Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Explanation Please

[DJim]

Yes I can. You are the one imputing retroactivity into the Canon where there is none.

It says “Is” not “was” or “have been.”

I don’t really think you are so obtuse as to not get the point I’m making. I’m stating that, by virtue of the fact that you admit that it is NOT retroactive, you are placing a contingency upon the dogma that the dogma does not explicitly contain. At best, you can only claim there is something implicitly “assumed” by the dogma.

You see, I can say, with reference to the pre-Christian righteous, that “baptism IS not necessary for salvation” for them. Trent says that one who makes that statement is anathema. “Salvation” is NOT just a “one-time event”–it’s an ongoing reality. Unbaptized souls are for eternity experience “right now” salvation in heaven. That sentence I put in quotes is a true statement. You can’t play with “verb tense” and expect to wiggle out of this dilemma.

No. The Canon says “is” it means current.
It says “is.” I hope we don’t go “Clinton” on the meaning of “is.”

It is you who are moving in that direction. Salvation is, as Scripture will attest, a past-present-future reality. Those who make it to heaven never stop being “saved”–they are saved for eternity. Thus it’s an absolutely fair reading of Canon V to say that you are adding a contingency to the text by insisting that it doesn’t apply to pre-Christians.

Taken literally it doesn’t make any statement at all on those who came before the Incarnation.

That’s the whole point! I’m glad we finally agree then! Since it makes no statement at all about them, it does NOT give any reason to suggest they are excepted from the infallible statement of Canon V. Rather , you have to go elsewhere–beyond Canon V–to put context around it in order to properly teach that Canon V “means” to refer only to the post-Christian world. You add a contingency.

Now you’re muddying it up with subjective terms. What is “proper interpretation.”

Then simply admit that “My interpretation of Canon V is contingent upon other teachings.”

The law of non-contradiction applies. You can’t change tense between your subject and your object and remain consistent.

I’m not. Today, the pre-Christian righteous are STILL saved and experiencing eternity with God in heaven without baptism…

Yes it does. Just as it is wrong to say there are those who are saved in the Limbo of the Fathers.

Then you see my point–the “proper” understanding of Canon V–even from YOUR point of view–is contingent upon other information not directly provided by Canon V. Therefore you do not possess an “absolute” understanding of the Canon, or a “literal” understanding.

DJim

 

[DJim]

GerardP–

Let’s chew on this piece of Magisterial teaching for awhile:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Archbishop of Boston

8 August 1949: DS 3866-72

THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE
From the Headquarters of the Holy Office
August 8, 1949

Protocol Number 122/49.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of “St. Benedict Center” and “Boston College” in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: “Outside Church there is no salvation.”

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their Opinions and complaints and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from, the fact that the axiom: “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session, held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the August Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are propose by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (Denzinger, n. 1792). Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority’ of the Church. Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt., 28:19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place, by we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but also decreed the Church to he a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

cont. DJim

 

[DJim]

cont.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Regeneration and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (Denzinger, nn. 797, ~o7).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, “On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” (AAS, Vol. 35, an. '943, p. i93ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as albers, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, same August Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members e Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Toward the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” AAS, loc. cit., 243).

 

[DJim]

cont.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” in Denzinger, nn. 1641, ff. also Pope Pius IX in the Encyclical Letter Quanto conficiamur moerore" in Denzinger, n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrew 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap 8): Faith is the beginning of a man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 80l).

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical “From the Housetops,” fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops “whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church” (Acts, 20:28).

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of Canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religions, a priest and an ordinary member of the Church.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church Authority; called the “imprimatur,” which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

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. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them applies without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

In sending this letter, I declare my profound esteem, and remain Your Excellency’s most devoted E Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani

A. Ottaviani Assessor
To His Excellency
Most Reverend Richard James Cushing

Archbishop of Boston

 

[DJim]

I would point out immediately that the letter indicates that His Holiness Pope Pius XII approved the explanations of doctrine contained in this letter.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Gerard P–

I’ve posted the clearest teaching avaiable on the thread topic–I presume you are going to respond at some point?

DJim

 

[Debra_C]

Well, I find J P II (santo subito!) as clear as I have found anyone to be on the matter, your good post included.

It seems he wants, understandably enough, to steer between extreme formalism or legalism and the unquestionable mystery of God’s grace.

Surely now the understanding is common that those neither baptized nor raised Catholic may spend eternity with God.

