No Salvation Outside The Church?

[cathdoki]

There were no messages at all from this apparition. So Our Lady said nothing. However… it is interesting to note from the site you linked:

“The sick were cured and blind persons received their sight, but most importantly large numbers of unbelievers were converted…”

“Two important aspects accompanied these apparitions: The first is an incredible revival of the faith in God, the other world and the saints, leading to repentance and **conversion **of many who strayed away from the faith. The second are the numerous miracles of healing which were verified by many physicians to be miraculous in nature.”

I have been searching the internet, as I would like to see the statement from Pope Paul VI that approves it… have you come across it?

In all apparitions it is up to the local bishop to decide. Unless there is contention. In this case there was none.

But, Mary appeared above an Orthodox Church. A heretical Church according to you. If I were an Orthodox Copt with your understanding, then I would say,

Wow, Mary is here above our Church, we must be right and the Catholics wrong. There was no mention of conversion to Catholicism. There was a mention of conversion to God.

 

[AnneElliot]

In all apparitions it is up to the local bishop to decide. Unless there is contention. In this case there was none.

But, Mary appeared above an Orthodox Church. A heretical Church according to you. If I were an Orthodox Copt with your understanding, then I would say,

Wow, Mary is here above our Church, we must be right and the Catholics wrong. There was no mention of conversion to Catholicism. There was a mention of conversion to God.

Again, this is why I am looking from the statement from Pope Paul VI. The website you provided explicitly says a Roman Catholic Cardinal presented the information to him.

What’s the difference between conversion to God and conversion to Catholicism, to you? The website you linked to says, “…leading to repentance and conversion of many who strayed away from the faith” The faith. There is only one faith. The true faith, handed on by Jesus Christ through His Apostles and in His Church… the Catholic Church. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, it says that Church has been “historically proven” to be the spot where the Holy Family passed through while they were in Egypt. Our Lady said nothing there validating the Orthodox separation from the Catholic Church. Her apparition appeared in a spot where she herself trod while on earth. Many, upon seeing the apparition apparently have converted (to the true faith), anything else is not a conversion, but a perversion.

EDIT to add:
Location is really a red herring. Mary appeared above a tree to the children at Fatima, and in a cave at Lourdes… does that mean we should be pantheists? Of course not.

 

[cathdoki]

Again, this is why I am looking from the statement from Pope Paul VI. The website you provided explicitly says a Roman Catholic Cardinal presented the information to him.

What’s the difference between conversion to God and conversion to Catholicism, to you? The website you linked to says, “…leading to repentance and conversion of many who strayed away from the faith” The faith. There is only one faith. The true faith, handed on by Jesus Christ through His Apostles and in His Church… the Catholic Church. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, it says that Church has been “historically proven” to be the spot where the Holy Family passed through while they were in Egypt. Our Lady said nothing there validating the Orthodox separation from the Catholic Church. Her apparition appeared in a spot where she herself trod while on earth. Many, upon seeing the apparition apparently have converted (to the true faith), anything else is not a conversion, but a perversion.

EDIT to add:
Location is really a red herring. Mary appeared above a tree to the children at Fatima, and in a cave at Lourdes… does that mean we should be pantheists? Of course not.

I give up, you’ve won. Everyone in Egypt is Catholic. No more for me to say.

God bless

 

[AnneElliot]

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by anneelliot
the dogma, “no salvation outside the church” does not guarantee catholics heaven. A catholic still must die in a state of grace to enter into heaven.

Since there is no remission of sin outside of the catholic church, how is a protestant (or any non-catholic) saved? Or do you argue that god has 2 standards? One for catholics (members of his church), and another for non-catholics?

so, all protestants go to hell?

