Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[Ghoti]

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?

Do you hold the Karel Rahner interpretation of this teaching? i.e. anonymous Christinans
Are you a Rahnerite?

Thank you for your straightforwardness.

Karel Rahner? Didn’t he play for the Canucks back in the 80s?

Nope, I don’t think I’m a “Rahnerite”, since I nevah hoida da guy. I’m trying very hard to be a “Jesusite”.

I am merely trying to understand.

My ignorance may not be invincible, but it is often more powerful than a locomotive.

What I am saying is that the pronouncements you have reiterated seem to be in conflict with what the last few Popes have said. I am trying to reconcile them so that I will know what I am to believe.

So what you are saying is…and please correct me if I am wrong:

To be saved:

1. 
   *]you must be validly baptized of water (correct form intent etc)
   *]you must be in a state of grace, i.e. no mortal sins
   *]you must be a Catholic, i.e. subject to the Roman Pontiff, and not (validly) excommunicated
   
   Again, I’m just trying to get all my ducks in a row.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree! John 20 is quite clear. Football, however, is still a mystery.

The football analogy? Or football in general?

 

[TOME]

Danno,
I am going to disagree with you on the several points you made on “Subsistere” and its relation to and how it is applied to the Church and its relationship to the Catholic Church in this discussion.

Although, I was influenced by the growing acceptance of neo-Thomism/ neo-scholasticism, I am also aware of the two text that were used throughout the Catholic Church’s preparation of its seminarians in the study of philosphy during most of the 20th century-Pre Vatican II and were the two text on philosophy that all the Council Fathers studied from and probably had to memorize. The two text were, “Philosophiae Scholasticae Summa” and “Elementa Philosophiae Aristotelieo-Thomisticae”. From these two text scholastic thought that a “Substance” ability to support an attribute is rooted in the substance’s independence. Its independance distinguishes it from being an “Accident”, thus, only a “Substance” can support an “Accident”. Therefore, the Church cannot support its attributes of being “One”, “Holy”, “Catholic” and “Apolostic” unless she herself was an independant substance.

But there is more. Our Holy Father back in 2000, in a work commonly known in the English speaking world as “Absurb” tried to explain the Church’s use of “Subsistit” through these words," When the Council Fathers replaced the word est that was used by Pope Pius XII with the word subsistit, this had a precise significance: The term “is” (from the verb “to be”) is broader than the term “subsist”. “Subsisting” is a particular way of being, namely, being an independant, self contained subject. So the Fathers were saying : The being of the Church as such extends much farther than the Roman Catholic Church, yet in the latter she has in a unique way the character of an independant subject"

Still, in 2005 in"Pilgrim Fellowship" (Ignatius Press) our Holy Father gives us a further insight into the meaning of the term “Subsistit” when he wrote, "The term “Subsistit” derives from the classical philosophy, as it was further developed in Scholasticism. The Greek word corresponding to it is hypostasis, which played a central role in Christology,for describing the unity between divine nature and human in the Person of Christ.

Also, you questioning about the the Church’s authority to issue dogmatic proclamation during a pastoral council has been addressed many times in many different threads. I think to go down that road is unnecessary and therefore should not just be dropped.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
I am going to disagree with you on the several points you made on “Subsistere” and its relation to and how it is applied to the Church and its relationship to the Catholic Church in this discussion.

Although, I was influenced by the growing acceptance of neo-Thomism/ neo-scholasticism, I am also aware of the two text that were used throughout the Catholic Church’s preparation of its seminarians in the study of philosphy during most of the 20th century-Pre Vatican II and were the two text on philosophy that all the Council Fathers studied from and probably had to memorize. The two text were, “Philosophiae Scholasticae Summa” and “Elementa Philosophiae Aristotelieo-Thomisticae”. From these two text scholastic thought that a “Substance” ability to support an attribute is rooted in the substance’s independence. Its independance distinguishes it from being an “Accident”, thus, only a “Substance” can support an “Accident”. Therefore, the Church cannot support its attributes of being “One”, “Holy”, “Catholic” and “Apolostic” unless she herself was an independant substance.

