies, or absorbs, obedience to the Pope in the profession of the true faith. But this is not significant, because submission to the Pope is only one part or phase of profession of the faith, although, in Bellarmine’s time, it was the most practically important part.

The second item is that Bellarmine places the specific difference between the correct and false conception of the Church in what looks like a minor detail: external profession of faith and external participation in the Sacraments. However, to call this a minor detail is to belie the true nature of the Church and, finally, the true nature of man. For Bellarmine, external profession of faith and sharing of the Sacraments is as essential to the Church as man’s body is essential to man. To explain: “The Church is a definite society, not of angels, or of souls, but of men. Now it cannot be called a society of men unless it consists in (is united by) external and visible signs. For it is not a society unless those who belong to it can mutually recognize each other as members; but, being men, they cannot recognize each other unless the bonds of the society are visible and external. Which is confirmed from the practice of all human societies, where men are ascribed (for example) to an army, or a city, or a kingdom….in no other way than by means of visible signs. Hence St. Augustine says that, ‘Men cannot be united in the name of any religion, be it true or false, unless they are somehow bound together in the community of visible sacraments or signs.’” [6]

To recapitulate: there must be external profession of faith and sharing of the Sacraments to constitute the Church as a visible society, composed of visible members who, except for these signs, would not know which people, including themselves, belong to the Church and which do not.

But this is not all. Beyond the mere static visibility of the Church, which is postulated by its having visible members, the Church has also, and especially, and active and dynamic unity, such that,

• There is a subordination of subjects to superiors, finally culminating in subjection to one single head, the Pope;
  
  
• There is coordination of the subjects among themselves, cooperating with each other in mutually working out their salvation within the framework of the Church.

Now this kind of vital unity cannot exist among men, in the present disposition of Providence, unless it is entered into, manifested, and preserved, by means of common, unifying, external symbols and signs.

1. The unity of the Church is one of subordination of inferiors to superiors, and the dispensation of grace is determined by the sincerity of this subordination. But how can subjects recognize their superiors and superiors their subjects, unless there is some visible sign:

• That subject and superior belong to the Church in the first place.
  
  
• That the position of two different people in the Church is not one of equality but a relation of subjection and authority.
  
  
• That in a given instance a superior is exercising his authority, as superior, on this particular subject, as his subject?

Unless a person receives Baptism, for example, which is an external rite, how is a man to know whether he is subject to the Pope, and therefore should obey him; and how is the Pope to determine whether he is the man’s superior, and therefore should command him?

2. The unity of the Church is also one of coordination, and, again, grace is dispensed according to the degree of charity which binds the members of the Church to one another. But how can two persons cooperate with one another, unless they first recognize each other as fellow members in the same Church?

The objection of the Protestants is that unity of faith, invisible and interior, is enough for the Church. It could be, Bellarmine admits, if Christ had so willed. Absolutely speaking, Christ might have instituted a Church in which only invisible bonds of unity prevailed. But then, St. Robert suggests, He would have had to change the nature of man, which is bodily and visible, and, therefore, limited in its perception of the spiritual in others to its manifestation in visible signs. Given a society of angels or pure spirits, then we can talk about invisible, and only invisible, bonds of unity, that is, invisible to us but visible to them. [7]

But given a society of men, unless by a miracle of grace we could read the minds of others to tell what they believed and whether they believed the same as we do, there must be external profession of internal conviction. Otherwise the society does not even begin to exist, much less increase and perfect itself in that unity which is the special mark of its Divinity. [8]

III. The Body and Soul of the Church

a. Analysis of the Concepts

Bellarmine realized that his definition of the Church was liable to misunderstanding. Even Catholics would be scandalized to think of their Church as a mere juridical institution whose membership was conditioned by external profession of faith and a token reception of the Sacraments, more of a lifeless skeleton than the vibrant organism of Christ’s Mystical Body which it really is. [9]

Immediately after giving his definition, therefore, St. Robert explains himself, in a kind of apologia, on the body and soul of the Church. He is credited with having invented this doctrine, at least his formulation of it is supposed to be an innovation in Catholic theology. The fact is, it was meant to serve only one purpose: to show that the definition of the Church previously given represents the absolute minimum required for valid membership, that it is not, and does not pretend to be, a comprehensive description of the nature of the Church.

“We must note, however,” he says, after defining the Church, “that, according to Augustine, the Church is a living Body, in which there is a body and a soul. The soul are the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit; faith, hope, and charity, and the rest. The body are the external profession of faith and communication of the Sacraments. From which it follows that some people belong to both the soul and the body of the Church, and are, therefore, united to Christ, the Head, both interiorly and exteriorly. And these are most perfectly in the Church. They are like living members in the body, although among them, too, some participate more and some less in the life (of the body), and some have only the beginnings of life, having, as it were, sensation without movement, like those who have faith without charity. Others, however, are of the soul but not of the body (of the Church), as Catechumens and those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible. Finally, some belong to the body and not the soul (of the Church), like those who have no internal virtue, but yet, out of hope or (moved) by some temporal fear, they profess the faith and share in the Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors.” [10]

If we analyze the various elements of this doctrine, we have:

The Church is a Living Organism, composed of body and soul. This composition means –

1. In general:
   
   
   1. That the soul are the gifts of the Holy Spirit, that is, faith, hope, charity, and the internal, infused virtues.
   2. That the body is the external profession of faith, including submission to the Pope and participation in the same Sacraments.
      
      
2. In specie:
   
   
   1. That some people belong to the body and the soul of the Church, which means that:
      
      
      1. They are united to Christ, the Head, interiorly by the virtues and exteriorly by professing the faith and sharing in the Sacraments.
      2. They belong most perfectly to the Church.
      3. They are like living members in the human body.
      4. They are subdivided into three classes:
         
         
         1. Those who have more of the life of the Church in their souls, because they have more faith and charity.
         2. Those who have less of this life because they have less faith and charity.
         3. Those who have only the beginning of this life, because they have only faith, internal and external, and no charity, that is, sanctifying grace.
            
            
   2. Others belong to the soul and not to the body of the Church, like catechumens and those who are excommunicated. However, not all catechumens or excommunicates are in this class, but only those who have both internal and external faith, and charity, or sanctifying grace.
      
      
   3. Others, finally, belong to the body but not to the soul of the Church, as those who have no internal virtue, but yet externally profess the true faith and share in the Sacraments, under subjection to the Pope, from hope or fear or some other temporal motive.

“Our definition,” Bellarmine concludes, “comprehends only this last mode of being in the Church,” that is, of those who have been baptized, who are not in the grace of God, and yet, who externally profess the true faith and approach the Sacraments, under external obedience to ecclesiastical authorities. Why the limitation? In order to show what is “the minimum required for anyone to be called a part of the visible Church,” i.e. simply, a part of the Church, because there is only one Church, and that is visible. [11]

b. Basis for the Doctrine in Christian Tradition

Without going into a long defense of St. Robert’s distinction between the body and soul of the Church, one point at least should be explained, as a basis for his complete doctrine on membership in the Church. The point is whether he was justified in identifying the soul of the Church with the created internal gifts of the Holy Spirit, when traditionally the uncreated Spirit of Christ Himself has been considered the Soul of the Church. Thus, St. Augustine, “For what the soul is to the body of the man, that the Holy Ghost is to the body of Christ, which is the Church. What the Holy Ghost does in the whole Church, that the soul does in all the members of one body.” [12] And again, “What our spirit----that is, our soul----is to our members, that the Holy Ghost is to the members of Christ, to the body of Christ, which is the Church. Therefore, the Apostle, when he had spoken of the one body, lest we should suppose it to be a dead body, says, ‘There is one body.’ I ask: Is this body alive? It is alive. Whence? From the one Spirit. ‘There is one Spirit.’” [13] So later on, St. Gregory, “The holy universal Church is one body, constituted under Christ Jesus its Head… Therefore Christ, with His whole Church, both that which is still on earth and that which now reigns with Him in heaven, is one Person; and as the soul is one which quickens the various members of the body, so the only Holy Spirit quickens and illuminates the whole Church. For as Christ, who is the Head of the Church, was conceived of the Holy Ghost, so the Holy Church, which is His body, is filled by the same Spirit that it may have life, is confirmed by His power that it may subsist in the bond of one faith and charity… of this Spirit the heretic does not live, nor the schismatic, nor the excommunicated, for they are not of the body; but the Church has a Spirit that gives life, because it inheres inseparably to Christ its Head: for it is written, “He that adheres to the Lord is one spirit with Him.’” [14]

