Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[cstudent]

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.

Una Fides,

The earliest reference you gave to Papal pronouncements regarding ignorance was that of Pope Pius in 1863. Pius also addressed ignorance in 1854.

In his Allocution of December 9, 1854, we read the following words: “It is indeed of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church; that this Church is the one ark of salvation; that he who has not entered it will perish in the deluge. But, on the other hand, it is equally certain that, were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, he would not be held guilty in the sight of God for not professing it.”

The earliest declaration regarding No Salvation Outside the Church was 1215.

Therefore, for more than 600 years the Church did not simultaneously teach both doctrines (dogmatically)- it taught only the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church.

In fact, prior to 1854 the notion of invincible ignorance was largely rejected:

"In the West, following Ambrose and others, Augustine taught that, because faith comes by hearing, those who had never heard the gospel would be denied salvation. They would be eternally punished for original sin as well as for any personal sins they had committed. Augustine’s disciple Fulgentius of Ruspe exhorted his readers to “firmly hold and by no means doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, and all heretics and schismatics who are outside the Catholic Church, will go to the eternal fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

“The views of Augustine and Fulgentius remained dominant in the Christian West throughout the Middle Ages. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) reaffirmed the formula “Outside the Church, no salvation,” as did Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. At the end of the Middle Ages, the Council of Florence (1442) repeated the formulation of Fulgentius to the effect that no pagan, Jew, schismatic, or heretic could be saved.” fratres.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/who-can-be-saved-by-avery-cardinal-dulles/

In addition, contextually, at the time of the dogmatic pronouncements regarding EENS it was believed that explicit belief in the Trinity and incarnation were necessary for salvation:

"Under the influence of Augustine, many medieval theologians took the view that since apostolic times salvation was impossible without explicit belief in the Trinity and the incarnation. The fact some persons had not been evangelized was taken as evidence that God foreknew that they would have rejected the gospel, had it been preached to them. Thomas Aquinas seems to accept this view.’ theologytoday.ptsem.edu/apr1993/v50-1-bookreview6.htm

That being the case- why would anyone believe that No Salvation Outside the Church meant (prior to 1854) anything other that what it [literally] implies-that one must be a member of the visible Church to be saved?

I say this with the understanding that this is not how the Church represents EENS today.

If it were taught all along, that the ignorant might be saved, why would Joseph Ratzinger have stated the following in 1964?

“We are no longer ready and able to think that our neighbor, who is a decent and respectable man and in many ways better than we are, should be eternally damned simply because he is not a Catholic. We are no longer ready, no longer willing, to think that eternal corruption should be inflicted on people in Asia, in Africa, or wherever it may be, merely on account of their not having “Catholic” marked in their passport.”
beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2007/01/Are-Non-Christians-Saved.aspx

 

[paul_c]

this is from the catechism:

Wounds to unity

817
In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism—do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818
“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

This last bolded point makes the point that as these other Christian church’s approach the Catholic Church, they are a means to salvation. Is it possible that a good Protestant would be allowed into Purgatory by virtue of believing in most of the tenets of the Catholic church? In this way, it would be their union with the one true church that made it possible, even if they didn’t profess it… The venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich noted that Protestants in Purgatory suffered more than Catholics because no one prayed for them… so she at least believed it was possible for Protestants to reach Purgatory and eventually be saved…

thoughts?

 

[napad]

We are no longer ready and able to think that our neighbor, who is a decent and respectable man and in many ways better than we are, should be eternally damned simply because he is not a Catholic. We are no longer ready, no longer willing, to think that eternal corruption should be inflicted on people in Asia, in Africa, or wherever it may be, merely on account of their not having “Catholic” marked in their passport.”
beliefnet.com/Faiths/Chri…ans-Saved.aspx

That isn’t a sin of damation because they aren’t Catholic, if they are ignorant BUT;
They lack the necessary helps ( Sanctifying grace, which can’t exist outside the Church) to be saved.

