Does this teaching of the Church on salvation contradict scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatischarity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whatischarity

Guest
On the “Traditional Catholic” thread, A poster posted this regarding what he considers is the absolute necessity of being a practing Catholic in order to gain salvation:

Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singular quadem. Dec. 9, 1854:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

The poster stated that this is a very explicit teaching about the requirement to be a formal member of the church in order to be saved. I have read what more recent Popes and councils have written on the topic and their elucidation of the concept of salvation and the church makes more sense to me then those such as the above - which appear to make no exception for God-fearing people outside the visible bounds of the Church.

Still, when the above Pope and catechism made those statements, didn’t they contradict scripture? For instance (I may be writing the bible quotes wrong, sorry):

I Romans 10 (9 - 10) “For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe it in your heart that God raised Him from the dead you will be saved. For one believes withthe heart and so is justified and on confesses with the heart and so is saved”

Acts 6 31: "Sirs, what must I do to be save? And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved.”

Mt 19:29 “And everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sister or father or mother of children or lands for the sake of My name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life.”

Mt 25: 34 - 36: “Come you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry ad you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill ad you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… Amen I say to you, whatever you did for tese least of my brothers, you did for me.”

John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life but the wrath of God remains on him”

John 11:25 “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die”

It seems to me there are many places in scripture that delineate the dispositions and actions that allow one to be saved. It seems to me that a person that has those dispositions and does those actions should be able to find eternal life. I will grant that doing these things should be much easier if one had access to the graces Jesus gives man through the sacraments available in His church, but still, I would be hesitant to condemn someone just because they were not a visible member of the Church which is what it appears the above quoted Pope and catechism state. (The original poster had more instances of quotations from historical Catholic records. I reckon everyone is familiar with the list)
 
whatischarity
I would be hesitant to condemn someone just because they were not a visible member of the Church which is what it appears the above quoted Pope and catechism state.
Click to expand...
Christ’s Church does not condemn anyone who strives to know the will of God and to follow their conscience. Some persist in failing to seek the meaning and history of His teaching through His Church.

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].

“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” • …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].
 
The teaching of the Church is, essentially, that anyone who is saved (by faith) is part of the Church - whether they know it or not. So you cannot be saved outside the Church, because being saved puts you within the Church. The Church is the communion of the saved (“saints”).
 
Abu explained this very well. I would just add that we are saved through baptism.

There are three ways that we can be baptized. The first and easiest is water. We Christians believe in one baptism. Therefore, those who are baptized, even if they are Protestants, are part of the Church, because there is only one baptism and one body.

The other form of baptism is by blood. This is those who die for the faith before they are baptized by water.

The third, which applies to those who have not been baptized is Baptism of Desire. This means that a non believer who desires to do what good and moral, once he dies and comes face to face with Jesus Christ, will wish that he had been baptized in life. Better said, had the person truly understood what they were missing in their lives, they would have desired to have it, because they were good people trying to live a good moral life. They too are baptized and part of the same body.

All of this is made possible through the Church’s presence in the world. Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church, since all grace and truth flows through the Church into the world and all who are saved are somehow connected to the Church by one of the three forms of baptism.

I hope that makes some sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Abu said:
Christ’s Church does not condemn anyone who strives to know the will of God and to follow their conscience. Some persist in failing to seek the meaning and history of His teaching through His Church.

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].

“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” • …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].
Click to expand...
As I posted previously:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood
Click to expand...
The use of the term “Ark” would seem to imply more than passively being saved through the Church. It seems to mean physical prescence inside the structure as in you are either inside the ark or outside and lost in the Deluge. I have been struggling with this for months. Are there any more historical quotations that would justify an interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church” as being more “If you are saved you are a member of Jesus Church whether you knew it or not”?

I know it is Jesus that saves and I accept He has chosen to distribute His merits through the Church. Why then are there Popes and councils that use such strong language which can easily be read to imply that formal membership in the Church is required when this is not the case (and it also appears to me to contradict scripture)?

PS: What is (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873)?
 
whatischarity said:
As I posted previously:

The use of the term “Ark” would seem to imply more than passively being saved through the Church. It seems to mean physical prescence inside the structure as in you are either inside the ark or outside and lost in the Deluge. I have been struggling with this for months. Are there any more historical quotations that would justify an interpretation of “No salvation outside the Church” as being more “If you are saved you are a member of Jesus Church whether you knew it or not”?

I know it is Jesus that saves and I accept He has chosen to distribute His merits through the Church. Why then are there Popes and councils that use such strong language which can easily be read to imply that formal membership in the Church is required when this is not the case (and it also appears to me to contradict scripture)?

