Here we will deal with the statements presented by Frank M. Rega. We will quote Frank M. Rega’s remarks and give response to each one of them.
See article
Quote: “It is quite unfortunate that alleged quotations or viewpoints attributed to Padre Pio have frequently been used to justify the stances, rumors, or agendas of various individuals or groups.”
It’s amazing what he says here while doing the exact thing to Padre Pio.
Quote: “It is not surprising, then, to find some who contend that St. Padre Pio held their own strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus – outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved.”
Is it a strict interpretation? Absolutely not! It is true, outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved.
Quote:” “Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” are rejected as not being true Catholic dogmas. Neither can those invincibly ignorant of the Faith be saved.”
“Baptism of Desire” and “Baptism of Blood” have not been dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church. Invincible ignorance is not a means of salvation.
See our post.
It doesn’t remit the obligation to know the Faith.
Quote: “However, in studying the course of his life and ministry as a Catholic priest, evidence can be found that he understood the sacraments as necessary for all in general, but not for all in particular.”
Who particularly does not need the sacraments for salvation? Anathema!
Quote: “Padre Pio was willing to admit of exceptions on an individual basis. But these exceptions did not compromise his conviction that the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.”
He is assuming that Padre Pio believed in exception to the rule of faith, to the dogma of the Catholic Church. Right.
Quote: “Lest anyone be deceived into joining the Sedevacantist camp under the assumption that Padre Pio would support their views if he were alive today, the following documented cases are presented as evidence that Padre Pio believed that non-Catholics could be saved.”
It’s either the Sedevacantist camp or everyone else, which is all the same without the need of the Catholic Church to be saved because people are saved outside it anyway. Even if Padre Pio believed that non-Catholics could be saved, that does not make any difference to dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church.
In the case of Adelaide McAlpin Pyle, a Baptized Protestant, notice the account of the brazen effort by her daughter to try to get her to convert to Catholicism. That is the spiritual works of mercy performed by Mary Pyle. Can we say the same is being done by Frank M. Rega since he is convinced there is salvation outside the Church? No.
Quote: Padre Pio advised Mary not to push her mother to convert: “Let her be! Don’t upset her peace.” 8 However, Mary continued to worry because her mother was not a Catholic, and Padre Pio counseled, “Let’s not confuse her. She will be saved because she has faith.”
Assuming that this happened exactly according to the account, it could be interpreted as this: There are baptized Protestants who are inculpably ignorant of certain Catholic teachings. They have been taught that their religion is true to be bias against the Catholic Faith. This is human error. If it is profound, in cases where certain different Protestant heresies are thoroughly professed in light of the Catholic truth against all possibility of conversion, the profession of these heresies would put them outside the Catholic Church, in spite of being a baptized person.
Quote: “It is reasonable to conclude then that Padre Pio believed that this particular person who died outside the Church could be saved.”
This is a false assumption and a rash judgment. If she died with sanctifying grace in her soul, she would be inside the Church and hence saved.
