Baptissimus Flaminis et Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Probably one of the most controverted topics of modern times is that of "who can be saved".
Inextricably bound up with this controversy is the topic of the necessity of Baptism and Baptism by desire, brought to the foreground in the 1940's by one Boston priest Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was subsequently excommunicated for disobeying his bishop, who did not approve of his apostolate. I was recently engaged in this controversy over at the Fisheaters Forum, where there were two threads simultaneously touching on this topic one "How do BOB, BOD and invincible ignorance fit in with this de fide dogma?" and "No Salvation without the Catholic Faith", the author of one of which invited me to contribute to these discussions, in view of last year's debate. I thought I'd summarize the controversy here so to better aggregate anticipated future discussions, whether at FE, or elsewhere. That is that Baptissimus Flaminis (the Latin term employed in reference to Baptism by Desire) is not de fide, that is an article of faith to be believed with Divine Faith by all the faithful on pain of anathema.

Probably the first polemic one is likely to encounter is the polemic concerning St. Alphonsus Liguori's assertion that BOD is de fide. This one has two sides to it: argumentum ad verecundiam, and the argument from silence, we will here consider the argument from authority, namely the authority of the theologians and Fathers. Here is the text to which exceptionalists refer:

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire

(Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.)

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood. We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

While St. Alphonsus was probably the greatest moral theologian of all time, and demands great respect, for his learning and holiness, and veneration of the Church; his opinion does not make something de fide, he cannot make dogmas, he cannot demand the assent of the faithful, he is only one learned holy individual, and would probably decry this polemic; would he ever take upon himself the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church? I doubt it.

This polemic is one of the most common, and generally, those who employ this polemic argue primarily on the education and reverence of, and for, the authority cited. But they know that learning and sainthood are not enough to "prove" their position. So, they prop this polemic by arguing that the teachings of a theologian or doctor the Church demand the unquestioned assent of the faithful. That Supernatural Faith is required of the individual in the opinions voiced in the works of a theologian or doctor. It sounds very shaky, because it is a shaky polemic, it simply does not sound like a very tenable premise, and they know this, so they immediately have recourse to another authority who says that theologian's works do demand this kind of assent, asserting that these works are intrinsically of the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, one of these individuals is the Rev. Anthony Cekada, a very witty and well-read priest whose defense of sedevacantism and the Thuc episcopal lineage have gained him one of the top places as a traditionalist scholar, argues this in his work "Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles". The Rev. refers to a letter of Pope Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich, which states:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [1]

Rev. Cekada spends an ample amount of time propounding this premise, he says that the consensus of theologians in a matter of faith or morals is a "certain criteria of divine Tradition". [2] Let us take a look at this above papal statement, and extrapolate what it means.

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See..." [3]

The pope is telling the Archbishop, here, that those things which require the divine and supernatural assent of the faithful are not limited to the decrees of ecumenical councils and papal pronouncements, meaning that not all articles of faith which are to be believed by the faithful have been authoritatively proclaimed by the Apostolic See, which means that something does not have to be an ex cathedra pronouncement to be an article of the faith requiring unquestioning assent. This statement in confirming the authority of the ordinary magisterium, rather than the authoritative extraordinary magisterium of the Apostolic See.

"...but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [4]

The Holy Father explains to the bishop that a part of this ordinary magisterial power of the Church is occupied by the constant and universal consensus of Catholic theologians. Which means that those things which have been constantly and universally unquestioningly held as de fide by the fathers and theologians occupies the place of dogma, since such agreement on points of dogma since apostolic times duely deserves to have an integral place in Catholic doctrine.

The reason why the father spends so much of his time setting up this premise is because it is his opinion that Baptism by desire has occupied such a constant and universal consensus in Catholic theology. Up until this point, the father presents a perfectly logical thesis, but it is simply untenable that Baptism by desire has held such an unquestioned place in Catholic doctrine, as will be demonstrated. One point of clarification: This article is not a "bash fest" for Baptism by desire, but simply to position that its place is not amongst the dogmas of the faith, as will be demonstrated in the course of this article.

