Medieval teaching on salvation of non-Catholics?

[Abu]

cryptoCalvinist #8
I don’t see any statements by a Pope or Doctor of the Church that those who do not believe the Catholic faith church may be saved.

Christ’s Church has never taught that only faithful Catholics can be saved, as a few misguided souls seem to think, and this was understood very early in the life of the Church. There really is no need for the confusion. The answer to the question is that ALL who are saved are saved only through the Catholic Church. The reason is that all salvation comes only in and through Christ’s Catholic Church whether one knows it or not.

Can non-Catholics achieve salvation? Yes.

There were two theological schools of thought: One based on the Church as absolutely necessary for salvation that could not see how non-baptised could be saved (Origen); the other, also from the earliest times, that saw that the non-baptised were also open to salvation like the pagan Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles “an upright and God fearing man” (St Ambrose, St Augustine). The latter thought was supported by St Thomas Aquinas.

Pope St Clement I, wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

The proviso is that “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 14). And only God can judge the guilt of a particular person.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

If you read the section of the council it came from, it supports my understanding of the text. This is not a cherry-picked quote.

Were your understanding of the text dispositive of the issue, there would be no need to discuss the matter.

More pertinent is the Church’s understanding of the text. That understanding is that the Church, which Christ Himself founded, is the ordinary means of salvation through Christ. However, others not visibly in union with the Church are saved by mystical union with the Church through Baptism of Blood, Baptism of Desire, following the laws written in their hearts as St Paul said.

The Church has always taught and believed this. Since any teaching of the Church can only be understood in context and continuity with the rest of the Church’s teachings, that makes your selection and interpretation of the text cherry-picking by definition.

.

 

[Genesis315]

He appears to be talking about material and formal heretics. Not the invincibly ignorant. Two different subjects.

So does this person “hold the Catholic faith … whole and inviolate”? If yes, how can someone disagree and agree with the Catholic faith at the same time? How can you implicitly hold a faith, without explicitly holding to it?

I’m not sure I follow your first part above. Material heretics are the invincibly ignorant.

As for the second part, Innocent IV made it plain: in those case, the faith of the person is the Church’s faith whole and inviolate (since there is only one faith)–faith covers their innocent errors. Heresy is a sin against faith, by which one culpably rejects an article of faith. Again, since faith is one, faith and heresy are incompatible. Heresy destroys faith and one cannot be saved without faith.

In context, this is even more clear. Innocent IV and other canonists of his time were dealing with the problem of ignorant laity, including ignorant laity who ended up as members of certain heretical sects at the time. The question was, how many articles of faith did they really need to explicitly get right to be saved.

 

[marymary1975]

So there is an exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus?

I always thought that non-Catholics were in some kind of “mystical union” with the Catholic church.

To restate in a simpler way, the rule is salvation on my comes through Jesus Christ and through the catholic church. However is someone is invincibly ignorant of the gospel, Jesus and the church but lives a just life that person also can be saved.

The debate is mostly with modern theologists and people as to who may qualify as invincibly ignorant.

 

[cryptoCalvinist]

Material heretics are the invincibly ignorant.

Invincibly ignorant of their heresy. Not invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Aren’t those distinct categories?

A material heretic still holds to the Athanasian creed - that is, he will still holds to the “catholic faith” Pope Eugene IV is talking about. Martin Luther, for example, was a heretic who believed this creed, although he probably wasn’t a material heretic.

Here is the context of Pope Eugene IV’s statement. I’ve highlighted the important bits.
Council of Florence: Athanasian Creed:

Sixthly, we offer to the envoys that compendious rule of the faith composed by most blessed Athanasius, which is as follows:

Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.

It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ. The right faith, therefore, is that we believe and confess that our lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, is God and man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the ages; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. Equal to the Father according to his Godhead, less than the Father according to his humanity. Although he is God and man, he is not two, but one Christ. One, however, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by the taking of humanity into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as a reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. He suffered for our salvation and descended into hell. On the third day he rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. At his coming all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own deeds. Those who have done good shall go into eternal life, but those who have done evil shall go into eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

So, someone who denies this creed cannot be saved. But most material heretics would affirm this creed. They are heretics, but on less central parts of the Church’s faith.

