No Salvation Doctrine: Since when?

[jwinch2]

Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: ‘If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’”

Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: “You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: ‘Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.’ Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: ‘Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ’ (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: ‘The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved’ (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: ‘There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.’ Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession ‘Sanctissimus’) and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession ‘Nuper ad Nos’)… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies.”

 

[jwinch2]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and “judgements of God” which are “a great abyss” (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.
"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4.5); it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.
“But, just as the way of charity demands, let us pour forth continual prayers that all nations everywhere may be converted to Christ; and let us be devoted to the common salvation of men in proportion to our strength, ‘for the hand of the Lord is not shortened’ (Isa. 9.1) and the gifts of heavenly grace will not be wanting to those who sincerely wish and ask to be refreshed by this light.”[6]

 

[jwinch2]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). … Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.”[7]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: “And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: ‘And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican’ (Matthew 18:17); ‘He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me’ (Luke 10:16); ‘He that believeth not shall be condemned’ (Mark 16:16); ‘He that doth not believe, is already judged’ (John 3:18); ‘He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth’ (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are ‘perverted and self-condemned’ (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the ‘false prophets… who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction’ (2 Peter 2:1).”[8]

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] "16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.
“17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc.”

 

[Sirach2]

I’m way ahead of you, Jason - I’ve seen all the arguments before in many threads, and they have all been rebuted. Your impressive list is pretty close to that of other apologists, basically all quoting the same sources. I really don’t understand the rigid stance from those who espouse this feeneyite-type of argument, especially when it contradicts what the Church understands in Her interpretation of these ancient documents.

No pope can bind another in perpetuity, and no pope can prevent deeper understanding with doctrinal development. That seems to be the issue here, that some prefer to lock the Church in their own beliefs, based on a layman’s interpretation rather than what should be the Church’s.

Your post #20 has been clarified in Dei Verbum, which speaks about ongoing doctrinal development. Is the Church now teaching error? If you believe this, then the enemy’s gates have certainly prevailed and we are all lost, and need to return to older understandings from lawful popes. Sounds like “sedes” to me.

Were you aware that the paragraphs in Lumen Gentium that refer to the possibility of salvation to those outside the RCC, reference in their footnote the situation with Fr. Feeney? This wrongful teaching of his was rebutted by Pope Pius XII and became the very basis of the greater understanding of V-II Councillors.

So I guess the issue is whether or not the Church has the authority of the Keys to redefine her teaching in our culture today. It’s your call - and I might say - your error.
Those who study these threads in light of the Church’s teaching NOW, will quickly dismiss your presentation.

EDIT: Looks like you deleted your long list of sources. My first paragraph needs to be understood as having read the list.

 

[guanophore]

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, nor has ever spoken of exceptions. Our understanding of the doctrine has developed, but not the doctrine itself. There is no salvation for humans outside of Christ, and He has chosen to save them through His one body the Church.

 

[JMJCatholic]

Thank you, Sirach, and everyone. I am going to continue reading, researching, thinking and praying. I assent to the current teaching, which makes sense to me, but, as was the intention of my initial post, I hope to reconcile the seemingly contradictory interpretations of the No Salvation doctrine with the doctrine of infallibility.

JMJ

 

[Seminarian_X]

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.

You are promoting grave error. Trent’s teaching on Justification, Vatican I’s decree on papal infallibility, the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception are all infallible teachings of the Church among many, many others.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I’ll side with these popes on this one

“The men and women of the Church who are careerists and social climbers, who ‘use’ people, the Church, their brothers and sisters—whom they should be serving—as a springboard for their own personal interests and ambitions … are doing great harm to the Church. Your vocation is a fundamental charism for the Church’s journey and it isn’t possible that a consecrated woman or man might ‘feel’ themselves not to be with the Church. A ‘feeling’ with the Church that has generated us in Baptism; a ‘feeling’ with the Church that finds its filial expression in fidelity to the Magisterium, in communion with the Bishops and the Successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, a visible sign of that unity,”** the pontiff added, citing Paul VI: “It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Jesus but without the Church, of following Jesus outside of the Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church.** Feel the responsibility that you have of caring for the formation of your Institutes in sound Church doctrine, in love of the Church, and in an ecclesial spirit.”

Pope Francis

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/05/francis-once-again-clarifies-theres-no.html

 

[jwinch2]

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864:
The following are prescribed errors:
*]17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863.

 

[jwinch2]

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

• Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (1302):

• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441):

• The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864:
The following are prescribed errors:
*]17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863.

You’re doing good, Jason. Same old. It proves nothing except that at one time in Church history, Pius IX saw a need to issue the Syllabus, but you need to read it in context, which is something you seem to have a problem doing. Would you like to see our lists? Would you even listen? Vox posted a link to Quanto Conficiamur Moerore awhile back to rebut EENS, which demonstrates that even your owner, a traditionist, can discern the truth of Church documents.

