Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

[SemperFidelis]

I’m not sure if this is in the correct location but here goes:

I have just come upon another stumbling block on my journey to reach the Tiber. I have been studying the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It seems to me that the Church has changed its dogma in this regard and that the Second Vatican Council has contradicted the Fourth Lateran Council. Lumen Gentium and the recent works that have been written about it seem to contradict Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I understand that there have always been provisions for those who through no fault of their own have never heard the Gospels, but it seems according to the wording of Lateran IV and the Church Father’s both before and after the council that Orthodox, Protestant, non-Christian’s could not receive salvation if they were not in communion with Rome and its Pontiff. This new document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH seems to agree with the theology of Vatican II, which in turn seems to me to disagree with the teachings of Lateran IV. Furthermore the doctrine of “outside the Church there is no salvation” seems to be ignored in this following paragraph in the Catechism:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Can someone explain this all to me?

 

[SemperFidelis]

bump

 

[Ad_Deum]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

Through my understanding of the Catholics “new” teaching (Vatican II) about church salvation are completely wrong because Muslim’s do not recognized/deny Jesus Christ as the Messiah or the Son of God it is a complete heresy to their religion, and the Catholic’s “new” teachings about church salvation is far from the true teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ and the traditional Catholic Church, Jesus said, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33). It means who ever deny Him (Jesus Christ) will be not saved because through Jesus Christ only we can attain salvation, so outside Christ there is no salvation. Only those who repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can be saved. In the case of the “faith of Abraham” that Muslim’s professes so to speak, it is different from what Jesus Christ teached and confessed; how can Muslim’s be professing the “faith of Abraham” when in fact they do not recognized and completely denies the teachings of Jesus Christ and his divinity?

I think Martin Luther’s statement is far more better than the new cathechism of the post-conciliar church:

“Therefore he who would find Christ must first find the Church. How should we know where Christ and his faith were, if we did not know where his believers are? And he who would know anything of Christ must not trust himself nor build a bridge to heaven by his own reason; but he must go to the Church, attend and ask her. Now the Church is not wood and stone, but the company of believing people; one must hold to them, and see how they believe, live and teach; they surely have Christ in their midst. For outside of the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation”.
– Dr. Martin Luther

I agree with his statement eventhough he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church. I agree with him because he believed that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, and without Him in our midst and heart we are nothing; unsaved.

Pax

Instaurare omnia in Christo

**“Only the holy scriptures reveals the truths, and not those mandated by man.”

“My intention is not to mislead, but to clear all things through sacred scriptures.”**

 

[GoldenArrow]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I’m a student of Father Hardons, so most of this is just reiterating what he’s said in his books.

I interpret this statement from the CCC to mean that the God of the Muslims is the same God of the Jews and the Christians.

What I mean is Yahweh, Jehovah, etc … the One God of the Old Testament.

But the way in which the big 3 Monotheistic religions define and acknowledge that One God is very different.

In light of this new document from the CDF, the only religion that offers God true worship, that is sacrifice, is the Orthodox and Catholic Churches through the Mass. These are the only “churches,” that is, those who are of the one and same Mystical Body of Christ.

But the old rules still do apply. You need to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ to be saved.

The least-common denominator is this: Everyone is Heaven is Catholic and you get there through the graces poured out to all mankind though the Universal Sacrament of Salvation, the Catholic Church.

One of the BEST explanations of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is written by Father Hardon. I posted it on my Blog:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: The Forgotten Dogma

God Bless!

– Mary Ann Button

 

[GoldenArrow]

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

I’m a student of Father Hardons, so most of this is just reiterating what he’s said in his books.

I interpret this statement from the CCC to mean that the God of the Muslims is the same God of the Jews and the Christians.

What I mean is Yahweh, Jehovah, etc … the One God of the Old Testament.

But the way in which the big 3 Monotheistic religions define and acknowledge that One God is very different.

In light of this new document from the CDF, the only religion that offers God true worship, that is sacrifice, is the Orthodox and Catholic Churches through the Mass. These are the only “churches,” that is, those who are of the one and same Mystical Body of Christ.

But the old rules still do apply. You need to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ to be saved.

The least-common denominator is this: Everyone in Heaven is Catholic, and you get there through the graces poured out to all mankind though the Universal Sacrament of Salvation, the Kingdom of God on Earth, Christ’s Church.