Very simply, Bellarmine made no secret of professing the traditional doctrine. For example, in defending the Church’s infallibility, he argues from the Divinity of its Head and Soul to the inerrancy of its body. “The Church,” he says, “is governed by Christ as its Spouse (and) Head, and by the Holy Ghost as its Soul….Consequently, if the Church could err in dogmas of faith and morals, error would be attributed to Christ and the Holy Spirit, whereas the Lord said, ‘The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth.’” John 16/13. [15] Again in defending the function of sinful members as instruments of grace in the Church of God, he has recourse to the operation of the Holy Spirit as the Soul of the Church. “An evil bishop,” he explains, “a wicked priest, a bad teacher, are dead members of the Body of Christ, and therefore not true members, if we understand ‘member’ in its essential meaning as a certain part of the living body. However, they are very true members if we consider them as instruments (of activity within the Church); so that the Pope and bishops are real heads, the teachers are real eyes and a real tongue of this Body. And the reason is that persons are constituted its living members through charity, which the wicked do not have. But the instruments of operation (in the Church) are constituted through the power of orders or of jurisdiction, which can be had even without grace. For although in a natural body, a dead member cannot be a true instrument of operation, yet in the Mystical Body it can be. For in a natural body, its action depends on the soundness of the instrument, because the soul cannot operate well except through good instruments, nor can it exercise the vital functions except through living instruments. But in the Mystical Body, the functions do not depend on the soundness or life of the instrument. For the Soul of this Body, that is, the Holy Spirit, can operate as well through good instruments as through bad, through those which are living as through those which are dead.” [16]

The most that could be said against Bellarmine’s position is that he may be inconsistent: once he calls the soul of the Church the Holy Spirit, and then he calls it the gifts of the Spirit. Which does he mean? A reasonable answer is that he means both, namely, that the soul of the Church is the Spirit of Christ, in so far as He brings with Himself the created gifts of His grace. This solution reconciles the apparently contradictory passages in Bellarmine, and also gives an answer to the problem arising from his conception of the soul of the Church on a graduated scale. For, according to Bellarmine, there are degrees of attachment to the soul of the Church, until finally the only ones to whom he denies any membership in the “anima Ecclesiae” are those who have no internal virtue whatsoever. This becomes intelligible if we understand St. Robert to mean that the Holy Spirit bearing his gifts is the soul of the Church. For while it is one and the same Spirit who operates on all the members of the Church, yet, the degree of His operation, the amount of His grace, and the number of His gifts will be proportioned to the intimacy with which individuals are joined to the body of the Church, and the importance of the function and office which they hold in its body.

Consequently, it is significant that Bellarmine uses the expression “de anima Ecclesiae,” in describing the relationship of various peoples to the soul of the Church. This allows him, even grammatically, to speak of varying degrees of association to the Church’s soul, conditioned by the degree of participation in the grace of God. So that the highest degree is possessed by those who are actually in the state of grace, the lowest by those who have only a vestige of supernatural faith, once possessed and now lost. It also allows him to consider those who are not actual members of the body of the Church, to belong to its soul, which is the Holy Spirit, in as much as they are directed by this Spirit towards eventual incorporation in the Mystical Body, by actual profession of the Catholic faith.

To summarize, therefore, Bellarmine’s identification of the soul of the Church, now with the Holy Spirit, now with His gifts, is justified if we understand that in the latter case he is taking the soul of the Church not objectively but subjectively, not causally but effectively, effecting the Church not collectively but individually. Thus the uncreated Holy Spirit is the Soul of the Church, in so far as He objectively causes the society of human beings who form the Body of Christ to live the life of the grace in union with Christ their Head. But in so far as they are participating in this life, it is equally correct to speak of the created gifts of the Holy Spirit as the soul of the Church, considering these gifts individually and subjectively as the effect of the Holy Spirit in the souls on whom he operates.

Robert does not deny that the Holy Spirit Himself animates the soul of the Church. In fact, he affirms it when he also calls the gifts of the Holy Ghost the soul of the Church. Metaphysically, the soul and body are correlatives. Their exact meaning can only be determined by the relation in which they stand to each other in any given context.

Consequently:

1. With relation to the collectivity of human beings, who are only lifeless matter, supernaturally, before being affected by the Spirit of God, the Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. Here the correlative terms are:

The society of human beings in the Church
The Spirit of God which animates them

2. But with relation to man’s individual, personal share in the process of sanctification, namely, his profession of faith and approaching the Sacraments, the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit are the soul of the Church. And here the correlative terms are:

Personal human effort in the members of the Church
Gifts of the Holy Spirit, animating this effort by grace

Chapter II - Application of Principles on Church Membership

I. Membership of the Unbaptised

1. Unbaptized Infidels

Following on his definition of the Church, the first class of people whose possible membership in the Church Bellarmine investigates are those who have never been baptized, whom he divides into two categories, covered by the generic terms: infidels and catechumens. The infidels are all those, “who have not given their names to Christ by Baptism, but follow some other kind of religion.” [17] Concretely, they are “the Jews, Koslems (Turcae) and Pagans.” [18] It might be objected that catechumens also have not yet given their names to Christ by Baptism and should therefore be numbered among the infidels. But they are willing to give their names to Christ, and for that reason are properly distinguished from rank unbelievers.

Are infidels then, members of the visible Church of Christ? Simply not. St. Robert uses exactly two sentences and less than forty words to dismiss them from further consideration. “Unquestionably,” he says, “Paul was speaking of the non-baptized infidels when he said: ‘What have I to do with those outside?’” I Cor. 5/12. Consequently, they are “all outside” who are unbaptized unbelievers, and not members of the true Church. [19]

2. Unbaptized Catechumens

A. Statement of the Problem

However, it is not so easy to decide whether catechumens are members of the Church, although, like the infidels, they are also not baptized. The difficulty is that, “they are believers and can be saved if they die in their condition (as catechumens), and yet, no one is saved outside the Church… Now it is certain that catechumens are not actually and properly in the Church but only potentially, like a man who is conceived but not yet developed and born is not said to be a man except potentially.” [20] How then, can they be saved, if they are not really members of the Church? But they are saved if they die before Baptism. Hence the problem which, briefly, can be put thus:

1. Membership in the Church is necessary for Salvation.
2. But catechumens are not members of the Church.
3. Therefore, they should not be saved.
   
   
   1. But catechumens may be saved, if they die before Baptism.
   2. Consequently, how explain their salvation?

Bellarmine examines three possible solutions of the problem, two of which he rejects as untenable, and the third he proposes as his own:

The first explanation solves the problem by denying its existence, declaring that catechumens are not saved. The second explanation distinguishes the term “Church” in the basic proposition, by saying that membership in at least the Church of the Faithful is necessary for salvation, and, because catechumens belong to this Church, they can be saved.

The third explanation, which is Bellarmine’s, distinguishes the term “membership” in the same proposition, saying that membership either actual or in desire is necessary for salvation. And since catechumens belong to the Church at least in desire, therefore they can be saved.

