P
prettylarge
Guest
OK, well what about this. If my wife cheated on me, and I knew that she would spend an eternity suffering if I left her…I would not leave her. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
- Status
K
kage_ar
Guest
That is where the analogy breaks down, because God will never send a human being to hell. Human beings CHOOSE hell by rejecting God.
S
Shlomey
Guest
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Thanks for the Zenit article.
Still not being entirely familiar with the situation, yes, it bothers me… however, Pope Benedict XVI was not canonizing Frère Roger, but stating his opinion on the matter-- an opinion which is not binding on members of the Church. There are parts in the article that are confusing as well… it says Frère Roger was not a Catholic, but he expressed a desire to be in communion with Rome (is this a desire for conversion to the Catholic faith? If so, it’s a good and praiseworthy thing). As regards Communion… papal Masses can be confusing times-- at the time, did our Holy Father know that Frère Roger was not a Catholic? The article does not say.
Popes, as human men, make mistakes too… just not as regards doctrine.
Besides, who can say, perhaps Frère Roger converted on his deathbed?
Still not being entirely familiar with the situation, yes, it bothers me… however, Pope Benedict XVI was not canonizing Frère Roger, but stating his opinion on the matter-- an opinion which is not binding on members of the Church. There are parts in the article that are confusing as well… it says Frère Roger was not a Catholic, but he expressed a desire to be in communion with Rome (is this a desire for conversion to the Catholic faith? If so, it’s a good and praiseworthy thing). As regards Communion… papal Masses can be confusing times-- at the time, did our Holy Father know that Frère Roger was not a Catholic? The article does not say.
Popes, as human men, make mistakes too… just not as regards doctrine.
Besides, who can say, perhaps Frère Roger converted on his deathbed?
A
Abu
Guest
The assumption that Pope Benedict XVI may have “made a mistake” is typical of a dissenting attitude.
See ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur43.htm:
John Paul II has spoken on the relationship between the Eucharist and ecumenism in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
Later, in No. 46 of the encyclical, the Pope reminds us of those rare cases, and under what conditions, non-Catholic Christians may be admitted to the sacraments of the Eucharist, reconciliation and anointing of the sick.
This administration is limited to “Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid.”
For these reasons the Church recognizes that “in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities” (No. 130).
The general principles involved in this sharing must reflect this double fact:
"1) The real communion in the life of the Spirit which already exists among Christians and is expressed in their prayer and liturgical worship;
“2) The incomplete character of this communion because of differences of faith and understanding which are incompatible with an unrestricted mutual sharing of spiritual endowments.”
See ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur43.htm:
John Paul II has spoken on the relationship between the Eucharist and ecumenism in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
Later, in No. 46 of the encyclical, the Pope reminds us of those rare cases, and under what conditions, non-Catholic Christians may be admitted to the sacraments of the Eucharist, reconciliation and anointing of the sick.
This administration is limited to “Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid.”
For these reasons the Church recognizes that “in certain circumstances, by way of exception, and under certain conditions, access to these sacraments may be permitted, or even commended, for Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities” (No. 130).
The general principles involved in this sharing must reflect this double fact:
"1) The real communion in the life of the Spirit which already exists among Christians and is expressed in their prayer and liturgical worship;
“2) The incomplete character of this communion because of differences of faith and understanding which are incompatible with an unrestricted mutual sharing of spiritual endowments.”
A
AnneElliot
Guest
A
Abu
Guest
An attitude of dissent exists when one publicly opposes the Magisterium such as the teaching of Vatican II in the *Dogmatic Constitution of the Church *#16:
“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – these too may achieve eternal salvation.”
Popes knew this from St Clement through Pius IX to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Pope St Clement I, wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.
[My bold].
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I have addressed Lumen Gentium already. You keep leaving out a rather important sentence:
"Wherefore to promote the glory of God and *procure *]the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
Read the first few sentences again,
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood.” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)
"Wherefore to promote the glory of God and *procure *]the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”,(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
I do not disagree with the bolded statement above. Those who are invincibly ignorant will not be held guilty for the sin of infidelity in the eyes of the Lord. But their other sins are still upon them. Ignorance can excuse, but it cannot save.