Ignorance excuses from sin but doesn’t give grace.

BTW I posted this on another thread; it is interesting:

**Fr. William Jurgens," The Faith of the Early Fathers", Vol. 3, pp. 14-15 footnote 31. : “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, **it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation.”

Fr. William Jurgens isn’t a supporter of water baptism only but he is honest in this comment

 

[napad]

this is from the catechism:

This last bolded point makes the point that as these other Christian church’s approach the Catholic Church, they are a means to salvation. Is it possible that a good Protestant would be allowed into Purgatory by virtue of believing in most of the tenets of the Catholic church? In this way, it would be their union with the one true church that made it possible, even if they didn’t profess it… The venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich noted that Protestants in Purgatory suffered more than Catholics because no one prayed for them… so she at least believed it was possible for Protestants to reach Purgatory and eventually be saved…

thoughts?

I didn’t get that. I think it is saying that they give people the possibility of Actual Grace( which is a help to Sanctifying grace & of its growth. BTW Actual Grace does exist outside the Church and Catechism of Trent got it wrong) e.g. Bible, prayer to Christ, baptism…etc… all help people to know the Catholic Church which is their destination for the possibility for salvation and if they stop before entering Her (I’m not saying that a Orthodox or a Protestant on their death bed couldn’t wish to be Catholic and be saved at the last moment, since they already have baptism) ; they are lost to hell.

 

[paul_c]

I didn’t get that. I think it is saying that they give people the possibility of Actual Grace( which is a help to Sanctifying grace of its growth. BTW Which does exist outside the Church and Catechism of Trent got wrong) e.g. Bible, prayer to Christ, baptism…etc… all help people to know the Catholic Church which is their destination for the possibility for salvation and if they stop before entering Her (I’m not saying that a Orthodox or a Protestant on their death bed couldn’t wish to be Catholic and be saved at the last moment, since they already have baptism) ; they are lost to hell.

. Look, I’m with you on the need to be a Catholic but how do you reconcile that with Anne Catherine Emmerich’s comments about Protestants in Purgatory? Do you merely wave it off as a personal revelation, unworthy of discussion or do you start to think that a Protestant could be purged sufficiently in Purgatory to eventually be saved if they lived a life close enough to the Catholic ideals.

 

[TOME]

I have a question for all involved here. Do you accept that “The Constitution On The Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium)” and “Dominus Iesus” both come from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, i.e. The Magisterium and must be accepted as having the same authority of the other documents of the writings and teaching of Church Fathers, popes and councils cited through out this thread?

Cstudent, maybe this is a good thing for you or perhaps it is not but I was about to start using the sermon of Our Holy Father you quoted. From the first time I read this homily I was struck by his conclusion why people take the strict attitude and literal meaning of EENS.

 

[cstudent]

That isn’t a sin of damation because they aren’t Catholic, if they are ignorant BUT;
They lack the necessary helps ( Sanctifying grace, which can’t exist outside the Church) to be saved.

Ignorance excuses from sin but doesn’t give grace.

This is not my perception of the quote. The quote suggests that it is no longer necessary to believe non Catholics will be damned simply (i.e for no other reason) than not being Catholic (i.e. formally in the visible Church).

The implication is that it is now understood that salvation may be obtained by those outside the visible Church- most likely when the ignorant desire the necessary helps while meeting the other necessary criteria.

 

[Danno2281]

I have a question for all involved here. Do you accept that “The Constitution On The Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium)” and “Dominus Iesus” both come from the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, i.e. The Magisterium and must be accepted as having the same authority of the other documents of the writings and teaching of Church Fathers, popes and councils cited through out this thread?

Cstudent, maybe this is a good thing for you or perhaps it is not but I was about to start using the sermon of Our Holy Father you quoted. From the first time I read this homily I was struck by his conclusion why people take the strict attitude and literal meaning of EENS.

