No Salvation Outside The Church?

[inkaneer]

inkaneer,

The Conciliar text calls them “catechumens”, does it not? Catechumens still require instruction after Baptism thus they cannot receive Holy Orders. They are newbies.

CONTEXT, Anne, CONTEXT. The decree is for Catechumens who are to be baptized. The decree states they are not to be ordained to the priesthood or bishopricy without undergoing further intstructions. What we today would call seminary. It does not say they are still catechumens after Baptism. You are reading what you want into the canon. In short your end goal is justifying your means.

 

[inkaneer]

So, am I safe in saying that you cannot provide any other doctrine which the Church teaches only implicitly in her Papal/Conciliar documents? “baptism of desire” is a teaching of the Church, yet the phrase cannot be found in ANY Papal/Conciliar decree?

Anne, come on you know very well that a doctrine does not have to be “found in ANY Papal/Conciliar decree” for it to be valid doctrine. Besides, if Pope Benedict XVI would issue an infallible papal statement on it I doubt you would accept it anyway. Face the facts, Anne, Feeney crashed and burned. Now you are following the same course.

 

[itinerant1]

FYI:

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, [condemning doctrine of L. Feeney] (DS 3870): “It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit. . . but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.”

 

[itinerant1]

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

"10. 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.””

Pope John Paul II: REDEMPTORIS MISSIO

 

[itinerant1]

So, am I safe in saying that you cannot provide any other doctrine which the Church teaches only implicitly in her Papal/Conciliar documents? “baptism of desire” is a teaching of the Church, yet the phrase cannot be found in ANY Papal/Conciliar decree?

The ground upon which you make your final stand is not by any means safe terra firma.

To be continued…

 

[sidbrown]

Martyrdom for Christ’s sake is the baptism of blood. This the Holy Innocents received, and the Church commemorates them as saints. All unbaptized persons who suffer martyrdom for the Christian faith, for some act of Christian virtue, or the fulfilment of a Christian duty, also received the baptism of blood.

Yes. I agree with you, but it does look like the teaching has been changed.
For example, “…no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[itinerant1]

Yes. I agree with you, but it does look like the teaching has been changed.
For example, “…no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Apparently, you did not see or understand my main point showing there has been no change in doctrine (as if fundamental change in doctrine were even a possibility). So, let’s take a closer look at your contention.
What is the doctrine that you think has changed?
Give examples of the changes you think have taken place.
And finallly, when do you think this change took place?

 

[inkaneer]

Okay enough is enough. Anne has been rebuked time and time again. It is therefore time to shake the dust from our sandals and let Anne go her own way. I will request the moderators to close down this thread. Thanks to all the orthodox Catholics who contributed to adefense of the faith against an excommunicated priest and his followers.

 

[sidbrown]

Apparently, you did not see or understand my main point showing there has been no change in doctrine (as if fundamental change in doctrine were even a possibility). So, let’s take a closer look at your contention.
What is the doctrine that you think has changed?
Give examples of the changes you think have taken place.
And finallly, when do you think this change took place?

It looks like the following teachings have been changed:
A Jew can be saved.
If a person has shed his blood in the name of Christ he will be saved.
This is seen by the statements quoted at the Council of Florence, and by the current statements by the present leaders of the Vatican.

 

[sidbrown]

Thanks to all the orthodox Catholics who contributed to adefense of the faith against an excommunicated priest and his followers.

Was this priest excommunicated for disobedience or for doctrinal error?

 

[itinerant1]

It looks like the following teachings have been changed:
A Jew can be saved.
If a person has shed his blood in the name of Christ he will be saved.
This is seen by the statements quoted at the Council of Florence, and by the current statements by the present leaders of the Vatican.

There have been no changes in doctrine, only apparent differences, not actual differences. These things were discussed earlier in this thread, including the nature of the excommunication of Fr. Feeney, who in fact taught a rigorist and heretical interpretation of the maxim “no salvation outside the Church”.

If I have time later, and the thread is still open, I will post a brief recap of the salient points.

 

[AnneElliot]

Pete Vere, JCL says “strict interpretation” of EENS is tenable position for Catholics to hold.

So does “Fr. Z”,

“I call to mind also the situation of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, and his “wildcat group” the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They took a black and white position on the Church’s true teaching that “outside the Church there is no salvation”. This got them in hot water with the Holy See. Eventually an understanding was hammered out. The so-called “Feeneyites” were able to be in union with the Church but without having to abjure their position about extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.”

