Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Question

[RHIC12]

I was talking to a friend and could explain to him extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but couldn’t give examples of when a non-Catholic could be saved. Could y’all list some specific examples of invincible ignorance or any other possible conditions?

 

[Vico]

I was talking to a friend and could explain to him extra ecclesiam nulla salus, but couldn’t give examples of when a non-Catholic could be saved. Could y’all list some specific examples of invincible ignorance or any other possible conditions?

Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Margaret_Ann]

If a person dies in the state of sanctifying grace he is a member of the Catholic Church “in re” even if he is a non-Catholic according to the world.

These really helped me:

Is Feeneyism Catholic

Quoting heavily the Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the writings of the Saints, Fr. Laisney explains the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire.

angeluspress.org

The Catholic Church And Salvation - Angelus Press

The first one is really easy to read, the second is more scholarly. (I still have them too.)

 

[Dan_Defender]

For example, some people in the many generations of Native Americans before the 16th century who never heard of Christ but lived good moral lives.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m reading the Catholic Church and Salvation right now. You’re right though, some chapters are definitely more scholarly, but overall it’s an excellent read and Msgr. Fenton goes into great detail when explaining the Church’s teaching on salvation.

 

[Crusader13]

but couldn’t give examples of when a non-Catholic could be saved.

Usually the more common examples revolve around a person who has never heard about Jesus or the gospels. However, they are still seeking God and are leading a moral life as it pertains to the natural law.

However, if you’re a non-Catholic in 2019 invincible ignorance is a little harder to come by. The truth of the matter is that invincible ignorance is often times used as a way to generalize everyone who refuses to accept the truths of the Catholic Church.

Usually people will say that if a person rejects the truth of the gospel then they are probably just ignorant of its necessity for salvation and therefore they can still be saved.

This isn’t the proper understanding of it.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

but couldn’t give examples of when a non-Catholic could be saved.

Usually the more common examples revolve around a person who has never heard about Jesus or the gospels. However, they are still seeking God and are leading a moral life as it pertains to the natural law.

However, if you’re a non-Catholic in 2019 invincible ignorance is a little harder to come by. The truth of the matter is that invincible ignorance is often times used as a way to generalize everyone who refuses to accept the truths of the Catholic Church.

Usually people will say that if a person rejects the truth of the gospel then they are probably just ignorant of its necessity for salvation and therefore they can still be saved.

This isn’t the proper understanding of it.

The Catechism put it this way:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” 59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

59 Gaudium et spes 16

Catholic Encyclopedia

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man’s moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment. Mere lack of knowledge of the sanction does not free one from the penalty except in cases of censures. It is true then that any sort of ignorance which is not itself grievously sinful excuses, because for the incurring of censures contumacy is required. Vincible and consequent ignorance about the duties of our state of life or the truths of faith necessary for salvation is, of course, sinful. Ignorance of the nature or effects of an act does not make it invalid if everything else requisite for its validity be present. For instance, one who knows nothing of the efficacy of baptism validly baptizes, provided that he employs the matter and form and has the intention of doing what the Church does.

Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[twf]

I find it hard to limit invincible ignorance to that degree. I was raised Protestant…and yes by the grace of God I was eventually exposed to compelling arguments for Catholicism, but prior to that I was not conscious of rejecting anything. I sincerely, absolutely, completely believed I was following Christ and the fullness of the gospel. Many live their entire lives like that - and it never even flickers once in the back of their minds that there could be something more. Vague awareness that there is a church called the Catholic Church doesn’t equate familiarity with Catholicism.

If it never once, for even a split second, occurs to a Christian that their “church” may be incomplete, how can they be culpable?

 

[Nikolaite]

There are none. That is why it is so important for bishops and priests to carry out the mission mandate: baptize and teach the gospels to all nations.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his great encyclical Mystici Corporis:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the 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. … It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

And Pope Boniface VIII in his great bull Unam Sanctam:

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, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘ One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her, ‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3].

And Pope Eugene IV in the Bull of Union with the Copts:

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go “into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian Militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

And Pope Eugene IV, quoting St. Athanasius, in the Bull of Union with the Armenians:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. … This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

And the Council of Trent in its sixth session:

After this Catholic doctrine on Justification, which whoso receiveth not faithfully and firmly cannot be justified, it hath seemed good to the Holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all may know not only what they ought to hold and follow, but also what to avoid and shun.