I still pray for all Christians to become Catholic, because it seems clear by their words and works they are not in any obvious way in God’s grace: abortion on demand, for instance.

God bless.

The Catechism has a substantial section on this as well–Though, it is not all easy reading, it goes into detail about how various groups, though not full members of the Catholic Church, may yet be called, in some sense, Catholic and can potentially obtain salvation. It is online at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops website:

See paragraphs 1257-1261. These sections deal with the necessity of Baptism for salvation, baptism by desire, baptism by blood, etc. It mentions those who do not choose baptism because of their ignorance of the Gospel as well.

and Paragraphs 836-848 which deal with the definition of what it means to be Catholic, including particulars in relation to separated Christian (Protestant) churches, Judaism, Islam, and other religions.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard P–

I’ve posted the clearest teaching avaiable on the thread topic–I presume you are going to respond at some point?

DJim

As you know, we’ve been discussing other topics today.

I’ll have to respond very quickly since I’m about to head out for a long weekend.

I’ve culled this response from the SBC in reply to an unfortunate exchange between the SBC and Bishop Willliamson of the SSPX whom I have met and esteem tremendously. However, I find the SBC has the stronger argument and the facts on their side.

• "The Holy Office in 1949 was totally unaware of Father Leonard’s views concerning baptism of desire and justified catechumens. For these views were first expressed by him in Bread of Life, and this book was not published until 1952.

What concerned the Holy Office in 1949 was what some members of that Congregation considered to be a ''rigoristic" view of the defined dogma itself, as espoused by Father Feeney and certain Catholic professors and writers at Saint Benedict Center. Even though the letter to Archbishop Cushing itself treated of the possibility of salvation for the unbaptized (not only for those who explicitly desired the sacrament but also for those who would have desired it if they had known about it — the famous votum implicitum), it targeted for attack the literal interpretation of the salvation dogma itself. This was the real issue at the time

**So, in 1949 what was criticized (not "condemned’’) by the Holy Office was a specific article that appeared in From the Housetops, entitled “Reply to a Liberal”. **Bread of Life was not ‘‘condemned.’’ In fact, Pope John XXIII assigned a certain Monsignor Francis Cassano (since deceased) to comb Father Leonard’s book for possible theological aberrations. The Monsignor himself related this fact to us and to other friends of the Center who visited him in his parish on the Hudson River. Monsignor Cassano had also been appointed by Rome to investigate the case of the mystic stigmatist, Mother Aiello. He was a prominent Churchman in his day, a confidant of two Popes. He reported to Pope John XXIII that there was nothing “contrary to faith” in Father Feeney’s writings. Cassano saw the difference between opinion and dogma, which is more than can be said for the theologians of Verbum, for as long as dogma is protected, the Church allows theologians to use their minds for the good of God’s Kingdom.

In regard to the article “Reply to a Liberal,” the author, Cyril Karam, accepts as the more authoritative opinion concerning baptismus in voto the very one Verbum presents from Saint Thomas. At that time Father Feeney at least tolerated the view himself. So did Sister Catherine Clarke, who authored the Gate of Heaven. You will find her advocating the possibility of salvation for unbaptized martyrs on the bottom of page 127. My point is that the traditional interpretation of the salvation dogma is what bothered the holy Office in 1949, not Father’s rejection of the other two "kinds’’ of baptism, which came later. At the time “Reply to a Liberal” was written, Father Feeney had not yet developed his full teaching on the subject. In other words, the Holy Office letter placed the issue right where it belonged—on the doctrine itself. And some are beginning to wonder whether or not the rejection of this dogma by so many leaders in the Church is the “crisis of faith” about which Our Lady spoke to the Fatima children. For it is rejected when, as Pope Pius XII said, it is “reduced to a meaningless formula,” — and that is exactly what the letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing did do."*

 

[DJim]

Wow–

So Father Leonard Feeney was responsible for a “development of doctrine” all his own???

VERY illuminating!

The “Feeney doctrine” (as I’ll call it) developed over the course of several years, apparently.

Feeney can develop his doctrine, but woe to the Magisterium if it develops doctrine!

Quite interesting!

DJim

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Why do so many Catholics keep on stressing the extraordinary ways of joining the Church instead of concentrating on the beautiful teaching on the gift of Catholic faith that our merciful God is willing to give to all those who sincerely desire it. Some claim that the ‘doctrine’ of baptism of desire has been proclaimed in the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent, where in Chapter IV the clause ‘or the desire thereof’ appears in the discussion on the manner of justification. Here I will argue that Chapter IV supports the literal reading of the necessity of membership in the Church and full unity in the Catholic faith when seen in the context of the entire Decree on Justification.

