Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[bpbasilphx]

\You can call it triumpalists if you wish, but it is the truth.\

Your saying so does not make it so.

 

[LoyalViews]

You are so full of it that you just condemned our Eastern Catholic brothers to hell because the are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, they are just simple Catholics. 100% correct? Yeah right!

How did he condemn our Easter Catholic brothers? He just said the ** Orthodox ** and not the Eastern Catholics. They (eastern catholics) are in communion with the church! They are part of the church!

But I though that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus included the Orthodox because of their apostolic succession … but now, thats different…

 

[Frbrendan]

You can call it triumpalists if you wish, but it is the truth. The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. I’m sure you would consider the following quote from St. Augustine as UGLY and TRIUMPALIST as well.

Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church: “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)

But remember, it is not too late for you. You can still enter into the Catholic Church… and I sincerely hope that you do.

Harrummph! St Augustine was born in 345 A.D. This is centuries before the Great Schism of 1054. There was, at the time, only one Christian faith, which came from Jesus through His apostles. There were, at the time, several different Patriarchal Sees, of which Rome was the First among Equals, but the Churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople and Alexandria were in all respects equal.

When St. Augustine wrote the above quote, all of the Patriarchal Sees all believed the same thing, although various heresies floated around.

So when St. Augustine wrote the above, he was talking about all of the Sees as being Catholic (The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός [katholikos], meaning “universal”.), and not Roman Catholic as we know the Latin Church today

 

[bpbasilphx]

Would any purpose be served in telling Ultima Ratio that this triumphalist attitude is PRECISELY what has held back reconciliation for CENTURIES since 1054?

Or for decades impeded my own seeking to enter the Catholic Communion of Churches?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

You are so full of it that you just condemned our Eastern Catholic brothers to hell because the are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, they are just simple Catholics. 100% correct? Yeah right!

Thank you for allowing me to clarify myself. I used the term Roman Catholic Church as it is defined in Fr. Hardin’s Catholic Dictionary. According to that definition, Roman Catholic Church means, not only the Western Rites, but rather all those particular Churches (whether East or West) that are in union with the Church of Rome.

That is why it is called the Roman Catholic (universal) Church. I have great respect for the Eastern Churches that are in union with Rome and hold to the true faith.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Harrummph! St Augustine was born in 345 A.D. This is centuries before the Great Schism of 1054.

Was Augustine including the Donatists as being members of the Catholic Church? If not, why?

There was, at the time, only one Christian faith, which came from Jesus through His apostles.

The same is true today: Today there is only one Christian faith, and one of the dogmas of the faith is the filioque, which the Orthodox reject. The one faith also includes the teaching of all the Councils, not just the first seven.

There were, at the time, several different Patriarchal Sees, of which Rome was the First among Equals, but the Churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople and Alexandria were in all respects equal.

“First among equals” you say. Interesting. So, do you accept the Primacy of the Pope (as head of the Patriarchical Sees), and do you acknowledge that he is infallible when a declaration meets the conditions set down by Vatican I?

When St. Augustine wrote the above quote, all of the Patriarchal Sees all believed the same thing, although various heresies floated around.

Indeed they did believe the same things, but not anymore. For example, do all of the Patrairchical Sees today accept all of the General Councils of the Church, or do some of them only accept the first 7 Councils? If some only accept the first seven, it shows that all no longer believe the same thing. Therefore, the quote from Augustine would exclude these heretical churches as being a part of the Catholic Church.

So when St. Augustine wrote the above, he was talking about all of the Sees as being Catholic (The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός [katholikos], meaning “universal”.), and not Roman Catholic as we know the Latin Church today

I agree. He was referring to the universal Church; that is, the Roman Catholic Church, which includes all particular Churches that are in union with the Church of Rome. Today that would indeed include many of the Eastern Churches, but not the Orthodox, since they are no longer part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Cristiano]

Thank you for allowing me to clarify myself. I used the term Roman Catholic Church as it is defined in Fr. Hardin’s Catholic Dictionary. According to that definition, Roman Catholic Church means, not only the Western Rites, but rather all those particular Churches (whether East or West) that are in union with the Church of Rome.