If they die with mortal sin on their soul then yes they do go to hell just like Catholics who die with mortal sin on their souls. That is the big problem with protestantism they have no means of remitting mortal sin after Baptism. This idea of “Jesus did it all on the cross” is a false teaching because if He did do it all on the cross then no one would go to hell. Catholics have the sacrament of Reconciliation, also called Confession, by which our sin is remitted in accord with John 20:21-23

"21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” [John 20:21-23]

Protestants, denying the authority of the church in this as well as other areas, have no access to sin remission after baptism. Now you show me a protestant who has lived his whole life on earth without committing one mortal [that means deadly] sin and I will show you a heaven bound soul. Because that’s what it will take for a protestant to attain heaven. Now all of this is, by necessity, extremely generic because I don’t claim to have the power to read God’s mind when a person is judged and always there still is the possibility of a perfect act of contrition. However, the point is that Jesus sent His Church to do what He was sent to do. And if you want to know what that is then read the verse I quoted above and note the sentence that says, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” Jesus was sent for the forgiveness of sin and he sent his church to do the same thing. You got Jesus’ own words on it. So why does protestantism deny it? I don’t know the answer to that question but maybe you do.

 

[inkaneer]

This is another at a Coptic ORTHODOX Church. Not Catholic.

indefenseofthecross.com/zeitoun_egypt.htm

I know you are aware of this. Why would Mary appear at a heretical Church and not ask for conversion?

Where did you get the idea that the Coptic Church is heretical??? Because it isn’t. Neither is the Orthodox Church for that matter. Notice I called both of these ‘churches’ . I did so because they are true churches and not denominations like the protestants.

 

[cathdoki]

Where did you get the idea that the Coptic Church is heretical??? Because it isn’t. Neither is the Orthodox Church for that matter. Notice I called both of these ‘churches’ . I did so because they are true churches and not denominations like the protestants.

I don’t believe they are heretical. Please read all my posts in context. Even this post asks why would Mary appear to a heretical church. She wouldn’t.

 

[AnneElliot]

Where did you get the idea that the Coptic Church is heretical??? Because it isn’t. Neither is the Orthodox Church for that matter. Notice I called both of these ‘churches’ . I did so because they are true churches and not denominations like the protestants.

“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 Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Denzinger 468)

“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, 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.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (Denzinger 714)

The Orthodox reject the Pope, they are in schism, and have been ever since 1054
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

 

[AnneElliot]

As further evidence of the division between Orthodox and Catholic, I am compelled to remind you of the Catholic martyrs who converted from the Orthodox faith to the Catholic Faith… and were martyred for it. If you pretend that there is hardly any difference between being Orthodox or being Catholic, you pretend their martyrdom was in vain. Why should they die for unity with the Pope, if by being Orthodox they were close enough for salvation?

St. Josaphat Kuncevyc
“You people of Vitebsk want to put me to death. You make ambushes for me everywhere, in the streets, on the bridges, on the highways, and in the marketplace. I am here among you as a shepherd, and you ought to know that I would be happy to give my life for you. I am ready to die for the holy union, for the supremacy of Saint Peter, and of his successor the Supreme Pontiff.”
saints.sqpn.com/saintj61.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/08503b.htm

Bl. Leonid Feodorov
saints.sqpn.com/blessed-leonid-feodorov/

etc.

 

[jericho777]

Yes. Of course! But the HS did not intend for everything to be written.

It is kind of absurd the Holy Spirit would not want essentials of faith written down. They were certainly written down in the OT.

Except that you would not know what the Scriptures are, without the council and the decree. Further, if it were so “evident”, 80% of Christendom would not have fallen into the Arian heresy by 325.

God’s word is power and life. Why would He wait 350 years after His death to reveal the truth that is His word in a council? People will always reject the truth of the word.

This occurred before any of the NT was written. Jesus committed the faith to the Apostles, and they to their successors

True. I would contend that all the tenents of faith were well established within the first century.

It is interesting that Scripture does not claim this about itself, is it not? And it is also interesting that the Scriptures say that the faith is complete in the Church.

