Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardmc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MartyMcFly said:
***But the whole point is that a Pope declaring a dogma IS the interpretation. It’s the final word. If there is a dispute about something, his declaration IS the interpretation. He’s telling you HOW to interpret something in scripture or sacred tradition. ***

When Pope Eugene says “We say, declare, and define” he means to say that what he is about to say he means in a literal sense.

Dogmatic definitions are not like a passage of scripture, that can have multiple metaphorical meanings. Dogmatic definitions have one PLAIN meaning. It can’t be any other way. A dogma is telling the faithful WHAT they MUST believe.

How can they believe it if in order to understand it they need to interpret it?

And as far as interpreting things in the light of other truths…well it would seem that we need to interpret encyclicals, and other statements of the Church in light of “de fide” statements and not vice versa.

When it comes to EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, everyone says “well we need to understand it in the context of the time it was written”. Why then do we not say that about OTHER Dogmas?

I don’t hear anyone saying “Well, it is true that God is Triune, but at the same time, we need to understand this doctrine in the context of the time it was written, so maybe he kind of is really not Triune.” This would be totally absurd. Or, no one says “Well we need to understand transubstantiation in context, therefore maybe it really didn’t mean it is Jesus’s body literally.”
No, when we read the dogma it says that it is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity and we believe it AS SUCH. Case closed! The Pontiff has spoken!

If we wouldn’t tamper with those dogmas and interpret them, why do it with the DOGMA of No Salvation Outside the Church?

The Dogma IS the interpretation.
Click to expand...
Then, for the love of God, come out and say it: That EENS means that you must be a baptized-in-water Catholic in communion with the Pope and in a state of Grace when you die, else you’re toast: that there is NO SALVATION – PERIOD – for Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, etc, nor for unbaptized stillborn or aborted babies, or unbaptized Catechumens, regardless of their works or beliefs or pursuit of good and movement toward the Church, and even if they are martyred for the Faith.

Come out and say it.

And that’s what I mean by the “Feeneyite interpretation”.
 
una_fides said:
Here is the problem. You misunderstand invincible ignorance. It does not mean that anyone who wants to be saved can be. An implicit desire for baptism will only suffice if the person is invincibly ignorant of the reality that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.
l.
Click to expand...
I believe what Napad was trying to say is that invincible ignorance IS USED by many as a kind of loophole to make membership in the Church useless.

Can you please clarify, NAPAD?

Also no salvation outside the Church, does not mean that people will be damned for not knowing about the Catholic faith. It means that they will perish from OTHER sins which they commit, which they cannot have forgiveness to easily because they have not the sacraments of the Church.
 
MartyMcFly said:
***But the whole point is that a Pope declaring a dogma IS the interpretation. It’s the final word. If there is a dispute about something, his declaration IS the interpretation. He’s telling you HOW to interpret something in scripture or sacred tradition. ***

When Pope Eugene says “We say, declare, and define” he means to say that what he is about to say he means in a literal sense.

Dogmatic definitions are not like a passage of scripture, that can have multiple metaphorical meanings. Dogmatic definitions have one PLAIN meaning. It can’t be any other way. A dogma is telling the faithful WHAT they MUST believe.

How can they believe it if in order to understand it they need to interpret it?

And as far as interpreting things in the light of other truths…well it would seem that we need to interpret encyclicals, and other statements of the Church in light of “de fide” statements and not vice versa.

When it comes to EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, everyone says “well we need to understand it in the context of the time it was written”. Why then do we not say that about OTHER Dogmas?

I don’t hear anyone saying “Well, it is true that God is Triune, but at the same time, we need to understand this doctrine in the context of the time it was written, so maybe he kind of is really not Triune.” This would be totally absurd. Or, no one says “Well we need to understand transubstantiation in context, therefore maybe it really didn’t mean it is Jesus’s body literally.”
No, when we read the dogma it says that it is Jesus’ body blood soul and divinity and we believe it AS SUCH. Case closed! The Pontiff has spoken!

If we wouldn’t tamper with those dogmas and interpret them, why do it with the DOGMA of No Salvation Outside the Church?