I will bolster my reply to the argument from authority in pointing out that theologians and Church Fathers have occasionally erred in their theology from time to time. Now anticipating the reply of those who might now discard my position because I have said that a theologian has erred, I want to say that I do not think that I am more learned than any theologian, nor that I am holier than any sainted Doctor of the Church, but simply that I am pointing out a fact of history, some theologians have erred in points of doctrine. But some will argue, perhaps, in response to this that they never erred on an essential point of doctrine, that is that they never erred on any point of doctrine which they considered de fide. I will respond to both of these responses by pointing out that St. Robert Bellarmine, a sainted doctor of the Church, held that Geocentrism was de fide. If this doctor were right, what are the ramifications? How many popes and theologians would be considered heretics or rebels against the de fide teaching of the Church? How many Catholic scientists would be held as heretical or anti-Catholic? And what would this mean for the anti-Catholics who argue that the Church has erred and has opposed true scientific progress?
St. Cyprian of Carthage held that no heretic can validly baptize because heretics are outside of the Church[5], and therefore cannot bring someone into the Church[ 6]. St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest of all the early Church Fathers, held that infants suffer the positive suffering of the damned, not only did he hold this error, but that he held it to be de fide [7], and this position also shared the common consensus of theologians from his time all the way to the time of St. Anslem[8]. St. Thomas Aquinas held that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin[9], which was contrary to the doctrinal definition of Pope Pius IX, and numerous errors have been found in the works of St. Thomas [10]. It is, however, true that St. Thomas' work the Summa was laid on the altar at Trent and declared to be the purest expression of Catholic doctrine, however, it is not true that St. Thomas possessed the charism which the Roman Pontiff alone possesses, which is infallibility in teaching morals and doctrine, while he expressed Catholic doctrine very well, there is no guarantee that his writings were infallible. We do not glory in mentioning these errors, but we bring them only to mind because they prove a point, and that is that the individual opinions of a theologian on a given point of doctrine do not possess the charism of infallibility, nor do individual theologians possess the magisterial authority of the Church in teaching morals and doctrine, and it is a fact of history that certain theologians and Fathers have made errors in their teaching capacity. This means, therefore, that when a theologian tells us that something is de fide, that does not intrinsically make it so, or necessarily signify that it is, or that the teachings of a theologian demand the divine faith and assent of the faithful unconditionally. But let us, for a moment, take the premise of Fr. Cekada and other exceptionalists for granted, and say that the common consensus of numerous theologians is a sign that something is an article of faith. Now, were we to grant this premise, we would have to admit: that St. Augustine's thesis that infants suffer the positive suffering of infants is an article of faith, because it was taught by a theologian, and what's more it was taught by that theologian to be de fide, and it was uncontested for centuries, during which time it held the common consensus of theologians[11]. But, no one is willing to admit this, because it is an error, and if it is an error, and it held such respect and common consensus for so long by so many, then what are we to conclude? We must, therefore, admit that theologians can err and that error can be uncontested for long periods of time, and by a majority of theologians, and that an error has been considered de fide in the past, so that even theologians can be mistaken about what is and is not de fide.
What, then, of Fr. Cekada's thesis that the common consensus of theologians is de fide and the teaching of Pope Pius IX? We take note of Pius's statement again:

"...those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [12]

Notice the bolded text, it says that those things which are considered de fide by the faithful that are considered de fide by theologians are things that must enjoy the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, not merely the common consensus for a given time, or in a given place, but, always and everywhere. Pius IX's statement is in perfect accord with our above conclusions about theologians, why? Because those things which were so considered de fide by those theologians were not universal and constant, a thing must not exercise merely universality at any given time, but must be universal and constant, it must, therefore, be the consistent consensus of fathers and theologians universally in time, that is held as of the faith commonly and by all, ever since apostolic times. St. Augustine's belief was not consistent with those beliefs on the topic before his time[13] and was later contradicted both by theologians and by councils of the Church[14]. We must conclude, therefore, that the opinion of a saint on a point of doctrine does not make something doctrinal, or else we should have to hold numerous positions which are sometimes at odds with what the Church teaches, which is why Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition of the Jansenists that “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”[15], and why Benedict XIV declared that “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching” [16], and Pius XII that the deposit of Faith is authentically interpreted not by "each of the faithful, not even", he says, "theologians, but only", again,"the Teaching Authority of the Church.” [17]