Fr. Frank Pavone, of “Priests for Life” gave a retreat at the “Feeneyite” abbey in Still River.

Official letters from the Diocese of Worcester. (the first is now outdated since the community of Brother Francis has been ‘regularized’ since then)

“It would seem that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith holds the doctrine to have been defined and consequently definitive. It is its theological interpretation and speculation which they see as problematical.

In our discussions with the Congregation it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who hold more liberal views.

Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings. Consequently the Sisters do a good deal more than keep the memory of Father Feeney. They now actively proclaim his teachings as they did before the regularization.”

This is why I suggested that others write to the Diocese themselves if they doubted these communities still held the strict interpretation of EENS in good standing with the Church. As you can see from the letter from the Diocese of Worcester, the CDF was involved in these discussions so it is not simply a matter of a Diocese gone awry.

 

[itinerant1]

Pete Vere, JCL says “strict interpretation” of EENS is tenable position for Catholics to hold.

So does “Fr. Z”,

Fr. Frank Pavone, of “Priests for Life” gave a retreat at the “Feeneyite” abbey in Still River.

Official letters from the Diocese of Worcester. (the first is now outdated since the community of Brother Francis has been ‘regularized’ since then)

This is why I suggested that others write to the Diocese themselves if they doubted these communities still held the strict interpretation of EENS in good standing with the Church. As you can see from the letter from the Diocese of Worcester, the CDF was involved in these discussions so it is not simply a matter of a Diocese gone awry.

None of what you posted does anything to disprove the validity and truth of the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times regarding the possibility of extra-sacramental salvation. You are still kicking against the goad.

 

[sidbrown]

None of what you posted does anything to disprove the validity and truth of the constant teaching of the Church from the earliest times regarding the possibility of extra-sacramental salvation. You are still kicking against the goad.

I don’t think so.
I think that Anne is absolutely right.
(Of course, I do not agree with her, as I hold to the present teaching of the Church).
I think that the confusion comes in due to the fact that the teaching has been changed.
According to the declarations from the Council of Florence, a Jew could not be saved. And in some cases, a martyr would not be saved even if he had given up his life for Christ.
But the present teaching is different.
It is now taught that a Jew can be saved and that martyrs who have shed their blood for Christ will be saved.
So the teaching has been changed.

 

[itinerant1]

I don’t think so.
I think that Anne is absolutely right.
(Of course, I do not agree with her, as I hold to the present teaching of the Church).
I think that the confusion comes in due to the fact that the teaching has been changed.
According to the declarations from the Council of Florence, a Jew could not be saved. And in some cases, a martyr would not be saved even if he had given up his life for Christ.
But the present teaching is different.
It is now taught that a Jew can be saved and that martyrs who have shed their blood for Christ will be saved.
So the teaching has been changed.

That’s is an odd claim to make. First of all, the New Testament testifies to the fact that those who give their lives for Christ in martyrdom will receive eternal life. You can read what Christ has said in this regard in the Gospels, such as “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it”, and what the Book of Revelation has to say about martyrs. Furthermore, all Christians writers from the first century on have spoken about martyrdom in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Of course, being saved through martyrdom presupposes the right disposition and intentions of the martyr.

Secondly, martyrdom as an extra-sacramental means of salvation has always been taught by the Church. The baptism of blood (baptismus sanquinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “washing of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (On Baptism 16) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “washing of water” (lavacrum aquæ). “We have a second washing”, he says “which is one and the same [with the first], namely the washing of blood.” St. Cyprian (Epistle 73) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (City of God 13.7) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the washing of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.”

Another proof regarding the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptismus sanquinis is found in the fact the Church never prays for martyrs. Her view was adequately voiced by St. Augustine (Tractate 74 on the Gospel of John): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin.

Such has always been the teaching of the Church regarding martyrdom from New Testament times to the present.

In regard to the Jews, they are not necessarily excluded from salvation. But their salvation is in jeopardy, if they, as is the same with any non-Jew, culpably remain outside the Church. That is why the Council of Florence can say “those not living within the Catholic Church…cannot become participants in eternal life…”. But there are two complimentary traditions regarding the Church and salvation, or two sides to the same coin.

The other side, which does not conflict with no “no salvation outside the Church”, but rather compliments it, says that those who remain visibly or physically outside the Church through no fault of their own, such as in the case of invincible ignorance, can still be saved, despite their invincible ignorance, provided certain conditions of disposition are present.