Very interesting that you should ask if persons believe in ‘dogmatic’ documents from a pastoral council when you have not yet responded to questions about your belief in the dogmatic declarations of councils called to make such declarations. Do you, or do you not accept the teaching of Boniface Viii in Unam Sanctam and the definitions of Florence and Eugene IV in the sense in which Vatican I dogmatically declares that they must be accepted?

 

[Danno2281]

Una Fides,

If it were taught all along, that the ignorant might be saved, why would Joseph Ratzinger have stated the following in 1964?

“We are no longer ready and able to think that our neighbor, who is a decent and respectable man and in many ways better than we are, should be eternally damned simply because he is not a Catholic. We are no longer ready, no longer willing, to think that eternal corruption should be inflicted on people in Asia, in Africa, or wherever it may be, merely on account of their not having “Catholic” marked in their passport.”
beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Catholic/2007/01/Are-Non-Christians-Saved.aspx

In 1964 Fr. Joseph Ratzinger was a peritus at the council. His opinion, certainly modernist in terms of the syllabus of errors (and I might add simplistic in his expression of the Church’s teaching) was as authoritative as Fr. Charles Curran who was teaching Moral Theology at St Bernard’s Seminary in Rochester at that time. Fr. Ratzinger, fortunately, did not travel the same road as far as that other expert, but it is obvious that he did walk along it. You might like to readThe Rhine Flows into the Tiber**.

 

[Danno2281]

This is not my perception of the quote. The quote suggests that it is no longer necessary to believe non Catholics will be damned simply (i.e for no other reason) than not being Catholic (i.e. formally in the visible Church).

The implication is that it is now understood that salvation may be obtained by those outside the visible Church- most likely when the ignorant desire the necessary helps while meeting the other necessary criteria.

Before we decide that we know what we have not been assured of, let us remember that the Church has always “gotten it right.” This is certain because “Whe hears you hears Me.”. Now it is certain that no non-Catholic is saved as a non-Catholic but what is relevant is that God may IN WAYS ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN TO US bring certain souls into the Church before their souls leave their bodies, and this miracle of grace may happen far more frequently (or rarely) than we suppose. We do not wish, nor does the Church, to put any limits on what we believe His love might accomplish…

 

[TOME]

Danno 2281,
I give my full consent to the all the teachings of the Catholic Church from Vatican II until the present. Because the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church do not and can not contradict earlier doctrines and dogmas I do accept the teachings you presented but in light of the most recent doctrines and dogmas and other authentic teachings of the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

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.

This is what the catechism says:

1258
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

This is what the popes say:

Pope Eugene IV ( A.D. 1441 ) " The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and
schismatic’s cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart " into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" ( Matt. 25:21), unless before the end of life the same has been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those
remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting’s, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
" Cantata Domino" Council of Florence

Pope Leo XIII ( A.D.1878-1903 ) " This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."
Encyclical “Annum Ingressi Sumus”

Pope Pius IX " If any man does not enter the Church, or if anyman departs from it, he is far from the hope of life, and salvation."

Pope Benedict XV ( A.D. 1914-1922 " such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."
Encyclical " Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum"

 

[Danno2281]

Danno 2281,
I give my full consent to the all the teachings of the Catholic Church from Vatican II until the present. Because the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church do not and can not contradict earlier doctrines and dogmas I do accept the teachings you presented but in light of the most recent doctrines and dogmas and other authentic teachings of the Church.

Again, doublespeak.If the answer be yes, it is a yes without qualification. There are no authentic teachings of the Church that contradict teachings of the Church. You refer to the most recent doctrines. In the Catholic Church there are no most recent doctrines, because doctrine does not change. It may be clarified to assist belief, but novelty in doctrine is heresy.

 

[NotWorthy]

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.

No. The Canon was defined, but not dogmatized in the 4th century. Hence, people like Jerome and a few others over the years could raise the question. After Trent, though, its “case closed” because Trent dogmatized (is that a word?) it.

