No Salvation Outside The Church?

[AnneElliot]

Each one of us should say a prayer for the others…

Of course!

FYI, I didn’t deny anything about Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles, I simply pointed out that he converted… demonstrating my point that God leads those who are open to the Church (even if a miracle is needed… like an Angel in a vision). Anyone can be saved. Anyone can join the Church. I fully trust in Divine Providence.

 

[guanophore]

There is definitely structure and authority in the NT but there is no elevated clergy.

What do you mean by “elevated”?

Phil.2
[29] So receive him in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men (my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier),.

1Tim.5
[17] Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching;

You all look and act more like Pharisees than servants of God.

Can you please explain this?

It appears that I am being insulted here, and I am curious to hear the evidence.

There are supposed to be overseers not rulers.

News flash, jericho, but an OVERseer is OVER those he for whom he sees. The Apostle teaches that the elders that RULE WELL are considered worthy of DOUBLE HONOR.

Who is being unscriptural here?

The only priesthood in the NT is the priesthood of all believers.

This is also true. The NT fuflills the shadow of the OT, where there was a priesthood of all believers, a minsterial priesthood, and a High Priest.

Jesus is the end of the priesthood as such because He is the ultimate high priest because He offered His own blood once forever.

Again you are spouting unscriptural statements, jer. On the contrary, His priesthood is after the order of Melchizedech, and lasts forever.

Heb.5
[6] as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchiz’edek.”

Doesn’t sound “ended” to me!

It is the perfectly complete sacrifice wiping away all sins forever. Never having to be offered over and over again as with an earthly high priest.

This much is Catholic.

Elders and deacons are to be the husband of one wife. The context that it is written in makes it a prerequisite for the office.

If this were true, then Jesus Himself would not qualify, and neither would the author of that same passage, or the person to whom it was addressed!

On the contrary, they are to demonstrate faithfulness if they are married, and not have left one marriage and jumped to more than one.

So now you are saying it is satan who is doing these miracles. Why because your church doesn’t think God will work outside of itself.

Satan does masquerade as an angel of light. However, the Catholic Church recognizes that the HS does work through ecclesial communities that have become separated from the Apostolic faith.

I have never seen any miracles done in a CC in my 28 years of attending.

Such a statement reveals a gross spiritual block towards the Eucharist.

On a regular basis I see miracles done in my church. Demons cast out cancer healed the deaf hearing and more. Should you ever need a miracle from the hand of God in the name of Jesus let me know, you have an open invitation.

We are taught to seek the Giver, and not the gifts.

As to the apostolic tradition you speak of, someone here told me God can use a donkey to accomplish His will.

Yes, and so He can. But what God can do with those He has chosen and that willingly submit to His plan will much outdo a donkey, I can assure you.

You appear to have a passion for emotional feel goodism, and a problem with authority. You are in good company. Most of the United States is in the same boat.

 

[The_Reginator]

The greatest miracle of all is Jesus saving us sinners. But you all are side stepping the point, Jesus promised all who believe will cast out demons and heal the sick. Faith is the prerequisite for these miracles to occur. Where is the demonstration of the faith promised by Christ in your church?

From The Original Catholic Encyclopedia:

Exorcist,
one ordained by a bishop for this office, ordination to which is the second of the four minor orders of the Western Church. The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apologet., 23, P.L., I, 410; cf. De Idolat., 11) and Origen (C. Celsum, VII, 4, P.G. 1425). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration (Mark, xv, 17), and urges the fact as a proof of the power of Christ’s grace, and the inability of demons to resist it.
The fourth Council of Carthage (398), in its seventh canon, prescribes the rite of **ordination for exorcist; the bishop is to give him the book containing the formula of exorcism … and the same rite has been retained, without change, in the Roman Pontifical down to the present day **… (oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Exorcist)

The Catholic Church continues to this day to cast out devils!