That is why it is called the Roman Catholic (universal) Church. I have great respect for the Eastern Churches that are in union with Rome and hold to the true faith.

I apologize for saying that you are full of it. It was not the best way to bring up a disagreement about wording in a statement.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I apologize for saying that you are full of it. It was not the best way to bring up a disagreement about wording in a statement.

Thank you.

 

[LoyalViews]

The Protestants is another thing, they are not saved…they always openly deny the church, it is by not Converting is how they deny it. Also, I suppose it could go the same for the Orthodox, could it or not?

 

[diggerdomer]

Thank you for allowing me to clarify myself. I used the term Roman Catholic Church as it is defined in Fr. Hardin’s Catholic Dictionary. According to that definition, Roman Catholic Church means, not only the Western Rites, but rather all those particular Churches (whether East or West) that are in union with the Church of Rome.

That is why it is called the Roman Catholic (universal) Church. I have great respect for the Eastern Churches that are in union with Rome and hold to the true faith.

Well, then, I don’t think Fr. Hardin speaks for the Catholic Church. Clearly, the “Roman Catholic Church” is not synonymous with the “Catholic Church” according to Catholic teaching.

See, for instance, the Catechism 811 ff., or the teaching of Vatican II: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[diggerdomer]

The same is true today: Today there is only one Christian faith, and one of the dogmas of the faith is the filioque, which the Orthodox reject. The one faith also includes the teaching of all the Councils, not just the first seven.

Not quite. The filioque was prayed by some but not all Christians prior to the schism between Catholics and Orthodox. It is not in itself necessarily a theological barrier to unity. See for example usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

Same with the Councils. The Catholic Church recognizes that Councils not accepted (nor attended) by all Christians are “ecumenical” in a somewhat qualified sense compared to the first seven. Latter councils are often referred to as “General” in recognition of that unfortunate reality.

“First among equals” you say. Interesting. So, do you accept the Primacy of the Pope (as head of the Patriarchical Sees), and do you acknowledge that he is infallible when a declaration meets the conditions set down by Vatican I?

The Catholic Church does not teach the Pope is infallible.

Indeed they did believe the same things, but not anymore. For example, do all of the Patrairchical Sees today accept all of the General Councils of the Church, or do some of them only accept the first 7 Councils? If some only accept the first seven, it shows that all no longer believe the same thing. Therefore, the quote from Augustine would exclude these heretical churches as being a part of the Catholic Church.

There is a hierarchy of truths in the Catholic faith. There are many teachings of ecumenical/general Councils that are not infallibly taught, nor dogmatic. It’s simply not adequate to propose that Christians today need to agree with every teaching of every Council.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Diggerdormer,

1.) The filioque is de fide by virtue of the Council of Lyons and the council of Florence. No one can deny it without falling into heresy.

2.) Every dogmatic statement issued by a Council and ratified by the Pope is binding on all Catholics, the denial of which constitues formal heresy.

3.) The Pope is infallible when a declaration meets the guidelines set down by the First Vatican Council, just as my original posts stated.

4.) Catholics are bound to accept all the teachings of all Councils. We must accept that which is taught by the ordinary magisterium, the universal ordinary magisterium (which is infallible), and the extra-ordinary magisterium (which is infallible). All must be adhered to. We do’t get to pick and choose. The only reason that would justify not adhering to a teaching is if a novel teaching of the ordinary magisterium (which is not necessarily infallible), ** was contrary to previous teachings of the magisterium**. If God permitted such an unusual circumstance to take place, it would justify suspending judgment on the point while waiting for further clarification.

BTW, the definition from Fr. Hardin is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. The Roman Catholic Church is not limited to the Church of Rome, but to all Churches in union with Rome.

If the name Roman Catholic Church does not refer to all Churches in union with the Church of Rome, how do you explain the following teaching of St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church:

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori CSSR., Doctor,: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments)

 

[gkirk]

Do you agree, disagree, not sure? As for me, I Agree completely.