But there is more. Our Holy Father back in 2000, in a work commonly known in the English speaking world as “Absurb” tried to explain the Church’s use of “Subsistit” through these words," When the Council Fathers replaced the word est that was used by Pope Pius XII with the word subsistit, this had a precise significance: The term “is” (from the verb “to be”) is broader than the term “subsist”. “Subsisting” is a particular way of being, namely, being an independant, self contained subject. So the Fathers were saying : The being of the Church as such extends much farther than the Roman Catholic Church, yet in the latter she has in a unique way the character of an independant subject"

Still, in 2005 in"Pilgrim Fellowship" (Ignatius Press) our Holy Father gives us a further insight into the meaning of the term “Subsistit” when he wrote, "The term “Subsistit” derives from the classical philosophy, as it was further developed in Scholasticism. The Greek word corresponding to it is hypostasis, which played a central role in Christology,for describing the unity between divine nature and human in the Person of Christ.

Also, you questioning about the the Church’s authority to issue dogmatic proclamation during a pastoral council has been addressed many times in many different threads. I think to go down that road is unnecessary and therefore should not just be dropped.

From LG:
This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*)
This Church finds its substantial existence in the Catholic Church. If some other “Church” were to exist without a substance to support the accidents of unity, holiness, catholicity, or apostolicity, it would not be that Church of Christ professed in the Creed. The sentence beginning “So…” in “Absurb” seems a non sequitur in that Christ’s Church cannot have a “unique” character and at the same time be characterized by disunity ("the Church as such extends much father…). If a Church has not all four of those marks, it is not in any way that Church described in the first sentence of para. 8 of LG
I never questioned the Church’s authority; I questioned the council’s, just as Pius V’s authority in Quo Primumhas been questioned. To question is not to dissent, but to seek for a complete answer.**

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,

" When the Council Fathers replaced the word est that was used by Pope Pius XII with the word subsistit, this had a precise significance: The term “is” (from the verb “to be”) is broader than the term “subsist”. “Subsisting” is a particular way of being, namely, being an independant, self contained subject. So the Fathers were saying : The being of the Church as such extends much farther than the Roman Catholic Church, yet in the latter she has in a unique way the character of an independant subject"

I think to go down that road is unnecessary and therefore should not just be dropped.

Does the replacement of est by subsistit represent a dissent from a magesterial teaching, the same magesterial teaching being used to support calling Fr. Feeney’s position erroneous in the letter of the Holy Office?

I believe that you did not intend the finsl “not” in your post. If that be wrong, I don’t know what you are saying.

 

[napad]

Thank you for your straightforwardness.

Karel Rahner? Didn’t he play for the Canucks back in the 80s?

Nope, I don’t think I’m a “Rahnerite”, since I nevah hoida da guy. I’m trying very hard to be a “Jesusite”.

I am merely trying to understand.

My ignorance may not be invincible, but it is often more powerful than a locomotive.

What I am saying is that the pronouncements you have reiterated seem to be in conflict with what the last few Popes have said. I am trying to reconcile them so that I will know what I am to believe.

So what you are saying is…and please correct me if I am wrong:

To be saved:

1. 
   *]you must be validly baptized of water (correct form intent etc)
   *]you must be in a state of grace, i.e. no mortal sins
   *]you must be a Catholic, i.e. subject to the Roman Pontiff, and not (validly) excommunicated
   
   Again, I’m just trying to get all my ducks in a row.

1. 
   Though you are not a Rahnerite I think you may have some of his ideas guiding you so if you could for clarity sake, clarify your position ( since I already answered all your question before)
   
   So what you believe is…and please correct me if I am wrong:
   
   1. 
      *]a person don’t need Baptism to be saved and there is another baptism not of water.
      *] There are modern pronouncements that conflict with what the Church always believed about EENS
      *]A person may reject submission to the Roman Pontiff and be saved

 

[napad]

I was told my link didn’t work for Father Mueller so hopefully this one will

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:
hopefully here

and
question and answer

 

[paul_c]

I’ve been thinking about this.

I do believe that salvation is through the Church.

I also believe that there are some invincibly ignorant examples that could be saved outside of baptism. The ones that come to mind are the unborn infants and the infants who die prior to baptism. I emphasize could because I have no idea of God’s plan for them, but in his mercy, this is an example of those that never had the opportunity to know Christ first hand.

 

[napad]

I’ve been thinking about this.

I do believe that salvation is through the Church.

I also believe that there are some invincibly ignorant examples that could be saved outside of baptism. The ones that come to mind are the unborn infants and the infants who die prior to baptism. I emphasize could because I have no idea of God’s plan for them, but in his mercy, this is an example of those that never had the opportunity to know Christ first hand.