Read the first few sentences again,
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood.” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)
P
prettylarge
Guest
So they are standing at the gates, and they see paradise in front of them, and fire and brimstone behind them…and they choose fire and brimstone?? I don’t think so.
A
Abu
Guest
Only Feenyites and fellow-travellers persist in their falsehood of misinterpretation.
I’ve seen no one here disputing the need for evangelisation, so that gambit is tilting at windmills. Further, anyone who refuses to accept the meaning of the teaching assented to by the Popes – that the Latin ***extra ***means *without *the Church for non-Catholics in the context of the possibility of salvation – opposes the Magisterium.
**
This is about the possibility of salvation for non–Catholics **
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.
[My bold].
Post #13, #54:
This is about the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics –
The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. (Msgr Cormac Burke was a judge of the Holy Roman Rota).
Post #58:**
This about the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics --**
**Pope John Paul II **explains in *Threshold of Hope *(Random House, 1994, p 140-1): “Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (Cf. p 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’”
The selfist obsession continues in those who think they are better at explaining the popes’ teaching on the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, than the popes. The circles of the dialogue of salvation are equivalent to Vatican II’s spheres of membership in the Church! It is because some non-Catholics are NOT outside the Church that they may be saved.
A
AnneElliot
Guest
I resent the term “Feeneyite” since I do not follow all of Fr. Feeney’s ideas. Furthermore, there were several before Fr. Feeney who defended the Church’s dogma of EENS… Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, etc., etc.
No it’s not, it’s a valid point because it’s exactly what Lumen Gentium #16 is talking about, you just keep editing out those last few sentences. LG is NOT asserting that ignorant persons can be saved in their ignorance… to “procure [their] salvation” the Church “fosters the missions”.
I’ve missed this, please show me where a Pope has declared that the “extra” in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means “without”.
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.
[My bold].
I addressed this above. I have no qualms with the statement bolded above. God will not hold ignorant persons accountable for what they do not know… but they ARE still accountable for the natural law… or are you trying to claim that Singulari Quidem is saying these persons will be saved because of their ignorance?
Msgr. Rota was never Pope. Do you have the larger context from whence this assertion comes?
Are you claiming a book to be as authoritative as a papal encyclical or letter? Threshold of Hope is a personal book, not a papal one… much like Pope Benedict XVI’s Jesus of Nazareth.
You can insult me all you want (so much for Christian charity, eh?), and make all the assumptions about my position on the Dogma that you want. But in the end I stand firm with the Magisterium and defend the Dogma of EENS, ignorance cannot save anyone, it can only excuse.
This thread title is “Can non-Catholics be saved?” and the answer to that question is unreservedly, “No.”
An ignorant person, invincible or not, cannot be saved without embracing Christ AND God would not allow such a person (whose open and ready heart were prepared by Him in the first place) to die in ignorance; even if He had to send an Angel to instruct them in the Faith, or appear to them in the moment of death. This is confirmed by the Church’s teachings on Divine Providence. God is Provident. He will not prepare a man’s heart for Himself and then deny that man knowledge of Himself.
God will not leave them in ignorance if they are open to Him. The Church fosters the missions to seek out and instruct the ignorant, but should the missions not extend that far, Divine Providence will not deny the helps necessary for salvation (as it says in* Lumen Gentium* #16), but will enlighten them so that they may finally have life.
There is no salvation outside the Church. No one can be saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ; and God Himself, in His Divine Providence will take care of those souls with ready and willing hearts that He Himself has prepared. He will not leave them ignorant.
A
Abu
Guest
Without the Church there is no salvation
The tactic of pitting selfist opinions against papal commentary on doctrine and dogma is widespread these days.
Get the facts from Pope John Paul’s teaching – you can ignore the prejudices that help no one.