PS: What is (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873)?
Click to expand...
You may want to write Fr. Corapi on this. He recorded a wonderful explanation of how this works. I can’t put it all on a thread. It’s too long. But he may be able to tell you where to get a copy of it. What he did was take what had been said in the past and what Pope John Paul II said and what Pope Benedict says about the same point and explain how they are all saying the same thing, but in different words. He explains how those who appear to be outside the Church are not always outside. It was very interesting. It was part of his series on the CCC.

Also, Fr. Vincent Serpa explains this very well. He may have something on the CAF files about it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
whatischarity
Why then are there Popes and councils that use such strong language which can easily be read to imply that formal membership in the Church is required when this is not the case (and it also appears to me to contradict scripture)?
Click to expand...
The “strong” language, historically, refers to those Catholics who chose to neglect or reject the Church’s teaching – it was assumed that the Gospel had been preached to all.

In trying to interpret papal documents of an earlier age, a common error is to fail to appreciate the different historical facts which were being addressed – thus leading to false conclusions of contradictions between them and later teaching. This is the case with Quanta Cura of Pius IX (1864) and similar documents which some have used to try to distort the unity of the teaching of Christ’s Church.

“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.” (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10)

Note how the strong language is countered 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” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). [My emphasis].

Even for non-Christians: “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: http://outsidethechurchnosalvation.b…bel/Salvation]

“Familiarity” with Catholicism does not necessarily mean that such a state translates into knowing that the Catholic Church is founded by Christ to teach, rule and sanctify mankind. Anyone who knowingly rejects Christ’s means of salvation (His Church) knowingly rejects Him, and condemns himself.

In CCC #848, “the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 [The reference 338 includes Heb 11:6 saying that God rewards those who believe and diligently seek Him; and 1 Cor 9:16 in which Paul says “woe to me if I do not preach the gospel.”]

The Church is the Pope, Bishops, priests and lay faithful (People of God, the Mystical Body of Christ) all of whom have the obligation to offer the gospel to all according to their formation in the faith and opportunities.

On DS see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Joseph_Dominicus_Denzinger
 
Over on the Traditional thread some posters at times do take a more exclusive view of “No salvation outside the Church” and this is debated back and forth a bit with the said posters tending to feel that the intent of this principle has been watered down too much in the last 40 years. However, I have some friends who were raised Catholic and lived Catholic all their lives until several years ago. The were in their formative years in the late 50s and early 60s. They claimed that they were taught this exclusive view of their being a need to be a formal member of the church in order to be saved. Do you think that this was a more common interpretation of this principle in those days or is this one of those things that even Catholics tend to misinterpret the Church’s own teaching due to the nature of the issue?
 
whatischarity said:
Over on the Traditional thread some posters at times do take a more exclusive view of “No salvation outside the Church” and this is debated back and forth a bit with the said posters tending to feel that the intent of this principle has been watered down too much in the last 40 years. However, I have some friends who were raised Catholic and lived Catholic all their lives until several years ago. The were in their formative years in the late 50s and early 60s. They claimed that they were taught this exclusive view of their being a need to be a formal member of the church in order to be saved. Do you think that this was a more common interpretation of this principle in those days or is this one of those things that even Catholics tend to misinterpret the Church’s own teaching due to the nature of the issue?
Click to expand...
Unfortunatey, catechists are not theologians. Most of us were educated in the faith by catechists or by religious sisters, neither of whom are theologians. They did the best that they could with what they read. They read these things and repeated them verbatim. For this reason many older Catholics believe this is the literal meaning of these statements.

The Baltimore Catechism says:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” does ot mean that everyone who is not a Catholic will be condemned. It does mean that no one can be saved unless he belongs in some manner to the Catholic church, either actually or in desire, for the means of grace are not given wtihout some relation to the divine institution established by Christ. No. 167

Those who ar outside the Church through no fault of their own are not culpable in the sight of God.

Persons who make use of the graces that God gives them, even though tey are not members of the true Church, actually have the desire to become members inasmuch as hey wish to use all the means ordained by God for their salvation. No. 168**

First, the grace to be saved enters the world through the Church. This makes the Church necessary for salvation.

Second, the grace to be saved establishes a connection between the person and the Church. If you recall what I posted above about Baptism of Desire, article number 168 specifically addresses the person’s desire to use what God has given them for their salvation.

A good example is a Hindu who knows about Christianity, but is not convinced that this is the path to salvation. However, he wants salvation and he follows what he truly believes IS the path to salvation, he has the desire and is therefore connected to the Church. He is not physically a member of the Church, but he is not outside of her reach. The grace that flows from Christ, through the Church, into the world is available to him.

I hope that helps. Remember, when talking to older Catholics or younger ones, most Catholics are educated by catechists or by their own reading, not by theologians or historians who know what the documents really mean or why they were written. Many people reach them very literally. It is a grave act against charity to attack people, because they don’t understand Christ as we understand him.