You don’t see it. Look at Peter, John and Paul. Paul was the greatest healer recorded in the NT. I guess people in the CC don’t need God to heal them physically or spiritually any more. PS that’s why numerous catholics come to to our monthly healing service because the demonstration of Gods’ power is not exhibited in their own church. And yes they get healed!

As for physical healing, if you investigate the way in which a person is proclaimed to be a saint you’ll find that the vast majority of the requisite miracles involve miraculous healings.
People also make pilgrimages to Lourdes, for example, which is a place of Healing and Hope.
I’m sure you would agree that spiritual healing is more important than mere physical healing. No protestant community can offer that to the extent that Jesus’ Church can. Catholic priests have been given the power, from Jesus and passed down through the apostles, to pronounce God’s forgiveness of sins and grant absolution!!!

Jesus didn’t leave a printed book behind just His inspired word. The word is powerful and reveals God’s will to His people. How can the lesser (the church) define the greater (the Word of God). You are mistaken if you think you can give council to God or make decisions for Him.

The Church is the bride of Christ. He entrusted His Word to His Church, and Jesus is the head of the Church. To interpret scripture apart from His Church is, in effect, trying to interpret it apart from Jesus!

Most importantly, however, is the fact that you have made up your own ideas as to what is most important to prove that a ‘church’ is following our Lord Jesus.
Never forget this:
From the Gospel of St. John, Chapter 6

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[56]** For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven.** Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?

My friend, are you scandalized by this? We were commanded to eat His Body and drink His Blood.
But you keep insisting that witnessing physical healings, etc. are the true hallmarks of the Church.
That reminds me way too much of those who demanded signs from Jesus before they would believe.

In Christ, Reg.

 

[guanophore]

Israel was is and will always be God’s chosen people. God always has a remnant apart from the greater number,even when the religious leadership goes astray.

That was true of Israel, but He gave His promise to His Church that they would never go astray.

** **When I present passages that show my position you ignore them.

No, we just realize they don’t say what you want them to say. The passages are all Catholic - written by Catholics, for Catholics. There is nothing in them that is not Catholic. Your attempts to interpret them outside of their context (the Catholic Church) has little merit.

There is definitely leadership in the church but your version leaves people as subjects of the religious leadership not co laborers.

Maybe you can explain this. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what you are talking about. You make it sound like you contributed nothing to your parish the whole time you were part of it. You talk about how you expected the priest to do everything, have all the gifts, etc. I guess if you refused to do any labor, like it sounds, then he really had no co laborer, at least from your corner.

They are in bondage to a religious system that limits their service rather than being ministers of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Who are “they”? It seems like you believe that your own experience is the same as all Catholics. Sorry, my misguided brother, but your being in bondage does not equate to everyone being in it. It seems that your own service to your parish was limited (or absent) because you did not have a personal experience of the Living God, and were not moved by the HS. I am glad that you have finally experienced these things, but dreaming that the whole Catholic Church was as lost as you were is nothing but a fantasy.

It is preposterous to think that God would wait 325 years after the birth of Jesus before revealing scripture to His people. The Holy Spirit inspired men to write His word. From that time onward it is scripture apart from the will or actions of men.

No, jericho. Scripture has never existed apart from the will or actions of men. The HS spoke through the men (Catholic men) who wrote it, then the HS used men (Catholic men) to preserve, protect, and promulgate it. Finally, the HS used a council of men (Catholics) to define the canon. And most recently, God used a Catholic man (Guttenberg) to create the printing press, and be the first person to mass print the HOly Scriptures.

Then the priesthood of believers qualifies all believers to administer religious rites. As we are a nation of priests before our God. 1Peter 2:9

Ok. Which religions rites do you administer?

From reading your posts, it seems like you are ministering mythology and dismissal.

 

[guanophore]

I have noticed , in this thread, a misunderstanding of what the Church means by ‘No salvation outside the Church’ or, perhaps, you all just like to argue.

I think it is probably both.