 

[Nikolaite]

People might find it unpleasant or call the position Feeneyism, but the Church has been clear: membership in the ecclesiastical body is required for salvation, and only a person who is baptized, professes the true faith, and is not excluded legitimately for grave faults committed, and has not separated themselves are members of this ecclesiastical body.

I would point out, because it is so often jumped on in Fr. Leonard Feeney’s case in order to discredit him: Fr. Feeney was in fact excommunicated for his failure to return to Rome when summoned. He was never condemned by any authority for his doctrinal position; in fact, Fr. Feeney was rehabilitated (his excommunication was lifted) without any recantation of any doctrinal position. Further to illustrate that he was recanting nothing, at his rehabilitation ceremony, Fr. Feeney professed the Athanasian Creed which include the quote I provided above. As far as everyone is concerned, in the external forum Fr. Feeney died in good standing with the Church professing an absolute “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” without contradiction.

I will also point out that I believe that Fr. Feeney was not a moral person for failing to go to Rome when summoned even though he cleared things up at the end of his life… and I am not a Feeneyite. I do not follow the St. Benedict Center and would recommend everyone steer clear of them.

 

[pnewton]

People might find it unpleasant or call the position Feeneyism, but the Church has been clear: membership in the ecclesiastical body is required for salvation, and only a person who is baptized, professes the true faith, and is not excluded legitimately for grave faults committed, and has not separated themselves are members of this ecclesiastical body.

I do not know that the Church has been clear on this, or that God would agree. It would, for one thing, exclude both Abraham and the thief on the cross. Rather than just believing a bunch of bulls one reads on the internet about what the Church teaches, go to the source, that is the Church. Here is a link from the Catechism on the Vatican website. This is what the Church really teaches.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[Nikolaite]

I do not know that the Church has been clear on this, or that God would agree. It would, for one thing, exclude both Abraham and the thief on the cross. Rather than just believing a bunch of bulls one reads on the internet about what the Church teaches, go to the source, that is the Church. Here is a link from the Catechism on the Vatican website. This is what the Church really teaches.

Encyclicals and papal bulls are of higher authority than the catechism…the catechism is merely an authentic reference text, like an encyclopedia. The catechism has been corrected between the first and second editions, so there’s no reason to believe that it won’t be corrected again in the future.

Also, what the Church teaches doesn’t exclude Abraham and the thief on the cross from salvation, as all the just dead were released into heaven prior to the promulgation of the Gospels.

 

[Crusader13]

By non-Catholic I was speaking more of non-Christians, not necessarily directing it towards all Protestants as if they were consciously and actively rejecting the Catholic Church.

I was thinking of someone that refuses to even entertain the possibility that God exists by refusing to learn or study the truth of the gospels when they are presented to them. Some people claim that individuals who choose this path of rejection are not culpable for their actions.

They see it at as level of ignorance that would still allow them to attain salvation. I disagree with that interpretation because it simply allows for every individual to be blanketed with invincible ignorance with nobody being culpable for their choices.

 

[PetraG]

I’m reading the Catholic Church and Salvation right now. You’re right though, some chapters are definitely more scholarly, but overall it’s an excellent read and Msgr. Fenton goes into great detail when explaining the Church’s teaching on salvation.

If someone seeks God (or the right that has a demand on them, whatever they understand) in good faith, as known to God alone, and gives consent to the good as they in good faith understand it, and refuses to accept the Gospel for reasons that God does not hold them culpable (bcause God knows what they have the grace to accept and what they don’t), then they could be offered an opportunity for salutory acceptance at the moment they had the grace to do so.
The main point is that God will not unjustly expecting faith from someone who seeks the truth but is not given the grace to accept it, but neither is God guaranteeing an unlimited numbers of opportunities to accept the Truth. We trust both that God is just and that God justly requires us to give consent to the Truth once we have the capacity to give God what God deserves.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m not saying that your example is inherently wrong, because as you pointed out, it would be a situation known only to God. However, that exact situation is constantly used as a way to show that the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ are not always necessary for salvation. People will use this understanding as a way to insist that people don’t have to convert and if they do reject Jesus Christ, then they can still be saved.

