No Salvation Doctrine: Since when?

[JMJCatholic]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

 

[Schism_hater]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

I don’t think so. It seems to me the declarations in Unam Sanctam and the Council of Florence are crystal clear.

 

[Prie_dieu]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

There are absolutely no exceptions to there being no salvation outside of the Church nor has the Church’s further exposition on this dogma changed that. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Full stop.

 

[JMJCatholic]

There are absolutely no exceptions to there being no salvation outside of the Church nor has the Church’s further exposition on this dogma changed that. Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Full stop.

Since the Church is now speaking of exceptions justified by the concept of “development of doctrine” whereas before the Church has clearly stated there are no exceptions, how do you, as a Catholic, reconcile the old with the new teaching on this doctrine in light of the Doctrine of Infallibility?

JMJ

 

[POJIUJH]

Since the Church is now speaking of exceptions justified by the concept of “development of doctrine” whereas before the Church has clearly stated there are no exceptions, how do you, as a Catholic, reconcile the old with the new teaching on this doctrine in light of the Doctrine of Infallibility?

JMJ

There are still no exceptions, only a heightening of understanding - that those who are invincibly ignorant of God’s laws, yet follow the laws that they do know without compromise (our own moral conscience and the natural law) are nevertheless acting in union with the Church. They might not understand this until their own deaths, but they are distantly united to the Church - in a very imperfect way, but the only way they would be capable of having.

See Romans 2:14:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[JerryZ]

Salvation comes within the Catholic Church irrelevant to the particular circumstances that affect the saved.

So if you have a native in a remote island that has never heard of Jesus or God but led his life in accordance with what God gave him, he could still be saved even though he never formally joined the Catholic Church, but in a misterious way he is still part of the mistical body.

I think that this is what the Church means, the doctrine has not been changed intrinsically it has been refined. The end result continues to be the same.

 

[Prie_dieu]

Since the Church is now speaking of exceptions justified by the concept of “development of doctrine” whereas before the Church has clearly stated there are no exceptions, how do you, as a Catholic, reconcile the old with the new teaching on this doctrine in light of the Doctrine of Infallibility?

JMJ

The Church is not now speaking of exceptions. The dogma is that outside of the Church there is no salvation. And the Church teaches to this very day that no soul can be saved outside of the Catholic Church.

 

[dmar198]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

The doctrine of invincible ignorance is as ancient as the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church, and it is not an exception to the doctrine. They are addressing different realities. “No salvation outside the Church” as a statement is not aimed at those who are invincibly ignorant, and never has been. Therefore invincible ignorance (combined with good works and a sincere attempt to find the truth) is not an exception, but a description of a different set of people that those who are outside the Church.

 

[abon12]

Nobody can be saved without Christ. But some who are not Catholic of course can be saved. Think about the aborted babies who didnt have a chance? Think about people who live there whole lives following their conscience and doing good?
The Church teaches that Christ, with His unfathomable mercy, will surely have mercy on those who were good people and who followed their conscience. I mean Christ died for our sins… His mercy is so incredible…
But all the same, none cannot be saved without Christ, whether in this world or the next.

 

[Anthony_V]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

JMJ

All those in God’s grace are already in some way united to the Church, which is the Body of Christ. If they are under the grace which has flowed from Jesus’ total self-donation in his sorrowful passion and triumphant Resurrection, they are united to his gift (grace) of himself, which is the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

Membership does not entail a nominal standard, but a standard of participation in the graces of faith, hope, and divine charity. The word “dismember” means to cut off a limb. Membership in the Church is to be part of the mystical Body of Christ as an arm or leg would be part of you or me. Not some name-only thing. Our understanding of who is in the Church will continue to change, but who will rise on the last day (the Body of Christ, which is the Church, in the Resurrection) is certain and unchangeable.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Church teaches almost NOTHING that we may know for sure is infallibly taught.

No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. [Code of Canon Law, 749 §3]

The Church does not define what “manifestly evident” means, but I assure you that it has nothing to do with your opinion or mine. We can get out our Vatican-1 checklists all we like, but that’s not “manifestly evident.”

I’m sure the Church’s idea of “manifestly evident” is if the Magesterium tells us the teaching is infallible. For other teachings, we might be pretty darned sure they are infallibly taught, but we can’t know for sure unless the Church tells us so.

To my knowledge, this has happened only once (in the teaching regarding priestly ordination of women). This is the only doctrine that the Magesterium has flat-out told us has been infallibly taught, actually using the word “infallible.”

I’m sure that most of the Church’s teaching is taught infallibly, but we can’t actually claim that it is infallible unless the Church confirms this claim. It’s not up to us to decide what is infallible and what is not (nor is there any reason we should care about the difference).

Just because a Council or Pope teaches something does not make it infallible. Councils and Popes can teach infallibly, but they often do not. (There is a common misconception that an Ecumenical Council is automatically regarded as infallible. That’s nonsense.)

The Church’s teaching on the nature of infallibility is badly misunderstood.

 

[Surnaturel]

Since the Church is now speaking of exceptions justified by the concept of “development of doctrine” whereas before the Church has clearly stated there are no exceptions, how do you, as a Catholic, reconcile the old with the new teaching on this doctrine in light of the Doctrine of Infallibility?

JMJ

Conciliar infallibility…no salvation outside of the Church because all that are saved are through Christ and His Body, the Church.