 

[guanophore]

Everyone is too busy being all worried over my character and orthodoxy. So, while you’re all worried over my pride, narrowmindedness, and ‘heretical’ “interpretations” etc. I hope you are saying several prayers for me.

Count on it, my beloved sister in Christ!

 

[itinerant1]

Of course!

FYI, I didn’t deny anything about Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles, I simply pointed out that he converted… demonstrating my point that God leads those who are open to the Church (even if a miracle is needed… like an Angel in a vision). Anyone can be saved. Anyone can join the Church. I fully trust in Divine Providence.

Here again, you are talking around the issue. The issue had nothing to do with the fact Cornelius actually converted. But you sidetrack the original discussion, then and now again, to one about Cornelius’ conversion.

The issue under discussion was, and you can check the earlier posts to confirm this, that there existed a second Tradition that developed early in Church history regarding those who could be saved even though they never, through no fault of their own, heard about or joined the Church. This Tradition had as one of its witnessing texts, the fact that Cornelius, a pagan, was considered “God fearing and upright” while still a pagan. It is irrelevant to the point under consideration that the historical Cornelius converted.

Such a person, according to this second Tradition, may never know during his lifetime, anything explicitly about the Church.

Furthermore, I explained Fr. Hardon’s exposition of this second, yet less known Tradition, as not being a Tradition that contradicts the “No salvation outside the Church” Tradition, but rather complements it. You explicitly disagreed with Fr. Hardon. How could you forget so quickly, that in your vehement disagreement you said Fr. Hardon is not the pope.

So, in fact you did deny the scenario about Cornelius, when that story was taken to reveal to the early Church that there were in fact righteous pagans, and they could be saved even if they never heard of the Church throughout their entire life, in contrast to what the historical Cornelius experienced as related by Acts.

In the context of your earlier post in which you disagreed with Fr. Hardon, you give the appearance here of merely obfuscating the facts about your position. It should not then come as a surprise to you that others have become frustrated trying to discuss this topic with with you.

Being open to the Church does not necessarily mean one has to ever have during their lifetime explicit knowledge of the Church. He may only be implicitly open to the Church, while even being “outwardly” rejecting of the Church, as Pope John Paul II taught.

Next, we can discuss, if you like, how you appeared to turn “invincible ignorance” into actual knowledge so that it was no longer a situation of invincible ignorance. Prior to this, you disagreed with what Ott said about invincible ignorance in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Your denials can be found in your earlier posts.

In sum, your previous denials put you in disagreement with what the Church teaches about “No salvation outside the Church.” Certainly your prior disagreements put you in opposition to Pope John Paul II in the quote I provided.

As an aside, among the Jews, there was frequently found the tendency to believe they were more righteous before God than any non-Jew. But it’s interesting to note that the most righteous person in the Old Testament, Job, was not even a Jew.

 

[guanophore]

The greatest miracle of all is Jesus saving us sinners.

This is what the Mass is all about. How did you miss that for 28 years?

But you all are side stepping  the point, Jesus promised all who believe  will cast out demons and heal the sick. Faith is the prerequisite for these miracles to occur.  Where is the demonstration of the faith promised by Christ in your church?

I guess you are in the best postition to answer that, since you are apparently the one who were unable to demonstrate it. What kept you from walking in the Spirit all that time?

You don’t see it.

Well, speak for yourself. Plenty of us see it on a daily basis.

Look at Peter, John and Paul. Paul was the greatest healer recorded in the NT.

Don’t tell Jesus anybody!

I guess people in the CC don’t need God to heal them physically or spiritually any more.

It appears that you were in a great need of healing, spiritually especially. You still need healing in your heart and reasoning, as you are still unable to perceive Christ in the Eucharist.

PS that’s why numerous catholics come to to our monthly healing service because the demonstration of Gods’ power is not exhibited in their own church. And yes they get healed!

Everybody likes a good demonstration.

Jesus didn’t leave a printed book behind just His inspired word.

His Word was left in the Church, where He has infallibly preserved it from that day, until this.

