No Salvation Outside The Church?

[Pitcharan]

Dear Anne,
I have been reading your many posts on this thread. Instead of engaging in a meaningful healthy debate, you are posing like an authortative spokesperson of the CC and in the process causing much damage by saying things which our Holy Mother the Church never said or implied. Please get this into your heart and head: **THE CC IS GOD’S OWN MYSTICAL BODY AND AN INSTITUTION FOR SALVATION AND NOT DAMNATION. ** For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. (Jn 3:17) Our Lord Himself said:"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day." (Jn 12:47-48). However, He said nothing about those who did not hear His words. So it is obvious, that neither the Lord nor His church ever talked about damnation of those who never heard His words.

You are drawing your own meaning of “no salvation outside the church”. The CC merely warns the faithful about “false teachings on salvation other than that preached by the church”

continuing my above post:
NO SALVATION does not mean DAMNATION as no one is being comdemned. It only means that false teachings cannot save anyone but will lead to death. True way to salvation is offered freely for everyone without prejudice by the CC which is God’s own institution

 

[itinerant1]

Aw, c’mon itinerant! She has degree in theology! Obviously she has spent years studying this, and probably has carefully placed all these wonderful quotes in a text file.

Besides, she has already stated that no theologian or anyone else has anything to say that is more valuable than a Papal or concilar document, so there is really no need to read and study such things.

I know there is a certain mindlessness about it all. But still, I could go along with just papal documents in this discussion, but so far Anne has interpreted every encyclical through the same distorting lenses. Papal documents are being read selectively. She has effectively cut off rational discussion while continuing to post quotes.

You know, this is starting to remind me of debates I have had with hard-core fundamentalists.

 

[AnneElliot]

Good quotes. However, there is nothing in these quotes that contradicts what Maritain says.

I was responding to the idea that the formula is “ambiguous”

Prior to posting this, you agreed with me that there were “qualifiers” for certain people, the just of the OT being among them. What you seem to deny is that there are qualifiers for our separated brethren as well.

The qualifiers exist for those who died under the Old Law because Jesus had not been born/suffered/died/Rose again/and Ascended into Heaven.

continuing my above post:
NO SALVATION does not mean DAMNATION as no one is being comdemned. It only means that false teachings cannot save anyone but will lead to death. True way to salvation is offered freely for everyone without prejudice by the CC which is God’s own institution

You’ll carefully notice I have not damned anyone. Salvation is open to all.

Papal documents are being read selectively.

Feel free to post the context I left out.

 

[itinerant1]

Pope John Paul II affirms that salvation is possible to those who are not external members of the Church. This statement corresponds to Maritain’s distinction of those who are invisible members of the visible Church.

Those who deny this fact arbitrarily limit Christ’s grace, which is truly made available to non-Catholics and non-Christians. As John Paul II says, “It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.”

“This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man. … 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. … In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. … Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. … The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.” (All Salvation Comes through Christ; General Audience — May 31, 1995)

 

[AnneElliot]

She has effectively cut off rational discussion while continuing to post quotes.

You’ll notice I’ve started skipping the (sarcastic?) comments about my character/intention/etc. and have only been responding to direct points of discussion. I AM trying to have a rational discussion. While I do appreciate the opinions of theologians (you’ll notice I’ve quoted Fr. Faber in this thread), they are not authoritative. Is this a discussion about what the Church authoritatively teaches? Yes. Why not then use the documents themselves?

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has constantly been imploring theologians (and the faithful) to understand and view things within a “hermeneutic of continuity”… there is one Church, not a pre and post Conciliar Church. What the Church says today must be understood in light of the things she has said in the past. Dogmas cannot change meaning. We must understand the Dogmas of Faith in the **same **sense in which they have always been understood.

A statement is made that non-Catholic **can **be saved… I wholeheartedly agree. God can reveal to them what is necessary for salvation by either sending someone to preach the Faith to them, or by internally revealing to them what must be believed. The lives of the Saints are FILLED with such miraculous accounts.