The Council of Florence emphasized the one side only, which was what was needed at the time, to address the historical situation. The Council of Florence proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom. Accordingly, Eugene IV was able to halt the schism which had been threatening the Western Church, once again.

The Council of Florence was held during the years 1438-1445. Previously, in the first centuries of Catholicism, extra-sacramental means of salvation already existed as a strong, though less well-known tradition. So, it would not be accurate to say anything about Church teaching in regard to salvation had changed. Also note what the two greatest theologians of the middle ages, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, taught (well before the Council of Florence), regarding the possibility of salvation for those not visibly in the Church: Post # 886.

If you maintain that Church teachings have changed in regard to martyrs and Jews, all I can think of is that you have not studied the theological issues in Church history, but are merely selecting a few texts and trying to interpret them out of context. That would be doing "eisegesis" rather than "exegesis".

 

[Pitcharan]

… First of all, the New Testament testifies to the fact that those who give their lives for Christ in martyrdom will receive eternal life. You can read what Christ has said in this regard in the Gospels, such as “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it”, and what the Book of Revelation has to say about martyrs. Furthermore, all Christians writers from the first century on have spoken about martyrdom in accordance with the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Of course, being saved through martyrdom presupposes the right disposition and intentions of the martyr.

On the same above principle, apply Matt 10:42 to the below quoted cases of those who remain outside out of ignorance; then we can understand more ways by which salvation is available outside the church.

And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward (Matt 10:42).

The other side, which does not conflict with no “no salvation outside the Church”, but rather compliments it, says that those who remain visibly or physically outside the Church through no fault of their own, such as in the case of invincible ignorance, can still be saved, despite their invincible ignorance, provided certain conditions of disposition are present…

 

[sidbrown]

That’s is an odd claim to make.If you maintain that Church teachings have changed in regard to martyrs and Jews, all I can think of is that you have not studied the theological issues in Church history, but are merely selecting a few texts and trying to interpret them out of context. That would be doing "eisegesis" rather than "exegesis".

Has not the teaching of the RCC of today changed from the teaching as expressed in the following texts?
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence,: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

 

[itinerant1]

Has not the teaching of the RCC of today changed from the teaching as expressed in the following texts?

No.

Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence,: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439,:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Let’s take just one statement for now as an example. What we can learn about it will apply to the rest of the statements:

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

This teaching has not changed. It is based on the saying of Christ, “In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit.”

Now, show me where this teaching has been changed.

 

[sidbrown]

No.

Let’s take just one statement for now as an example. What we can learn about it will apply to the rest of the statements:

“If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (John. 3:5): let him be anathema.”

This teaching has not changed. It is based on the saying of Christ, “In all truth I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit.”

Now, show me where this teaching has been changed.

A Jew, Buddhist, Hindhu, or Confucist can be saved and yet they have not been born through water.

 

[itinerant1]

A Jew, Buddhist, Hindhu, or Confucist can be saved and yet they have not been born through water.

Just don’t claim that Jehovah Witnesses can be saved.

So, the question becomes to whom does the requirement of sacramental baptism apply? Do we think it applies to people, for instance, who have never heard of, and will never hear of Christ or Christianity? If we think that, as did Fr. Feeney, then the millions upon millions of people in question cannot be saved.

But that view sounds like a contradiction to the saying that “God…wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.” (1Tim. 2:4)

If God wills the salvation of all men, then there must exist the possibility for anyone to saved, otherwise God’s will that all should be saved would be pointless.

Evangelization and missionary work is one way to further realize God’s will in the world; preaching the Gospel and baptizing as many people as believe. But that still leaves a very large percentage of people who never hear the Gospel. So, we must still consider matter further, in regard to the gentiles who never hear the Gospel message.

We find an answer in St. Paul’s letter to the Church at Rome:

"There is no favouritism with God. All those who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law; and those under the Law who have sinned will be judged by the Law. For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law.

"So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves.

“They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defence . . . on the day when, according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges all human secrets.”

The gentiles, then, can be saved if they follow the dictates of the natural moral law. The Apostle calls it the “Law engraved on their hearts.” The natural law is the same for all men, in all places, at all times throughout history. The Ten Commandments are actually a Divine revelation of certain precepts of the natural law, one that are otherwise naturally known to man. For instance, all societies have prohibited murder. They know the precept “Thou shalt not kill”. Errors come into play though, when there is disagreement as to just which acts constitute murder.

St. Paul is not contradicting the requirement for sacramental Baptism. The requirement just needs to be correctly interpreted, and St. Paul’s teachings have helped with that interpretation.