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

I’m not sure I follow. BMV - dogmatized in the 19th century? Taught as early as the 2nd or 3rd and maybe earlier.

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

Controversy meaning there was no opposition to EENS? I would imagine our good Protestants were rather silent on this issue for the first 1500 years or so.

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

I’m not sure if this is true. Although i don’t believe my Protestant brothers and sisters are able to swim in the pure waters of Faithful teachings that Catholics do, they still enjoy numerous graces. Now, someone who leaves the Church understanding full well what the Church is?

But I’m not to sure (or comfortable) with the Church telling me who is going to hell. I wasn’t aware we had that knowledge.

 

[Danno2281]

No. The Canon was defined, but not dogmatized in the 4th century. Hence, people like Jerome and a few others over the years could raise the question. After Trent, though, its “case closed” because Trent dogmatized (is that a word?) it.

I’m not sure I follow. BMV - dogmatized in the 19th century? Taught as early as the 2nd or 3rd and maybe earlier.

Controversy meaning there was no opposition to EENS? I would imagine our good Protestants were rather silent on this issue for the first 1500 years or so.

I’m not sure if this is true. Although i don’t believe my Protestant brothers and sisters are able to swim in the pure waters of Faithful teachings that Catholics do, they still enjoy numerous graces. Now, someone who leaves the Church understanding full well what the Church is?

But I’m not to sure (or comfortable) with the Church telling me who is going to hell. I wasn’t aware we had that knowledge.

From post #225:
Now it is certain that no non-Catholic is saved as a non-Catholic but what is relevant is that God may IN WAYS ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN TO US bring certain souls into the Church before their souls leave their bodies, and this miracle of grace may happen far more frequently (or rarely) than we suppose. We do not wish, nor does the Church, to put any limits on what we believe His love might accomplish…

 

[TOME]

Danno,
Imust disagree with you. I am someone living in the 21st century therefore I have a moral obligation to follow the teachings of the Catholic as the Catholic Church understands a particular doctrine or dogma. What is so hard to understand about this?

Let me give you three example how the doctrines can undergo development in their understanding and proclamation.

First example, back in the 1950’s through the 1980’s, the Sacrament of Reconcilation (a contemporary term) was called Penance or Confession. However, over time and with a reemphasis on the use of scripture and the Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Church moved from calling this sacrament “Penance” or “Confession” because a development in the understanding of the primary action and affect of the Ex operere operato of this Sacrament.

A second, little more controversial development. Up until the mid-20th century it was pretty well accepted that infants who died but were not baptized went to Limbo. The theology of this came, more or less, from St Augustine and his teachings on the nature of sin in general and original sin in particular. (It should be noted that Augustine’s teachings on the nature of sin were accepted in the West but never in the East). However, as theology in the West during the 20th century returned to a more scripturally base theology and away from a theology rooted primarily in philosophical thought, Augustine’s concepts of Original Sin fell out of favor so that eventually Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have rejected the concept of Limbo as a teaching that must be accepted.

The third example, and it’s too long to go into here and now, is how the Sacrament of Confirmation developed from the apostolic period until the present.

But this bring to mind, how and why did it take the Catholic Church to define the number and nature of the “Seven Sacraments” at your beloved Council of Florence? Does this in itslf teach you that doctrine and dogmas of the church do under
go development in their understanding?

If our understanding of Church doctrine never developes than how is it St. Augustine or St. Thomas’ names are even mentioned because they were innovators in their own time?

So I reject you contention that what I wrote is doubletalk. Perhaps I should have wrote something to the affect “of the latest church teachings in regards to a particular doctrine”. Perhaps that would have made things easier for you to understand.

 

[Camron]

Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?

No.

Does that mean that ‘only’ Catholics are saved?

No.