“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of His Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (JPII, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10)
Pope John Paul II explicitly states here that salvation is granted even to those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Rather, he makes the argument that since salvation is something universal, it must be offered to all. But not everyone is able to explicitly believe in Christ or enter the Church. Hence “salvation in Christ” is accessible to these people by a grace which does not make them formally part of the Church.
This quote is very important because it makes clear that the teaching of the Church is not that God gives everyone the possibility of entering the Church, and thus of being saved, but in fact there are those who do not even know about the Church, who may yet be saved through Christ. For those who stubbornly deny this, I give another quotation from John Paul II:
“Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.”
(cf.* Ad gentes*, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
[John Paul II General Audience, Wednesday 9 September 1998]
[See: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Salvation]
The tactic of pitting selfist opinions against papal commentary on doctrine and dogma is widespread these days.
Get the facts from Pope John Paul’s teaching – you can ignore the prejudices that help no one.
“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of His Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” (JPII, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10)
Pope John Paul II explicitly states here that salvation is granted even to those who do not explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Rather, he makes the argument that since salvation is something universal, it must be offered to all. But not everyone is able to explicitly believe in Christ or enter the Church. Hence “salvation in Christ” is accessible to these people by a grace which does not make them formally part of the Church.
This quote is very important because it makes clear that the teaching of the Church is not that God gives everyone the possibility of entering the Church, and thus of being saved, but in fact there are those who do not even know about the Church, who may yet be saved through Christ. For those who stubbornly deny this, I give another quotation from John Paul II:
“Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.”
(cf.* Ad gentes*, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).
[John Paul II General Audience, Wednesday 9 September 1998]
[See: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Salvation]
A
AnneElliot
Guest
Do you read my posts, Abu?
You still have not provided a papal quotation that defines “extra” means “without” and not “outside” in the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You just keep asserting your opinion without answering any of my questions…
Where is the quote from Msgr. Rota from? What document?
Are you saying Singulari Quidem claims persons will be saved because of their ignorance?
- The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but **enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.
For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.” Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Misso
You still have not provided a papal quotation that defines “extra” means “without” and not “outside” in the Dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You just keep asserting your opinion without answering any of my questions…
Where is the quote from Msgr. Rota from? What document?
Are you saying Singulari Quidem claims persons will be saved because of their ignorance?
T
Tradycja
Guest
Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors" (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)
First of all, this is a speech of Pope Pius IX to the cardinals.* It is not a dogmatic pronouncement, not even an encyclical, nor even an encyclical addressed to the entire Church.
But is Pope Pius IX saying that the invincibly ignorant can be justified and saved in their condition? No. Rather, he is stating that the “invincibly ignorant” will not be held accountable for the sin of infidelity, but they will still go to Hell.* Read carefully the last part of the sentence, “are not subject to any guilt IN THIS MATTER,” that is, in the matter of infidelity. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for their other sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity (or disbelief in the Gospel).[St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10., A. 1]* These other sins of the unbelievers serve as the reason why God does not reveal the Gospel to them and which ultimately excludes them from salvation.* If one among them, however, were truly sincere and of good will, and cooperating with the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him.* Pope Pius IX goes on to say in the same allocution concerning a person of good will who is invincibly ignorant:
the gifts of heavenly grace will assuredly not be denied to those who sincerely want and pray for refreshment by the divine light…
St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith.* St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance.* In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”[Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, pp. 55-56]
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”[Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 55]
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”[Quoted by Fr. Jean-Marc Rulleau, Baptism of Desire, p. 55]
Thus, Pope Pius IX was not teaching that people who are ignorant of the Catholic **Faith can be saved; he was, rather, stating that such unbelievers are not damned for the matter of infidelity. The ***fact that all who die as ignorant non-Catholics are not saved is the affirmation of all of Catholic Tradition and all the saints, besides being the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
T
Tradycja
Guest
This is directed to Abu:
There is a similarity between your position and sedevacantism. You both make the same fundamental error. That being, that “a Pope can do no wrong.” If it were true that a Pope can do no wrong it would mean a forfeiture of his free will. The sede-vacantist and you share this false premise - albeit draw different conclusions. For example, the people such as yourself are not bothered when a Pope kisses the Koran, or announces to the world that the UN is the last hope of mankind, or allows topless women on the altar as part of the liturgy, or is anointed by a pagan witch doctor, or leads Jews to believe they don’t need to convert to be saved. People with your mindset will clap and applaud and shout yippee because he’s the Pope and "a Pope can do no wrong.”