I can give you a simple example. I went through statistics in graduate school. I know what all the terms mean. I understand numbers. But I do not understand statistics. Don’t ever ask me to create a research paper and present the stats. Knowing about it does not mean that I understand it. I passed becaues I could repeat what the teacher said and did. Many non-Catholics and non-Christians can repeat what we say. It’s like advanced math to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
whatischarity
said posters tending to feel that the intent of this principle has been watered down too much in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone choose to immerse themselves in a welter of prejudiced opinions (viewpoints, theories) without going to the source, Christ’s Church, and studying what She teaches? There are many good apologetic works that explain and defend Christ’s teaching through His Church and we need to personally take the time and trouble to become proficient in evangelising and reevangelising, as our situation allows.

There is enough idle chatter in the world without confusing doctrine and dogma with opinion.
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.’”

Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. Catechism of the Catholic Church # 846 - # 848]. The Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not a person knows of its divine origin and founding, is the body through which ALL salvation comes to anyone whom God deems worthy to receive it.

Christ teaching IS God’s law and, if you take the trouble to look at what His Church teaches, you will have the opportunity to know that **“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 God’s will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.” **The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) # 16, Vatican II. [My emphasis].

Only God can judge the guilt of anyone according to their conscience and actions.
We must judge their actions, words and writing according to truth.
As you think so do you act, thus we need to have the mind of the Church.
 
The problem is that in order to think like the Church and behave like the popes do, one has to make an effort to understand what they’re saying and why they are saying it. You can’t just pick up a piece, read and claim understanding. It’s not always what it appears to be. There is usually much more at a deeper level of meaning.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how one views it, we are now in the situation where we have had three (not counting John Paul I) scholars for popes and they insist on writing and speaking at a level that is way above the average Catholic.

Paul VI was a Doctor of Law

John Paul II was a Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Systematic Theology

Benedict XVI is a Doctor of Augustinian Theology and Doctor of Franciscan Theology

Those of us who are over 40 grew up in the Church of Thomism. Then we got three popes who are not Thomists and do not use Aquinas’ methods of writing. They cite him in their work, because the content of his work is valuable for the Church. But they do not use his style of explaining things.

Paul VI was very legal minded. He wrote in that form. John Paul II was very pastoral minded and very philosophical. His writings are about pastoral matters, but he addresses them using philosophy.

Benedict XVI is very traditional in his beliefs, but not in his methodology. He uses the methodology of Augustine and Bonaventure, which is from the heart to the mind. He takes beliefs and translates them into ideas.

If one is going to read anything by one of these men, one must keep in mind their writing style and their academic background. What I do when something sounds strange to me is this. I read something by John Paul II and I stop and think, what does this word mean in philosophy? Once I figure that out, then I understand the rest of the idea. If I’m reading something by Benedict XVI and I am confused I ask myself, “What does this mean in Franciscan language or Augustinian language?” When I figure that out, the rest becomes clear.

The other part of this is to observe how the popes act toward people of other faiths. They do not confront. They do not engage in disputes. They do not criticize. They do not make public statements against their faith. They are very dipomatic and very kind. They always do the same thing. They invite people to talk about what we have in common. That eventually leads to questions about the points on which we disagree. When those questions come up, then they are explained. This way you’re not talking to someone who is on the defensive, but to someone who trusts and respects you.

St. Francis had a very good understanding of how to deal with non-believers. He ordered his brothers to live among the Muslims, but never attempt to convert them or attempt to argue with them. They were to preach Christ with their actioins and their example of faith. They were to answer questions as asked. This is where that famous quote is attributed to St. Francis, “Preach always, but only when necessary use words.” We don’t really know if these were his exact words. But the rule says that our brothers were not to engage in a battle of words to convert others. That is the original statement. We were to engage in a battle of charity and example.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation
The problem is that in order to think like the Church and behave like the popes do, one has to make an effort to understand what they’re saying and why they are saying it. You can’t just pick up a piece, read and claim understanding. It’s not always what it appears to be. There is usually much more at a deeper level of meaning.
Click to expand...
That effort has the helpful comments of many faithful and learned Catholics so that we are not orphans, but have the resources – EWTN and many publishers offer the tools to do the job. It is not merely papal teaching but the teaching of Ecumenical Councils that needs to be known.

It is not that difficult to think with the mind of the Church, but it is so easy to go on “feelings”, and opinions rather than to discover and live by truth. On salvation, why should anyone be so selfist as to imagine, and then proclaim, that the teaching of Christ’s Church would contradict Her Scriptures? Having left us His Church, She gave us the New Testament.
 
Abu said:
That effort has the helpful comments of many faithful and learned Catholics so that we are not orphans, but have the resources – EWTN and many publishers offer the tools to do the job. It is not merely papal teaching but the teaching of Ecumenical Councils that needs to be known.