2 Tim 3:15 would say otherwise.

 

[inkaneer]

“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 Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Denzinger 468)

“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, 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.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (Denzinger 714)

The Orthodox reject the Pope, they are in schism, and have been ever since 1054
newadvent.org/cathen/11329a.htm

First of all everyone is subject to the Pope whether they like it or acknowledge it or not. When the Pope says abortion is a sin it is a sin for everyone, not just for Catholics. So the statement of Pope Boniface VIII is a true statement. As for the Bull of Pope Eugene IV this was one of a number of papal Bulls issued during the Council of Florence which tried to deal with the Great Schism. These Bulls were directed to the various churches and if you google the Council of Florence you will see that. This Bull, I]Cantate Domino is not an infallible statement. It lacks at least one obvious and necessary requirement for it to be infallible. That is, it is not directed to the universal church. Instead it is directed to only a portion of the church in this case the Copts. See Bulll of Union with the Copts Feb. 1442. One of the requirements for infallibility is that a teaching must be to the entire or universal church. That is why the Canon of the Bible was infallibly defined at Trent in 1547 and not in the Bull of Pope Innocent I in 408 AD. Even though Pope Innocent in his Bull listed the same books as did Trent over 1100 years later that Bull was directed to an individual bishop and not the universal church. Same thing here.

The Council of Florence is a little tricky as only parts of it are considered to be a general council and thus infallible. Part of the council is made up of Bulls [papal letters] as is the letter to the Copts. These, because they are not directed to the whole church are not infallible statements.

 

[AnneElliot]

First of all everyone is subject to the Pope whether they like it or acknowledge it or not.

This is not true. The Church only exercises jurisdiction over those who have been baptized (cf. Council of Trent, Session XIV, Sacrament of Penance, ch. 2… p 90 in my copy of “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”)

Secondly, there is a difference in what ought to be done and what a man chooses to do. While all the baptized may be subject to the Holy Father in a certain sense, those who reject his authority cannot be said to subject to the Pope in the sense which is necessary for their salvation (i.e., recognizing the truth of the authority of the office granted to Peter in the New Testament).

As for the Bull of Pope Eugene IV this was one of a number of papal Bulls issued during the Council of Florence which tried to deal with the Great Schism. These Bulls were directed to the various churches and if you google the Council of Florence you will see that. This Bull, Cantate Domino is not an infallible statement. It lacks at least one obvious and necessary requirement for it to be infallible. That is, it is not directed to the universal church.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…" is a universal statement regarding the belief, practices, and teachings of the universal Church.

Nonetheless, it is not the only statement (by far!) of the necessity of the belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation. This Dogma has been consistently professed by the Church for ages. Schismatics (which the Orthodox are) are not in union with the Church, they are cut off by schism.

The Council of Florence, as posted on the EWTN website includes the Athanasian Creed
ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
“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.”
“This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

“As a dutiful mother is ever anxious about the health of her children and is uneasy until any dissension among them has been quietened, so and to a much greater extent holy mother church, which regenerates its children to eternal life, is wont to strive with every effort that all who go by the name of Christian may put aside all quarrelling and may guard in fraternal charity the unity of the faith, without which there can be no salvation.”

This may also be helpful:
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM
“ANY dogma is an INFALLIBLE doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation.”

The Council of Florence is a little tricky as only parts of it are considered to be a general council and thus infallible. Part of the council is made up of Bulls [papal letters] as is the letter to the Copts. These, because they are not directed to the whole church are not infallible statements.

I am skeptical… I wonder if that’s how the SSPX intend to get around Vatican II? “It was intended to be a *pastoral *Council, nevermind that the Council Fathers issued a *dogmatic *decree on the Church”

 

[davidv]

This is not true. The Church only exercises jurisdiction over those who have been baptized (cf. Council of Trent, Session XIV, Sacrament of Penance, ch. 2… p 90 in my copy of “Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent”){snip}

False. God has authority over all of His creation. Jesus (God) instituted the Church to be His spokesman here on earth (The Bride of Christ). “He who hears you, hears me”. The Church, on matters of faith and morals, speaks for God. All who enter into heaven enter through the Church. The normative way this happens is through baptism and formal membership, and active participation, in the Catholic Church. The Church also teaches that those not formally Catholic can also be saved through the Church. To say otherwise is to contradict Church teaching and take upon yourself the judgement of souls that is restricted solely to Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

I will do my best to respond to your posts, but since there are so many, you’ll have to forgive me, if I miss something. Please let me know if I’ve inadvertently skipped something you’d like me to respond to.

Sorry about that. Sometimes I get on a tear.

Drivel? That's not what I would call the teachings of the Church.

I was talking about your comments. Your interpretations, as much as you may think them equal to the Apostolic Teaching, are not.