B. Membership in the Church is Necessary for Salvation

According to Bellarmine, we can prove from the constant tradition of the Church that membership in the Church of Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation. Thus, he says, in the Apostles’ Creed, we join together the Catholic Church with the remission of sins. For we say: “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins.” [21] “For which reason,” he continues,” “the Church is compared with the Ark of Noe; because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church, as Jerome says in his letter to Damasus.” [22] The words of St. Jerome are as follows: “I, following no leader save Christ, am associated in fellowship with Your Beatitude, that is, with the See of Peter. On that rock I know the Church was built. Whosoever eats that Lamb outside that house is profane. If anyone shall be outside the Ark of Noe, he shall perish when the flood prevails.” [23]

“The same testimony,” says Bellarmine, “is given in that celebrated dictum of Cyprian on the unity of the Church, when he says: ‘He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother.’” In context, the full passage reads: “The bride of Christ cannot be falsified; she is chaste and incorrupt. She knows but one home; she with scrupulous chastity keeps inviolate her one bride-chamber. She it is who preserves us for God; she finds places in the Kingdom for the children she has begotten. Whoso separates himself from the Church is joined to an adulterer and has cut himself off from the promises made to the Church; no one who quits the Church of Christ will attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger, profane, an enemy. He cannot have God for his father who has not the Church for his mother. If anyone was able to escape who was outside the Ark of Noe, then whosoever is outside the Church escapes.” [24]

“See also Augustine,” says Bellarmine, “in the first chapter of his fourth book De Baptismo,” where we read: “The Church is compared to Paradise (by St. Cyprian), which shows us that men can indeed receive its (the Church’s) Baptism even outside her fold, but that no one attains to or possesses the salvation of beatitude outside of her ranks.” [25]

However, the best evidence for the necessity of the Church as a means of salvation, to which St. Robert frequently recurs, is the doctrine of the Fourth Lateran Council, which says that: “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” [26]

C. Catechumens are Not Actual Members of the Church

Christian tradition, says St. Robert, has consistently denied actual membership in the Church to catechumens. Summarily, there are three sources of evidence for this fact:

• Baptism is necessary for membership in the Church. But catechumens are not baptized.
  
  
• Members of the Church have been traditionally called “the faithful” or fideles. But catechumens are traditionally denied this title.
  
  
• Members of the Church have a right to share in the Sacraments and other privileges common in the Church. But catechumens are specifically excluded from this participation.

However, the last two arguments are reducible to the first, so that catechumens are not called fideles and are denied the common privileges of the Church because they are not baptized. Consequently, it will be enough to review only the first argument in detail: catechumens are not in the Church because they have not been baptized.

In common with Catholic tradition, Bellarmine looked upon Baptism as the entrance to the Church. Thus, in the Dottrina Cristiana, “We are called by God and enter into this congregation (of the Church), by means of Baptism which is, as it were, the door of the Church.” [27] He also argued from the necessity of entering the Church in order to be saved, to the necessity of infant Baptism; otherwise the unbaptized infants could not attain to salvation. But the question here is not whether unbaptized infants, but whether catechumens, who are adults, are in the Church before they receive Baptism of water. In other words, is actual Baptism necessary for actual membership for everyone? According to Bellarmine, Baptism is the only door of the Church, without which there is no actual membership in the visible Church for anyone.

If we go back to the first Pentecost, when St. Peter preached to the assembled multitude in Jerusalem, we read that “They that received his (Peter’s) word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Acts 2/41. There is no question here of infants but of adults, yet, on the word of the Scriptures, only after having been baptized were the converts received into the Church. So that, says St. Robert, “We see that to be baptized is nothing else than to enter the Church,” whether the neophyte be an infant or an adult. “Consequently, the Fathers unanimously distinguish catechumens from the faithful, and teach that those who have not received Baptism are not yet within the Church.” [28]

Also according to the Council of Florence, in its instruction for the Armenians, we begin to belong to the body of the Church only on receiving Baptism. [29] For which reason, says the Council, “Holy Baptism holds the first place among all the Sacraments, which is the door of the spiritual life: through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.” [30] The statement is absolute and universal. All without exception must be baptized to enter the Church.

D. Solutions of the Problem

a. Unsatisfactory: Catechumens are not saved

The problem is to decide on the fate of those adults who wished to receive Baptism but who died before they could receive the Sacrament and, consequently, before they entered the body of the Church. “Catechumens do not, therefore,” in view of what has been seen, “actually and properly belong to the Church. How then, you ask, are they saved if they are outside the Church?” [31]

St. Robert examines the first answer offered, namely, that catechumens do not enter heaven. This rigorist doctrine, he finds, appeared in “a book called De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus, falsely attributed to Augustine, in which he definitely states that a catechumen is not saved, even if he practiced good works, unless he had been cleansed by the Baptism of water or of blood.” [32]

Bellarmine very prudently suspected the authenticity of a work which in many codices and manuals of theology, for example, Peter Lombard’s Book of Sentences, was credited to St. Augustine. But St. Thomas, and after him most modern editors correctly assign the spurious work to Gennadius of Marseilles, against whom the Second Council of Orange was convened. [33]

The chapters of De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus are hardly more than sentences. There are fifty five of them in four pages of Migne. [34] Chapter XLI treats of Baptism, and reads, “We believe that only the baptized are on the road of salvation. We believe that no catechumen has life everlasting, although he has died in good works, excepting martyrdom, in which all the sacred elements (sacraments) of Baptism are contained.” [35]

Years later, in the twelfth century, the doctrine was resuscitated, and, Bellarmine notes, was condemned by St. Bernard in one of his letters to High of St. Victor. The latter had written to Bernard, inquiring his opinion on the doctrine of some person who taught that actual Baptism by water, or martyrdom, was necessary for the salvation of everyone. Bernard answers, “You write that a certain individual – I do not know who he is because you do not mention his name --- on reading the words of the Lord, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he will not enter into the Kingdom of heaven,’ John 3/5, claims that no one can possibly be saved unless he has actually received this visible Sacrament (of Baptism), or, in its place, has suffered martyrdom. (According to the anonymous adversary) even though a person has perchance desired (Baptism) with true faith and contrition of heart, yet was prevented by death to attain what he wanted, he is still certainly damned.” [36]

Bellarmine regards this attitude as too harsh (nimis durum). Catechumens are evidently saved if they die in the grace of God, as Catholic tradition has always believed. “Certainly Ambrose, in his oration at the funeral of Valentinian, expressly declares that catechumens can be saved, in whose number was Valentinian at the time of his death.” [37]

In concert, St. Ambrose said to his audience, “I hear that you grieve because he (Valentinian) had not received the Sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in our power except our will and desire. For a long time, and even before he came to Italy, he had this desire to be received (into the Church) and indicated that he wished to be baptized by me in the near future, and therefore considered inviting me (to receive him into the Church) before attending to other business. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he sought? Undoubtedly, he received what he looked for. Hence we read: ‘The just man, whatever kind of death may have prevented him, shall be in rest.’” Wisdom 4/7. [38]

In treating the subject of Baptism, St. Robert also examines the opinion which denies the possibility of sanctifying grace to anyone who has not been baptized. He admits that, “among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity.” [39] He continues, “As far as I know, none of the ancients questioned that martyrdom satisfies for Baptism of water, but there were not lacking those who denied that conversion and repentance does the same.” Then he quotes the spurious work of Augustine and St. Bernard’s letter, as seen before, and concludes, “it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.” [40]

To prove this proposition, four authorities are mentioned but without giving their doctrine, namely: Sts. Augustine and Bernard, Innocent II and the Council of Trent. Going back to the sources quoted by Bellarmine, we have first a passage from St. Augustine, in which he says, “I have no doubt that a Catholic catechumen, possessed of Divine charity, is better than a heretic who has been baptized. In fact, even within the Catholic (Church), we prefer a good catechumen to a wicked person who is baptized. However, we commit no injustice against the Sacrament of Baptism which the one has and the other has not yet received, nor do we think that the Sacrament of a catechumen is preferable to the Sacrament of Baptism, when we consider a particular catechumen more faithful and more virtuous than a particular baptized individual. For the Centurion Cornelius, not yet baptized, was better than Simon (Magus), already baptized; since the former was filled with the Holy Spirit before Baptism, while the latter, even after Baptism, was inflated with the spirit of evil…Certainly the Blessed Cyprian takes as very good evidence that suffering sometimes fills the place of Baptism, from what was said to the thief who was not yet baptized: ‘This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.’ Luke 23/43. The more I think about it, the more I believe that not only suffering for the name of Christ but also faith and conversion of heart can supply for what is lacking on the part of Baptism if, perchance, for lack of time (in angustiis temporum), the mystery of Baptism cannot be approached.” [41]

