Dom Lefebvre on the Doctrine of EENS Baptism and Salvation.
I had never fully understood the meaning of this teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, until I had to analyse the writings of Dom Lefebvre. To deal with the devil you have to have to have some idea of how the devil works and thinks. Dom Lefebvre’s teachings are as slippery as snakes, you know they are wrong but it is very hard to pin down exactly what is wrong with them. They are like those wild mushrooms that unwary people gather, confusing them with edible mushrooms; in appearance, innocuous; fatal, if ingested.
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”–a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe.
The first thing that puzzled me about that sentence was the use of the word “dictum”. Why not use the word dogma (which it is) or infallible teaching? I looked it up and the legal definition of a dictum is:- Dictum has no binding authority and, therefore, cannot be cited as precedent in subsequent lawsuits. Link
You see how clever and deceitful Dom Lefebvre’s choice of words is. He states here that the dogma of the Catholic Church which is that ‘Outside the Church there is no Salvation’ has no binding authority!
He goes on to state that this dogma or “dictum ” seems excessively severe ( to contemporary minds), the implication being that Catholics are allowed to have an opinion about it. But a dogma of the faith is a Divinely Revealed Objective Spiritual Truth in which you either believe and are a Catholic, or deny and you are a heretic condemned to eternal damnation. Where is his condemnation of those who think that this dogma is excessively severe, in other words, those who deny the dogma, such as that contained in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX?
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. ( Condemned Error). Link
Does that mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved? No, it would be a second error to think that. Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” also reject the Creed, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is. There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.
That first sentence is the most vile, disgusting insult to all the Holy Martyrs that were tortured and died at the hands of Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and animists rather than recant the Catholic Faith. Martyrs who went to their deaths willingly and joyfully because they sincerely believed that the “outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation’
No, it would be a second error to think that.
What was the first error? The only meaning I can get from this is that he is referring to the Church as the one ark of salvation because in the next sentence he denies the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation, which according to him, is the second error.
Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,”
Here condemns those who believe in and preach the dogma of EENS as being intolerant! Thus he condemns Our Lord Jesus Christ,God Incarnate, the Apostles, Martyrs , Saints, Saint Athanasius and all the Popes who up until Vatican II condemned religious indifferentism as being intolerant!
St. Cyprian’s formula? Why use the word formula instead of the word dogma or doctrine? Again, I looked it up and the first two meanings of formula in the I found were:-