When you speak about the Sacrament of Baptism, you are correct (because Baptism makes them essentially “Catholic” until they embrace heresy). However, for those sins committed by non-Catholics after Baptism, there is no remission of sin. They have no recourse the Sacrament of Confession (or Anointing) outside of the Catholic Church.

This is not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching. God can remit the sins of anyone He desires, and His grace is sufficient to bring anyone to a perfect confession.

The Magisterium would not agree:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis #22
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to [SIGN]separate themselves from the unity of the Body[/SIGN], or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

And this is the salient point, Anne. Modern Protestants, for the most part, do not separate themselves from the Catholic Church, nor were they every excommuncated. Most of them are born into and reared in families who belong to ecclesial communities that have been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500 years. Most of them have no clear idea what the Catholic Church teaches. Some don’t care, and some have been fed such a pack of lies about Catholicism that they have absolutely no motivation to learn about it. Some of them feel that their spiritual needs and walk with God are more than fulfilling where they are, and they feel no need or desire to look.

It is what the Catechism teaches. Read it carefully and closely.

Perhaps you can help me find where it says all these people are going to hell?

No, I am not a member of the SSPX… they have wrong views about EENS (saying Hindus can get to Heaven by being good Hindus and other such nonsense).

How is this nonsense? Do you think all Hindus are going to hell too?

Of course I believe the current Pope is valid. I love our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI! I even saw him when he visited the States. It would be the epitome of irony (and stupidity!) to defend EENS and reject the Holy Father.

Well, I think so too, but people do.

I think you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox with the Eastern Catholic churches (/“rites”) which ARE in union with the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox are not in union with the Church.

No, I am not. We have more unity with Orthodoxy than we do with the Protestants.

The other “lung” (i.e., the eastern lung of the Church) is those Eastern Catholic churches which need to cling to their Eastern identities instead of allowing themselves to be latinized.

The Church does not separate the Eastern Catholics from the Orthodox when it comes to the necessity to maintain their liturgies and cultural identities.

The will of the Father is not to be outside His Church.

Yes, and the Catechism teaches that the HS uses the ecclesial communities of our separated brethren to draw people to Himself.

To Himself IN the Catholic Church… His Church.

They may not be visibly Catholic.

God will draw ANYONE to Himself (to His Church) who is open to His grace, no matter where they are.

Yet they may be saved even when they are not visibly joined to it in this life.

That’s not what I said. Read carefully, please.

Ok, I will read carefully.

If you look for Jesus outside of His Church, you won’t find Him.

Now, you seem to think that the visible Catholic Church is the only place where Jesus can be found, is that right?

If so, then you are rejecting the Catechism that affirms Jesus can be found in the ecclesial communities of our separated brethren.

The Church has never canonized martyrs who were not Catholic.

Canonization is, among other things, to provide us with positive role models for our faith walk. Why would the church hold up someone who was imperfectly joined?

At the same time, there are very saintly persons that are non-Catholic, whose souls are in heaven. Not all the martyrs are canonized.

 

[guanophore]

I don't think it is so innocently ignorant that the modern Orthodox Church remain schismatic. I do think it is ignorant, however, to assume that is the case.

The Orthodox have some valid grievances. I am not supporting schism, but the damage that was inflicted by Rome needs to be healed.

How can you possibly think that there aren’t devout Christians that are not Catholic who will be in heaven?

 Because this is what the Church teaches.

I want to make sure I understand you here. Are you saying that you believe there are no devount non-Catholic Christians in heaven?

 

[guanophore]

Yet you can provide no authentic evidence to back up your emotional assertion. Where’s the papal encyclical that says Protestants and other non-Catholics do not need to convert?

No.

However, it is clear that people get saved in spite of the fact that all of their needs are not met.

I am not sure why you think our understanding of the Catechism emanates from “emotion”.

... It doesn't exist. Because the Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the Church.

They are called our separated brethren because they are “brethren”. They have been baptized into Christ. Since there is only one church, and all who have been baptized are brought into it, they are saved through the catholic church, whether they know it, or not.

"The Church... therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ...He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation""

This is written to heretics and apostates, Anne. Our separated brethren do not qualify for either status.