The Purpose of the Decree on Justification

The Decree on Justification clearly addresses the Protestant heresies which on the one hand separate the believer’s justification from his sanctification and on the other hand twist the dogma of application of Christ’s merits to our salvation. Ch. III explains that “though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated”. So this is the context in which the Council talks of the “translation … to the state of grace” in Ch. IV it thus does not refer to the entire humanity but only to those who apply the merits of His death.

Who are those that the Council terms as “us” in the sentence from Ch. III “hath translated us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption, and remission of sins.” The faithful and not the entire world!

Notice the expression “remission of sins”, this is what the sacrament of baptism does not only with regard to the original sin, but also all the personal sins.

The Manner of Justification

Ch. IV opens up with the transitional phrase “By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,as being a translation…”. So Ch.IV no longer defines what justification is (which was discussed in Ch. III), but goes on to specify the necessary condition for obtaining it. “And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”

Notice that the text clearly distinguishes the time “since the promulgation of the Gospel” from the period before. In the pre-Gospel period, following the natural law was accepted by God, but the Gospel introduced a new requirement–baptism.

***To be Continued…

---

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Continuation***

Desire for Baptism As A Disposition Necessary for Justification***

Ch. VI specifically enumerates the dispositions of the soul that those who would like to be justified need to demonstrate. Interestingly the list does not end with the desire for baptism alone but with the resolution to ‘begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God’. Here is the entire sequence of required dispositions:

“Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism, to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God.”

The Council of Trent has nowhere indicated that it contemplated the cases in which catechumens died before receiving baptism. Instead, this Ch. shows a natural course of events in the life of a catechumen, requiring that even at an early stage the future member of the faithful resolves to undertake all the Christian’s obligations.

It is also striking that Chapter VI continues the ‘as it is written’ emphasis on the requirement to receive the sacrament of baptism from Ch. IV by citing two Scriptural references in a row:

“Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”

The fact that Ch. IV ought to be seen as part of the usual process of catechumenate rather than open the way for ‘extraordinary ways of salvation’ can be confirmed in Ch. VII, which repeats Ch. VI’s sequence on the dispositions in the context of the catechumen’s reception of the sacrament of baptism:

“For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”

The Council uses the ancient liturgical tradition to illustrate its declaration that faith does not originate in man and is not credited for salvation (as the Protestants wrongly believe), but is a gift conferred by the Church at the sacrament of baptism.

To be Continued…

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Conclusion

Does the text of the Session indicate anywhere that God would not reward the desire for baptism with actual baptism and its effects (remission of sins and granting sanctifying grace)? No, on the contrary as we can read throughout the Session indications that sacraments are to be administered to all who desire them by necessity of means and that they are efficacious:

“Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”

“no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments” (Chapter IX)

“Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.” (Chapter VII)

There is no reason to doubt God’s will for us to be saved; the only obstacle is our resistance to the Holy Ghost. For that reason, the Council opposes the Calvinist heresy of perseverance of the saints and assurance of personal salvation, warning that “each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.”

 

[Carlton1993]

When I started this thread, I asked for somebody to expain extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus To me clearly, stating that all other threads on the topic end up as a debate on who is and isnt saved. All I want is a short explanation (maybe bulletpoints!) on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus…I’m only 14, go easy on me!!!

 

[Corki]

When I started this thread, I asked for somebody to expain extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus To me clearly, stating that all other threads on the topic end up as a debate on who is and isnt saved. All I want is a short explanation (maybe bulletpoints!) on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus…I’m only 14, go easy on me!!!

Ok, I teach 9th grade CCE so I may be able to do this.

This is my understanding and how I explain it in class.

• The ordinary way, and the only one within our power, to gain salvation is through Baptism and dying in a state of Grace.
• The ordinary way to regain a state of Grace after reaching the age of reason and committing sin is through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.
• People of other Faiths, who live good and faithful lives to the best of their ability and circumstances share in God’s promise of Salvation. They would not be saved at all except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even if they do not have faith in Jesus.
• Because people of other Faiths, even non-Christian ones have a partial measure of the Truth, we can hope that in God’s mercy they may not be entirely cut off from His mercy and will find salvation.
• We as Catholics prefer that all men find the Fullness of Truth and have access to the Sacraments which are the only sure path God had shown us.
• If not, we trust in God’s mercy but continue to work for the conversion of souls.