Here is a link about Limbo and if they can be saved here

 

[Danno2281]

I was told my link didn’t work for Father Mueller so hopefully this one will

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:
hopefully here

and
question and answer

It might be noted that Fr, Mueller’s congregation, the Redemptorists, was founded by St Alphonsus Ligouri, one of the most voluminous writers in the Church’s history, who is one of the two patrons of moral theology. Fr. Mueller was imbued with the writings of St. Alphonsus, and his own writing should be given great weight because of this. I realize full well that this is an argumentum ad auctoritatem**, but even such arguments have some weight.

 

[napad]

Here is one I have been looking for awhile. I read it once but forgot where it was. It is interesting because it is dealing with the evangelization of the Americas. The Rahnerites often say that Trent, Florence etc… councils had no idea there were cultures that never hear the Gospel (which is a not true because there was good knowledge of China and India at the time)

(Denzinger 1349a-b)

CLEMENT XI 1700-1721
**Concerning Truths which Necessarily Must be Explicitly Believed ***

[Response of the Sacred Office
to the Bishop of Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703]

1349a Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.

** Resp.A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means**, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

[Response of the Sacred Office, May 10, 1703]

1349b Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder’; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.

Resp. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.

 

[TOME]

Danno,
No the Council’s use of the word “Subsistit” and not “Est” show a development and not a departure from earlier Catholic Church teachings.

Also, I think if you go back and look at the second quote I used of Our Holy Father, this will give you a better understanding of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.

As I understand the second passage I used, Pope Benedict is essentially saying the same type of relationship between the two natures in the one person, Jesus, is the same relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic. That is there is a hypostatic union between the Church of Christ and the Church Catholic. From what I have read from theologians and our the pope’s works themselves, there is a consensus that for Benedict the most important part of Lumen Gentium is the opening lines where this constitution states that the Church is fist of all a Mystery. Not to understand that or not to accept this fact is not to understand the Church. I have to agree with him on this point

Also, and I don’t have it in front of me, our Holy Father does teach that disunity in the Church is the result of the affects of sin.
Years ago I had a professor who always insisted that one of the basis of all theology was the “Incarnational Principle” the union of the divine and human. I think looking at the disunity within the Church we see all too clearly the human side of the Church.

Finally, thank you for your correction and yes that final “not” should “not” have been there (after you pointed it out, I looked at that sentence for 5 minutes beforew it finally registered in my tiny brain, Thank you. Also, I wasn’t trying to stiffle any opinion or even disscent but I have seen all to often a good discussion get totally sidetract, not because of any bad intention, by the introduction of a topic that seems relavant but quickly become a thread onto itself. I was afraid that this might be the case so I finished my post the way I did.

 

[MartyMcFly]

By the way here is the book by Fr Mueller, CSSR “The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur” in its entirety online.


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Catholic_Dogma:_Extra_Ecclesiam_Nullus_Omnino_Salvatur

For those wanting to read it I recommend saving it to a WORD file first as these rare books often can disappear overnight.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
No the Council’s use of the word “Subsistit” and not “Est” show a development and not a departure from earlier Catholic Church teachings.

Also, I think if you go back and look at the second quote I used of Our Holy Father, this will give you a better understanding of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.

As I understand the second passage I used, Pope Benedict is essentially saying the same type of relationship between the two natures in the one person, Jesus, is the same relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic. That is there is a hypostatic union between the Church of Christ and the Church Catholic. From what I have read from theologians and our the pope’s works themselves, there is a consensus that for Benedict the most important part of Lumen Gentium is the opening lines where this constitution states that the Church is fist of all a Mystery. Not to understand that or not to accept this fact is not to understand the Church. I have to agree with him on this point

Also, and I don’t have it in front of me, our Holy Father does teach that disunity in the Church is the result of the affects of sin.
Years ago I had a professor who always insisted that one of the basis of all theology was the “Incarnational Principle” the union of the divine and human. I think looking at the disunity within the Church we see all too clearly the human side of the Church.

Finally, thank you for your correction and yes that final “not” should “not” have been there (after you pointed it out, I looked at that sentence for 5 minutes beforew it finally registered in my tiny brain, Thank you. Also, I wasn’t trying to stiffle any opinion or even disscent but I have seen all to often a good discussion get totally sidetract, not because of any bad intention, by the introduction of a topic that seems relavant but quickly become a thread onto itself. I was afraid that this might be the case so I finished my post the way I did.

