Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[TOME]

Danno,
First, I have faith that a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church is not a modernist document that deserves condemnation. To hold that a dogmatic constitution of the Church deserves comdemnation I think denies that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council Fathers at Vatican II and that Lumen Gentium is not the result of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the Church. And in the same light I believe although it may not be declared a dogma, what was presented in Dominus Iesus come fromthe teaching authotiry of the Magisterium of the Church and it to was created under the guiding light of the Holy Spirit.

Dogma does not change but our understanding of the truth contained in dogma grows and has to grow because the Church is a living body and her teachings are alive. So the truth is immutable but our understanding of truth is always developing.

As for your question about the Council of Florence, I adhere to the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the Sacraments, I made mentioned of it briefly when describing the meaning of "Ex opere operato and Ex opere operandi. Given the fact that Thomas’ teachings on Sacramentality has been accepted and with the rise of neo-Thomism given new life, I think I am on sound gound with this answer.

So I don’t doubt or question the truth in the teachings of the Church from Vatican II to the present, I am just trying to seek a greater understanding of the truth in these doctrines.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
First, I have faith that a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church is not a modernist document that deserves condemnation. To hold that a dogmatic constitution of the Church deserves comdemnation I think denies that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council Fathers at Vatican II and that Lumen Gentium is not the result of the Holy Spirit’s activity in the Church. And in the same light I believe although it may not be declared a dogma, what was presented in Dominus Iesus come fromthe teaching authotiry of the Magisterium of the Church and it to was created under the guiding light of the Holy Spirit.

Dogma does not change but our understanding of the truth contained in dogma grows and has to grow because the Church is a living body and her teachings are alive. So the truth is immutable but our understanding of truth is always developing.

As for your question about the Council of Florence, I adhere to the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas on the Sacraments, I made mentioned of it briefly when describing the meaning of "Ex opere operato and Ex opere operandi. Given the fact that Thomas’ teachings on Sacramentality has been accepted and with the rise of neo-Thomism given new life, I think I am on sound gound with this answer.

So I don’t doubt or question the truth in the teachings of the Church from Vatican II to the present, I am just trying to seek a greater understanding of the truth in these doctrines.

Very interesting. The dogma remsins the same but oiur understanding changes. Doublrspeak! Our understanding must be the same as those who formulated the dogma, or you deny the infallibility of Vatican I. The terms defined do not admit of change even if your understanding does because the Church, led by the Spirit has defined (put limits upon) them. The Church’s understanding does not change. What you are promulgating is unreservedly modernism.No one asked whether or not you adhered to the teaching of Thomas on the sacraments; that was never at issue. Do you adhere to the infallible pronouncements of Pope Eugene and the Council of Florence? Do you adhere to what the Church has always taught that the Church is, or are you, in fact, a disciple of Rahner. Do you believe, as Boniuface VIII put it WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, that there is but one Catholic Church and mean by that what the Pope meant by that in his infallible pronouncement?

 

[NotWorthy]

Very interesting. The dogma remsins the same but oiur understanding changes. Doublrspeak! Our understanding must be the same as those who formulated the dogma, or you deny the infallibility of Vatican I.

I’m just returning to this thread (man you guys can be active at times!!!), but I’m curious, where do you get this.

I thought our understanding continues to grow as the Holy Spirit teaches us, even of dogma’s. Our increased understanding certainly couldn’t change a dogma, but it can make us appreciate it more! Where am I wrong? What does Vatican I say about this?

 

[Danno2281]

I’m just returning to this thread (man you guys can be active at times!!!), but I’m curious, where do you get this.

I thought our understanding continues to grow as the Holy Spirit teaches us, even of dogma’s. Our increased understanding certainly couldn’t change a dogma, but it can make us appreciate it more! Where am I wrong? What does Vatican I say about this?