It takes on the misunderstanding that the Truth only becomes necessary when one understands and believes it to be necessary. This is what I disagree with because it negates the requirement of the Church to go forth and teach and to share the Gospels with every individual, regardless of their current religious beliefs.

 

[PetraG]

I’m not saying that your example is inherently wrong, because as you pointed out, it would be a situation known only to God. However, that exact situation is constantly used as a way to show that the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ are not always necessary for salvation. People will use this understanding as a way to insist that people don’t have to convert and if they do reject Jesus Christ, then they can still be saved.

It takes on the misunderstanding that the Truth only becomes necessary when one understands and believes it to be necessary. This is what I disagree with because it negates the requirement of the Church to go forth and teach and to share the Gospels with every individual, regardless of their current religious beliefs.

Well, it could be 100% true and it would still not negate the requirement to go out and teach the world.

We know that faith is a gift. The doctrine of invincible ignorance is only a recognition that God alone can decide who has been offered that gift and who has not. We cannot be the judges of that. We can only say that we know it is necessary to accept the gift if it is offered. We have a responibility to tell people that they do have a duty to look for the truth and to conform themselves to it. We can’t soft-pedal the “do your best” part. That does not imply cheap “participation trophy” levels of “trying.”

Nevertheless, we do wrong if we do not make it clear that God is just. God is not looking to set anyone up for failure. God gets no pleasure from a soul that is lost but desires all to turn to Him! “Do I find pleasure in the death of the wicked? Do I not rejoice when they turn from their evil way and live?” (Ez 18: 23) Therefore, God is not going to turn away from the person who sought the good all his life but was not offered the opportunity to accept salvation until the path was made clear by ways that mere humans cannot begin to appreciate.

That is how we can say both “There is no salvation outside His Church” and yet also say “God alone can judge anyone.” It is because God has ways to save the lost that are beyond our understanding. Many things are impossible for us, but “all things are possible for God.” Still, God has made it our duty to cooperate in the work of saving souls, too.

 

[pnewton]

Also, what the Church teaches doesn’t exclude Abraham and the thief on the cross from salvation, as all the just dead were released into heaven prior to the promulgation of the Gospels.

The bulls you quoted do not make that distinction. In other words, you are interpreting them, and the Catechism is the higher authority than anyone here. More to the point it is what the Church actually teaches.

When what the Church actually says is there for us all to read. It is the Church that interprets her history and her tradition, not each individually. What you did is far worse and shakier than even sola scriptura, from which innumerable heresies have blossomed.

 

[Genesis315]

That faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation, “is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (CCC 150).

In particular, this means faith in Christ, since Christ “is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65); “what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son” (CCC 65, quoting St. John of the Cross).

CCC

The Necessity of Faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43

Even if in good conscience, people in non-Christian religions cannot have faith–they simply do not believe what God has revealed. Their belief is merely “religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself” and therefore “the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus 7).

There can be no invincible ignorance in this regard. As the First Vatican Council taught, the Holy Spirit “gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth.” (Dei Filius, ch. 3, par. 6).

However, we do acknowledge that, for those in good conscience seeking to follow the truth, “in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.” (CCC 848). This may even happen only at the “eleventh hour” (cf. Matt. 20:6).

Where invincible ignorance can come into play is the individual articles of faith. Since faith is one and founded on the person of Christ “neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it.” (St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies I, 10, 2).

Deliberately denying an article of faith, however, destroys faith altogether because one has substituted his own judgment in place of God’s authority:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum 9:

But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

 

[Nikolaite]

Nikolaite:

Also, what the Church teaches doesn’t exclude Abraham and the thief on the cross from salvation, as all the just dead were released into heaven prior to the promulgation of the Gospels.

The bulls you quoted do not make that distinction. In other words, you are interpreting them, and the Catechism is the higher authority than anyone here. More to the point it is what the Church actually teaches.

When what the Church actually says is there for us all to read. It is the Church that interprets her history and her tradition, not each individually. What you did is far worse and shakier than even sola scriptura, from which innumerable heresies have blossomed.

Why don’t you stick to the topic of the OP and give him the examples of people who have gone to heaven for their invincible ignorance, like he asked?

 

[pnewton]

I am glad that topic is still there to be read, as to who is sticking too it, and who has “misinterpreted” it. If you can’t get that right, perhaps century-old papal bulls are best left to the Church.