St. Bernard also leans on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, but somewhat extends the conditions under which conversion and repentance can make up for actual Baptism. “With these” (Augustine and Ambrose), he says, “I am willing to err or to be right, believing that a man with the desire of receiving the Sacrament (of Baptism), can be saved by faith alone, if death should prevent him from fulfilling his desire or any other invincible force stands in the way. Was not this perhaps why the Savior, after He had said, ‘He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved,’ carefully and prudently did not add, ‘but he that is not baptized,’ but only, ‘he that does not believe, shall be condemned’? Mark 16/16; suggesting that at times faith alone is sufficient for salvation, and that without it nothing avails. And even in martyrdom, which everyone admits can take the place of Baptism, this result is not the effect of suffering but of faith. For what else is martyrdom without faith except suffering?” [42]

The document of Innocent II mentioned by Bellarmine, is a letter which he addressed to the Bishop of Cremona, who asked whether the suffrages of the Church might be offered for a “priest” of his diocese who was known to have died before receiving Baptism. “In answer to your question,” the Pope said, “We answer: because the priest, who as you say in your letter died without the water of Baptism, persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, We unhesitatingly assert that he was freed from original sin and attained to the joy of the heavenly country. Read…in the 8^th Book of Augustine’s City of God, where among other things is said: ‘Baptism is invisibly administered (to the person) whom the pressure of necessity and not the contempt of religion excluded (from the number of the baptized).’ Read also the book on the death of Valentinian, in which the Blessed Ambrose says the same thing. Consequently, you may consider your questions resolved by the doctrine of the Holy Fathers, and order public prayers and sacrifices to be offered to God for the aforesaid priest.” [43]

Finally, the Council of Trent, in its chapter on the necessity of Baptism, describes justification as “a translation from that state in which a 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 the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.’” John 3/5 [44]

On the basis of his evidence, therefore, Bellarmine concludes that catechumens can be saved, if they die before Baptism. However, also on the basis of tradition, he limits the possibility of their salvation to the fulfillment of certain conditions which, in summary, are as follows:

A catechumen may be saved, although he dies before actual Baptism of water, if ---

• He is a true catechumen, that is, one who explicitly desires to be baptized. [45]
  
  
• He is so far responsive to the grace of God as to repent of his sins from a motive of charity, based on supernatural faith. [46]
  
  
• He was not deliberately contemptuous of the Sacrament of Baptism, or if he was, has since repented of this sin. [47]

b. Unsatisfactory: Catechumens belong to the “Church of the Faithful”

Quite clearly, it is no solution but a dismissal of the problem to say that since catechumens are not members of the Church, they cannot be saved. Closer to a solution was Melchior Gano’s, who said that, “The Church can be understood in two senses: first there is (the Church) which is made up of the assembly of all the faithful from the beginning of the world to the end. In this sense, catechumens are most truly members of the Church. Then again, that is called the Church which is entered through Baptism, in the name of Christ…. and of this Church, catechumens are not a part.” [48]

Bellarmine’s version is that, “Melchior Cano says catechumens can be saved because, although they are not a part of that Church which is properly called Christian, they nevertheless belong to the Church which comprehends all the faithful from Abel to the end of the world.” But his reaction is that, “This does not seem to be satisfactory because, since the coming of Christ, there is no true Church except that which is properly called Christian. So that if catechumens do not belong to this Church, they belong to none.” [49]

It should be noted that Cano very correctly distinguishes his hypothetical Church of the faithful from the Church of Christ on the point of Baptism. Real Baptism in water, he admits, is an indispensable condition for becoming a member of the Church of Christ. In the original proposition, therefore, which says: “Extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus,” he qualified the term Ecclesia, so as to make the formula read:

Outside the Church --OF THE FAITHFUL-- /--OF CHRIST--there is no salvation.

In refusing to accept Cano’s solution, Bellarmine allows him one concession but refuses to follow him on his one distinction. The concession is fundamental and bears repetition. It is, that there is no actual membership in the Church without actual Baptism. The distinction is untenable, namely that there is another Church besides the Church of Christ, that of the faithful, to which catechumens belong and as members of which they are saved.

In denying the concept of two churches, excogitated by Caso, Bellarmine was standing on the solid ground of tradition, which never allowed more than one Church founded by Christ, and outside of which one Church, founded by Christ, there is no salvation. Beyond denying Caso’s theory and stating that it was against Christian tradition, St. Robert gives no more arguments against it. Nor did he have to, because it is obvious from basic principles that, to admit this Church of the faithful extending from Abel to the Last Judgment, would mean:

• To deny the real distinction between the Jewish Synagogue and the Church of Christ. [50]
  
  
• To deny the unity and unicity of the Church of Christ. [51]
  
  
• To deny its visibility. [52]

c. Bellarmine’s Solution: Catechumens belong Voto, to the One Visible Church

In admitting Cano’s presupposition, that Baptism is the only way to become an actual member of the Church of Christ, as distinct from the Church of the faithful, Bellarmine paved the way for his own doctrine, namely, that catechumens can be saved, even without Baptism of water or martyrdom, provided they die with a Baptism of desire.

The argument runs thus:

• Baptism is the only entrance into the Church. But Baptism can be in re or in voto. Therefore, entrance into the Church can be in re or in voto.
  
  
• The kind of membership in the Church is determined by the kind of entrance which a person has made. But, there are two kinds of entrance into the Church, in re and in voto. Therefore; if a person enters through actual Baptism, he becomes an actual member of the Church. If a person enters through Baptism in voto, he becomes a voto member of the Church.

In Bellarmine’s own words, his doctrine reads, “I answer …. that when it is said that outside the Church no one is saved, this is to be understood of those who do not belong to the Church either in reality or in desire, as theologians commonly speak of Baptism. However, since catechumens are in the Church, if not really, at least in desire (voto), therefore they can be saved.” [53]

This distinction between membership in the Church re and voto represents a milestone in Catholic ecclesiology. Bellarmine was obviously not the first to have distinguished Baptism of water from Baptism of desire. For centuries before, theologians, and finally the Council of Trent took account of unbaptized persons who could still be saved if they died with a Baptism of desire. But not until the Controversies, do we have a clear application of the same distinction to membership in the Church. It was derived as a conclusion to the following process of thought:

1. Baptism and membership in the Church are objectively related as unique cause and effect, that is, there is no actual membership in the Church without actual Baptism. This is true whether the subject of Baptism realizes it or not.
   
   
2. Given a person who explicitly desires Baptism, one of two possibilities arise:
   
   
   1. Either he knows that in desiring Baptism, he also desires to become a member of the Church, and then, both the desire for Baptism and the desire to become a member of the Church are explicit.
      
      
   2. Or he does not realize that in desiring Baptism he also desires to become a member of the Church. And then, only the desire for Baptism is explicit, while the desire to become a member of the Church is implicit. However, although implicit, it is nevertheless real, because in sincerely desiring the cause, i.e., Baptism, he also desires he effect, i.e., enrollment in the Church as a member.
      
      

E. Membership of Non-Catechumens who are not Infidels

In treating the possible membership in the Church of unbaptized persons, Bellarmine considers only two classes of people: infidels and catechumens. Infidels he excludes simply; catechumens, he allows, may be members voto or in desire. But what about those persons who are neither formal infidels nor formal catechumens: those who have no explicit desire to be baptized, for one of a variety of reasons, can they be considered members of the Church in any sense?

St. Robert does not expressly treat of this class of people anywhere in the Controversies. For one thing, it was beyond the evident purpose of his writings. However, his doctrine can be gathered from what he says elsewhere, on the subject of Baptism in the case of those who never explicitly desire to receive the Sacrament. The immediate question is whether they can be saved, but ultimately whether they can belong to the Church, because outside the Church, at least through membership in voto, there is no salvation.