On the other hand, the sede-vacantist, also believing “a Pope can do no wrong,” is understandably shocked by all of the above (all actual papal incidents) and knowing that these things are clearly against the Faith, draws the conclusion that since “a Pope can do no wrong” and he is doing this bad stuff, ergo he cannot really be the Pope.
The basic problem with the premise “a Pope can do no wrong” is that it denies the Pope’s God-given free will. The Church Militant, the Church on earth, at any one moment contains both saints and sinners. Catholics from every walk of life can be either one or the other depending on how they respond to the grace that God generously offers them. The first obligation of every man is the salvation of his own soul, be he layman, priest, Prelate or Pope. A man does not give up his faculty to choose good or evil, his free will, when he becomes Pope.
There is a similarity between your position and sedevacantism. You both make the same fundamental error. That being, that “a Pope can do no wrong.” If it were true that a Pope can do no wrong it would mean a forfeiture of his free will. The sede-vacantist and you share this false premise - albeit draw different conclusions. For example, the people such as yourself are not bothered when a Pope kisses the Koran, or announces to the world that the UN is the last hope of mankind, or allows topless women on the altar as part of the liturgy, or is anointed by a pagan witch doctor, or leads Jews to believe they don’t need to convert to be saved. People with your mindset will clap and applaud and shout yippee because he’s the Pope and "a Pope can do no wrong.”
On the other hand, the sede-vacantist, also believing “a Pope can do no wrong,” is understandably shocked by all of the above (all actual papal incidents) and knowing that these things are clearly against the Faith, draws the conclusion that since “a Pope can do no wrong” and he is doing this bad stuff, ergo he cannot really be the Pope.
The basic problem with the premise “a Pope can do no wrong” is that it denies the Pope’s God-given free will. The Church Militant, the Church on earth, at any one moment contains both saints and sinners. Catholics from every walk of life can be either one or the other depending on how they respond to the grace that God generously offers them. The first obligation of every man is the salvation of his own soul, be he layman, priest, Prelate or Pope. A man does not give up his faculty to choose good or evil, his free will, when he becomes Pope.
A
Abu
Guest
Of course there are no papal dogmatic or doctrinal statements that try to trump God by claiming that salvation is impossible for non-Catholics – every papal explanation, Vatican II and the CCC refute that – they are like the Council of Florence: Decree for the Jacobites , 1442:
“….we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian “Ad Demetrianum,” that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who in-culpably fail to find the Church.[27] So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature – it had not – and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it.” [Fr William Most; my emphasis].
How strange that tradycja should want to trump popes, counseling on salvation of non-Catholics, with St Thomas Aquinas – that’s what prejudice produces. William James made a great observation –“many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” How true.
Msgr Cormac P Burke was for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, and has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.
cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1
He has explained that the Latin extra can mean either “without” or “outside” and, with the Magisterium, gives the true meaning of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. His contribution to the ECD (OSV) explains.
“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” • What are we to say about those who, lacking Baptism, are not members of the Church in any of the senses explained above? Here it is necessary to clarify the meaning of an old theological principle whose interpretation has caused difficulty in the past: Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).
This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].
From the Holy Office:
“It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: That one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit…. But when a man labours under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.”
“Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith.
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.”
“….we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian “Ad Demetrianum,” that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who in-culpably fail to find the Church.[27] So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature – it had not – and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it.” [Fr William Most; my emphasis].
How strange that tradycja should want to trump popes, counseling on salvation of non-Catholics, with St Thomas Aquinas – that’s what prejudice produces. William James made a great observation –“many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.” How true.
Msgr Cormac P Burke was for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, and has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.
cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1
He has explained that the Latin extra can mean either “without” or “outside” and, with the Magisterium, gives the true meaning of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. His contribution to the ECD (OSV) explains.
