S
Soutane
Guest
This is an infallible decree.Do you agree or disagree with the literalness of it and why?
- Status
F
fish90
Guest
I have more trouble with the understanding of it than the literal interpretation.
I believe Catholic Answers shares this.
1.) Catholicism is true.
2.) A Catholic who understands the fullness of the Catholic Faith, but leaves will endanger his/her soul.
3.) A faithful non-Catholic who finds the Catholic Faith to be true yet fails to join it puts his/her soul in jeopardy.
Also, the Catholic must make every effort to evangelize.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not say the Catholic Church is not the One true Church of Christ.
In my opinion, four words does not accurately define a doctrine. The literal interpretation has its faults and would appear to be heretical for that reason.
Best,
fish90
I believe Catholic Answers shares this.
1.) Catholicism is true.
2.) A Catholic who understands the fullness of the Catholic Faith, but leaves will endanger his/her soul.
3.) A faithful non-Catholic who finds the Catholic Faith to be true yet fails to join it puts his/her soul in jeopardy.
Also, the Catholic must make every effort to evangelize.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not say the Catholic Church is not the One true Church of Christ.
In my opinion, four words does not accurately define a doctrine. The literal interpretation has its faults and would appear to be heretical for that reason.
Best,
fish90
S
Soutane
Guest
A+++.Great and well thought out and supported thesesI have more trouble with the understanding of it than the literal interpretation.
I believe Catholic Answers shares this.
1.) Catholicism is true.
2.) A Catholic who understands the fullness of the Catholic Faith, but leaves will endanger his/her soul.
3.) A faithful non-Catholic who finds the Catholic Faith to be true yet fails to join it puts his/her soul in jeopardy.
Also, the Catholic must make every effort to evangelize.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not say the Catholic Church is not the One true Church of Christ.
In my opinion, four words does not accurately define a doctrine. The literal interpretation has its faults and would appear to be heretical for that reason.
Best,
fish90
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Of course it is correct, the problem is how one interpretes the Ecclesia.
As Met. Kallistos wrote:
“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."
As Met. Kallistos wrote:
“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” (G. Florovsky, “Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church”, in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."
T
TheosisM
Guest
The Ecumenical Council of Florence stated this (that I’m sure everyone is familiar with), in Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV:
*
“It (Catholic Church) 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, 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.”*
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
How does one reconcile this with the view that it is possible for pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics to be saved (obviously not all) through baptism of desire? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding this, since schismatics (i.e. Orthodox) are validly baptized already, but this seems to be saying that they “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”.
*
“It (Catholic Church) 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, 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.”*
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
How does one reconcile this with the view that it is possible for pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics to be saved (obviously not all) through baptism of desire? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding this, since schismatics (i.e. Orthodox) are validly baptized already, but this seems to be saying that they “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”.
F
fish90
Guest
I also find the literal interpretation denies the immense power of God to work outside his Sacraments.
Best,
fish90
Best,
fish90
F
fish90
Guest
I find the important thing to consider is the time period this was said. (Please correct me if I am wrong) For instance, can you call a Protestant a heretic who was taught all his/her life the Catholic Church is the work of Satan or that the Catholic Church is not necessary for Salvation? We should recognize these beliefs as heresy, however, is that Protestant a heretic?The Ecumenical Council of Florence stated this (that I’m sure everyone is familiar with), in Cantate Domino, by Pope Eugene IV:
*
“It (Catholic Church) 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, 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.”*
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
How does one reconcile this with the view that it is possible for pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics to be saved (obviously not all) through baptism of desire? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding this, since schismatics (i.e. Orthodox) are validly baptized already, but this seems to be saying that they “cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”.
This statement also recognizes the immense trouble with separating from Christ’s Church.
If I have my Catechism correct, the Catholic Church does not have the authority to sentence anyone to hell. Christ fulfills that role.
I will let a better apologist answer more about this topic.
Best,
fish90
T
TheosisM
Guest
True. I think that EENS can be (and is) interpreted to mean that of course salvation only comes through Jesus, through the Church, however one does not necessarily have to be in the visible organization to be saved, since they may be through baptism of desire or baptism of blood. On the other hand, I have a hard time understanding how this jives with what Florence said about pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics going to everlasting fire and not having eternal life unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives.
T
TheosisM
Guest
I think that I found a long thread addressing this specific part of the Council of Florence, but can’t find it anymore.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
This is off-topic for this thread, Theosis, but I just wanted to ask, why on earth are you pondering LDS???
I think that I found a long thread addressing this specific part of the Council of Florence, but can’t find it anymore.
T
TheosisM
Guest
as you said, off-topic
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
It can be readily reconciled with “baptism by desire” as it was understood then, but because then, as formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas and others, “baptism by desire” required one to have an explicit desire to join the Catholic Church (the Church united to the Pope), and it stated that such a one was, in fact, joined to the Church even if they died before receiving water baptism. Thus, they would be “joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives.”
What it cannot be reconciled with is idea put forth in Lumen Gentium (Vatican II) of “implicit desire” to be joined to the Catholic Church, i.e. a non-Catholic will be saved if they would have joined the Catholic Church if they had known better. Again, the medieval and pre-Vatican II idea of “baptims by desire” required an explicit desire.
N
nsper7
Guest
How does one define “joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives”?
- Does this include an invisible connection to the Church?
- How do we define the end of a person’s life? Didn’t St. Faustina talk about God offering people a chance to repent and accept Him in that time when the person shows no physical signs of life (science cannot detect their life signs), but the soul has yet to leave the body.
J
Janet1983
Guest
History repeats itself… Yay.
Anyways.
As far as I know, even if it was not infallible, it was was a church teaching when it was proclaimed.
From what I have heard there is nothing wrong about that till today. The difference between today’s understanding and the understanding back then might have been different.
As far as I know anybody who is validly baptized is informally a Catholic (please forgive my way of saying it, I hope you get my meaning) and everybody who is baptized into the Catholic faith directly is formally a Catholic.
Someone with a non-Catholic baptism would thereby profit from being an invisible member and “extra ecclesia nulla salus” would not have any effect on him.
That would be different for those who once were Catholic and then became heretics, schismatics or apostates themselves. Today’s church does not blame Protestants for being Protestant, but they did blame the followers of the reformers for doing so.
The difference is knowledge. Someone who becomes a heretic, schismatic or apostate knows better and can be blamed for his actions. Someone who follows these after getting all the sufficient information can be blamed too.
Someone who has been baptized into the faith in a Protestant denomination does not know any different. He could only be blamed if he managed to hear the truth without acting on it. (Thereby excluding invincible ignorance.)
Well that would be the Catholic point of view (I think).
As someone who has been called a heretic, a schismatic and an apostate before I tend to personally disagree with this, but I guess that is not important in the context of this question.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I am pretty close to agreeing with Kallistos on this, Nine.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
T
TheosisM
Guest
And I’m boggled as to why you continue to ask about such personal matters after I said it’s off-topic, and therefore will not discuss it.I’m going to take that as a yes. I’m boggled as to why??
- Status