Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[OneTrueCathApos]

It seems very clear to me that some Catholics - certainly not all - don’t know their own church very well, much less the definitions of words such as ex cathedra.

Just an observation.

**It means FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER. **

 

[sambos671]

Sambos…give it up…

First of all I won’t “give up” simply because you ask me. As the discussion has shown there is no consensus on what you’ve quoted as being ex-cathedra. Second of all I know the term means from the Chair. Specifically Peter’s chair. But you seem to be implying everything a pope says is ex-cathedra I and the Catholic Church say that is not the case. Show diffinatively that it is. If you can’t then your argument is lacking.

 

[nsper7]

But they DO know that Christ established the Catholic church, yet REFUSE to accept or enter it. They are taught immensely just right here on CAF, they are shown historical, archaelogical, and evidence of the one true church, yet refuse to enter it.

Do they know it? What does ‘know’ mean? Does simply having facts, which, sadly, can be twisted by even Protestants, thrown at you mean you ‘know’ it, or does there have to be at some level acceptance?

After all, there are plenty of Protestant and secular historians that try to put forward a different argument and it can get confusing. Obviously, I, like you, do believe the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Christ.

 

[Dauphin]

This is a great thread! This doctrine needs to be stated clearly. The arguments here are easily cleared up by the following:

“Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control” - Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

It’s as simple as that. Those who know of Christ’s Church and do not enter it will not be saved. Only those who are innocently ignorant are excused from the need for explicit membership in the Church.

The Church governed by the successor of Peter is the one Ark of Salvation.

The statement of the Council of Florence, which says that heretics and schismatcs cannot be saved, is clearly dogmatic (ie. it must be given the submission of faith by all Catholics).

This is my clarification from another thread on the matter:

The teaching quoted by the OP (Cantate Domino, from the 11th Session of the Council of Florence) is infallible, because it forms part of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, states:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."* (n. 25)

Clearly, the statement contained in the first post is an exercise of this Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It expounds something which has always been present in the deposit of faith and has been taught and believed universally since apostolic times. It would be a falsification of history to suggest that there was anything short of unanimity on this doctrine on the part of the Church’s Bishops at the Council of Florence. There is no doubt whatsoever concerning the infallibility of this teaching.

Since it forms part of the Church’s Infallible Magisterium, this means that it is irreformable. It cannot be superseded by any subsequent act of the Magisterium.

 

[linuxgeek71]

Have you shown that the Pope or the congregation haved deffinatively said these statements were ex-cathedra?

I quoted the Council of Florence, so I don’t have to show ex cathedra statements for it. The magesterium at council is infallible as well.

 

[sambos671]

I quoted the Council of Florence, so I don’t have to show ex cathedra statements for it. The magesterium at council is infallible as well.

Are you talking about the 17 th ecumenical council at Basil which was only supported up to the 25th session? Apart from that I can only say that the church has also furthered some of its definition in its own magisterium

But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church.

 

[linuxgeek71]

Are you talking about the 17 th ecumenical council at Basil which was only supported up to the 25th session?

I’m not sure what your point is. And it isn’t the Council of Basel anymore, they did move. The Church accepts it, that is all that is needed.

Apart from that I can only say that the church has also furthered some of its definition in its own magisterium

Your quote in no way disagrees with what I have said. It only tries to explain possible meanings of invincilble ignorance.

 

[sambos671]

I’m not sure what your point is. And it isn’t the Council of Basel anymore, they did move. The Church accepts it, that is all that is needed.

Your quote in no way disagrees with what I have said. It only tries to explain possible meanings of invincilble ignorance.

What specifically is your point? It seems you are saying no Non-Catholic can be saved in any respect. Is this what you are saying?

 

[linuxgeek71]

What specifically is your point? It seems you are saying no Non-Catholic can be saved in any respect. Is this what you are saying?

I specifically stated in an above post that I was not saying that.

 

[sambos671]

I specifically stated in an above post that I was not saying that.

Then what are we arguing about?

 

[linuxgeek71]

Then what are we arguing about?

People claiming this isn’t a doctrine of the Church. People that believe ignorance automatically saves you. People that try and fully specify what ignorance means, and make it so broad no one can go to hell. People that beleive an implicit desire for the Church isn’t required.

 

[sambos671]

People claiming this isn’t a doctrine of the Church. People that believe ignorance automatically saves you. People that try and fully specify what ignorance means, and make it so broad no one can go to hell. People that beleive an implicit desire for the Church isn’t required.

Well, I don’t believe that. I do believe that there is a lot of ignorance about the Church and what it means to be Catholic by both Catholics and Protestants. Some protestants want the Church though they don’t know it. Some catholics are condemn though they don’t know it. Both are suffering do to ignorance.