However, the Orthodox do not hold to this creed, since they deny the Filioque. And thus cannot be saved.

 

[guanophore]

That’s obviously not an answer, and there certainly appears to be an inconsistancy.

The inconsistency lies in one’s perceptions, not in the Teaching of the Church, which cannot be inconsistent. The Teachings are preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit, and as such, are without error.

It is the same as with the Scriptures. If there appears to be an inconsistency, it lies in the mind of the reader, for the Word of God is completely consistent with itself.

I think the issue here is context. How these words are understood prior to the Reformation makes all the difference.

 

[guanophore]

Invincibly ignorant of their heresy. Not invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Aren’t those distinct categories?

I am not so sure, since the truncated Gospel is a "different’ gospel than the one preached by the Apostles.

A material heretic still holds to the Athanasian creed - that is, he will still holds to the “catholic faith” Pope Eugene IV is talking about. Martin Luther, for example, was a heretic who believed this creed, although he probably wasn’t a material heretic.

No they only think they do, because new and opposing definitions have been given to the words so that they can say them. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church written about in the creeds was defined by those in unity with the Bishops, successors of the Apostles. Luther, along with may modern Christians, reject this definition of the Church.

The creedal understanding of “the communion of saints” is also set aside by the modern definition of the Church as only the “body of believers on earth”.

So, someone who denies this creed cannot be saved. But most material heretics would affirm this creed. They are heretics, but on less central parts of the Church’s faith.

'born of the virgin Mary" was also written by those who believed in the perpetual virginity. Saying the same words, and understanding them differently, is not the same as “affirming the creed”.

However, the Orthodox do not hold to this creed, since they deny the Filioque. And thus cannot be saved.

I think you are missing the Context of the statements. They were not directed to the EO.

 

[cryptoCalvinist]

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church written about in the creeds was defined by those in unity with the Bishops, successors of the Apostles. Luther, along with may modern Christians, reject this definition of the Church.

I don’t know about Luther specifically, but the Swedish, Norwegian, Estonian, et cetera, Lutheran churches claim Apostolic succession, through their line of Bishops.

'born of the virgin Mary" was also written by those who believed in the perpetual virginity. Saying the same words, and understanding them differently, is not the same as “affirming the creed”.

I’m not sure the passage requires belief in perpetual virginity. Perhaps only virginity prior to birth. Regardless, both Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Perhaps you’re right. Luther couldn’t have affirmed the Athanasian creed. But he was only an example. The point is this: Pope Eugene IV stated that those who didn’t believe the full Gospel (including the Filioque) could not be saved, in the context of discussion with the EO. He was not talking about people invincibly ignorant that they believe some obscure or subtle heresy (i.e. Audianism, Pelegianism).

I think you are missing the Context of the statements. They were not directed to the EO.

That part of the council was literally written to the Armenian Orthodox church. (and the same creed was repeated to the other Orthodox churches).

Historically, Rome was quite insistent on the Filioque, and this was clearly aimed at the EO. The relationship between Rome and Constantinople was not exactly ecumenical at the time.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know about Luther specifically, but the Swedish, Norwegian, Estonian, et cetera, Lutheran churches claim Apostolic succession, through their line of Bishops.

Yes and rightly so in some cases. Nevertheless, they all have redefined the nature and role of the bishop and the priest so that the intention of ordination has been lost. The understanding of those who developed the creeds around the Apostolic definition of “church” has been lost.

I’m not sure the passage requires belief in perpetual virginity. Perhaps only virginity prior to birth. Regardless, both Luther and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

You make my point for me. Moderns read the creeds and say “I am not sure that word needs to mean what Catholics say it means” and re-assign meanings to the words so that the creeds can still be claimed. My point is that those who composed the creeds held that belief. I agree, the original reformers did as well, but modern evangelicals/ non-denoms don’t.

Perhaps you’re right. Luther couldn’t have affirmed the Athanasian creed. But he was only an example. The point is this: Pope Eugene IV stated that those who didn’t believe the full Gospel (including the Filioque) could not be saved, in the context of discussion with the EO. He was not talking about people invincibly ignorant that they believe some obscure or subtle heresy (i.e. Audianism, Pelegianism).