There is, in your view, a distinction between the elements of the hypostasis, between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church, as surely as there is a distinction between the human and divine natures. Please tell me what elements distinguish the two. What does the Church of Christ have that the Catholic Church has not, what is it that the Church of Christ is that the Catholic Church is not, or what is it that the Church of Christ does that the Catholic Church does not. To say that the Church of Christ is larger in extension than the Catholic Church necessitates a property not found in the Catholic Church. Please point out what this property might be.
To say that the change from est to subsistit involves a developement rather than a departure is disingenuous if subsistit is meant to differentiate from est rather than simply to specify the substantiality of the subject. This is not to make light of the depth of the mystery that is the Church, but to subject that mystery to the light of reason so that the splendor of the truth might be made more manifest to men. The mystery was revealed in Christ and its manifestation in the teaching of the magisterium cannot be overlooked by some new thinking. Subsistit means “has a substantial existence” (it is also used as a synonym for ‘est’ in Aquinas), and the word does not necessitate any change, developmental or otherwise, in the thinking of the Church

 

[napad]

There is, in your view, a distinction between the elements of the hypostasis, between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church, as surely as there is a distinction between the human and divine natures. Please tell me what elements distinguish the two. What does the Church of Christ have that the Catholic Church has not, what is it that the Church of Christ is that the Catholic Church is not, or what is it that the Church of Christ does that the Catholic Church does not. To say that the Church of Christ is larger in extension than the Catholic Church necessitates a property not found in the Catholic Church. Please point out what this property might be.
To say that the change from est to subsistit involves a developement rather than a departure is disingenuous if subsistit is meant to differentiate from est rather than simply to specify the substantiality of the subject. This is not to make light of the depth of the mystery that is the Church, but to subject that mystery to the light of reason so that the splendor of the truth might be made more manifest to men. The mystery was revealed in Christ and its manifestation in the teaching of the magisterium cannot be overlooked by some new thinking. Subsistit means “has a substantial existence” (it is also used as a synonym for ‘est’ in Aquinas), and the word does not necessitate any change, developmental or otherwise, in the thinking of the Church

well said:clapping:

 

[TOME]

Danno,
Before I go into the distinctions between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church I think it is important to, again, point out that in Lumen Gentium (#5) the constitution declares that the Church is a mystery whose foundation is rooted in the mystery of the Trinity. So in effect what you are asking me is to describe a mystery for you. Also, LG declares that the Church, by its nature, is a sacrament, in the Eastern Church there is no word “Sacrament” per se rather their term is “Mystery”. I am not trying to hedge my bets but I do think it is important to keep the fact that, above all else, the Church is a Mystery and Sacrament.

On your question of how I see the use of “subsist in” rather than
“is” is based not so much on a translation of a word rather it is the conclusion I came to after reading various documents, commentarys and histories of Vatican II, and Lumen Gentium in particular.

Prior to Vat II Pope Pius XII did state that the Church is the Catholic Church. One had to bein full union with the Church inorder to be in the Church. However, in other writngs the pope did state that through valid baptism an individual was incorporated into the Body of Christ.

The question arose during the 1950’s (actually before this) how can one be baptized into the Body of Christ, as members of the Orthodox, Oriental, Protestants and Angelican churches were yet not be be a member of the Church? The doubt came becase the was no scriptural bases for the teaching that one had to be a member of the Catholc Church to be a member of the Church. If you study Saint Paul, the Church is the Body of Christ, and one is brought into the Church, The Body of Christ, through valid Baptism. So is one, who has received valid baptism, a member of the Body of Christ and thus The Church of Christ? Pope Pius XII did state that they were legitimate members of the Body of Christ, so how can they not be members of the Church even though they are not in union with Rome?

Many theologians turned to the Church Fathers of both the Eastern and Western Traditions only to find the Fathers made no distinction. It was Baptism which incorporated an individual into the Body of Christ, the Church.

This formed the basis of the development within the council to move from using the word “Est” to “Subsistit”. Because from a scriptural basis and from the teachings of the Church Fathers if baptism incorporated an individual into the Body of Christ (The Church) and non-catholics have and do receive valid baptism then the Church must be something other than just the Catholic Church.

Further, the Western Church (Latin Rite) has always acknowledge that the Eastern(Orthodox) Churches (Greek speaking Rite) always have had valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist (thus sacraments) even though they are not in union with Rome. How can anyone proclaim a Church which has the valid Eucharist (Sacramental Life) and apostolic succession not be part of the Church?