Note that we here wish to see whether Bellarmine would extend his term “catechumen” to include also those who only implicitly desire Baptism and, therefore, implicitly “twice-over” desire to become members of the Church. Two general possibilities are conceivable:

1. Where the unbaptized person does not desire the Sacrament because he knows nothing about Baptism, he is a pagan among pagans. Bellarmine answers this problem, which is posed as an objection from Scripture against the universal salvific will of God. St. Paul says, “How are they to call upon Him in Whom they have not believed? But how are they to believe Him, when they have not heard? And how are to hear, if no one preaches? And how are men to preach, unless they be sent?” Rom. 10/14-15. “The beginning of salvation,” it is objected, “is faith… But many do not have the help which is needed in order to believe because no one has yet preached the Gospel to them.” How then can they be saved?

   St. Robert answers: “This argument only proves that not all people receive the help they need to believe and be converted immediately. It does not, however, prove that some people are deprived, absolutely speaking, of sufficient help for salvation. For the pagans to whom the Gospel has not yet been preached, can know from His creatures that God exists; [54] then they can be stimulated by God, through His preventing grace, to believe in God, that He exists and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him: and from such faith, they can be inspired, under the guidance and help of God, to pray and give alms and in this way obtain from God a still greater light of faith, which God will communicate to them, either by Himself or through angels or through men.” [55]

   Clearly, pagans living in ignorance of the necessity of Baptism can, with God’s grace, attain to salvation. Following St. Thomas, whom he quotes, [56] Bellarmine would not require an explicit desire for Baptism as a condition for salvation, for those living in countries where the Church has not yet been established. This is confirmed by the letter of St. Bernard, on which Bellarmine based his doctrine, at least in part. “How many are there, throughout the world,” Bernard asks, “who die in complete ignorance of what Jesus said secretly that night to Nicodemus. (Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven). What then? The law has not yet been promulgated, and they are already held responsible for breaking it? …. God forbid.” [57]

   Logically, therefore, if desire for Baptism equivalates membership voto in the Church, and if, according to Bellarmine, this desire, among pagans at least, may be either explicit or implicit as a condition for salvation --- then, in either case, membership voto in the Church is the result. Otherwise he would be saying that implicit desire is enough to be saved, but not enough to enter voto into the Church --- which would contradict the supposit of his whole argument, namely, that at least voto membership is required for salvation.

2. The second possibility is more delicate, and involves two contingencies: that of an unbaptized person who knows about Baptism but never receives the Sacrament because, mistakenly, he thinks he is already baptized; and that of a person who knows he is not baptized but never receives Baptism. Bellarmine treats of both cases. “An (unbaptized) child that is born and reared among Christians,” he says, “on growing up, will either think that he is baptized or will know that he has not been baptized. If he believes he has been baptized, he will probably have the faith divinely infused into him, because the approval of Baptism and can lead him to eternal salvation.” Then follows a reference to the letter of Innocent II regarding the unbaptized priest. “On the other hand, if a person knows that he has not been baptized and does not ask for Baptism, he certainly does not have the faith except, possibly, a faith that is human or not even human. For how is it possible that anyone who believes with certainty that he will be eternally lost without Baptism and yet does not desire or ask for Baptism, which is so easy to receive? Nor is it probable that anyone who has been educated among Christians and knows the faith of Christians, should never have heard of Baptism, when mention of Baptism is made in the rudiments of the faith and every day, in the Church, newly born infants are being baptized.” [58]

   To review these last two cases, it is clear that according to Bellarmine, Baptism of desire and, therefore, reductively to voto membership in the Church. But his solution of the second case seems to be too strict, unless we interpret his statements in the historical context in which they were made. First we should notice that he does not speak about the objective possibility of an unbaptized person, living among Christians, having the faith and grace of God although he never asks for Baptism. It is not a question de iure but de facto, whether such a possibility is probable. Bellarmine thinks it is not.

   Be it noted, however, that what Bellarmine is castigating here is not the mere deference of Baptism to adult life, or even to a short time before death. True, in his controversy with the Anabaptists, who said that only adults should be baptized, Bellarmine argued to the practice of baptizing infants from the principle that otherwise they cannot enter the Church – and membership in the Church is necessary for salvation. [59] But the custom of deferring Baptism till late in life was sanctioned by not a few ancients, and Bellarmine was too well acquainted with the Fathers to reprove absolutely and unconditionally a custom that was so common in the early Church. [60] What he condemned was the contempt for the Sacrament of Baptism as indispensable for salvation, which the Protestant Reformers had engendered in the minds of the people. Thus wrote John Calvin, “It is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith…Assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the sacraments, as if justification consisted in it. This, which is treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and it may be completely enjoyed without this seal.” [61] Breaking with the traditional interpretation of John 3/5, Calvin declared that, “the phrase, ‘born of water’ does not refer to Baptism, but ‘water and Spirit’ in this passage are one and the same thing – the action of the Spirit is cleansing, like that of water.” [62] It was this refusal to receive Baptism, based on a denial of the clear teaching of Christ which, to Bellarmine’s mind, indicated that such a person “certainly does not have the faith, except possibly a faith that is human, or not even human.” [63]

II. Membership in the Church for Heretics

1. Formal Heretics

As regards formal heretics, that is, those who have lapsed from the true faith or who consciously persevere in their error, there is no question of their being members of the visible Church of Christ. Against Alphonsus Castro who taught the opposite, Bellarmine says his doctrine is obviously false because, for example, the Council of Nicea lays down certain conditions for the re-admission of the Paulianist heretics, “who are hastening back to the Church.” [64] Evidently they could not be said to return to the Church if they had not previously been out of it by reason of their heresy. This is the common doctrine of the Fathers. “Ireneus,” for instance, “says that Polycarp converted many heretics to the Church; from which it follows that they had previously been put out of the Church. And Augustine specifies in detail that, “Those who do not believe that Christ came in the flesh, of the Virgin Mary, from the seed of David, or that He arose from the dead in the same Body in which He was crucified and was buried, are certainly not in the Church.” [65] This means that manifest heretics are not in the body of the Church, for, “Since the Church is a unified multitude…or one body, and this unity consists in the profession of one faith and in the observance of the same laws and rites, it is impossible that those who have no communion with it, should be said to belong to the body of the Church.” [66] However, it does not mean that they are necessarily outside the soul of the Church because, on Bellarmine’s principles, even the vestige of internal faith is sufficient to belong to the Church’s soul. It is true that their nexus with the “anima Ecclesiae” will be tenuous; and the more so as their external profession of heresy has devitalized their internal faith. But short of a complete evacuation of all supernatural virtue, even formal heretics will still have some connection with the soul of the Church.