One of the BEST explanations of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was written by Father Hardon. I posted it on my Blog:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: The Forgotten Dogma

God Bless!

– Mary Ann Button

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I have just come upon another stumbling block on my journey to reach the Tiber. I have been studying the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It seems to me that the Church has changed its dogma in this regard and that the Second Vatican Council has contradicted the Fourth Lateran Council.

The Church has never declared anyone to be definitely in Hell. However there have also been some quite stringent conditions attached to salvation - baptised Roman Catholic, free from mortal sin, not excommunicated - there is a contradiction there and it has always been there.

Jews and Muslims believe in the one true God but have rejected the Christian message. So their status is rather different to that of pagans or atheists. John Paul II had a horror of religious conflict and tried to be very concilatory, seeing the undoubted good that is in these religions. However if you read hs book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” he says very clealry that Islam is a protest against the crucifixion, a demand that God reveal Himself as He is not rather than as He is.

 

[ncjohn]

In the end, I think Vatican II’s understanding is just a clearer understanding of the concept of Baptism of desire, and an acknowledgement that if people were capable of understanding the full truth they would be Catholic.

In the end the Church is still proclaiming that salvation is only through the Church, while acknowldging that people who are doing their best to find and follow God’s will, but who are not capable for whatever reason of fully understanding and accepting the Catholic Church as they see it, can still be saved through Her even if they may not be aware that that is happening. That, of course, does not apply to people who believe the Church to be the true Church and consciously choose to remain outside.

 

[havemercy]

In the end, I think Vatican II’s understanding is just a clearer understanding of the concept of Baptism of desire, and an acknowledgement that if people were capable of understanding the full truth they would be Catholic.

Its something of the sort. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus formulated positively is what Vatican II stipulated. The CCC indicates that I think. No one is saved, unless they are united to the Mystical Body of Christ. Personally, I get lost in the whole “partial communion” thing going on these days. Either you’re in communion, or you’re not.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Thanks for the answers so far, but I’m still really confused about what paragraph 841 of the CCC says. It seems to me like it says that Muslims have the possibility of salvation. Coming from a protestant background, it would make it easier for me to join the Catholic Church if it just professed that salvation is in fact only attainable if you are a member of the Catholic Church. This offends some protestants but it doesn’t offend me because many protestants believe the same thing. It makes it seem like the Church is unsure of itself and its beliefs. It makes it seem like salvation can come through other Churches. If that’s the case then there would be no inclination for me to change Churches (because according to Catholic belief I can go to heaven as a Baptist) and I might as well stay where I’m at. Can someone clarify for me?

 

[SemperFidelis]

bump

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

It seems to me like it says that Muslims have the possibility of salvation.
Can someone clarify for me?

This is strictly my own interpretation, but I see “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” as a doctrine for the here and now, not one concerning the afterlife. We don’t know if ultimately a Muslim might be saved, we do know that, on Earth, it is wretched thing to be a Muslim.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is strictly my own interpretation, but I see “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” as a doctrine for the here and now, not one concerning the afterlife. We don’t know if ultimately a Muslim might be saved, we do know that, on Earth, it is wretched thing to be a Muslim.

But Muslims reject that Jesus is the Savior. How then could the Catholic Church possibly believe that a Muslim could go to heaven when they also state in Dominus Iesus that one can only get to heaven through Jesus, and in Lateran IV, that you can only do that truely through the Catholic faith? How can one receive salvation on Earth? I thought Catholics believed that one is only saved once they get to heaven. This is getting very confusing.

 

[CollegeKid]

But Muslims reject that Jesus is the Savior. How then could the Catholic Church possibly believe that a Muslim could go to heaven when they also state in Dominus Iesus that one can only get to heaven through Jesus, and in Lateran IV, that you can only do that truely through the Catholic faith? How can one receive salvation on Earth? I thought Catholics believed that one is only saved once they get to heaven. This is getting very confusing.

If you can hold for a bit, I’m going to provide you with an excerpt from a Catholic Catechism written by Jesuit Father John Hardon in 1981 on the necessity of the Church for salvation.