For thos of you who don’t know what it is, it is an official church teaching saying that

No person outside of the holy Roman Catholic Church, under the leadership of the Pope can enter into the gates of Heaven. But, if a person is not informed about this truth, God surely will not cast them to hell, for the poor soul was never told about Church, and therefor had no knowledge that it existed and only did what he was taught.

In a forum containing intelligent contributors it’s customary to provide chapter and verse. You conveniently omitted both. In fact, the “Roman Catholic Church” teaches that every validly baptized person is part of the Church. The pope said so.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

In a forum containing intelligent contributors it’s customary to provide chapter and verse. You conveniently omitted both. In fact, the “Roman Catholic Church” teaches that every validly baptized person is part of the Church. The pope said so.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: "22. 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. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who 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. …** For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy**.

One good thing about the old question and answer format catechisms is their clarity in presenting the faith. They impress the truth upon the intellect with great precision. The following is from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and answers many of the things discussed in this thread.

**8 Q: What is the Catholic Church? **

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

**9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? **

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. …

**11 Q: Who are they who are outside the true Church? **

A: Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

**12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? **

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ…

**14 Q: Who are heretics? **

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants. …

**16 Q: Who are schismatics? **

A: Schismatics are those Christians who, while not explicitly denying any dogma, yet voluntarily separate themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ, that is, from their lawful pastors.

**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. …

**34 Q: Is the Catholic Church infallible, then? **

A: Yes, the Catholic Church is infallible, and hence those who reject her definitions lose the faith and become heretics.

**58 Q: What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope? **

A: He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic. …

**60 Q: When was it defined that the Pope is infallible? **

A: That the Pope is infallible was defined by the Church in the [First] Vatican Council; and should anyone presume to contradict this definition he would be a heretic and excommunicated.

 

[LoyalViews]

In a forum containing intelligent contributors it’s customary to provide chapter and verse. You conveniently omitted both. In fact, the “Roman Catholic Church” teaches that every validly baptized person is part of the Church. The pope said so.

Quote it, tell me. I know where you are coming from though, but there are baptized Christians who are not in communion with the church…

Also, those who convert to the church do not need to be re-baptized, unless they werenèt orginally baptized, or they were but not in the Trinitarian formula.

 

[Frbrendan]

The Orthodox Church as such is both heretical and schismatic. It is heretical because it rejects 13 general councils of the Church and many dogmas, and it is schismatic because it rejects the Primacy of the Pope and refuses to submit to him (as evidenced by their rejection of 13 councils). Therefore, a person who dies a member of this false church will, without any doubt whatsoever, descended immediately “into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”. This is infallibly true and cannot be denied.

Both sides are in Schism! Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida was the first (in this argument) to go into schism!

To quote Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cerularius (text is below)

Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida delivered a notice of excommunication against Patriarch Michael on July 16, 1054, despite the death of Pope Leo three months prior and thus the invalidity of the excommunication. [Many accounts refer to this as a bull of excommunication but it is not a bull unless it is signed by a pope and Pope Leo had not seen it or signed it.] Michael in turn excommunicated the cardinal and the Pope and subsequently removed the pope’s name from the diptychs starting the East-West Schism.

However, thanks be to God, in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople removed all excommunications and anathemas against each other.

 

[LoyalViews]

Both sides are in Schism! Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida was the first (in this argument) to go into schism!

To quote Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cerularius (text is below)

Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida delivered a notice of excommunication against Patriarch Michael on July 16, 1054, despite the death of Pope Leo three months prior and thus the invalidity of the excommunication. [Many accounts refer to this as a bull of excommunication but it is not a bull unless it is signed by a pope and Pope Leo had not seen it or signed it.] Michael in turn excommunicated the cardinal and the Pope and subsequently removed the pope’s name from the diptychs starting the East-West Schism.

However, thanks be to God, in 1965 Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople removed all excommunications and anathemas against each other.

But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Orthodox church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are th One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!