 

[itinerant1]

I was responding to the idea that the formula is “ambiguous”

And that is exactly where you are wrong…dead wrong…once again.

 

[itinerant1]

A statement is made that non-Catholic **can **be saved… I wholeheartedly agree. God can reveal to them what is necessary for salvation by either sending someone to preach the Faith to them, or by internally revealing to them what must be believed. The lives of the Saints are FILLED with such miraculous accounts.

This is only part of the truth. But since you over-extend it, and exclude such things as what is understood to be known only “implicitly” by the non-Catholic, who remains a non-Catholic, you are misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

 

[itinerant1]

Redemptoris missio

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

1. "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

“For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.””

 

[Deconi]

'Tis funny, I’ve patiently read through this thread and all ‘Anne’ has done is quote the proclamation, supported it with source material and hold to the position of the ECFS and succeeding Popes!

Her antagonists, probably in efforts to save everyone else in existence, have accused her of views she never claims or posit, refute those ‘views’ with subjective musings of theologians who weren’t exercising Papal Authority, and then accuse her of holding such views! About 30% of this thread is wasted with her trying to defend views she didn’t forward.

For what it’s worth, which isn’t much,… Anne, I’m with you!

**We know what we know! ** Revelation has shown and the Apostolic Succession teaches and continues to teach, Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God and no other name under Heaven can save us! If you know Christ or heard of Him, somehow this can only be through The Church…therefore salvation CAN be yours and it will be THROUGH The Church.

**We don’t know what we don’t know!..**but The Church has ‘reached’ into the unknown by SPECIFYING how those outside Her scope can ALSO attain salvation. In essence, The Church has proclaimed salvation is offered to every soul ever born!..but the assurances we do know is absent…for only God knows.

Clearly, there is no salvation outside The Church!

That is a DOGMATIC, INFALLIBLE proclamation…made with The Keys given to Peter’s Office! We know it is infallible because of the successive efforts to elaborate and expand it’s meaning so as to illuminate or light-up all who are created. Some theologians have relegated it to a ‘locale’ perimeter thinking it applied only to a specific people and time. ‘Theologians’ do not have The Keys to unlock it!

Several Popes make address of it since, which is indicative of it’s dogmatic bind on all the faithful.

The point is, salvation is not to be ‘gambled’ with, or to ‘test’ God. He has made it clear through Scriptures that He desire ALL be saved and through His Church, He has stipulated the means of salvation, just as He did with His people in the OT. **The difference is … we Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians are now understood to be ALL His people! NT. **

Lastly, Abraham was Catholic when he was circumcised…just as we are when we are Baptised. The Church is not called The Mystical Body of Christ for nothing.

 

[cathdoki]

You’ll notice I’ve started skipping the (sarcastic?) comments about my character/intention/etc. and have only been responding to direct points of discussion. I AM trying to have a rational discussion. While I do appreciate the opinions of theologians (you’ll notice I’ve quoted Fr. Faber in this thread), they are not authoritative. Is this a discussion about what the Church authoritatively teaches? Yes. Why not then use the documents themselves?

Our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has constantly been imploring theologians (and the faithful) to understand and view things within a “hermeneutic of continuity”… there is one Church, not a pre and post Conciliar Church. What the Church says today must be understood in light of the things she has said in the past. Dogmas cannot change meaning. We must understand the Dogmas of Faith in the **same **sense in which they have always been understood.

A statement is made that non-Catholic **can **be saved… I wholeheartedly agree. God can reveal to them what is necessary for salvation by either sending someone to preach the Faith to them, or by internally revealing to them what must be believed. The lives of the Saints are FILLED with such miraculous accounts.

You’ve not discussed anything. You’ve lectured.

 

[Pitcharan]

You’ll carefully notice I have not damned anyone. Salvation is open to all.

