"no salvation except that within the Church"

[Gorgias]

The topic of the thread is obviously stated as a paraphrase and not a quote. But we know what is meant.

Yes, we do: it’s a bad translation of the assertion ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’. In fact, it’s the particular bad translation that those who misunderstand the assertion, tend to conclude: that this assertion is talking about people and their affiliation, rather than about salvation and through whom it comes (i.e., Christ and His Church).

To make it an exact quote

“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.” 846

Therefore, definitionally,

No: therefore, definitionally, you need to ask the question “does this person ‘know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ’?” Because, if a person does not know this as truth, then the remainder of the sentence does not apply.

As I said before, you make (both / and ) into an (either / or )

No, I don’t. Is it possible that those who enter the confessional, come out “more focused on the Lord”? Of course it’s possible. And when it happens, it’s beautiful. However, are there people who go to confession and do not come out more focused on the Lord? Oh, yeah. :sad_yes:

In other words, the purpose of the sacrament is absolution and forgiveness. The citation you provided asked a different question: can a person go to confession for the purpose of “becoming more focused on the Lord”? The answer to that question is ‘no’ – the purpose is absolution, for those who believe what the Church believes about sacraments. It’s not an ‘either/or’ of effects – it’s a question of primary purpose.

A Protestant in order to receive the sacraments we’re talking about,
the situation must be danger of death or some grave situation

OK; cool. You’ve come to realize that ‘danger of death’ isn’t the only reason. That’s all I was contending.

How many fit that discription, or agree to those conditions before a priest can give then those sacraments discussed ?

Not many, one would presume. However, you need to remember what your original claim was: you claimed that we could not call Protestants as being ‘in’ the Church – and used the absolute inability for them to receive sacraments as proof. We’ve just resolved – at great length – that there are particular circumstances under which they can receive the sacraments. Therefore, if your claim is that inability to receive sacraments proves lack of inclusion ‘in’ the Church, and therefore, that ability to receive sacraments demonstrates some form of inclusion ‘in’ the Church, then we’ve just proven the error of your assertions: Protestants are ‘in’ the Church (but their communion with the Church is imperfect in various ways).

Now that you’ve helped demonstrate that your own assertion was in error, can we put this notion to rest?

Re: #3 (all emphasis mine)

“fully incorporated” is the norm for “unity” and therefore, what “in” the Catholic Church] means.

The first two assertions are straight from the document: I agree that ‘full incorporation’ is the “norm for ‘unity’”, and that our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters do not share in this full incorporation.

The last assertion (viz., that “unity” is the definition of what ‘in the Church’ means) is yours alone, and is not found in the document. If you want to claim that this is the case, then you’ll need to show us that assertion in the document – and not just wave your hands and say “that’s what this means.”

 

[steve_b]

Yes, we do: it’s a bad translation of the assertion ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’. In fact, it’s the particular bad translation that those who misunderstand the assertion, tend to conclude: that this assertion is talking about people and their affiliation, rather than about salvation and through whom it comes (i.e., Christ and His Church).

No: therefore, definitionally, you need to ask the question “does this person ‘know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ’?” Because, if a person does not know this as truth, then the remainder of the sentence does not apply.

Knowledge has already been addressed in the definition

“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.” 846

As we know, one’s ignorance of that fact, isn’t always innocent 1791 and it’s innocent ignorance that gives one wiggleroom
G:

In other words, the purpose of the sacrament is absolution and forgiveness. The citation you provided asked a different question: can a person go to confession for the purpose of “becoming more focused on the Lord”? The answer to that question is ‘no’ –

Who is REALLY the one who is giving absolution and forgiveness in the confessional? It’s the Lord.

Therefore, one is also focused on the Lord to begin with. It’s [both /and ] not either/or]
G:

OK; cool. You’ve come to realize that ‘danger of death’ isn’t the only reason. That’s all I was contending.

Not many, one would presume. However, you need to remember what your original claim was: you claimed that we could not call Protestants as being ‘in’ the Church – and used the absolute inability for them to receive sacraments as proof.

I didn’t say that.

I said they can’t just walk off the street and receive the sacraments #92

They could if they were “in” the Church
G:

We’ve just resolved – at great length – that there are particular circumstances under which they can receive the sacraments.

I never said anything differently
G:

Therefore, if your claim is that inability to receive sacraments proves lack of inclusion ‘in’ the Church, and therefore, that ability to receive sacraments demonstrates some form of inclusion ‘in’ the Church, then we’ve just proven the error of your assertions: Protestants are ‘in’ the Church (but their communion with the Church is imperfect in various ways).

Do we have “open” sacraments for Protestants? No. If they were “in” the Church they could receive the sacraments freely without there being a proximity of death or some other grave circumstance tied to it.
G:

The last assertion (viz., that “unity” is the definition of what ‘in the Church’ means) is yours alone, and is not found in the document. If you want to claim that this is the case, then you’ll need to show us that assertion in the document – and not just wave your hands and say “that’s what this means.”

To quote that document (emphasis mine)

"Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. "

Born again = baptism

And what does the document specifically say about that ?

"our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body"

That tells me, that even though baptized, and baptism is meant to unify one into one body, Protestants aren’t blessed with that unity Jesus wished for.

I gave the definition of unity in a previous post

Therefore, it’s NOT my definition.

 

[Church_Militant]

I was waitin for that. Great movie.

Yep…sure is.