Do only Catholics have salvation?

[GrzeszDeL]

…a pagan might be saved so long as he has not knowingly reject the Church.

Needless to say, I meant “rejected.”

…when Florence says speaks of Jews, pagans, heretics and schismatics…

And here I meant “speaks” without the “says.” Sorry about the sloppy proofreading.

 

[John_Higgins]

GrzeszDeL:

Now that an ecumenical council has infallibly declared that only Catholics will be saved, no one, not even the Pope or another council, can change that.

Grz,

'Splain to me under what rules of infallibility is Unam Sanctam infallible. Sure doesn’t fall under Pastor Aeternae which defined infallibility.

John

 

[GrzeszDeL]

I am not quite sure why Unam Sanctam has been brought up; I was not referring to it in the post which Mr. Higgins cites. In any case, however, I am mystified as to why one might claim that it is not infallible as per the specifications of Pastor Æternus. According to the council, the Pope speaks infallibly when “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,” as “he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.” The definition at the end of Unam Sanctam meets these standards, as evidenced by the formula “declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus” which Pope Boniface employs.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

I am not quite sure why Unam Sanctam has been brought up; I was not referring to it in the post which Mr. Higgins cites. In any case, however, I am mystified as to why one might claim that it is not infallible as per the specifications of Pastor Æternus. According to the council, the Pope speaks infallibly when “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,” as “he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.” The definition at the end of Unam Sanctam meets these standards, as evidenced by the formula “declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus” which Pope Boniface employs.

The **entire **Bull is infallible ex cathedra, from its opening words to the last full stop, oh, including the title. The final definitive statement is built from each and every doctrine that preceeds it.

**UNAM SANCTAM **

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…"

papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Myhrr:

The **entire **Bull is infallible ex cathedra, from its opening words to the last full stop, oh, including the title. The final definitive statement is built from each and every doctrine that preceeds it.

Whether or not the definition at the end follows from the earlier claims (an assertion whose truth is by no means obvious to me), the point is moot. One can have a true conclusion and false premises. To make the claim that the whole of Unam Sanctam is ex cathedra is a canonical argument, not an epistemological one so your case is off point, Myhrr. Not, mind you, that I disagree with anything that Pope Boniface says in the Bull, but there is little reason to suspect that any part of it other than the definition at the end meets the criteria necessary to be considered as an exercise of the charism of infallibilty as described in Pastor Æternus.

 

[Myhrr]

GrzeszDeL:

Whether or not the definition at the end follows from the earlier claims (an assertion whose truth is by no means obvious to me), the point is moot. One can have a true conclusion and false premises. To make the claim that the whole of Unam Sanctam is ex cathedra is a canonical argument, not an epistemological one so your case is off point, Myhrr. Not, mind you, that I disagree with anything that Pope Boniface says in the Bull, but there is little reason to suspect that any part of it other than the definition at the end meets the criteria necessary to be considered as an exercise of the charism of infallibilty as described in Pastor Æternus.

It’s infallible ex cathedra teaching, a statement on doctrines of faith and morals, at the same time it’s the reasoning behind the final ‘formal’ definition.

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

—First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ

It’s an official statement of faith from the infallible chair, not a personal belief, we, not I…

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain

We venerate this Church as one,

This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God

Your God has spoken.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

At the risk of repeating myself

Whatever…

 

[Myhrr]

Dan-Man916:

However, our religion is not founded by man. it is founded by God.
Only 2 religions have ever been established by God, Judaism, and its fulfillment, Catholicism.
Therefore, we worship according to God’s Revelation to man, not by man’s perception of trying to reach God.

That’s a rather sweeping statement, is this another doctrine of the RCPC? The Hindu’s claim to the Revealed truth of God predates Christianity by some 8,000 years. They simply call it Dharma, which means Religion, Righteousness and which is understood to be eternal. More recently, maybe something to do with Buddhist’s use of the word dharma, 2,500 years ago, the intrinsic understanding of Dharma being the eternal revealed knowledge of God has been stressed and so you’ll also find it called Sanatana Dharma, Eternal Religion, Eternal Righteousness.

What are you calling Judaism?

 

[John_Higgins]

Hey, you know what? If Eugene IV and the Council of Florence were infallible, how 'bout Paul VI and Vatican II?

Makes sense to me.