I have NO intention to either insinuate or falsely attribute statements to you. But I just want to draw your attention to this:The manner in which you have deployed Papal documents, is sending out a wrong message that CC believes that those who are outside its fold will go to hell.. Even your painstaking explanation on one of your posts, who all constitute the CC fold, does not alleviate the misconception. It will be worthwhile if you put up a post in large bold font, that dispels point by point, all unfounded apprehensions that have been expressed by other posters who are criticizing you. In fact, there is no need to either defend yourself or refute others. Just clear up the misunderstanding.

 

[Deconi]

I have NO intention to either insinuate or falsely attribute statements to you. But I just want to draw your attention to this:The manner in which you have deployed Papal documents, is sending out a wrong message that CC believes that those who are outside its fold will go to hell.. Even your painstaking explanation on one of your posts, who all constitute the CC fold, does not alleviate the misconception. It will be worthwhile if you put up a post in large bold font, that dispels point by point, all unfounded apprehensions that have been expressed by other posters who are criticizing you. In fact, there is no need to either defend yourself or refute others. Just clear up the misunderstanding.

Buttin’ in…

The misunderstanding or misconceptions are NOT HER’S though.

Buttin’ out.

 

[Pitcharan]

Buttin’ in…

The misunderstanding or misconceptions are NOT HER’S though.

Buttin’ out.

You are right. But there is obviously a misunderstanding in the minds of many who read her posts. There is a need to dispel the misunderstanding by others.

 

[itinerant1]

Her antagonists, probably in efforts to save everyone else in existence,

If you think that you have not read very carefully.

have accused her of views she never claims or posit, refute those ‘views’ with subjective musings of theologians who weren’t exercising Papal Authority, and then accuse her of holding such views! About 30% of this thread is wasted with her trying to defend views she didn’t forward.

The facts are weighted more on the other side. Anne repeatedly makes straw man arguments out of various posts. This garbles the discussion whenever she misconstrues what someone else says.

**We don’t know what we don’t know!..**but The Church has ‘reached’ into the unknown by SPECIFYING how those outside Her scope can ALSO attain salvation. In essence, The Church has proclaimed salvation is offered to every soul ever born!..but the assurances we do know is absent…for only God knows.

Much is a mystery but that is no justification for you to make an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Points noted and ignored by Anne include, but are not limited to Pope Pius IX’s recognitioin of an exception for those in a situation of invincible ignorance. You conveniently failed to note how she distorted that entire issue. In fact, the situation of invincible ignorance, which has further implications than what the pope mentioned, by itself undermines her entire position.

Clearly, there is no salvation outside The Church!

What Catholic in this thread has denied that statement? If none, then what is your point?

Theologically, you seem to be stuck on first base, while the Church and the Popes have moved ahead with a deeper understanding of that proposition. Remember what St. Augustine said, “Understanding is the reward of faith.”

 

[itinerant1]

The Greek philosopher Socrates, who lived in Athens 469 BC–399 BC, was in some sense a member of the Church and could thereby be saved. Does anyone disagree with this hypothetical situation?

Fr. William Most, in an essay posted at EWTN entitled, “No Salvation Outside the Church” says,

"So in following that Spirit of Christ, Socrates was accepting and following the Spirit of Christ, But then, from Romans 8:9 we gather that if one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he “belongs to Christ”. That is, He is a member of Christ, which in Paul’s terms means a member of the Mystical Body, which is the Church.

“So Socrates then was a member of the Church, but not formally, only substantially. He could not know the Church. So he was saved, not by his false religious beliefs, but in spite of them. He was saved by faith, and similarly protestants and others who do not formally join the Church today are saved not as members of e. g., the Baptist church, which some seem to think is an integral part of the one Church of Christ – no, they are saved as individuals, who make use of the means of sanctification, they are able to find even outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.”

(Continue reading article here)

 

[Deconi]

Much is a mystery but that is no justification for you to make an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Oh, sorry. You make me an argument and then discard it as …“from ignorance”!?

What Catholic in this thread has denied that statement? If none, then what is your point?