Therefore, Catholics look not to the individual teachings of a holy Doctor or theologian for the authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine, but to "the teaching authority of the Church", exercised either by the infallible capacity of the Pope, or by the consistent universal consensus of the Fathers. Which means that even though St. Alphonsus regarded Baptism by desire as de fide, it might not necessarily be so, nor might it even, necessarily, be true. And of course exceptionalists realize this, and respond that their opinion does hold such a unanimity of the Fathers and theologians. Fr. Cekada proceeds to claim that the doctrine of Baptism by desire does share the common consensus of the theologians, by providing a list of twenty five theologians mainly of the past 300 years, most of them of the last century and a half. He concludes by saying "all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood." However, the rev. forgets here that this unanimity must be constant, stretching back to apostolic times, his list only reflects roughly the last 3 centuries, which represents the faith of those theologians over that span of time, but does not reflect universal anonymity, for there were theologians of the past 3 centuries who did not agree with all of the ones the father cites[18], nor does this list represent the faith of theologians before the 16th century, completely omitting 1400 years of theological consensus, and I hardly call that "unanimous", or universal and constant.
Therefore, Baptism by desire does not meet this criteria needed to reflect doctrinality, and does not, therefore, demand the adherence of Catholics. The father then proceeds to declare that it is heresy against the faith, mortal sin on the part of a Catholic to doubt or deny Baptism by Desire", making heretics of anyone who does not accept it, a conclusion that logically flows from his forgetfulness of the requirement of universality and consistency, but which is flawed, and does not meet the requirement, attaching, therefore, an undue penalty to a theological opinion. It seems also that Fr. Cekada has forgotten that he lacks the authority to attach this penalty, and that to sever communion with a Catholic in matters which are not of faith or government, as Baptism is not, is schism[19]. The question is, thus, is the reverend Cekada ignorant of his schismatic conclusion and subsequent behaviour? I believe he is, but also that he will probably never concede it, nor, perhaps, will the rest of the Catholic world who insists on this conclusion, I expect.




_____________
Endnotes:

[1] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[2] Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Thesis 21
[3] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[4] Ibid.
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
[6] St Cyprian, to Jubaianus (254): “…in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics... This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…” - Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 P. 593
[7] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910: "This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned". And again: "St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned..."
[8] Ibid.: "After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm"
[9] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1: "The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”
[10] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 70; 395
[11] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[12] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863
[13] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[14] Ibid.
[15] Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, #30
[16] Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749
[17] Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, (#21) on Aug 12, 1950
[18] Among which are: Archbp. Patrick Kenrick, Archbp. Hays, Fr. Rev. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R., Dr. Ludwig Ott, St. Francis De Sales, St. Charles Borromeo and others.
[19] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company: "Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other... And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church...."; St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I: "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head"

Catholic Dogma and Relativity

Is the truth relative to each man's outlook on the world? Does one truth vary depending on who you ask? Ask your average protestant about a truth of scripture and they will demean your proposed verse as simply your interpretation, making what the Bible says a matter of relativity. In such a case, the Bible could endorse killing and other such things depending on who you ask, thus, can it be so that the doctrine of Christ is actually relevant to the perception of the individual?

Take John 3:5 for example, there are many different ways that it can be taken, but is what this verse is saying relative depending on who you ask? Does not this verse actually say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost one cannot enter heaven, or is that just an individual interpretation of what that verse really says? Well, in the modern Protestant world, we can see that what this verse really says is, relative to the Protestant that one asks, for one it means, that we are cleansed of our sins and are made a Christian, for another it merely symbolizes this, thus, which one of these is the universal truth, which how can one correctly understand this statement of truth uttered by God Himself? Is there really a truth out there that can be seen and heard by the individual?