It is this type of formal heretic that Bellarmine has in mind as often as he denies him any sort of communion with the visible Church of Christ. Thus, in answer to the objection that the Church can punish heretics and therefore has jurisdiction over them as her members, he says, “Although heretics are not in the Church, they should be, and therefore are related to it as sheep pertain to the sheepfold from which they have run away…The Church can pass judgment over those who are actually within as over those who certainly ought to be [67] as a shepherd can force a sheep wandering over the hills to return to the fold, and as the emperor can forcibly constrain a deserter in war, who fled to the camp of the enemy, to return to his own camp.” To the objection from St. Paul: “What have I to do with judging those outside,” the answer is that, “the Apostle is here speaking of those who are outside in the sense that they had never been inside (the Church),” which, in St. Robert’s conception, is not the case with formal heretics. [68]

2. Material Heretics

i. Possibility of being in Good Faith

Bellarmine clearly distinguishes between the heresies in his day, the religious and political leaders of the new gospel who were seducing the masses from the true faith or confirming them in their errors, and the simple people who allowed themselves to be thus deceived. Regarding the first group, his strictures are uncompromising. His defense of the Inquisition and the death penalty for heretics, for example, is to be referred to the leaders of heresy, as may be seen from the reasons which he gives for putting them to death: “that they may not do harm to the good…that by the punishment of a few, the many may be corrected…because it is often useful to those who are put to death, to be executed, that is, when they become steadily worse and there is no prospect of their returning to their (former) sanity of mind.” In fact, “it is a benefit to obstinate heretics to be taken from this life, for the longer they live the more errors they concoct, and more people they pervert, and the worse condemnation they prepare for themselves.” [69]

Even where he seems to be less uncompromising, Bellarmine still shows no inclination to excuse the heresy of those who, because of their position and talent, ought to know that there is only one true faith, in the Catholic Church. Thus in his controversy with James I of England, although the king was persecuting the Church, St. Robert does not directly accuse him of malice. However, this should be regarded as only prudent diplomacy. For in answer to James’ statement that he wished for all Catholic kings and princes to become what he was – a confirmed Calvinist, Bellarmine replied, “Why may not, and with better reason, so many great kings and other orthodox princes desire that King James should become what they are and what all his predecessors…the Kings of Scotland were? For it is well known that, by a special blessing of God, successive generations of Scottish kings for a thousand and three hundred years were Catholics, with the one exception of James VI who, by a misfortune of fate, was deprived of the care of God-fearing parents, fell into the hands of heretical guardians and, through the training which he received from them, turned away from the path of his ancestors.” [70]

If this seems to be excusing James on the score of his Protestant training, Bellarmine made it quite clear later on that the king was obviously in bad faith. St. Robert compares him with the Arians, of whom St. Antonianus said that they were not even Christians. James is another Julian the Apostate. For the Roman Emperor seduced the Christians into practicing idolatry by picturing together a portrait of himself and of Jupiter, so that unwary people would be deceived into adoring the pagan god while paying their legitimate respects to the emperor. “This is exactly what the English king has imitated. For he has proposed (for acceptance by Catholics) an oath in which, under the semblance of civil obedience in temporal matters properly due to the king, there should also be expressed sacred obedience to the same king as supreme ruler in spiritual matters, while denying this obedience to the legitimate ruler of the whole Church.” [71]

However, when he comes to deal with the uneducated heretical masses, Bellarmine more often lays the blame for their perseverance in error, not on malice or hardness of heart, but on their native stupidity and lack of education, the deceits of the devil, the false teachings of the Protestant ministers, and, especially, on the bad examples of not a few citizens. “If there are many,” he observes, “who….hate our law and violently reject it, the first reason is the corrupt and depraved morale of not a few Christians…Because we are living immoral lives, whose who do not understand our law believe that what we are doing contrary to the law is being done with its convenience and permission and, consequently, they detest it as the source and root of our crimes. Another reason is the countless lies which the devil is used to disseminate by his ministers. Why (for example), in the early years of the newborn Church did some people persecute the Christians with such fury? Because, under the inspiration of the devil, the masses were made to believe that Christians adored the head of an ass and were therefore idolaters. Why do many simple heretics today execrate the Pope as Antichrist and the Church as Babylon? Because the preachers of the new gospel persuaded the wretched people that we have discarded the Gospel, that we explain everything in terms of human wisdom and the subtleties of sophists, that we have abandoned God and involve the saints instead, that we condemn the Passion of Christ…all of which are the most obvious and stupid of lies…but they have become deeply fixed and firmly rooted in their hearts, that, although they hear us shout and swear that we do not believe these things, that this is not Catholic doctrine, that all these charges are lies; although they see us prove our dogmas with countless testimonies of the Scriptures and the Fathers and reason, still they do not believe, but prefer to accept, instead of our word, what those who are deceiving them say about us.” [72]

Bellarmine might seem to be excusing their errors as the result of mere ignorance and mal-persuasion, until we see to what he attributes their loss of faith. “By what mean,” he asked his listeners on one occasion, “is the faith preserved? Through good works… By what means, then, is it lost? Through evil works, crimes, sins, unchastity, drunkenness and avarice. Of course I do not say, as the Lutherans madly suppose, that every sin is one of unbelief and that there can be no faith in sinners. This I do not say because I know that the Church is a net which is filled with good and bad fishes; nor do I deny that no one can be in the Church without faith. What then are we saying? Simply that a multitude of sins, a facility in sinning, and the practice of an evil life are the road and, as it were, so many steps towards infidelity. For men are so fashioned by nature that they easily and readily believe what they desire, what pleases and delights them. It is not hard to convince voluptuous and carnal-living persons that priests should be married, that chastity is impossible, that fasting is superfluous, that selection in the matter of food is a superstition. It is not difficult to excuse usury before the avaricious, or simony among the ambitious, or fornication with the sensuous… It is no wonder, then, that so many should so easily have joined themselves first to Mohammed and, in our times, to Luther, when they came preaching license of the flesh and removing the restraints of the passions. For in both times, as can be seen from history, the morals of Christian peoples were in large part corrupted: the Sacraments, religion, ecclesiastical discipline were despised and attached, while all manner of vices were given free rein; so that men who were thus affected…were not made into heretics, because no one (originally) preached heresy to them. Rather they prepared themselves to embrace heresy (when it came along). They were like dry wood that is perfectly suited for burning, and needs only to have a spark applied to it to make it burst into flame. The devil was ready at hand to inspire his ministers to set fire (to the combustible mass) by their preaching and activity.” [73] Consequently, granting that the majority of these “simple heretics” were not sinning against the light by their profession of Protestantism, Bellarmine would consider them at least guilty in causa for their loss of faith.

ii. Membership in the Catholic Church

Whatever concession St. Robert gave to heretics for being in good faith, it was more theoretical than practical. So the corresponding question of whether he would consider material heretics as members of the Church is also more hypothetical than real. However, as will be seen, his principles on Church membership have been applied by Catholic theologians to exactly such people. So it will pay to examine how, at least theoretically, Bellarmine would explain the membership of material heretics, if he considered them in good faith.

Regarding their possible belonging to the soul of the Church, in the sense of possessing one or more gifts of the Holy Spirit, there is no difficulty. If they have at least the habit of supernatural faith in their souls, even though they are not in the grace of God, they belong to the soul of the Church.

However, since it is only membership in the visible Church of Christ, which Bellarmine properly considers membership in the Catholic Church, would he consider material heretics members of this organism, granting the possibility that their heresy is not formal? Yes, because, consistent with his interpretation of the doctrine: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” he would have to allow them some kind of incorporation in the Church if they are to be saved. The terms he would use would be voto membership, in will and desire. But what does voto mean here? What sort of desire must a heretic have to be at least voto in the Catholic Church? Certainly not the desire for Baptism because he is already baptized. It could only be a desire to be incorporated in the Church by the removal of whatever obstacle separates him from actual membership. In practice, this would mean the repudiation of his heresy and re-instatement by the authorities of the Church. But here again, as with unbaptized persons, two possibilities arise: the repudiation of heresy may be explicit, when a person actually recognizes his errors and desires to be reconciled with the Church; or the repudiation may be merely implicit, when a person would abandon his errors if he recognize them, which, however, he does not, so that he never seeks to be reconciled.