If lambasted for holding to that statement…what was YOUR point in undermining or trying to discredit hers? If you feel she does not grasp the understanding you possess, why not pay her due respect you demand of her?

Theologically, you seem to be stuck on first base, while the Church and the Popes have moved ahead with a deeper understanding of that proposition. Remember what St. Augustine said, “Understanding is the reward of faith.”

Two things;
1.- The Church does not ‘move’ as to suggest a shifting on dogmatic position. It illuminates further what is held so we can understand more of it.

2 - Augustine; Theologian par excellence, ECF extraodinary; Not a Pope!

 

[Pitcharan]

… Those in the Old Testament (under the Old Law) were justified through circumcision. In the New Covenant, after the promulgation of the Gospel by Jesus Christ, Baptism has replaced circumcision.

Circumcision and baptism, merely remove the stain of original sin. The circumcised or baptised person needs to live a life worthy of the calling in order to be justified

Salvation is only in Jesus Christ.

Everyone knows this. What is your purpose in specifically stating this now?

Lastly, the Popes and Councils state that one must be a member of the Catholic Church. …Read Pope Eugene IV’s Papal Bull again… he says the “Holy Roman Church… professes… that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church… can have a share in life eternal”.

Who appointed you spokesperson of the Catholic Church to quote an old Papal Bull out of context?

You are causing much damage and harm to the Catholic Church with such unauthorised deployment of Papal documents. PLEASE STOP ALL THIS!

 

[itinerant1]

If lambasted for holding to that statement…what was YOUR point in undermining or trying to discredit hers? If you feel she does not grasp the understanding you possess, why not pay her due respect you demand of her?

Your choice of words “undermining” and “discredit” have a pejorative nuance. Just a note.

Anne misrepresents what the Church teaches about salvation. I argue my points and she distorts my points and then rejects her mischaracterizations of my points. It’s called a “straw man fallacy.” That does not earn anyone’s respect.

Apparently you have been awed by her proliferation of quotes without realizing the selective nature of the quotes, one which distorts the issue. Her tact is then to ask how she has been selective. But such things were previously addressed and ignored by her. I would frequently have to refer her back to earlier posts if I were to play that game. And that would be a waste of my time.

The whole matter goes circular without her actually engaging in a rational discussion or argument. The ability to post quotes is no demonstration of one’s understanding of a theological issue.

My post from Pope John Paul II, with comment, has actually disproven her unduly narrow, and therefore erroneous, presentation of the issue. Will it make any difference? No.

The truth is, I am now making posts to help others understand better the issue at hand. I just use Anne’s posts as springboards for that since she has demonstrated an unwillingness to understand the counter-arguments, such as her refusal to read Maritain’s essay, though she is quick to criticize one of his statements. That being the case, I am no longer debating with her, and will move on to discuss the issue with other members in this thread.

 

[itinerant1]

You are causing much damage and harm to the Catholic Church with such unauthorised deployment of Papal documents. PLEASE STOP ALL THIS!

I think that might be a bit of an over-reaction. I don’t see how Anne can cause damage to the Church in a discussion forum. People should be free to express their ideas in a forum. She has not broken any forum rules that I know of. You always have me here to present the counter-arguments. So, no harm done. I rather enjoy all of this, or I wouldn’t be doing it. Maybe that’s because I’m weird.

 

[cathdoki]

I think that might be a bit of an over-reaction. I don’t see how Anne can cause damage to the Church in a discussion forum. People should be free to express their ideas in a forum. She has not broken any forum rules that I know of. You always have me here to present the counter-arguments. So, no harm done. I rather enjoy all of this, or I wouldn’t be doing it. Maybe that’s because I’m weird.

And we are fortunate to have you here to counter her misunderstandings and close mindedness. You’ve presented intelligent rebuttals and demonstrated her flawed thinking, misuse of her favorite papal quotes, and continual dodging of valid arguments presented to her. Never mind the fact that our last 2 popes do not agree with her. Of course, that doesn’t matter.