 

[JMJCatholic]

The Church teaches almost NOTHING that we may know for sure is infallibly taught.

The Church does not define what “manifestly evident” means, but I assure you that it has nothing to do with your opinion or mine. We can get out our Vatican-1 checklists all we like, but that’s not “manifestly evident.”

I’m sure the Church’s idea of “manifestly evident” is if the Magesterium tells us the teaching is infallible. For other teachings, we might be pretty darned sure they are infallibly taught, but we can’t know for sure unless the Church tells us so.

To my knowledge, this has happened only once (in the teaching regarding priestly ordination of women). This is the only doctrine that the Magesterium has flat-out told us has been infallibly taught, actually using the word “infallible.”

I’m sure that most of the Church’s teaching is taught infallibly, but we can’t actually claim that it is infallible unless the Church confirms this claim. It’s not up to us to decide what is infallible and what is not (nor is there any reason we should care about the difference).

Just because a Council or Pope teaches something does not make it infallible. Councils and Popes can teach infallibly, but they often do not. (There is a common misconception that an Ecumenical Council is automatically regarded as infallible. That’s nonsense.)

The Church’s teaching on the nature of infallibility is badly misunderstood.

This is very interesting. I never heard of this concept before.
JMJ

 

[JimG]

Everyone who is saved is saved through the Catholic Church.

 

[jwinch2]

"were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault." Pope Pius IX

Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ’s command … We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to this only road of truth and salvation. Pope Pius IX

*“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.” *St. Thomas Aquinas

No one is saved through ignorance. However, God in His mercy may choose to instruct the ignorant in the Catholic Faith, so that they can repent and be saved. This is provided they have not sinned against the natural law, as noted by Pope Pius IX above, and also taught by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

“And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins” St. Augustine

“There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed…” St. Thomas Aquinas

This is why we must evangelize and why it is so important to teach people the Faith. Those who have committed no mortal sin against the natural law may indeed receive God’s grace and mercy. However, what percentage of people are we willing to bet can go uninstructed in the Faith and commit no sin against natural law throughout their lives? Not many, I suspect. As I noted above, the situations which allow one to be saved outside of the visible body of the Church are the exceptions to No Salvation Outside the Church, not the rule. Furthermore, none of this in anyway provides justification for those who have left the Faith, or for those to choose to not raise their kids in the Faith, particularly for some sort of earthly reward.

Pope Pius IX had some choice words for those who try to twist the teachings of the Church in this area:

“many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently – we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us.” Pope Pius IX

 

[Sirach2]

Can someone make an argument that No Salvation Outside the Church was not infallibly declared before it’s recent interpretation that allows for exceptions?

I noticed you did not find a substantial response when you posted this in the Non-Catholic forum. It really amazes me how often this topic comes up - at least once a month. Have you tried the search function? Do you know how to use it yet? There are many really good threads that may help you. I remember how well you researched the problem concerning Canon Law, so I believe you will exercise your skills to best advantage regarding this teaching, also. Meanwhile, here are a couple of documents to help you get your feet in the water, but if you need more, there are plenty out there, and I will gladly supply them, if need be.

From Unitatis Redintegratio:

1. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.** The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers,** with respect and affection.

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

From Blessed Pope John Paul II:

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7).** Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone**. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14).

For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

 

[Sirach2]

The Church teaches almost NOTHING that we may know for sure is infallibly taught.

Just because a Council or Pope teaches something does not make it infallible. Councils and Popes can teach infallibly, but they often do not. (There is a common misconception that an Ecumenical Council is automatically regarded as infallible. That’s nonsense.)

Did you change your opinion so quickly from this post, David?

The Church can (and does) teach infallibly without formally recognizing the infallible nature of the teaching. Most theologians believe that most doctrine is infallibly taught. All doctrines that have been recognized as infallible were taught for centuries before being thus recognized. The Church only makes this distinction when there seems to be a good pastoral reason for it (which is not very often).

To the guy in the pew, it doesn’t matter if a teaching is recognized as infallible. We Catholics are bound by ALL Magesterial teaching. Infallible teaching binds more strongly, but it’s kinda like the difference between being tied up with chains or ropes. As long as they’re properly secured, we can’t escape from either one. The fact that chain has a higher tensile strength doesn’t really matter. They both bind us equally well.

The Church is never required to recognize any teaching as infallible. There’s never a situation that requires such recognition.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Pius IX had some choice words for those who try to twist the teachings of the Church in this area.

Yes, indeed. Speaking of twisting teachings, have you overlooked the encyclical of this very same Pope, who wrote in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore…

1. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. **There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. **

 

[Sirach2]

"Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send,** if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith**
​

I believe you are placing the words of two saints (centuries removed from V-II) above the present teaching of the Church, which is truly misleading to anyone reading this thread. A punishment for sins if they are invincibly ignorant? I have seen this quote of St. Thomas’s about sending the angel, but it is simply his personal opinion and rationale for what God “may” do - it is not dogma.
​

​

 

[jwinch2]

I believe you are placing the words of two saints (centuries removed from V-II) above the present teaching of the Church,

There is no “present teaching of the Church” which is different from what has been taught since the time of Saint Cyprian of Carthage. Furthermore, the distance from Vatican II is completely irrelevant. There can be no fuller understanding of a doctrine which in anyway changes the previous understanding or sense of what has been held previously.

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason

1. 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.
2. 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.

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.