Bellarmine considers only the first of these possibilities, and then only in the case of a person who was excommunicated, whether for heresy or for some other reason, and now seeks to be reconciled. It occurs as an answer to the objection that excommunicated persons should be considered members of the Church. “A man who was excommunicated justly,” say the objectors, “can repent… before being absolved. So he will be in the Church even while he is excommunicated.” Bellarmine distinguishes. “I answer that such a person is in the Church by intention or desire (animo sive desiderio), which is enough for salvation, but he is not (in the Church) bodily or by external communication, which properly makes a man belong to that visible Church which is on earth.” [74]

To indicate how adamant Bellarmine was in requiring external absolution for reconciliation with the Church, he will not even allow a person who was unjustly excommunicated to be called an actual member of the Church before being absolved. In holding this position, he follows the lead of St. Augustine, whom he quotes as saying that “Divine Providence often allows even good men to be expelled from the assembly of Christians. If they suffer this contumely and disgrace patiently for the sake of the Church’s peace and make no attempt at starting a new heresy or schism, they will teach (other) men how faithfully and with what sincerity of heart God should be served. The Father who seeth in secret, will also reward in secret such as these.” [75]

PART II - Comparative Analysis

Chapter 1 - Pius IX, 1846-1878

I. Doctrine of Pius IX on Non-Catholics in Bona Fide

When declaring St. Robert a Doctor of the Universal Church, in 1931, Pius XI said of him that, “He has merited the remembrance of all those who truly love the Church, as Prince of Apologists and strong Defender of Catholic dogma, not only for his own, but for future times…. Like a brilliant lamp set in a house and seen by everyone, in word and in work he was a light to the faithful and to those who had drifted away from the unity of the Church.” [76] His principal task in the seventeenth century was to oppose the vagaries of Luther and Calvin who appealed to an invisible Church, composed of all the believers, and independent of any external authority. His repetition and clarification of the doctrine that membership in the corporate, visible body of the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, is one of the great contributions to orthodox theology. He was not interested in defending the condition of those who had broken away from Catholic unity, except to show them how they were in error and appeal to their better judgment to return to the one true Church, outside of which no one can be saved.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, it was seen that, while Bellarmine’s principles on Church membership were immutable in so far as they represented traditional doctrine, they needed to be re-examined. If possible, new conclusions had to be drawn from the ancient truths to meet the current problems, notably the delicate question of the salvation of apparently sincere non-Catholics who intended to enter the Church. Fundamentally it was a question of how to include these people as members of the Catholic Church. The supposition was that they were born and educated outside the true faith and, although living among Catholics, never entered the Church and, perhaps, were never baptized. How are they saved? According to traditional theology, there is no salvation outside the Church. According to Bellarmine, this means that membership in the Catholic Church, re or voto, is necessary for salvation. To what extent can Bellarmine’s doctrine on Church membership be applied to such people?

During the next two hundred years, following Bellarmine, this problem was widely discussed among theologians, and opinions were expressed which ranged from extreme laxism to extreme rigorism. According to the rigorist school [77], which found its support in certain statements of the Fathers and in the relative silence of the Church: since the promulgation of the Gospel had become world-wide shortly after the death Christ, explicit faith in Christ, including actual baptism or at least the explicit desire to be baptized, was necessary for all to be saved. According to the laxist school [78], even a natural act of faith in the existence of God, implicitly containing everything else, including the desire for Baptism and entrance into the Church, was enough for salvation.

Not until Pius IX, do we have what appears to be the first ex-officio pronouncement of the Holy See on the condition of non-Catholics, in bona fide, living not only among pagans but also in countries where the Church is established. Pius IX has been properly called one of the greatest defenders of the rights of the Church since Gregory the Great. [79] At least nine of official documents, quoted in the Fontes Codicia Iuris Caponici, specifically repeat and defend the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church. However, in two of these, and both before the meeting of the Vatican Council, the Pope explicitly deals with the complementary doctrine, namely, that it is possible for a person to be saved without actually professing the true religion.

The day after his solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX gave an allocution to the several hundred bishops who had assembled in Rome for the occasion. After exhorting them to oppose the error of those who claim that human reason can even penetrate the mysteries of God, he said, “Not without sorrow have we seen that another error, and one not less ruinous, has taken possession of certain portions of the Catholic world, and has entered into the souls of the many Catholics who think that they can well hope for the eternal salvation of all those who have in no way entered into the true Church of Christ. For that reason, they are wont to inquire time and again as to what is going to be the fate and the condition after death of those who have never yielded themselves to the Catholic faith and, convinced by completely inadequate arguments, they expect a response that will favor this evil teaching. Far be it from us, Venerable Brethren, to presume to establish limits to the Divine Mercy, which is infinite. Far be it from us to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsels and the judgments of God, which are ‘a great deep,’ and which human thought can never penetrate. In accordance with our Apostolic duty, We desire to stir up your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to drive out of the mind of men, to the extent to which you are able to use all of your energies, that equally impious and deadly opinion that the way of eternal salvation can certainly be found in any religion. With all the skill and learning at your command, you should prove to the people committed to your care that this dogma of Catholic faith is in no way opposed to the Divine mercy and justice. Certainly we must hold as of faith that no one can be saved outside of the apostolic Roman Church, that this is the only Ark of Salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge. But nevertheless we must likewise hold it as certain that those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that (ignorance) be invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Now who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to point out the extent of such ignorance to himself according to the nature and variety of peoples, religions, talents, and so many other things? For really, when loosed from these bodily bonds, we see God as He is, we shall certainly understand with what intimate and beautiful a bond the Divine mercy and justice are joined together. But, while we live on earth, let us hold most firmly out of Catholic doctrine, that there is one God, one faith, one baptism. It is wicked to go on inquiring beyond this.” [80]

Nine years later, during the wars of unification, Pius IX issued an urgent appeal to the bishops of Italy for a more concerted effort to stem the tide of immorality and indifference to religion that was sweeping over the peninsula. He continued, “And here I must mention and reprove a most various error into which some Catholics have fallen, imagining that men living in errors and apart from the true faith and from the Catholic unity, can attain to eternal life. It is known to us and to you that those who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, and who, carefully observing the natural law, and its precepts, which God has inscribed in the hearts of all, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life can, through the working of the Divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God, who clearly sees, inspects and knows the minds, the intentions, the thoughts, and the habits of all, will, by reason of His supreme goodness and kindness, never allow anyone who has not the guilt of willful sin to be punished by eternal sufferings. But it is also a perfectly well known Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside of the Catholic Church, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of that same Church, and who are pertinaciously divided from the unity of that Church and from Peter’s successor, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation.” [81]

II. Comparison of Bellarmine's Doctrine with that of Pius IX

Beyond giving the full documentation just quoted, it is not our intention to make a comparative study of all the possible points of contact between Bellarmine and Pius IX. In accordance with our purpose to investigate only the membership in the Church of non-Catholics in bona fide, we limit ourselves to what is most pertinent, namely, that Pius IX confirmed certain elements in Bellarmine’s doctrine and also expanded on his teaching.

1. Confirmation of Bellarmine on “Voto” Members in the Visible Catholic Church

On first inspection, it looks more like an obiter dicta than a significant clause when Pius IX declared that those “who have in no way entered the true Church of Christ” cannot hope for salvation. But on examination it is seen to be a confirmation of Bellarmine’s basic doctrine that at least voto membership in the one visible Church is necessary for salvation.

In context, the Pope is refuting the errors of those who pleaded for a species of indifference in matters of religion. Lamennais, for example, appealed to what he called a universal revelation, and found that, “the knowledge of one eternal God, Father of everything that exists, has always been preserved in the world.” [82] The existence of the Divine Law, [83] the immortality of the soul, [84] the eternity of future punishment and reward, [85] the existence of good and bad angels, the fall and corruption of human nature, the necessity of expiation and the expectation of a Mediator, [86] all these truths come from a primitive revelation and have been guarded by tradition in all nations. From which he draws the conclusion that, “Every true faith is a part of the Christian faith; every pure cult is a part of the Christian cult.” [87] Consequently, anyone even an unbaptized can be saved, not by any relation to the Church founded by Christ but in virtue of whatever amount, small or large, of primitive revelation he possesses and which he follows as best he can. Incorporation in the true Church, therefore, is only a spiritual luxury; it is in no sense a necessity. To which the Pope replies, “not without sorrow have we seen that another error (besides Rationalism)… has entered into the souls of the many Catholics who think that they can well hope for the eternal salvation of all those who have in no way entered the true Church of Christ.” [88]

It might be argued that the Pope is here speaking of belonging to the soul of the Church, in the sense of possessing the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But the whole history and background of the 1854 Allocution is against such an interpretation. No one, not even the most ardent promoters of religious indifference, for example, the Calvinist, Jurie, [89] denied that possession of the grace of God was necessary for salvation. What they called into question was the absolute necessity of being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church by external profession of faith in its visible body.