#8
“He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.”

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

Those who have not been exposed to teachings such as this are not held liable for it.

 

[guanophore]

Once again, assertion, no evidence.

None of the Gospels say that those who are not members of Jesus’ Church can be saved without entering the Church.

No, but there is not an entire compendium of doctrine contained in the Gospels. The letters of Paul make it clear that it is possible for people to be saved who are not visible members of the Church.

Secondly, are you thereby asserting that the Church’s Dogma goes against the Sacred Scriptures?

Not a bit. Just your interpretations of them.

I think you need to read the Gospels and stop treating popes as God. Jesus is God. All Christians are part of His Church, regardless of what some people have said in the past during moments of anger and fear of loss of control.

The references that Anne has posted here are part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. They are forwarding the doctrine of the faith, as handed down to us from the Apostles. They are not emanating from anger or the need for power and control. They are efforts of the Holy Fathers to shepherd the flock, and prevent the members of the Body from becoming carried away by every wind of doctrine.

Find one place in the Gospel where Jesus said that EVERYONE had to belong to the Catholic Church.

Jesus only founded One Church. There is no other Church than the one He created. Every reference to “church” in the NT is a reference to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I can find many places where he said follow me and believe in me. Live my commandments and you will find eternal happiness. Nowhere does He say that people that have different interpretations are destined to hell.

Actually, I think there are quite a few references to this fact. Believers are not at liberty to forward “different interpretations”. We are obligated to receive the faith as it was handed down (paradosis) from the Apostles.

Nowhere does He say that there are man-made rules that have to be followed.

On the contrary, Jesus empowered the Apostels with the ability to bind and loose (legislate). There are plenty of man made rules in the NT that we are admonished by the Apostles to follow.

  Nowhere does he say that validly ordained priests  and their followers in the Orthodox Church are outside of His Church.

I think that Anne has a mistaken notion that everyone has to be a member of the visible Catholic Church.

Nowhere does He say that men are capable of judging other men as to whether they will attain salvation.

Indeed not. However, it seems that Anna has reserved for herself the right to judge the hearts and eternal destiny of those who do not share her theological perspectives.

My arguments are not emotional.  They're based on Jesus.

It is curious that your arguements have been characterized that way. I find it puzzling.

 

[guanophore]

The Dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church since her inception. Countless Popes, and Saints have professed it (as I’ve evidenced in this thread)… it is not something just comes out when someone is angry and has no control. It is a de fide Dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.

No arguement there. However, our understanding of it has developed over time. The plethora of ecclesial communities created by the heresies of the Reformation created spiritual offspring that are incompletely joined with the Church.

 

[guanophore]

No, I don’t reject the authority of the Catholic Church. I accept them as being human and at times responding to heresy, war, persecution, their OWN PRIDE and so on.

I will stipulate that the Popes have made expressions that reflect their human shortcomings, but these are not among those posted on this thread.

Yes, it is the duty of the successor of Peter to respond to the events of the times, and bring the Apostolic faith forward in practice to the events of our times. However, the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church is timeless.

I also realize that they are human and are prone to mistakes.  I've got to be very careful here, just because I present truth doesn't mean that CAF won't censure me!  :eek:  You are free to defend anything you want since you will defend wrong doing.  I am not.  If I present truth about the problems that popes have created on their own, I can be banned for telling the truth.  Ya gonna report me?

You will not be banned for having a non-Catholic point of view.

I think it is problematic, however, to call yourself Catholic when you espouse a non-Catholic point of view.

Yes, the Popes are human, and prone to mistakes. This is precisely why the gift of infallibilty is necessary. The teachings presented here by Anne reflect that infallibility that Jesus gave as a gift to the Church. He promised to guide her into all Truth, in spite of the natural human frailties.

There was an approved apparition to a Greek Orthodox woman many years ago. I’m going to have to look that up. Mary never suggested she convert to Catholicism, but to bring people to Christ in her own faith. I’m sure you don’t believe me.

 

[kamaan]

This is written to heretics and apostates, Anne. Our separated brethren do not qualify for either status.

Just because it is no longer politically correct to call them “heretics” doesn’t mean they aren’t.