“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” • What are we to say about those who, lacking Baptism, are not members of the Church in any of the senses explained above? Here it is necessary to clarify the meaning of an old theological principle whose interpretation has caused difficulty in the past: Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).
This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].
From the Holy Office:
“It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: That one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit…. But when a man labours under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.”
“Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith.
Your Excellency’s most devoted,
F. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani.
A. Ottaviani, Assessor.
(Private); Holy Office, 8 Aug., 1949.”
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Obviously not, since a) Christianity started off and is still in the Middle East b) The holy land is in the Middle East - are you unaware of this?!? and c) regarding India, Christianity got there between 53 and 453 AD (depending on your belief/interpretation) - not bad, eh?
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Thanks to those who posted some more liberal Papal/theologic/Saintly proclamations - it makes me happier to see the position of strict exclusivism isn’t as harsh, ubiquitous or definitive as I’d previously thought…
One of the few accusations against our beautiful religion I thought had reasonable ground! Now falling away, to my relief
One of the few accusations against our beautiful religion I thought had reasonable ground! Now falling away, to my relief
A
Abu
Guest
Not “more liberal” really – just historical and factual. Don’t forget that Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].
Great to know that the objective of informing and forming is bearing good fruit.
Great to know that the objective of informing and forming is bearing good fruit.
T
Tradycja
Guest
I was not quoting Thomas Aquinas to “trump” any teaching of the Pope. You quoted a speech (which is not even an encyclical by the way) of Pope Pius IX (Singulari Quidem) about a person in invincible ignorance not being responsible in that matter before the Lord. I was illustrating the fact that, while that person will not be held responsible **in that matter ** of unbelief before the Lord, that person still has other sins that need to be forgiven and which can only be forgiven by the sacraments of the Church
Actually you are the one that quotes Fr. William Most, an Opus Dei member of the Roman Rota, Catholic Encyclopedias, a private book of Pope John Paul II and other fallible sources to “trump” three dogmatic pronouncements (two of which were within an ecumenical council).
Vatican II did not contradict the dogmatic pronouncement of the Council of Florence.
You should read this document that explains it well.
scribd.com/doc/23249763/Vatican-II-and-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nulla-Salus
The Catholic Catechism is not on the same level of teaching as an Ecumenical Council. Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism.
Regarding the “Letter to the Holy Office” or “Suprema Haec Sacra”: The letter was
Do you apply this method to other dogmas too? The Immaculate Conception maybe? Is there a “loose” and a “strict” interpretation of that dogma too?
If a Catholic who is going exactly by what the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic text) has declared is not finding the truth, but is engaging in “private interpretation,” as they claim, then what does he go by? Who interprets the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? The answer is that it would never end, and no one could ever arrive at the truth on anything.
Actually you are the one that quotes Fr. William Most, an Opus Dei member of the Roman Rota, Catholic Encyclopedias, a private book of Pope John Paul II and other fallible sources to “trump” three dogmatic pronouncements (two of which were within an ecumenical council).
Vatican II did not contradict the dogmatic pronouncement of the Council of Florence.
You should read this document that explains it well.
scribd.com/doc/23249763/Vatican-II-and-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nulla-Salus
The Catholic Catechism is not on the same level of teaching as an Ecumenical Council. Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism.
Regarding the “Letter to the Holy Office” or “Suprema Haec Sacra”: The letter was
- a letter written from one Bishop to another
- it was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and so was not an official act of the Holy See.
- Subsequently not being an act of the Holy See it was never signed by Pius XII either.
Do you apply this method to other dogmas too? The Immaculate Conception maybe? Is there a “loose” and a “strict” interpretation of that dogma too?
If a Catholic who is going exactly by what the Chair of Peter (the dogmatic text) has declared is not finding the truth, but is engaging in “private interpretation,” as they claim, then what does he go by? Who interprets the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? And who interprets the interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation of the dogmatic statement? The answer is that it would never end, and no one could ever arrive at the truth on anything.
- Status