 

[CollegeKid]

From Fr. John Hardon’s 1981 The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church:

“Since the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that ‘The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which on one is saved,’ there have been two solemn definitions of the same doctrine, by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and at the Council of Florence in 1442. At the Council of Trent, which is commonly looked upon as a symbol of Catholic unwillingness to compromise, the now familiar dogma of baptism by desire was solemnly defined; and it was this Tridentine teaching that supported all subsequent recognition that actual membership in the Church is not required to reach one’s eternal destiny.”

(more to come)

 

[VociMike]

But Muslims reject that Jesus is the Savior. How then could the Catholic Church possibly believe that a Muslim could go to heaven when they also state in Dominus Iesus that one can only get to heaven through Jesus, and in Lateran IV, that you can only do that truely through the Catholic faith?

Do they really reject that Christ is the Savior, or do they rather simply believe what their faith and culture has taught them. These are two vastly different things.

True, saving belief is found in obedience. Those who obey the law of God written into their hearts are those who believe and are those who may be saved.

 

[CollegeKid]

"At the Second Council of the Vatican, both streams of doctrine were delicately welded into a composite whole:

**The Council relies on sacred Scripture and Tradition in teaching that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation. Christ alone is the mediator of salvation and the way of salvation. He presents himself to us in his Body, which is the Church. When he insisted expressly on the necessity for faith and baptism, he asserted at the same time the necessity for the Church which men would enter by the gateway of baptism. This means thta it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.

Full incorporation in the society of the Church belongs to those who are in possession of the Holy Spirit, accept its order in its entirety with all its established means of salvation, and are united to Christ, who rules it by the agency of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops, within its visible framework. The bonds of their union are profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and fellowship…**

(more to come)

 

[SemperFidelis]

If you can hold for a bit, I’m going to provide you with an excerpt from a Catholic Catechism written by Jesuit Father John Hardon in 1981 on the necessity of the Church for salvation.

Thank you very much, but I’ve already read it. I read all over the place how one must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to go to heaven (Church Father’s, Lateran IV, numerous Pope’s, etc.) However it seems to me that Lumen Gentium and the newly issued document by the CDF go against the “outside the Church there is no salvation” dogma proposed by Lateran IV. Also the paragraph stated above contradicts this as well. However other areas of the CCC (couple paragraphs later) seem to be in agreement with Lateran IV. I just want to know why this is. My interpretation is that the Church has changed its dogma, which is supposed to be unchangeable. Some sources agree with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and others don’t. Why? I hope that my interpretation is just a little off. I got to this point because I began studying Vatican II. Pope Paul VI said himself that Vatican II didn’t change any dogma. But to me it seems like it did. I’ve already read the apologetic page on Catholic Answers on this and didn’t really satisy so to speak. Can someone correct my interpretation with a a linked source? Thanks and God Bless!

 

[CollegeKid]

(Back to Fr. Hardon’s Catechism narrative)

"Using this conciliar doctrine as guide, we see that the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man’s salvation. The reason is that, since his ascension and the descent of the Spirit, the Church is Christ active on earth performing the salvific work for which he was sent into the world by the Father. Accordingly, the Church is necessary not only as a matter of precept but as a divinely instituted means, provided a person knows that he must use this means to be saved.

Actual incorporation into the Church takes place by baptism of water. Those who are not actually baptized may, nevertheless, be saved through the Church according to their faith in whatever historical revelation they come to know and in their adequate cooperation with the internal graces of the Spirit they receive.

On both counts, however, whoever is saved owes his salvation to the one Catholic Church founded by Christ. It is to this Church alone that Christ entrusted the truths of revelation which have now, though often dimly, penetrated all the cultures of mankind. It is this Church alone that communicates the merits won for the whole world on the cross."

Once again, this was taken from The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church by Father John A. Hardon, S.J. (Society of Jesus)

 

[CollegeKid]

However it seems to me that Lumen Gentium and the newly issued document by the CDF go against the “outside the Church there is no salvation” dogma proposed by Lateran IV.

Which part of Lumen Gentium and which part of the new document from the CDF?

Also the paragraph stated above contradicts this as well.

I’m sorry, which paragraph are you referring to?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Which part of Lumen Gentium and which part of the new document from the CDF?

I’m sorry, which paragraph are you referring to?

1. Basically the parts where it says protestants can be saved. To me that contradicts “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
2. Paragraph 841 in my original post.