Does that help?

 

[Teflon93]

Ok, I teach 9th grade CCE so I may be able to do this.

This is my understanding and how I explain it in class.

• The ordinary way, and the only one within our power to gain salvation is through Baptism and dying in a state of Grace.
• The ordinary way to regain a state of Grace after reaching the age of reason and committing sin is through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.
• People of other Faiths, who live good and faithful lives to the best of their ability and circumstances share in God’s promise of Salvation. They would not be saved at all except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even if they do not have faith in Jesus.
• Because people of other Faiths, even non-Christian ones have a partial measure of the Truth, we can hope that in God’s mercy they may not be entirely cut off from His mercy and will find salvation.
• We as Catholics prefer that all men find the Fullness of Truth and have access to the Sacraments which are the only sure path God had shown us.
• If not, we trust in God’s mercy but continue to work for the conversion of souls.

Does that help?

Wow, you’re one heck of a Catechism instructor! Well done!

The way I grasp it in a soundbite is “The gates of Heaven are narrow. Christ has shown us the way, and provided the sacraments to keep us on the path. Why ignore the waypoint markers the sacraments provide?”

 

[Carlton1993]

Finally! After 128 posts, the goal of this thread is achieved! Thank you corki, thats the clearest explanation I could have asked for. God Bless

 

[Church_Militant]

Ok, I teach 9th grade CCE so I may be able to do this.

This is my understanding and how I explain it in class.

• The ordinary way, and the only one within our power, to gain salvation is through Baptism and dying in a state of Grace.
• The ordinary way to regain a state of Grace after reaching the age of reason and committing sin is through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.
• People of other Faiths, who live good and faithful lives to the best of their ability and circumstances share in God’s promise of Salvation. They would not be saved at all except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even if they do not have faith in Jesus.
• Because people of other Faiths, even non-Christian ones have a partial measure of the Truth, we can hope that in God’s mercy they may not be entirely cut off from His mercy and will find salvation.
• We as Catholics prefer that all men find the Fullness of Truth and have access to the Sacraments which are the only sure path God had shown us.
• If not, we trust in God’s mercy but continue to work for the conversion of souls.

Does that help?

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

Ok, I teach 9th grade CCE so I may be able to do this.

This is my understanding and how I explain it in class.

• The ordinary way, and the only one within our power, to gain salvation is through Baptism and dying in a state of Grace.

Uh, ordinary, is there really an extra-ordinary? I don’t think so.

The ordinary way to regain a state of Grace after reaching the age of reason and committing sin is through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.

Post Baptismal.

People of other Faiths, who live good and faithful lives to the best of their ability and circumstances share in God’s promise of Salvation. They would not be saved at all except for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, even if they do not have faith in Jesus.

Really?

Let’s see:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Outside the Church there is not remission of sin, the Church is the body of Christ and just as only in Christ is salvation had, only in the Church is salvation had, otherwise, there is another way besides Christ, and then only Christ is just an “extraordinary” means, by which we would be saying that salvation could be had by other means than Christ, which is contrary to revealed Divine Truth.

St. Fulgence (+ 520): “Anyone who is outside this Church, which received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is walking not to heaven but to Hell. He is not approaching the home of eternal life; rather, he is hastening to the torment of eternal death.”

St. Fulgence declares that those outside the Church are going to Hell, no extraordinary means is mentioned, Christ, then, is the only way, there are no exceptions.

Because people of other Faiths, even non-Christian ones have a partial measure of the Truth, we can hope that in God’s mercy they may not be entirely cut off from His mercy and will find salvation.

Not really, you don’t have a cake if you don’t have the flour, even if you have the eggs, I’m sorry, it just don’t work like that, let’s leave behind all the imaginary mess about everyone else, Christ said that He Himself is the only way to the Father [Jn. 14:6], by Divine Faith this is what we hold as Catholics, we should not be trying to force those who have not the love of God, nor his truth, into heaven, it is not our business to speculate the will of God, for His ways are not our ways, even if we wish everyone everlasting happiness, but we are bound to believe what God has revealed about His ways, which are the Truth.

We as Catholics prefer that all men find the Fullness of Truth and have access to the Sacraments which are the only sure path God had shown us.

Then why do we continue trying to create other means?