John

 

[Myhrr]

Juxtaposer:

I haven’t finished the entire document. I’m about 10 paragraphs through. Something interesting that I’m noticing is that Eugene often speaks of two different churches; the Roman and the Catholic. I’m assuming that the Roam Church he refers to includes the churches that are in communion with Rome, and the Catholic Church is Christianity, but you know what happens when you assume… Any thoughts?

I think you’ll find the Roman Church and Catholic Church are synonymous as also the name Church of Christ, Vatican I shows this more clearly without the confusion Vat II generated when using the names Catholic and Church of Christ while downplaying, if not completely excluding, the use of Roman.

Only the Bishop of Rome claims to be Christ on earth, so all terms relate back to Rome:

FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL (1869-1870)
12. I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches [1].

1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time

…

1. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

…

I think here too, the “Church of Christ” is self-referral and not being applied to the other Churches.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
2. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

 

[John_Higgins]

myhrr:

Only the Bishop of Rome claims to be Christ on earth,

That, my friend, is blasphemy. To my knowledge the popes have only claimed to be the Vicar of Christ, not Christ on earth.

John

 

[Myhrr]

John Higgins:

That, my friend, is blasphemy. To my knowledge the popes have only claimed to be the Vicar of Christ, not Christ on earth.

John

“One Head with Christ”, but of course, it is blasphemy…

You’ll find all opposition to this through the centuries summed up by St. Mark of Ephesus:

“It is impossible to recall peace without dissolving the cause of the schism-the primacy of the Pope exhalting himself equal to God.”

However when we add, since St Mark’s time, the Infallibility dogma and the clarification of doctrine in Vat I all incorporated in the definition CCC 882 this becomes even more blasphemous; the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, claims supreme unhindered authority over the Church, which means in effect that he has supreme authority on earth over and above Christ.

For an analysis of CCC 882 and what it means for the members of your Church, please see:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11887

 

[Ozzie]

After reading all the posts on this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that Roman Catholics don’t know what Rome’s teachers teach about salvation. The original question was very basic but nobody can answer it. I don’t think Roman Catholicism knows what salvation is, based on what I’ve read here, anyway. You’re all very “intellectually” confused. One might even ask, are any of you saved? How can you be “saved” if you don’t even know what it is?

 

[GrzeszDeL]

John Higgins:

Hey, you know what? If Eugene IV and the Council of Florence were infallible, how 'bout Paul VI and Vatican II?

Makes sense to me.

Right; I do not think that any of the Catholics here dispute the definitive and infallible nature of the documents promulgated by Paul VI under the auspices of Vatican II. My only point is that Vatican II cannot be read in isolation. Our interpretation of Vatican II is constrained by the need to maintain cogent readings of Florence and Lateran I, just as our readings of Florence and Lateran I are constrained by the need to maintain a cogent reading of Vatican II. One way or another, the truth is quite clear - there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church (i.e. outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff), although there may well be folks whose communion with the Catholic Church is known only to God and the blessed inhabitants of His heavenly Kingdom.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Ozzie:

After reading all the posts on this thread, I’ve come to the conclusion that Roman Catholics don’t know what Rome’s teachers teach about salvation.

Well, at the very least, large numbers of Roman Catholics do not know what the Church teaches on the subject; this is a fair point.

The original question was very basic but nobody can answer it.

Au contraire, everyone can answer it, although not all answers agree.

I don’t think Roman Catholicism knows what salvation is, based on what I’ve read here, anyway.

Now this is just silly. We may disagree about who is saved, but we all agree that to be saved is to be united to the divine life of the most Holy Trinity. On this point there is no disagreement whatever.

You’re all very “intellectually” confused. One might even ask, are any of you saved? How can you be “saved” if you don’t even know what it is?

I will not deny that there is some obvious confusion among at least some of us Catholics. That said, I have no idea why this should call our “salvation” into question. One can be rabid without understanding what rabies is. Why cannot one be saved, even if he does not understand the idea of “salvation”? If being saved requires a firm (and even correct) understanding of salvation, then all babies are lost. Do you really wish to contend that no babies can be saved?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Ozzie,

in very simple terms, the reason that only Catholics are saved is that the graces unto salvation come from Christ alone.

Since the Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church becomes the channel through which we are saved in Christ.