I see you are reposting some of the sources you deleted. I could have done that for you, for as often as they have been posted at CAF. You left off quite a few. However, you must understand these in light of Church understanding, which Pius XII clearly wrote in his official letter regarding Fr. Feeney.

I see the gang’s all here. You did well to summon the troops!

 

[guanophore]

Thank you, Sirach, and everyone. I am going to continue reading, researching, thinking and praying. I assent to the current teaching, which makes sense to me, but, as was the intention of my initial post, I hope to reconcile the seemingly contradictory interpretations of the No Salvation doctrine with the doctrine of infallibility.

JMJ

Most of the documents were written prior to the Protestant Reformation, and there WERE NO Christians “outside the Church”. Since that time, it has become clear that there are people that have been validly baptized, and therefore, made members of the Church, who are outside the visible boundaries of the Church. As has been said above, there have been many excellent threads here on the topic, and I am sure you will find the posts helpful in your reconciliation mission.

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you for your good sense, Guanophone. JMJ will most assuredly find the truth he seeks, and we do not need to engage ourselves debating with trads who fail to understand this doctrine. I believe no amount of words or counter-documents will suffice for them. If they are truly seeking, let them ask valid questions, as JMJ is doing. Otherwise, I think it’s time to let them have the floor while their time is short.

 

[Ghislieri]

Sirach, what is your opinion on the quote of Pope Francis that was cited?

 

[jwinch2]

Your post #20 has been clarified in Dei Verbum, which speaks about ongoing doctrinal development. Is the Church now teaching error? If you believe this, then the enemy’s gates have certainly prevailed and we are all lost, and need to return to older understandings from lawful popes. Sounds like “sedes” to me.

No, the Church is not teaching error. People are simply reading the documents of Vatican II without putting them into the context of all of Sacred Tradition. In this situation, the doctrine was first put forth by St. Cyprian of Carthage in the 3rd century. We have 1700 years worth of writing on the doctrine since that time, through the saints, popes, and ecumenical councils. Reading Vatican II’s documents outside of this context is a common error, and one that Pope Benedict specifically addressed more than once during his pontificate.

So I guess the issue is whether or not the Church has the authority of the Keys to redefine her teaching in our culture today. It’s your call - and I might say - your error.
Those who study these threads in light of the Church’s teaching NOW, will quickly dismiss your presentation.

The simple answer to the question is that no, the Church cannot “redefine” teachings. This idea has been expressly condemned by the Church. Thankfully, we don’t have to worry about that since it is not what the Church has done. What has been done is reading the documents of the Council incorrectly and outside of Sacred Tradition. This leads to interpretations which are incorrect, most often through genuine error with no malintent; but also regrettably by people who wish to show the Second Vatican Council as somehow changing the teachings of the Church in this, or other areas.

As for the rest, people will form their own consciences and make up their own minds. If they follow the instructions of our most recent Holy Father on how to properly interpret Vatican II, then they will read all of the historical teachings of the Church on the subject and attempt to place the writings of Vatican II into that context, rather than presenting it as something which abrogates previous teachings.

In doing so, it might be helpful for some to consider the statements of the Pope who called the Second Vatican Council in the first place, when he stated that the council was not to change or alter our understanding of doctrine. Rather, when speaking about the purpose of the Second Vatican Council, he claimed it was:
*to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion (John XXIII). *

 

[Sirach2]

Redefine does not mean negate. It means to shed a more profound light on existing truth, through the help of the Holy Spirit who brings these things to mind.

 

[Ghislieri]

Redefine does not mean negate. It means to shed new light on existing truth.

I mean no offense, but isn’t that what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, “New Light Theology”?

 

[Sirach2]

I mean no offense, but isn’t that what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, “New Light Theology”?

I have no idea what JW’s teach. Dei Verbum teaches …

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

If anyone wants to believe that the 5,000+ Councillors who voted on this document were somehow misguided, lacked understanding, and were completely in error, that is their perogative. As for me and my house…we will serve the Lord and listen to His Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach, what is your opinion on the quote of Pope Francis that was cited?

You tell me. Here is the article from which the poster pulled that isolated paragraph. The whole article focused on his speech to religious: the International Union of Superiors General (UISG). How do you interpret it?

 

[Eufrosnia]

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

Um, the doctrine is still, and will always be that “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. Nothing has actually changed.

The only thing acknowledged is that there are those who have not officially embraced the Catholic Church that still do use the truths proclaimed by her in their lives. These individuals do not have any evil intent toward the Church but had only been exposed to these elements of truths from their society.

So the Muslim who believes the Quran that was put together by distorting of Catholic doctrine (but yet contain truths as well) or the Protestant who believes in the Bible thought the interpretations leave much to be desired are still feeling the Graces given through the Catholic Church. So it is theoretically possible that they too will be saved, even though they may never become officially Catholic, given that they did all they can to know the true faith.

But that is not in contradiction of the Catholic teaching on salvation and neither does it opposes the common understanding of the laity that there is a slim chance of salvation if one were not Catholic.