Does that mean that any person, Catholic or nonCatholic, is somehow saved through the Catholic Church (as the Bride of Christ and thus ‘united’ spousally to Christ so that the two are one)?

Yes.

Execellent post!

 

[Danno2281]

Danno,
Imust disagree with you. I am someone living in the 21st century therefore I have a moral obligation to follow the teachings of the Catholic as the Catholic Church understands a particular doctrine or dogma. What is so hard to understand about this?

Let me give you three example how the doctrines can undergo development in their understanding and proclamation.

First example, back in the 1950’s through the 1980’s, the Sacrament of Reconcilation (a contemporary term) was called Penance or Confession. However, over time and with a reemphasis on the use of scripture and the Fathers of the Church, the Catholic Church moved from calling this sacrament “Penance” or “Confession” because a development in the understanding of the primary action and affect of the Ex operere operato of this Sacrament.

A second, little more controversial development. Up until the mid-20th century it was pretty well accepted that infants who died but were not baptized went to Limbo. The theology of this came, more or less, from St Augustine and his teachings on the nature of sin in general and original sin in particular. (It should be noted that Augustine’s teachings on the nature of sin were accepted in the West but never in the East). However, as theology in the West during the 20th century returned to a more scripturally base theology and away from a theology rooted primarily in philosophical thought, Augustine’s concepts of Original Sin fell out of favor so that eventually Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have rejected the concept of Limbo as a teaching that must be accepted.

The third example, and it’s too long to go into here and now, is how the Sacrament of Confirmation developed from the apostolic period until the present.

But this bring to mind, how and why did it take the Catholic Church to define the number and nature of the “Seven Sacraments” at your beloved Council of Florence? Does this in itslf teach you that doctrine and dogmas of the church do under
go development in their understanding?

If our understanding of Church doctrine never developes than how is it St. Augustine or St. Thomas’ names are even mentioned because they were innovators in their own time?

So I reject you contention that what I wrote is doubletalk. Perhaps I should have wrote something to the affect “of the latest church teachings in regards to a particular doctrine”. Perhaps that would have made things easier for you to understand.

If we do not make distinctions, we confuse. Limbo (a fringe) was a term that was never the subject of definition,never what you called it: “a teaching that had to be accepted”, but an opinion that tried to resolve a question the answer to which was unknown. It is still unknown and is still not the subject of any definition. The answer now is,“We entrust them to God’s,mercy”, hardly a definition.
The change in the name of the sacrament changed nothing about the sacrament, but was a pastoral attempt to shift from the penitent to the interaction between the penitent and God, to change the name of the parable from the Prodigal Son to the Forgiving Father. The parable does not change. The sacrament did not change. The name did. No doctrine changed.
What you seem to overlooking is that theology, the attempt to understand revealed truth, may change, but the revealed truth that is its subject does not and cannot. That is the Catholic faith, apart from which no man may be saved.

 

[TOME]

Danno,
If you remember I was writing a response to your position that I was using doubletalk and I disagreed with you. But you stated my position well that theology attempts to understand revealed truth. Again, I adhere to the 21st century theological expression of the reveal truth you presented as expressed from the papal bul of pope Eugen IV on papal authority (Petrine Ministry) and the Council of Florenc’s teachings on the Sacraments.

I am gad to see we are in agreement on this.

 

[napad]

. Look, I’m with you on the need to be a Catholic but how do you reconcile that with Anne Catherine Emmerich’s comments about Protestants in Purgatory? Do you merely wave it off as a personal revelation, unworthy of discussion or do you start to think that a Protestant could be purged sufficiently in Purgatory to eventually be saved if they lived a life close enough to the Catholic ideals.

There is much room for error in private revelations, even when they are
given to Saints (cf. file on discernment of spirits). Canonization of a
Saint does not at all guarantee the truth of alleged private revelations.
St. Catherine of Siena seems to have claimed Our Lady appeared to her and
denied the Immaculate Conception.www.ewtn.com/library-last paragraph