It is not that difficult to think with the mind of the Church, but it is so easy to go on “feelings”, and opinions rather than to discover and live by truth. On salvation, why should anyone be so selfist as to imagine, and then proclaim, that the teaching of Christ’s Church would contradict Her Scriptures? Having left us His Church, She gave us the New Testament.
Click to expand...
I understood the first paragraph. I highlighted the second, because I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Help me out here. Thanks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The reference in the last paragraph is to those Traditionalists, of whom whatischarity writes, who choose to neglect the Church’s clear teaching re salvation of non-Catholics, for their own opinions.

Selfism (convert Dr Paul Vitz in Psychology As Religion) refers to the ethical principle of “egoism, self-worship” which I find in many of those who place their own opinions above dogma or doctrine. We have the NT only because the Church gave it to us – Her family papers. How could anyone imagine that She would contradict them?
 
Abu said:
The reference in the last paragraph is to those Traditionalists, of whom whatischarity writes, who choose to neglect the Church’s clear teaching re salvation of non-Catholics, for their own opinions.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand now. Thanks. I don’t think that these Traditionalists mean to be selfish or self-centered. I think that they don’t really understand what the Church is trying to say. I also believe that many of the current documents are not clear. There is a problem on both sides. The Traditionalist have to admit that they don’t understand and the Church scholars have to do a better job as explaining.

That’s one of the problems that the SSPX has with Ecumenism. They don’t understand what the Church is trying to say. It sounds wrong to them. The Church is now trying to explain it so that they feel comfortable. She holding these talks with them to answer their questions and hopefully to clarify misconceptions.

The Scriptures are not that clear on the question of salvation for those who are not part of the Catholic Church. But there was a reason why they were not that clear. When they were written, there was no question in their mind that everyone would accept the message of Jesus. So it never occurred to them to write about those who had difficulties with the message. They only wrote about those who rejected the message for their own selfish reasons, such as the pagans. And of course they condemned that group. They condemned those Jews who rejected the message of Jesus to preserve their status. But they did not convert every Jew. This is something that people don’t understand when they read the epistles.

The epistles condemn the Jews, but they are referring to those who fought Christianity to protect their interests, not those who rejected Christianity, because they thought it was a sin to be a Christian. Paul would never condemn any man for refusing to do something that he believed to be sinful, even if that person was mistaken. At least that person, who is obviously mistaken, is trying to avoid sin. Paul was speaking about those who rejected Christianity so they could continue sinning.

Some people who read the bible don’t get this point. Trust me, it’s not just Traditionalists. There are many Traditionalists who do understand this point. There are many other fundamentalist Christians, both Catholic and Protestants, who don’t get this point. For the longest time the Orthodox did not get this point either and they thought that we, Romans, were going to hell. That’s why they adopted the name Orthodox Christians. They thought that they actually understood something that we did not. But their understanding was also confused. Today, most of the Orthodox leadership understands the concept that many people can go to heaven. But I bet that many of the Orthodox laity are just as ignorant as the Roman laity. They don’t understand the scriptures or the writings of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :0
 
Abu said:
Why would anyone choose to immerse themselves in a welter of prejudiced opinions (viewpoints, theories) without going to the source, Christ’s Church, and studying what She teaches? There are many good apologetic works that explain and defend Christ’s teaching through His Church and we need to personally take the time and trouble to become proficient in evangelising and reevangelising, as our situation allows.
Click to expand...
Do you have some books that you would recommend that deal with the Church and its role in salvation from both a scriptual point of view and ties in the teachings of the Church from a historical point of view? Especially useful would be a text that demonstrates the continuity of the teachings of the early fathers through modern times.
 
whatischarity said:
Do you have some books that you would recommend that deal with the Church and its role in salvation from both a scriptual point of view and ties in the teachings of the Church from a historical point of view? Especially useful would be a text that demonstrates the continuity of the teachings of the early fathers through modern times.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any book in particular. But I know that Scott Hahn does a lot of work on this topic. You may want to go to amazon.com and enter his name. See what comes up.

Lument Gentium takes up this point. But you may be looking for a book per se.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
whatischarity
Do you have some books that you would recommend that deal with the Church and its role in salvation from both a scriptural point of view and ties in the teachings of the Church from a historical point of view? Especially useful would be a text that demonstrates the continuity of the teachings of the early fathers through modern times.
Click to expand...
You might check out Amy Welborn in her Prove It series at:
amywelborn.wordpress.com/books-written/

I recommend highly using Living Tradition at rtforum.org/lt/index.html of The Roman Theological Forum at: rtforum.org/index.html , you should find some facts there.

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001 has a good discussion, and covers all doctrine and dogma as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top