This was at the roots of the debates which lead to the use of “Subsistit” instead of “Est”

You asked that I explain those “elements” that causes the Catholic Church to be different from the Church of Christ. Apparently, you don’t realize that this was the whole meaning of the term “Subsistit” used in Lumen Gentium. There is no difference. The Church of Christ is made an historical, concrete reality in the Catholic Church but at the same time is something other. It is part of the mystery of the Church.

My question to you then, are the Orthodox Churches “True” churches. If they are doesn’t this show that the Church is something other than the Catholic Church?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

If we take the definition of “Church” as “what Christ established on earth”, then all believers in Christ would probably agree that they could not be saved outside of what Christ established.

Those not of a Christian faith are not bound by Christian dogma even though they may be saved by it on the Last Day.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
Before I go into the distinctions between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church I think it is important to, again, point out that in Lumen Gentium (#5) the constitution declares that the Church is a mystery whose foundation is rooted in the mystery of the Trinity. So in effect what you are asking me is to describe a mystery for you. Also, LG declares that the Church, by its nature, is a sacrament, in the Eastern Church there is no word “Sacrament” per se rather their term is “Mystery”. I am not trying to hedge my bets but I do think it is important to keep the fact that, above all else, the Church is a Mystery and Sacrament.

On your question of how I see the use of “subsist in” rather than
“is” is based not so much on a translation of a word rather it is the conclusion I came to after reading various documents, commentarys and histories of Vatican II, and Lumen Gentium in particular.

Prior to Vat II Pope Pius XII did state that the Church is the Catholic Church. One had to bein full union with the Church inorder to be in the Church. However, in other writngs the pope did state that through valid baptism an individual was incorporated into the Body of Christ.

The question arose during the 1950’s (actually before this) how can one be baptized into the Body of Christ, as members of the Orthodox, Oriental, Protestants and Angelican churches were yet not be be a member of the Church? The doubt came becase the was no scriptural bases for the teaching that one had to be a member of the Catholc Church to be a member of the Church. If you study Saint Paul, the Church is the Body of Christ, and one is brought into the Church, The Body of Christ, through valid Baptism. So is one, who has received valid baptism, a member of the Body of Christ and thus The Church of Christ? Pope Pius XII did state that they were legitimate members of the Body of Christ, so how can they not be members of the Church even though they are not in union with Rome?

Many theologians turned to the Church Fathers of both the Eastern and Western Traditions only to find the Fathers made no distinction. It was Baptism which incorporated an individual into the Body of Christ, the Church.

This formed the basis of the development within the council to move from using the word “Est” to “Subsistit”. Because from a scriptural basis and from the teachings of the Church Fathers if baptism incorporated an individual into the Body of Christ (The Church) and non-catholics have and do receive valid baptism then the Church must be something other than just the Catholic Church.

Further, the Western Church (Latin Rite) has always acknowledge that the Eastern(Orthodox) Churches (Greek speaking Rite) always have had valid apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist (thus sacraments) even though they are not in union with Rome. How can anyone proclaim a Church which has the valid Eucharist (Sacramental Life) and apostolic succession not be part of the Church?

This was at the roots of the debates which lead to the use of “Subsistit” instead of “Est”

You asked that I explain those “elements” that causes the Catholic Church to be different from the Church of Christ. Apparently, you don’t realize that this was the whole meaning of the term “Subsistit” used in Lumen Gentium. There is no difference. The Church of Christ is made an historical, concrete reality in the Catholic Church but at the same time is something other. It is part of the mystery of the Church.

My question to you then, are the Orthodox Churches “True” churches. If they are doesn’t this show that the Church is something other than the Catholic Church?

Let us begin with your last question: Are they “True” churches? The question makes no sense. “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and to maintain that there is only one Catholic Church and that one Apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification (WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!). Outside of this Church there is no salvation, and no remission of sins”(Boniface VIII - Unam Sanctam If there is only one Church, there is no plurality in churches. Like quotes abound.
That the Fathers made no distinction is utter rubbish. See Augustine and the Donatist heresy, for one.Your question was answered in his writings about a “church” that had valid orders and sacraments They could have the sacraments but they could not profit from them .Heretics and schismatics cannot profit from their good works at all. This is the infallible teaching of Florence and Eugene IV (among so many others), because they have separated themselves from the unity that characterizes the Church. They have left that one Church. Those who have been baptized into what are known as disparite cults are baptized into the Church validly, but upon refusing to acknowledge what the Church teaches (“If they will not listen to the Church, let them be too you like the heathen or the tax collector”), they separate themselves from her. This is the whole import of the declaration of Florence and Eugene IV and why we seek so earnestly to heal their sad position.
I remind you again of the declaration of the First Vatican Council, that defined terms mean exactly and only what those who defined them meant by them and are absolutely not open to development.