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

 

[NotWorthy]

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

But “Doctrine of the Faith” does not equal “infallibly promulgated”. For instance, the Canon(s) approved by the Pope in the 4th century were doctrine but could be challenged and questioned. Not until the Dogma of Trent was it infallibly promulgated. But even then, with the Dead Sea Scrolls, our understanding of the Canon has increased, wouldn’t you say?

Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

I’m not sure that “more profound understanding” necessitates “abandonment of this sense”.

For instance, as a child, I may have some understanding of Transubstantiation. But as a mature (ok, maybe not totally mature) adult I certainly can understand Transubstantiation much deeper (even thought not nearly completely… it is a mystery, indeed!). But that doesn’t mean my childish understanding was wrong, it just wasn’t as clearly seen.

 

[napad]

I’m just returning to this thread (man you guys can be active at times!!!), but I’m curious, where do you get this.

I thought our understanding continues to grow as the Holy Spirit teaches us, even of dogma’s. Our increased understanding certainly couldn’t change a dogma, but it can make us appreciate it more! Where am I wrong? What does Vatican I say about this?

Just to give better reference info.
( hope you don’t mind Danno )

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Plus

**SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907**
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.= condemned

**54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions
the little germ latent in the Gospel. =condemned
**

**THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM St. Pius X
September 1, 1910.
**
"Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

 

[Danno2281]

For instance, as a child, I may have some understanding of Transubstantiation. But as a mature (ok, maybe not totally mature) adult I certainly can understand Transubstantiation much deeper (even thought not nearly completely… it is a mystery, indeed!). But that doesn’t mean my childish understanding was wrong, it just wasn’t as clearly seen.

Here is what I wrote above:

The terms defined do not admit of change even if your understanding does because the Church, led by the Spirit has defined (put limits upon) them. The Church’s understanding does not change.

 

[Danno2281]

Just to give better reference info.
( hope you don’t mind Danno )

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Plus

**SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907**
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.= condemned

**54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions
the little germ latent in the Gospel. =condemned
**

**THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM St. Pius X
September 1, 1910.
**
"Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

Thanks. I went to bed. I just want all to note that those items in blue from Lamentabile Saneare ideas that are incompatible with the Catholic faith.

 

[napad]

TOME wrote:

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

Orestes Brownson answers this well:

**The Church teaches, as we have learned her doctrine, that the infant validly baptized, by whomsoever the baptism is administered, receives in the sacrament the infused habit of faith and sanctity, and that his habit (habitus) suffices for salvation till the child comes to the use of reason; hence all baptized infants dying in infancy are saved.

But when arrived at the use of reason, the child needs something beyond this infused habit, and is bound to elicit the act of faith. The habit is not actual faith, and is only a supernatural facility, infused by grace, of eliciting the actual virtue of faith. The habit of sanctity is lost by mortal sin, but the habit of faith, we are told, can be lost only by a positive act of infidelity. This is not strictly true; for the habit may be lost by omission** to elicit the act of faith, which neither is nor can be elicited out of the Catholic Church.orestesbrownson.com/index.php?id=17

 

[napad]

TOME wrote: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 because the was no scriptural bases for the teaching that one had to be a member of the Catholic 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?

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 4, Chap. 2: “For this reason ‘it has always been necessary because of mightier preeminence for every Church to come to the Church of Rome, that is those who are the faithful everywhere’, so that in this See, from which the laws of ‘venerable communion’ emanate over all, they as MEMBERS associated in one head, coalesce into one bodily structure.”

 

[napad]

TOME wrote: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?..
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?