The Dogma IS the interpretation.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. The dogma is the interpretation, but we still have to understand the dogma in the way it was intended and in the context of other truths we know. Thus, if the Church teaches that outside of her there is no salvation and at the same time teaches that those invincibly ignorant can still be saved, then we would have to conclude that those invincibly ignorant if they are saved are only saved through the Catholic Church as being inside of her through their implicit desire for baptism, as the Church has authoritatively clarified. To argue otherwise is to claim that the Church is in error in her own clarifications of dogmas. We are not explaining away the dogma by any means. It means what it says. NO ONE is saved outside the Church.

Let me give you an example. The Church has defined that the sacrament of confession is necessary for the forgiveness of sins infallibly so in Trent:
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that, in the sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary, of divine right, for the remission of sins, to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered…let him be anathema. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

However, the Church also has clarified that one can also be forgiven his mortal sins if he makes a perfect act of contrition with the intention on going to confession and confessing those sins when next able to do so. Thus, both are true. We understand EENS in the same way as popes and the holy office have clarified. See this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4705086&postcount=167

If you hold to feenyism then you are more traditional then SSPX and the vast majority of traditional Catholics. Furthermore, you contradict previous popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Holy Office who declared Feeney’s position to be in error.
 
 
Originally Posted by una fides ] [QUOTE="ron77nyc said:
I really don’t understand what the sacrifice of the Mass is all about. I’m open to hear the explanation. Jesus made the sacrifice only one time. We offer His sacrifice to God the Father at the Mass but we don’t sacrifice anything.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: OK, you two, i’m gonna jump in here, and then i’m out:

being “merely” a follower of Jesus (The Christ), IMHO, the original “sacrifice” was instituted by Christ to symbolize what was about to occur and what He hoped would be a remembrance of the shedding of His Blood, e.g., His Sacrifice made (remember He is The Lamb of God) to atone for the sins of the world.

And each and every time we take communion, we’re to remember that in that moment, to be in that moment because according to all i was brought up to believe – by a Baptist dad & a Methodist mom – God/The Christ is represented in that bread and wine, body and blood.

Gee, forgot where i was headed with this, but you get my drift, yes?

🙂
[/quote]
 
una_fides said:
I agree with you. The dogma is the interpretation, but we still have to understand the dogma in the way it was intended and in the context of other truths we know. Thus, if the Church teaches that outside of her there is no salvation and at the same time teaches that those invincibly ignorant can still be saved, then we would have to conclude that those invincibly ignorant if they are saved are only saved through the Catholic Church as being inside of her through their implicit desire for baptism, as the Church has authoritatively clarified. To argue otherwise is to claim that the Church is in error in her own clarifications of dogmas. We are not explaining away the dogma by any means. It means what it says. NO ONE is saved outside the Church.

Let me give you an example. The Church has defined that the sacrament of confession is necessary for the forgiveness of sins infallibly so in Trent:
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that, in the sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary, of divine right, for the remission of sins, to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered…let him be anathema. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

However, the Church also has clarified that one can also be forgiven his mortal sins if he makes a perfect act of contrition with the intention on going to confession and confessing those sins when next able to do so. Thus, both are true. We understand EENS in the same way as popes and the holy office have clarified. See this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4705086&postcount=167

If you hold to feenyism then you are more traditional then SSPX and the vast majority of traditional Catholics. Furthermore, you contradict previous popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Holy Office who declared Feeney’s position to be in error.
Click to expand...
Part of the clarification in the Feeney affair was left from your post :
The following is from the letter of the Holy Officw in the matter of Fr. Feeney:" But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).
Please note the need for “PERFECT charity” something to which every Christian must aspire with the help of the sacraments. Considering my own need for the sacraments,especialy the sacrament of the Eucharist, I find it hard to fathom the development of “pefect” charity outside the Church and the help of the sacraments, but God’s graces are God’s business and His alone
 
Ghoti said:
I don’t know, which is part of the reason why I am asking. Bring Eugenius IV into the picture, and it seems like he was trying to plug up every possible loophole. 🤷

My point. So you are trying to say here that the Feeneyite position is the correct interpretation of EENS?
Click to expand...
No. It wasn’t his interpretation. If you don’t accept it you are the only one interpreting. Their is no interpretation of a definition. A definition is a definition by definition 🙂 they are not interpreted. I don’t think I agree with Feeney on everything he said and so I can’t be his “follower.” I’m not a sedivicatist either or a member of St. Pius X Society. I’m just Catholic and EENS is the long held doctrine of the Church.