The filoque was inserted to fight a heresy that was local, and did not affect the EO. The more immediate context of the entire council was the Hussites, and the issue of conciliar authority. The EO who participated did not have an issue with it.

That part of the council was literally written to the Armenian Orthodox church. (and the same creed was repeated to the other Orthodox churches).

I have a bigger beef about the council being declared “ecumenical” when there were so many portions of the Church not represented. That condition continues to plague our unity with the East.

Historically, Rome was quite insistent on the Filioque, and this was clearly aimed at the EO. The relationship between Rome and Constantinople was not exactly ecumenical at the time.

No, and that council drove a wedge from which we still suffer today. I don’t know how the Holy Father and the Patriarchs of the East are going to work out the issue of the filoque, but I pray they do so quickly. There are many Christians with one foot in the CC who would consider the reunificaiton of East and West a major move of the Holy Spirit, and they would abandon Protestantism forever.

 

[Abu]

cryptoCalvinist #27
The point is this: Pope Eugene IV stated that those who didn’t believe the full Gospel (including the Filioque) could not be saved, in the context of discussion with the EO.

None other than Karl Keating answers this seeming contradiction.

Contradictions on Salvation? (EWTN)
Question on Jan-24-1998:
Pope Eugene IV’s, Bull “Cantate Domino”, 1441 teaches that" none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil, and his angels (Mt. 25.41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church:" Additionally, how must the Council of Florence - Decree for the Jacobites (1442) - be interpreted" And no one can be saved, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." At first glance this appears to be very authoritative, yet irreconcilable with teaching ex Trent and Vatican II, and with Pope St Clement’s teaching. How is this explained for a non-Catholic to appreciate?

**Answer by Karl Keating on Feb-04-1998: **
The one thing we know is that these earlier documents, properly understood, can’t be irreconcilable with Trent, Vatican II, or any other authoritative Church teaching. Many people who read and comment on these documents take them, or sentences from them, in isolation (thus producing good examples of taking things out of context).

The problem is not unlike dealing with Paul’s dictum that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” All? Even the Virgin Mary? Well, no, not her, but . . .

We resolve the problem with Paul’s line by noting that his statement has implied exceptions or conditions. He wasn’t referring to infants (who can’t commit a sin), to the senile (ditto), to the comatose (ditto), to the severely retarded (ditto), or to Mary.

So with the medieval lines you have given. They have implicit conditions attached to them, one being that those who are being excoriated have rejected membership in the Church knowingly — that is, that they weren’t in a state of invincible ignorance.

 

[mkoopman]

The cynic in me would point that Vatican II looks like it was intentionally written to be misunderstood. A more positive view of Protestants, that just happens to coincide with the growth of ecumenicism.

You seem to have been on the right heading when you posed the Armenian scholars as the matter at issue. Then you take a complete disjoint when you flop in an anti-Spinoza flip on the*** great deviation*** through the scholastics. You have your cake and let them eat it too, apparently.

Are those Jesuits all so evil because of the poor paint colors available to the early scholastics? They gave the good fruit to the orphans and widows during those poor harvest years. We know they should have gone into the paints, instead.

I would probably assume that Vatican II is the deviation from the historic Roman faith. Not that I believe the historic Roman faith.

You would probably do what is often termed “Catholic bashing.” However, Paul saw quite a lot of Catholic bashing in his day. So, what good company it is to keep.
I’m not sure what you mean about Communists and Franco.

I thought this was quite straight, albeitso, written with crooked lines.

So are you saying that those who do not hold the Catholic faith may be saved? I assume you believe Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Sallus. So someone can be inside the Church, and yet not believe the Catholic faith?

I would point to what Pope Francis has recently stated about modern day atheists being saved. If your question was about your status in regards to the door (or window) of the church then I would say your understanding of the church documents you quote and the allegorical truths contained within them appears closer to that of a modern day atheist understanding than to that of a child of the kingdom.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I like to look at it this way- the criteria for mortal sin is that the sin is of grave matter, you know that you are doing it and that it is wrong, and that you do it with full consent of the will. So the only way you could go to Hell for rejecting a teaching of the Church is if you do so knowingly and willingly. So obviously the invincibly ignorant won’t be held accountable for not being Catholics.