If not, we trust in God’s mercy but continue to work for the conversion of souls.

That is why Our Lord gave us the commission to preach and baptise all nations, for that is the means of their salvation, without which they cannot be saved, so let us fulfill this commission, and work for the salvation of souls, for we believe that without these saving graces, they cannot be saved, so let us make haste, for every moment could mean the loss of a soul for all eternity.

Amen.

 

[Church_Militant]

Let’s see:

Outside the Church there is not remission of sin, the Church is the body of Christ and just as only in Christ is salvation had, only in the Church is salvation had, otherwise, there is another way besides Christ, and then only Christ is just an “extraordinary” means, by which we would be saying that salvation could be had by other means than Christ, which is contrary to revealed Divine Truth.

But that is not what the Church teaches. You cannot pull up quotes to personally define something that the Church has defined since you have not the magisterial authority to dogmatically interpret them. Hence, your interpretation can be wrong.

St. Fulgence declares that those outside the Church are going to Hell, no extraordinary means is mentioned, Christ, then, is the only way, there are no exceptions.

Quotes from Saints can be wrong. They are not infallible. Non-Catholics & anti-Catholics often use this as well…

Not really, you don’t have a cake if you don’t have the flour, even if you have the eggs, I’m sorry, it just don’t work like that, let’s leave behind all the imaginary mess about everyone else, Christ said that He Himself is the only way to the Father [Jn. 14:6], by Divine Faith this is what we hold as Catholics, we should not be trying to force those who have not the love of God, nor his truth, into heaven, it is not our business to speculate the will of God, for His ways are not our ways, even if we wish everyone everlasting happiness, but we are bound to believe what God has revealed about His ways, which are the Truth.

No problem here, but you also cannot apply this analogy to God since He can do as He wishes. One of the biggest problems with your position is the following verse of scripture from Our Lord himself. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
Then why do we continue trying to create other means?

We do not that I am aware of…
That is why Our Lord gave us the commission to preach and baptize all nations, for that is the means of their salvation, without which they cannot be saved, so let us fulfill this commission, and work for the salvation of souls, for we believe that without these saving graces, they cannot be saved, so let us make haste, for every moment could mean the loss of a soul for all eternity.

No problems here.

 

[Carlus_Magnus]

But that is not what the Church teaches. You cannot pull up quotes to personally define something that the Church has defined since you have not the magisterial authority to dogmatically interpret them.

		 				Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us **we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin**… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they **by absolute necessity** f**or salvation** are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

I said:
Carlus Magnus:

Outside the Church there is not remission of sin

Is this not in accord with what is above quoted?

Again:
Carlus Maggnus:

the Church is the body of Christ

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441: …the Body of Christ, which is the Church…

Is my interpretation wrong thus far?
Carlus Magnus:

only in Christ is salvation had

“Jesus saith to them: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)

Carlus Magnus:

only in the Church is salvation had

Pope Gregory XVI (+1832): Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use…

Am I wrong thus far?

otherwise, there is another way besides Christ, and then only Christ

It’s a logical conclusion, why? because either something is or it is not, either we are bound to the earth by gravity or no, otherwise, we reduce the eternal dogmas of the faith to mere theological speculation, thus promoting subjectivism of theology and dogma, no?
Carlus Magnus:

that salvation could be had by other means than Christ, which is contrary to revealed Divine Truth.

“… the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

Obviously.

Hence, your interpretation can be wrong.

Please demonstrate to me how that would be so.

Quotes from Saints can be wrong.

Very true.

They are not infallible.

I totally agree.

No problem here, but you also cannot apply this analogy to God since He can do as He wishes.

God is the Truth, he cannot lie, nor be inconsistent with Himself, otherwise He is not Truth itself, as defined by the Fifth Lateran Council. Thus, when He says something, and that He will abide by it, He means it, He lays down truths and follows them, and expects us to do the same, we are to follow His lead, He is our example. He will be faithful to His Word as He said in His Word the scriptures, do you contest this?

One of the biggest problems with your position is the following verse of scripture from Our Lord himself. John 10:16 And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

How does that trouble my position? It proves it, they must be brought to the truth, that is why He commissioned the Apostles to go and preach to the whole world, to convert it, and to Bring it to the light of truth. It says them also must I bring, He uses the Apostles and evangelists of the Church to do this, in doing so, He abides by His own Word.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5) may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate” (Athanasian Creed).

Pax tecum,

CM