**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: **
…and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation,…

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra:

“For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith. That is why it is fitting that, belonging to the one same body, they also have the one same will…”

What you propose is simular to the “SOUL of the Church theory” which was condemned:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, **as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. ** The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

Pope Pius XII “On the Mystical Body of Christ” on June 29, 1943

1. From what We have thus far written and explained, Venerable Brethren, it is clear, **We think, how grievously they err who arbitrarily claim that the Church is something hidden and invisible, **as they also do who look upon her as a mere human institution possessing a certain disciplinary code and external ritual, but lacking power to communicate supernatural life. [120] On the contrary, as Christ, Head and Exemplar of the Church “is not complete, if only His visible human nature is considered. . ., or if only His divine, invisible nature. . ., but He is one through the union of both and one in both . . . so is it with His Mystical Body” [121] since the Word of God took unto Himself a human nature liable to sufferings, so that He might consecrate in His blood the visible Society founded by Him and "lead man back to things invisible under a visible rule." [122]
2. For this reason **We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer **to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption

69.Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end. As the Divine Redeemer sent the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, who in His name [138] should govern the Church in an invisible way, so, in the same manner, **He commissioned Peter and his successors to be His personal representatives on earth and to assume the visible government of the Christian community. **

 

[NotWorthy]

Just to give better reference info.
( hope you don’t mind Danno )

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Plus

**SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907**
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.= condemned

**54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions
the little germ latent in the Gospel. =condemned
**

**THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM St. Pius X
September 1, 1910.
**
"Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."

Where does “deeper understanding” mean “another different (meaning) from the one which the Church held previously”?

Does the Church teach Transubstantiation at its fullest meaning to everyone child and adult alike, or does she adjust the “deepness” according to the audience. Does this lack of deepness change the meaning? If so, its heretical, according to your interpretation of the above documents.

I’m lost on how understanding something deeper means that you change the meaning. I can see how this could happen, but I don’t see that its the only result.

Is there something in this thread I missed?

 

[NotWorthy]

Here is what I wrote above:

The terms defined do not admit of change even if your understanding does because the Church, led by the Spirit has defined (put limits upon) them. The Church’s understanding does not change.

That agrees with my thoughts.

 

[ron77nyc]

Where does “deeper understanding” mean “another different (meaning) from the one which the Church held previously”?

Does the Church teach Transubstantiation at its fullest meaning to everyone child and adult alike, or does she adjust the “deepness” according to the audience. Does this lack of deepness change the meaning? If so, its heretical, according to your interpretation of the above documents.

I’m lost on how understanding something deeper means that you change the meaning. I can see how this could happen, but I don’t see that its the only result.

Is there something in this thread I missed?

There were Jews and Muslims. How could popes under the guidance of the Holy Spirit exclude them through the greater part of Church history and then other popes guided by the same Spirit contradict the earlier popes?

Would it destroy the authority of Rome if they just came out and said: “We don’t know everything about God because humans are not capable of understanding God completely.” or would it make them more honest and believable ?

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Would it destroy the authority of Rome if they just came out and said: “We don’t know everything about God because humans are not capable of understanding God completely.” or would it make them more honest and believable ?

No one in Rome thinks they know everything about God (find the document if I’m wrong about this!), but when they do get a Spirit-guided insight about something, they share it with the rest of us. I like that about our church!

Most of what the church believes, even dogmatically, has always fallen uinder the heading of “mystery” (the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc) which by definition means we don’t understand it completely.

 

[Danno2281]

Would it destroy the authority of Rome if they just came out and said: “We don’t know everything about God because humans are not capable of understanding God completely.” or would it make them more honest and believable ?

It might surprise you to know that this is exactly what the Church says. We humans presume many things, but what God has revealed we know with more than human certainty, because the human intellect can err in its perceptions, but God is Truth Itself. The Church presents only those truths revealed to Her by God; if you will note carefully, most of those pronouncements are in negative terms, e,g, who is NOT a member of the Church, what you must NOT believe. The Church offers Truth revealed by God, but it seems that Her greatest challenge is protecting Her children from believing things other than what has been revealed rather than assisting them in the appreciation of and growth in the things of God. We are the Church militant, and our fight is with “principalities and powers”, as the Apostle tells us. Deception is the weapon of these enemies, and it is the struggle against deception that the Church, girded with the armor of faith, fights to the glory of God

 

[ron77nyc]