Moreover, in the same context, when the Pope comes to declare what is the true doctrine, he says, “It must be held as of faith, that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that this is the only Ark of Salvation, that the one who does not enter this is going to perish in the deluge.” [90] Clearly, there is no question of possible salvation without infusion of grace, but of salvation outside the visible organization of the Catholic Church, which, in Bellarmine’s terminology is the sensibly perceptible society founded by Christ.

Granting, therefore, that the Pope is speaking of the necessity of belonging to the one visible Church, does he approve Bellarmine’s doctrine on voto membership as the alternate requisite for salvation. Yes, at least implicitly, because although again he does not use Bellarmine’s terminology, he espouses his fundamental doctrine.

Both in the Allocution and in the Encyclical Letter of 1863, the Pope not only re-emphasizes as of faith, that “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” but he also describes the precept of sincere non-Catholic attainment to heaven. Consequently, his basic principle which we are analyzing that, “There is no salvation for anyone who in no way enters the Church,” should be interpreted in the fuller light of what he also says of those non-Catholics who de facto are not, and presumably will not ever be actual members of the Church and yet, who can be saved. Clearly they cannot be included among those who have in no way entered the Ark of Salvation. They must have entered some way, otherwise they could not hope for salvation. What is this “some way” to which the Pope alludes? It is by their readiness to do the whole will of God, which implicitly at least, include the willingness to be baptized and submit to Catholic authority, if this were known to them as part of the Divine will.

The Pope first presumes that there is objective ignorance of the true religion among all peoples and nations; secondly, that this ignorance may be inculpable regarding the past and invincible regarding the future; thirdly, that if, besides this negative exculpating element, a non-Catholic, through the help of Divine grace, also observes the natural law, is ready to obey God and lives an upright and honest life, he can attain to eternal salvation. Only the last element is pertinent here, namely, that willingness to obey God is necessary to be saved. The will of God, objectively, is that salvation should be attained through Baptism and membership in the Church of Christ. Subjectively, the Pope allows, not all of God’s will may be known to any one person. But if this individual is willing to do whatever God wants, and would be willing to enter the Church if he knew this to be Divine will, God will take his willingness as equal to the fact. Provided other conditions are satisfied, such a person will not be lost for not having been an actual member of the Visible Church. And if he is saved, it will be virtue of his volitional, voto, membership in the true Church, which, although unknown to himself, is objectively recognized by Almighty God.

2. Expansion on Bellarmine, on the Limits of Voto Membership

According to Bellarmine, it is possible for certain people to be saved although they do not actually belong to the Church, if they have an earnest wish to become Catholics. This wish, he says, the Lord takes as equivalent to the fact. They are, therefore, saved through the Church because they are members of its Visible Body in voto, i.e. by volition or desire.

Now the difference between Bellarmine’s concept and Pius IX’s is that Bellarmine is more limited in the classes of people to whom he applies voto membership, and more restricted in the kind of desire which qualifies for it. The first restriction follows naturally from the second. For when Bellarmine directly treats the question of voto members in the Church, the only people to whom he credits this kind of membership are those who explicitly desire to be in the Church, namely, catechumens, excommunicates who wish to be reconciled, and those who mistakenly think they have been baptized and yet openly profess the Catholic faith.

Pius IX, on the other hand, makes no such limitations. He does not require an explicit desire to enter the Church or the explicit profession of the Catholic religion in order to qualify for sanctifying grace, which, however, presupposes some kind of membership in the body of the Church. Bellarmine requires knowledge of the Church which inspires an explicit wish to be in the Church, for voto membership in its body; the Pope is satisfied with ignorance of the Church which is invincible, coupled with that perfect readiness to do the will of God, which God sees as implicitly containing the willingness to profess Catholicism, if the necessity of this profession were recognized.

It might be argued, again, that when the Pope spoke of invincible ignorance of the Church, he had in mind only certain remote tribes of savages who had never heard the Gospel of Christ and, consequently, should not be held responsible for not knowing that membership in the Church is necessary for salvation. Since this is a crucial point in the whole argument, it deserves special attention. It can be shown from the circumstances, context, and an analysis of the Pope’s statement that, to his mind, invincible ignorance of the Church can exist even among people living in places where the Gospel has been preached and the Catholic Church is fully established:

• Of the two documents in question, the Allocution of 1854 was addressed to the bishops who were assembled from all parts of the world, but especially from Christian countries in Europe and America. The Encyclical of 1863 was directly addressed to Catholic Italy.
  
  
• Then describing the invincible ignorance which may excuse a person from actual membership in the Church, the Pope does not limit the scope or territory within which this ignorance is possible. In fact, he expressly widens it to embrace all countries, East and West, Christian and pagan, for he asks, “Who is there who would arrogate to himself the power to point out the extent of such ignorance according to the nature and variety of peoples, regions, talents and so many other things?”
  
  
• Finally, the Pope’s apologia for God’s mercy in favor of non-Catholics in good faith would be misplaced, if he were not talking expressly or, at least, especially of those who live in regions where the Church is well established. Of course, we say, God will be merciful to those who labor in “physical ignorance” of the true faith, because no one has yet preached the Gospel to them. But what about those who ostensibly know the Gospel and the work of the Church because they have lived among Catholics all their lives? Is there such a thing as “moral ignorance” for them, to exculpate them, at least theoretically, from having explicitly to profess the true faith in order to be saved? Pius IX must be interpreted as saying so. Otherwise, the error of rigorism against which he was speaking, which presumed “to set limits to the Divine mercy,” would not have been refuted. Otherwise, also, he would have been evading, instead of answering, as he did, those “who are wont to inquire time and time again as to what is going to be the fate and condition after death of those who have never yielded themselves to the Catholic faith,” who physically, indeed, know the Catholic Church and its claims, but morally seem to be ignorance of its message.

Is the Pope, then, saying something different than Bellarmine? Not at all. He no more than St. Robert presumes to say that people who are not actual members of the Church may be easily saved. But he saw conditions existing in the 19^th century which Bellarmine did not see in the 16^th, where people were not lapsed Catholics who had abandoned the true faith, but persons whose whole background was one of prejudice against the Church and who, therefore, could be living physically among Catholics, but morally were in a different world which knew nothing or very little about the true Church of Christ, of her doctrines and, least of all, of the necessity of belonging to her to be saved. Pius IX does not even suggest how common this invincible ignorance might be and, therefore, how frequently non-Catholics, even non-baptized, are in good faith, in the grace of God and voto implicito, in the visible Church of Christ. But he does recognize the possibility of such ignorance, which Bellarmine, for his pre-occupation with other matters, did not consider.

Chapter 2 - Vatican Council, 1869-1870

I. Progress of the Theory of an Invisible Church, up to the Vatican Council

As we saw in the previous chapter, one of Bellarmine’s principal tasks was to defend the visible character of the true Church against the Protestant Reformers who wished to reduce it to an invisible society, composed of all the believers, or all the just, or all the predestined, who are bound together only spiritually, and where external bonds also exist, these should be considered purely adventitious. It was a subtle temptation even for Catholics, to “spiritualize” their concept of the Church along Protestant lines, to include also those non-Catholics who were obviously not members of the Catholic body, but who were apparently in good faith and therefore would be saved in virtue of their connection with the Church of Christ. For, it was argued, if the Church is an invisible organization, there is no contradiction in saying that she also embraces persons who externally may be separated from her ranks but internally and really should be classed among her members.

In 1713, Clement XI condemned a series of prepositions of Pashasius Quesnel, who postulated such an invisible Church bound together only by interior ties. Thus, according to Quesnel:

1. “The note of the Christian Church is that it is Catholic, comprehending all the angels of heaven, and all the elect, and all the just people on earth of all ages.” [91]
   
   
2. “What is the Church except the assembly of the children of God, abiding in His bosom, of the adopted of Christ, subsisting in His