 

[diggerdomer]

1.) The filioque is de fide by virtue of the Council of Lyons and the council of Florence. No one can deny it without falling into heresy.

Maybe. Maybe not. What’s important is that Christians agree on the theological truth. Obviously, the original Creed did not include the filioque clause. So why would praying/believing that Creed be a matter of heresy? It’s not. And, those earliest Ecumenical Councils (that ALL Christians agreed to…unlike Lyons and Florence) taught that no change can be made to the Nicene Creed. Why wasn’t that teaching followed by those who inserted the filioque? Are they in heresy, then, for not following the teaching of an ecumenical council that had been approved by the Pope?

If you want a more current example, check out the first paragraph of Dominus Iesus vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html.

Note where it states the fundamentals of Christian faith, including the Holy Spirit “proceeding from the Father.” It does NOT say “proceeding from the Father and the Son.”

As approved by the head of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger.

Uh oh…does that mean he’s a heretic for making that statement about the profession of faith?

2.) Every dogmatic statement issued by a Council and ratified by the Pope is binding on all Catholics, the denial of which constitues formal heresy.

Yes, and it’s up to the Church to determine which statements from past Councils are indeed dogmatic, and how they are to be understood and believed today. You can claim such-and-such excerpt from Lyon or Florence is dogmatic, but it’s not you or I who make that authoritative decision.

3.) The Pope is infallible when a declaration meets the guidelines set down by the First Vatican Council, just as my original posts stated.

The Pope is not infallible. The Pope can teach infallibly following not only what Vatican I taught, current Canon Law and the teachings of Vatican II also need to followed.

4.) Catholics are bound to accept all the teachings of all Councils. We must accept that which is taught by the ordinary magisterium, the universal ordinary magisterium (which is infallible), and the extra-ordinary magisterium (which is infallible). All must be adhered to. We do’t get to pick and choose. The only reason that would justify not adhering to a teaching is if a novel teaching of the ordinary magisterium (which is not necessarily infallible), ** was contrary to previous teachings of the magisterium**. If God permitted such an unusual circumstance to take place, it would justify suspending judgment on the point while waiting for further clarification.

The universal ordinary magisterium only teaches infallibly when it expressly intends to and makes such teaching manifestly evident. See Canon Law 749. Not every teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium is taught infallibly (just like every teaching of the Pope, or every teaching of an ecumenical council, are not taught infallibly).

BTW, the definition from Fr. Hardin is perfectly in line with what the Church teaches. The Roman Catholic Church is not limited to the Church of Rome, but to all Churches in union with Rome.

No. Melkite Catholics are not Roman Catholics. And vice versa. Maronite Catholics are not Roman Catholics, and vice versa. And I could continue the same through all 20 or so Catholic Rites. They are all Catholics, united in faith, worship, and under the governance of the Pope.

Hey…if you know any Eastern Rite Catholics (I do) ask them what they think. I’d love to hear their response.

If the name Roman Catholic Church does not refer to all Churches in union with the Church of Rome, how do you explain the following teaching of St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church:

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori CSSR., Doctor,: “We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church; hence, they who are out of our Church, or they who are separated from it, cannot be saved.” (Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments)

I am not sure, but it in no way contradicts the fact that Eastern Catholics are just that, and not Roman Catholics. Probably, given the time, he was more concerned about contrasting Catholics with Protestants and reacting to the Reformation. Or, demonstrating the truth of the Catholic faith to non-believers.

If you really want to pursue this question you raised, it would help if you would give the work you’re citing rather than just one excerpt that you think proves your point. Which excerpt, by the way, is not “de fide” (to use your terms)–right?

 

[diggerdomer]

Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

Huh. Interesting. Why didn’t this source say “Roman Catholic Church” instead of “Catholic Church”? Doesn’t that contradict previous claims of yours?

 

[bpbasilphx]

\But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Orthodox church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are th One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church!\

But, that does not mean both sides were in schism – the Latin church is still in schism, but we are not. Remeber, we are the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Orthodox Church!

(Just holding up to the mirror to those stuck inside the Looking-Glass World.)