 

[TOME]

Danno,
In Dominus Iesus, # 58 states that, “Churches” which while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closes bonds, that isby apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist are “True Particular Churches”. Therefore the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these churches even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church…"

Also “Dominus Iesus” continues to teach about certain ecclesical communities, those without valid sacraments or apostoloc succession but have valid baptism, “Those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus in certain communion, albiet imperfect, with the Church.” (62)

Considering your reference to Augustine, he did write in his “Commentary on John”, “A good person recieves the sacrament and the reality but a bad person recieves only the sacrament not the reality”. Here we may be getting off tract because this is more proper to the study of Sacraments.

Still I will make a few comments. When Augustine wrote his Commentary on John there were no set of Sacraments that we have today. It was not until the Council of Florence that the number of “Sacraments” was set at seven. Before the Council of Florence, many rituals we call sacramentals were called sacraments.Also, Augustines thoughts were not accepted without a lot of development until the Catholic Church accepted the teaching of St. Thomas as he explained with in the activity of a particular sacrament there is the “Ex opere operato” that is the action produces the grace, and “Ex opere operantis” the grace state or amont of grace recieved depends of the condition of the receiptant.

This does tie into our discussion especially in light of Dominus Iesus which acknowledges that even in ecclesial communities
not in union with Rome nor with a valid Eucharist nor apostolic succession these are in a certain, imperfect, communion with the
Church and the members of these communities can receive grace in accordance to their disposition.

Here I think it may be necessary to refer to the Decree on Ecumenism and Declaration on Human Freedom to broaden our perspective on the Catholic Church’s teaching on those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
In Dominus Iesus, # 58 states that, “Churches” which while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closes bonds, that isby apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist are “True Particular Churches”. Therefore the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these churches even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church…"

Also “Dominus Iesus” continues to teach about certain ecclesical communities, those without valid sacraments or apostoloc succession but have valid baptism, “Those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus in certain communion, albiet imperfect, with the Church.” (62)

Considering your reference to Augustine, he did write in his “Commentary on John”, “A good person recieves the sacrament and the reality but a bad person recieves only the sacrament not the reality”. Here we may be getting off tract because this is more proper to the study of Sacraments.

Still I will make a few comments. When Augustine wrote his Commentary on John there were no set of Sacraments that we have today. It was not until the Council of Florence that the number of “Sacraments” was set at seven. Before the Council of Florence, many rituals we call sacramentals were called sacraments.Also, Augustines thoughts were not accepted without a lot of development until the Catholic Church accepted the teaching of St. Thomas as he explained with in the activity of a particular sacrament there is the “Ex opere operato” that is the action produces the grace, and “Ex opere operantis” the grace state or amont of grace recieved depends of the condition of the receiptant.

This does tie into our discussion especially in light of Dominus Iesus which acknowledges that even in ecclesial communities
not in union with Rome nor with a valid Eucharist nor apostolic succession these are in a certain, imperfect, communion with the
Church and the members of these communities can receive grace in accordance to their disposition.

Here I think it may be necessary to refer to the Decree on Ecumenism and Declaration on Human Freedom to broaden our perspective on the Catholic Church’s teaching on those who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Are you aware that every council father was required at some point in his priesthood to take the oath against modernism?.Please go to post# 137 above and take a look at it.
As for Augustine, I have not investigated his writings on the sacraments in depth, but your observation is pointless because we are concerned with 3 particular sacraments, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Holy Orders, and Augustine considers them quite as we do. Please go to post # 103 above and see what he has to say.
The bottom line is this. Do you believe what the First Vatican Council taught about the immutability of dogma? If so, do you believe what the Council of Florence and Pope Eugene IV taught about the uselessness of the good works (including the reception of the sacraments) of heretics and schismatics, and that by virtue of their heresy and/or schism they are not joined to the Catholic Church?