To clarify: there are some truths, like, my car is in my garage, it is true now, but after I take it somewhere it is not true that it is in the garage, thus, this is a truth that is relevant to the actions of an individual, that somethings that are true now, might not necessarily be true tomorrow. This is a transitory truth, it is something that is temporarily true, or true under certain circumstances, but not necessarily universally true. Our question is, is this kind of philosophy applicable to all things, including religion? There are some, especially modern philosophers, who will say "yes, your truth is your truth, but it is not mine, I have a different truth than you." Indeed, I do have a different truth than these pseudo philosophers, for in the world that I live in, there are some truths are always true, that cannot cease to be true because I am different, and have different experiences than someone else, for me 2+2 always equals four, no matter how many times one, nor no matter who, adds it up; it is a universal truth, it is a persistent truth, one that is not limited to any individual interpretation. The fact is that it is impossible for truth to be relative, or varying from person to person. If it's truth, then it is truth for all, not just some. But actual belief in the Truth does indeed vary from person to person, it is our understanding of certain truths that can vary between different persons, yet the truth still remains the same, it endures. That two and two is four is a universal truth. It has always been true whether humanity has known it to be or not; and will always be true. The notion that, just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for me is logically impossible. If it's true Truth, then it will be true for all. It can't change because it is an enduring truth, it is something that is not relative to one's understanding of mathematics. In another manner, water always boils at a set temperature, it is true for all persons, and so, no matter who boils the water, it will always boil at the same temperature as it would for anyone else, these are some of the the persistent truths that make the world work. These kinds of truths that we live by everyday, and are applicable to all under all circumstances, are the truths that endure, truths that are always true, and are true for everyone at every time, a persistent truth. That two and two are four, and the temperature at which water boils are these kinds of truths upon which one can trust to solve an equation and to boil a pot of stew.

But what of religion, is religion transitory or persistent truth. Ask Your local Protestant pastor and he may tell you in so many words that it is the first, and then later on tell you flat out that it is actually the latter, but not until he has already proven to you why it is the first; he is a relativist, his understanding of a book, he elevates to be an enduring truth, even though he will admit that his understanding of this "enduring truth" is actually relative to the understanding of the individual, in other words, Baptism might be necessary for all for salvation at all times, this the Protestant might concede, but then, will tell you that someone can have a completely different understanding of that which completely redefines it to mean something completely different, making what he said was eternal enduring truth relative to how one wants to see that particular issue, making in fact transitory, or relative, and not enduring nor universal. The Protestant will do the latter because of his belief in private interpretation of the work from which the rule of baptism is drawn, he must submit his own understanding, and the text itself, to the rule that he and others accept as truth, but then relative, that the truth of the Bible is relative to the judgment and understanding of the individual, he will submit this truth of this work to that rule, because that rule is the reason why he has no magisterium to follow, why he rejects an enduring and persistent truth given by God Himself, which is not relative, and thus would not conform to the way he wants this truth to operate. He will say that the Bible is contained of persistent and enduring universal truths, and then say that they are all relative to how the individual wants them to be, thus, these "truths" of the Bible, such as of the necessity of Baptism, might be true for the pastor, but not for someone else in the congregation, or rather some other pastor, the truth of that verse of the Bible is relative, then in the eyes of the Protestant, because it is not actually an eternal truth, but relative and transitory.

Jesus Christ said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away", so, in essence, we have an assurance from the God-man Himself that the Christian religion that He founded is based on persistent and eternal truths, not transitory earthly truths, that pass away, and are relevant to certain circumstances. Quite simply, then, Protestantism is not contained of nor following, the words of Christ Jesus, because Protestants follow relative transitory truths, and not the objective universal truths of God. The nature of Christian dogma is that of an enduring eternal truth uttered by God. One can either build his religion or philosophy based on the sands of transitory things, or he can build his foundation on the rock of the persistent truths of the universe that always were and always will be. The Pastor, then, does not have in his own philosophy the enduring truth of Christian dogma.