The Church has been given the Sacraments of Christ, which are effecacious signs in that they do what they signify. They give real grace.
This is why the Church is the One ark of salvation because it alone possess the Sacraments, given to it by Christ.

Those not in the Church do not have the Sacraments that Justify and Sanctify.

That there are graces outside the visible boundaries of the Church is true. However, these graces come FROM the Church because they must come from Christ who is our only mediator.

Anyone who is saved is Catholic. To what extent one must be a full visible member of the Catholic Church is a subject that is causing all the contraversy here.

Be that as it may, i beleive that it is indeed possible for those who through no fault of their own, do not “know” Christ’s Church may be saved. But that salvation is still mediated by Christ through His graces which all flow THROUGH his Church.

Most people get advanced degrees on this simple explanation because it gets into a lot of different areas, Sacramental theology, the anture of the Church, etc.

A reading of Mystici Corporis Christi may help in understanding how the Church is the Mystical Body of CHrist, which sheds a lot more light on this issue of why the Church is necessary for salvation.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

 

[Dan-Man916]

This may shed an interesting light on the discussion:

What does the pope have to say about EENS?
John Paul II talked about the subject of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
(I’m sure that the holy father is well aware of the Council of Florence teachings on salvation. He makes some interesting comments.)
(Quotes from the book are in blue).

In the chapter titled, “Is Only Rome Right?”, John Paul II speaks about salvation and its relation to the Church. His teaching on this subject rejects the exclusivist position held by some people here on beliefnet. Also, he affirms the constant teaching of the Church that It is the instrument of salvation instituted by Christ, and he speaks of how all of this fits together.

First JPII explains:
the Christian doctrine of salvation and of the mediation of salvation, which always originates in God. “For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, / Christ Jesus, himself human” (1 Tm 2:5). “There is no salvation through any other name” (Acts 4:12).”

He then affirms:
It is therefore a revealed truth that there is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation.

John Paul II then explains what this means:
Man is saved in the Church by being brought into the Mystery of the Divine Trinity, into the mystery of the intimate life of God…
Thus, the Council is far from proclaiming any kind of ecclesiocentrism. Its teaching is Christocentric in all of its aspects, and therefore it is profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Trinity.

JPII also affirms the council teaching of Vatican 2 affirming the necessity of the Church:
men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessity" (Lumen Gentium 14).”

Then JPII goes on to explain exactly what Lumen Gentium is talking about in regards to their relation to the Church.
People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church (emphasis mine). 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. Ecclesiam Suam 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.”

 

[Dan-Man916]

He then expresses that there are exclusivists who have gotten confused as to what the Church teaches. He says:
It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of an ecclesiological exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching.

JPII then relates what the Council (Vatican 2) means in its relation to the Church with other Christian communities:
Although the Catholic Church knows that it has received the fullness of the means of salvation, it rejoices when other Christian communities join her in preaching the Gospel. This is the proper context for understanding the Council’s teaching that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 8; Unitatis Redintegratio 4).

 

[John_Higgins]

Thanks, Dan. I think that those of a Feeneyite or rigid EENS bent do the Church and the cause of ecumenism a GRAVE disservice.

John

 

[Ozzie]

GrzeszDel:

Now this is just silly. We may disagree about who is saved, but we all agree that to be saved is to be united to the divine life of the most Holy Trinity. On this point there is no disagreement whatever.

The original question was not asking what it is to BE saved, but can one BECOME saved outside the Roman Catholic church. Now if there is constant disagreement as to WHO can actually become saved, then it is obvious that the root problem is a basic lack of understanding or knowledge as to WHAT salvation is in the first place.

First you say this…

Well, at the very least, large numbers of Roman Catholics do not know what the Church teaches on the subject; this is a fair point.

And then you say this…

I will not deny that there is some obvious confusion among at least some of us Catholics.

.Typical of the wishy-washy dialogue I read on this thread.

Why cannot one be saved, even if he does not understand the idea of “salvation”?

“Understand the ‘idea’ of salvation?” The original question is regarding a basic requirement FOR salvation in regards to Roman Catholicism. So far it looks like you people haven’t a clue. One quotes a Pope, the other says you misunderstand him.

After reading several threads on this forum I have concluded that Roman Catholicism is just as diverse when it come to issues, even salvation, as Protestantism. It’s just that you all call yourselves by one name. I think there are just as many Roman Catholics as there are Protestant denominations.