**When EENS was attacked their were others who came to its defense **

Fr. Mueller C.Ss.R. (1825-1899) was a prolific Catholic writer of 19th Century in the United States.

He was under the spiritual direction of Blessed Joseph Passerat.He was ordained on March 26, 1853, by the the Redemptorist Bishop of Philadelphia, St. John Nepomucene Neumann.

He was appointed Superior and Novice Master at the Congregation’s foundation in Annapolis, Maryland.

In subsequent years, he served the Redemptorist communities of America in a variety of capacities, including Consultor to the Provincial.
**
Mueller’s Defense:**
docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.2&thid=11ea4e48285d266f&mt=application%2Fpdf&pli=1,

**Bishop Hay of Scotland **[1729-1811]
He was one of the greatest Catholic teachers and apologists of the early 19th Century.

Three of his famous books are The Sincere Christian, The Devout Christian, and The Pious Christian.

Bishop Hay was a formidable opponent of liberalism, and his works have received high praise from numerous Catholic bishops of the 19th Century.

Cardinal Paul Cullen said, “the learned Bishop’s writings display a great power of reasoning, and great critical acumen, while they supply an inexhaustible mine of erudition and Scriptural knowledge”.

Hay’s Defense:
catholictradition.org/Classics/salvation.htm

Orestes Brownson (1803-1876)“Brownson, almost certainly the greatest American Catholic thinker of the nineteenth century”(First Things mag. Dec. 2002)

Brownson’s defense:
catholicism.org/brownson-eens.html

All these men ( not to mention the popes and councils who defended it) died in good standing with the Church. They defended but never changed the official teaching of the Church: There is No Salvation Out Side the Catholic Church.
 
If you hold to feenyism then you are more traditional then SSPX and the vast majority of traditional Catholics. Furthermore, you contradict previous popes, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Holy Office who declared Feeney’s position to be in error.
Click to expand...
First off the letter to the Bishop of Boston was never registered in the Acta Apoastolica, and was signed only by a notary. It really has no binding power.

Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, (Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei), replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

In the Diocese of Worcester, **there are three officially approved religious houses **(one **Benedictine **the other two Franciscan) whose members believe and actively defend Father Feeney’s strict defense of “no salvation outside the Church.”

Additionally, they all defend Father Feeney’s good name. Those three houses are St. Benedict’s Abbey, St. Ann’s House (the good sisters have no web site), and Saint Benedict Center. The Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey recently wrote a book defending Father Feeney, Harvard to Harvard. He remains a Benedictine Abbot — a prelate of the Catholic Church — in good standing.
brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/19/the-status-of-father-feeneys-doctrinal-position/
 
TOME said:
There is no salvation outside of the Church (of Christ), however, the Catholic Church is not The Church.
Click to expand...
++++++++++++++++++++++++
It depends on what you mean by the Catholic Church and the Church (of Christ). If you speek of only the Structure and those so enrolled in Parishes as members, to be the Catholic Church, then I would agree. But I would say that all seek the truth of Christ and his salvation with their whole heart are Catholic, because they will ultimatly see and accept the Truth. Some it Peace
WSD
 
una_fides said:
Pride huh… Last time I checked pride was not a virtue but a vice.
Click to expand...
👍
you are so correct: PRIDE is a vice, but not in the context used here: there are “flocks of pigeons”, “schools of fish”, “prides of lions”, etc., etc., etc.
😉
 
Ghoti said:
Then, for the love of God, come out and say it: That EENS means that you must be a baptized-in-water Catholic in communion with the Pope and in a state of Grace when you die, else you’re toast: that there is NO SALVATION – PERIOD – for Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, Hindus, etc, nor for unbaptized stillborn or aborted babies, or unbaptized Catechumens, regardless of their works or beliefs or pursuit of good and movement toward the Church, and even if they are martyred for the Faith.