This philosophy of relativity in religion is based on the fact of whether or not some one actually believes these truths is relative. By this it is meant that one person may believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and another may not; but either way, we know that the one that believes it to be true, is indeed correct in his belief, and the other is not. Applying this to religion, we come to the same conclusion. However, in religion, we don't have the same sense of understanding the truth. Well, what do I mean? Well, let me explain by using gravity as an example. Now, it is a universal truth that gravity exists, we all know this, it is an enduring "persistent" truth, but what about relativity? Gravity is always acting upon us, whether we like it or not. Now, suppose someone does not believe that gravity is true. Under the terms set forth by the relativist pseudo philosophers just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for someone else, thus, if the said person were to actually disbelieve in gravity, then gravity would have no effect upon him, because it is relative to whether or not this person accepts it as their truth. Now, were that person to go the tallest building they can find and jump from its heights, according to their belief system, since they don't believe in gravity, they won't fall to their instantaneous death. Obviously this is not so. If one were to jump from a high place, they would fall to their death because they are bound to the universal "persistent" truth of gravity, which is a persistent truth, applicable to all regardless of whether or not they believe it its reality; so much for relativity. Obviously, truth is not subject to the limited understanding of the individual, whether someone understands, or believes, a certain truth does not alter is truthfulness, does not lessen its effects in reality, truth is not subject to one's understanding of it.

Likewise, if the religion founded by Christ is such a universal and persistent truth then regardless of what all others believe, all will be held accountable to this truth, because, like gravity, it is applicable to all. The truths set forth by God apply to all men who are made subject to the laws of God, thus, they are responsible for knowledge and practice of these Truths. Such is the truth of John 3:5, as it says all men must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the Kingdom of heaven, it is a universal truth applicable to all men, who are all subject to this fact, this eternal Truth of God, all men are bound to observe and keep this observance, otherwise, the sentence is being barred the kingdom of Heaven, for the rejection, or failure to observe this Truth, is the failure to observe and obey the authority and Divinity of the God Who instituted it, it is to show disobedience to, or disregard for the the Divinity and authority of God.

Since we believe that Jesus Christ is God made man, then indeed, we should do as He commanded, and obey all things that He commands, thus, it is much more logical to follow this course of action, than the objective relativist view that God may not exist for someone else, and according only to one. Now, answering the Protestant relativity of truth. According to the 33,000 different Protestant sects, He [God] wants us to proclaim His only Son, Jesus Christ, as lord and savior, and all is fine, nothing more, nothing less; and even there there is no real agreement, since this only according to the relative interpretation of a book that can be obscure in one or more areas, thus they have no real agreement on the truth, what is objectively true, and what is actually false, they don't really have the concept of truth. Protestant proclaim this, and claim that it is eternal persistent truth, but then will submit that to the private judgement of the individual Protestant. This is the root of the relativist philosophy, for it is the concept that one persons' interpretation of the scriptures is as good another, thus, the whole relativist philosophy that is destroying Christianity now is actually drawn from the Lutheran and Zwinglian philosophy of private interpretation, made more abstract and obscure via sola scriptura. The only thing that unites them is their disdain and hatred for the Catholic Church.

Now, continuing with our previous line of thought concerning persistent truth, since there is a universal truth of God, we need to know which Truth is of God; the following quote from St. Alphonsus Liguori will serve our purpose in discerning which church contains the persistent truths about God:

"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)"

Clearly, then, if indeed the Roman Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, then what it teaches is applicable to ALL, being universal and persistent truths, this Church being the one true Church then is true for all, and thus, since in it alone is salvation found, as a persistent truth, it is true for everyone, not just those who believe. The Truths of this Church are then universal and persistent truths applicable to all, this is the nature of Catholic Dogma.