 

[O.S.Luke]

**It means FROM THE CHAIR OF PETER. **

Very good. Do you know what a papal bull is? And what it isn’t? And where it fits where ex cathedra is concerned?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Very good. Do you know what a papal bull is? And what it isn’t? And where it fits where ex cathedra is concerned?

Here we go…it always amazes me how Protestants have so many answers of the Catholic church. Really comical…
I’d be more concerned about your “man-made” Methodist religion.

 

[linuxgeek71]

Well, I don’t believe that.

You don’t believe what?

I do believe that there is a lot of ignorance about the Church and what it means to be Catholic by both Catholics and Protestants.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the status of the doctrine we are discussing. Though you are correct.

Some protestants want the Church though they don’t know it.

This is called implicit desire. I specifically brought this up in an earlier post. I have personally experienced it.

Some catholics are condemn though they don’t know it.

More precisely no Catholic knows he is saved. Saying you are for certain going to heaven is condemned by the Church (at the Council of Trent). Unless of course God has specifically told you so, but by its nature this would be a very rare event.

Both are suffering do to ignorance.

True, but not relevant to understanding the meaning of the doctrine.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Here we go…it always amazes me how Protestants have so many answers of the Catholic church. Really comical…
I’d be more concerned about your “man-made” Methodist religion.

My point, my arrogant friend, was that you were confusing the two… as some of your Catholic friends here were trying to point out.

I have nothing against Catholicism, as I have told you time and time again - I have the greatest respect for Catholicism. But you are simply wrong regarding some of the posts you have made here.

Things regarding the faith are never, never comical.

 

[O.S.Luke]

I wanted to be sure I remembered this correctly before I posted it.

Pope John Paul II declared the Inquisition, which was established by a Papal Bull under Sixtus IV, as “The greatest error in Church history,” (from “Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998).

Now, surely a Pope would not have said such a thing if a papal bull was ex cathedra, would he? In fact, he issued a Papal Apology for it in June of 2004, and in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, called for “both forgiveness and repentance by Catholics and Protestants, recognising and honouring the sacrifices of both Catholic and Protestant martyrs of the European religious wars.” (Vatican, May 25, 1995).

So, OTCA… which is it?!?

Again… I have no problem with Catholicism - just your representation of it.

O+

 

[linuxgeek71]

I wanted to be sure I remembered this correctly before I posted it.

Pope John Paul II declared the Inquisition, which was established by a Papal Bull under Sixtus IV, as “The greatest error in Church history,” (from “Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998).

Now, surely a Pope would not have said such a thing if a papal bull was ex cathedra, would he? In fact, he issued a Papal Apology for it in June of 2004, and in the encyclical Ut Unum Sint, called for “both forgiveness and repentance by Catholics and Protestants, recognising and honouring the sacrifices of both Catholic and Protestant martyrs of the European religious wars.” (Vatican, May 25, 1995).

So, OTCA… which is it?!?

Again… I have no problem with Catholicism - just your representation of it.

O+

There is no official list of ex cathedra statements. Nor is there a list of all Catholic doctrines. It would be great if there were, but the Church has not yet made them. So to answer your question, no papal bulls aren’t always ex cathedra, but they could be. In the case of this particular doctrine, it doesn’t matter because it is stated in councils and thus binding anyway. So it is unlikely the issue of them being ex cathedra ever gets a formal answer. In gerneral though we are required to submit to the statements of the pope whether infallible or not. We are allowed to disagree but only after careful thought and with good reason. So as Catholics, “I just don’t won’t to believe”, doesn’t sit well. If you want to disagree with the pope you need to prove he is wrong.

 

[O.S.Luke]

So to answer your question, no papal bulls aren’t always ex cathedra, but they could be.

That was my point to OTCA; thank you for helping me out, Linux.

 

[swariffin]

How is that relevant? The Immaculate Conception isn’t mentioned either, but as Catholics we must still believe it. This thread is about Catholics believing a Catholic teaching. I use Catholic sources to support it. I’m not trying to defend this belief to non-Catholics, so** I don’t need to find Bible passages to support what I’m saying**. Furthermore that passage does not state salvation can be from outside the Church. It is silent on the issue. Short of finding a passage that explicity says you can be saved outside of the Church you don’t have a case.

You are is a dangerous ground, brother. You are saying that Catholic don’t need the bible. In that case, you can tell the priest in the mass to eliminate the readings entirely.

God’s word cannot be limited by anybody including the pope. Surely that anybody can get the correct word of God. But, they can be wrong too. With the correct word of God guaranteed by the correct bible, you are in 100% sure.

If you can’t ground your argument on the written bible, how can you ground your argument on the unwritten Tradition?? No way. The RCC cannot be away from the written bible. You are wrong to think it the other way.