Come out and say it.

And that’s what I mean by the “Feeneyite interpretation”.
Click to expand...
I know you were addressing MartyMcFly, so I hope you don’t mind that I jump in? I don’t understand what you mean by interpretation still. Maybe this will help:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only **pagans( e.g. Hindus, Agnostics, Atheists) ** but also **Jews or heretics(e.g.Protestants, Muslims) **and schismatics (e.g.Orthodox), 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 Church before the end of their lives;

**that the unity of this 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 blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside the ark on Noah - there is **absolutely (i.e PERIOD!) 🙂 ** no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never recieved the faith of the Church, nor for **heretics ** who, having recieved it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members.…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.” (Cathechismi Latini et Germanici)

Maybe this isn’t clear yet?:whistle:

Do you hold the Karel Rahner interpretation of this teaching? i.e. anonymous Christinans
Are you a Rahnerite?
 
WSD said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
It depends on what you mean by the Catholic Church and the Church (of Christ). If you speek of only the Structure and those so enrolled in Parishes as members, to be the Catholic Church, then I would agree. But I would say that all seek the truth of Christ and his salvation with their whole heart are Catholic, because they will ultimatly see and accept the Truth. Some it Peace
WSD
Click to expand...
Sorry, but it does not at all depend upon what anyone means by the Catholic Church, but upon what the Church means by the Catholic Church. Please go to post #133 to find out exactly what it means to be a member of the Catholic Church. Anyone else’s opinion is of no account.
 
WDS
Perhaps you know it or maybe you don’t but your thoughts are close to the expression used by Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner SJ. That expression was “Ananamous Christian” His whole concept has some flaws and he entered into an interesting diologue over several year with Josph Cardinal Ratzinger on this topic. I see one fundamental danger to this thought (although I will bet that this is not your position and most likely didn’t even think about it) which is a tendency by far to many to start with this but end up saying all religions are the same. (Slippery slope).
 
Danno2281,
I would be interested reading how you would compair and contrast the definition of the Catholic Chuch from you post # 133 with Lumen Gentium’s (# 8) definition of The Church of Christ.

Also, are you aware of the history of the discussions and debates that went into the formulation of Lumen Gentium and the significance if the usa of “Subsist In” as opposed to “Is”.

But this bring up several other questions but first I think it is important to establish the fact of whether or not the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church is One.
 
TOME said:
Danno2281,
I would be interested reading how you would compair and contrast the definition of the Catholic Chuch from you post # 133 with Lumen Gentium’s (# 8) definition of The Church of Christ.

Also, are you aware of the history of the discussions and debates that went into the formulation of Lumen Gentium and the significance if the usa of “Subsist In” as opposed to “Is”.

But this bring up several other questions but first I think it is important to establish the fact of whether or not the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church is One.
Click to expand...
The Church uses Latin as Her language because it does not change the meaning of its words. “Subsistere” means to exist, and when used in a specific sense it means to have a substantial existence. (See A Latin-English Dictionary of St. Thomas Aquinasedited by Roy J. Deferrari). A substance is that to whose nature is due an existence in se. When the Church of Christ is said to subsist in the Catholic Church, it means that that Church finds Her substantial existence in the Catholic Church. She has no existence, because She is a substance, that is not the Catholic Church.
A further question, and I open this to all, possibly the basis for a new thread, is whether an ecumenical council called as a pastoral council (and the only council ever so called) has the authority to make any dogmatic statement. Remember that Pius V is said to have overstepped his authority in the promulgation of **Quam primum.
 
Jesus says He is the Door & no one come to the Father except through Him. it is my prayer He will give many the opportunity to come into His true church at death. my hope is based on His claim " My mercy endures forever".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top