It might surprise you to know that this is exactly what the Church says. We humans presume many things, but what God has revealed we know with more than human certainty, because the human intellect can err in its perceptions, but God is Truth Itself. The Church presents only those truths revealed to Her by God; if you will note carefully, most of those pronouncements are in negative terms, e,g, who is NOT a member of the Church, what you must NOT believe. The Church offers Truth revealed by God, but it seems that Her greatest challenge is protecting Her children from believing things other than what has been revealed rather than assisting them in the appreciation of and growth in the things of God. We are the Church militant, and our fight is with “principalities and powers”, as the Apostle tells us. Deception is the weapon of these enemies, and it is the struggle against deception that the Church, girded with the armor of faith, fights to the glory of God

I was referring to the Pope’s infallibility. Obviously all popes have not agreed on salvation for the unbaptized. Before Vatican II, non-Catholics, unbaptized infants and victims of suicide had no hope of salvation. There were no exceptions. If John Paul II had expressed hope for these individuals as a priest or a bishop he would have been declared a heretic. He looked into the heart of God and the heart of God did not follow the written word of the catechism so the catechism had to be revised. Why didn’t the other popes see this truth ?

 

[napad]

Where does “deeper understanding” mean “another different (meaning) from the one which the Church held previously”?

I’m lost on how understanding something deeper means that you change the meaning. I can see how this could happen, but I don’t see that its the only result.

Is there something in this thread I missed?

NotWothyalso wrote: But “Doctrine of the Faith” does not equal “infallibly promulgated”. For instance, the Canon(s) approved by the Pope in the 4th century were doctrine but could be challenged and questioned. Not until the Dogma of Trent was it infallibly promulgated.

It doesn’t follow that doctrines can be challenged because they are not defined. The challenge and questioning becomes usually a heresy not a “development” of a deeper understanding.

For example: denial of Virginity of BVM. It wasn’t defined before it was challenged.

The doctrines of the Faith are complete since the death of the last apostle. Defining is a defense against a mistake. It was accepted before and now it is being challenged by a novelty i.e. heresy hence the defining.

Did you notice that EENS didn’t seem to be a controversy until about late 1700’s -1900’s. Most of the defenses, books and Popes are trying to explain there is no other way there is no invisible church; post 182 post 164

Sure other Christians have some connection to the church but not a living connection. They are like a limb of a tree cut off. The limb is related to the tree but it is dead.

By baptism there is the indelible mark which can never be removed. So anyone baptized will have some relationship to the Church by this mark but as a dead member post 204

 

[Danno2281]

post 204

I might suggest that the child baptized a Presbyterian is a member of the Church, but until he brings to fruition as his reason allows the capacity for faith that his Baptism infuses, he merits nothing. Once he refuses to accept that which faith necessitates, he becomes that dead limb. That is not to judge his culpability… There may be many factors that mitigate against his growth in faith( the influence of family, teachers, etc.), and that is a matter for God’s merciful consideration, but the fact remains that his separation from the Church is real, even though there is a relationship to the Church through the indelible character of Baptism.
Interestingly enough in this regard, the Pope recently lifted the excommunication of the four bishops of SSPX. That action was taken in response to the following letter from their head, Bishop Fellay:
The January 21 document says that Bishop Fellay, the Superior General of the Society (one of the four consecrated bishops, photo left) had written in December to Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos, Prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, requesting the removal of the excommunications, saying, “We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial animus. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much.”
Note, the Church of Our Lord jesus Christ which IS the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[napad]

I was referring to the Pope’s infallibility. Obviously all popes have not agreed on salvation for the unbaptized. Before Vatican II, non-Catholics, unbaptized infants and victims of suicide had no hope of salvation. There were no exceptions. If John Paul II had expressed hope for these individuals as a priest or a bishop he would have been declared a heretic. He looked into the heart of God and the heart of God did not follow the written word of the catechism so the catechism had to be revised. Why didn’t the other popes see this truth ?

What are the documents that JPII said that someone can be saved outside the Church? There maybe something I missed but I haven’t seen it yet.