The word is powerful and reveals God’s will to His people. How can the lesser (the church) define the greater (the Word of God).

God can do all things, jericho. God chose to do infallible works through fallible men. Besides, how can you say the Word of God in the Church is “lesser” than the Word of God committed to writing? They both came from the same Source.

You are mistaken if you think you can give council to God or make decisions for Him.

God uses the Church to reveal His decisions to the world. That is how He set things up.

I think it is curious that it is easy for you to believe that God will give great “demonstrations” through your ecclesial community, but that He cannot work through a Liturgy, or a council. How small IS your God?

 

[guanophore]

We were talking about the OT.

I was afraid of that. What is the foundation of the Church?

I asked twb to explain what he meant when he made that statement. My response was my knowledge only came from reading and studying scripture.

So basically you are “self taught”?

I only know what the apostles wrote in the NT.

Clearly you don’t really know that, either.

Well that was a nice introduction! I am only rejoicing in the freedom Christ purchased for me on the cross. And I am joyful to share Gods’ word and grace with others.

I am glad you are happy with your new faith experience.

It was not their looks but their actions I was referring to. I am not too young to remember the days when the clergy would walk around in their religiosity with people trembling and quivering in their presence. They were unapproachable like some type of royalty.

Sounds like some of the effects of Jansenism. Too bad you did not experience a more familiar relationship with a holy priest. Perhaps you would not be so cynical and hostile now.

I do not think churches are independent. We are all connected by our love for Jesus and His word.

This is apples and oranges. Just because Churches are connected by love for Christ does not mean they have no authority structure.

Paul‘s ministry was directly from God not the 12.

Well, all of their ministries came directly from God. However, Paul, like the other Apostles, passed his authority on to his successors, the bishops.

You are misguided in your thinking that God has to work through some magical line of succession.

No on two counts. God does not “have” to do anything. He chooses to work through the Apostolic succession. The lines of succession are not “magical”. Since you have experienced the gifts of the HS, you should know that something that is supernatural is not necessarily"magical".

It is God who calls individuals to their ministry. God chooses and uses peoples apart from their historical lineage.

Yes, God calls everyone to ministry. this is why it is so odd that you did not receive your call for the 28 years you sat in the pew. What were you thinking? That the priest had to do everything himself?

Yes, God does use people apart from their historical lineage. However, He chooses to work through a spiritual lineage in the One Church He founded.

I do/did not study the reformation. Any similarities in our theology is not intentional per say.

Now would be a good time, jericho. Have you considered that God might be calling you to do that very thing?

No, the similarity is not any coincidence. You are the offspring of the Reformers, spiritually, and theologically.

Maybe the reason we agree in our theology is because it is simply biblical truth. The only logical conclusion one can reach by reading scripture apart from the works of men.

I think you are right that the reason your theology is like that of the Reformers has to do with the heresy of Sola Scriptura. It is a heresy that was spawned 500 years ago, and continues to wreak havoc in the Body to this day.

I am curious to know what it means to read scripture “apart from the works of men”.

I find it hard to believe that you never listen to a sermon, read a commentary, or a dictionary when studying the NT.

 

[TEPO]

salvation means to be “salvaged” from our sins… That’s why we take confession so serioiusly -because it offers us the ability to formally and verbally apologize to God for our wrong doings. Penance becomes the “antidote” to our disease… And where else could we go to learn the symptoms of our disease if not the Holy Church?

 

[itinerant1]

*The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept, but also a necessity of means, as Pius IX referred to the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation. “The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly (explicite) present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God (votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in point of fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.” (Dr. Ludwig Ott: )

*The earliest Christian writers reflected on the biblical narrative of the “pagan” Cornelius who, the Acts tell us, was “an upright and God fearing man” even before baptism. “Gradually, therefore, as it became clear that there were “God-fearing” people outside the Christian fold, and that some were deprived of their Catholic heritage without fault, on their part, the parallel Tradition arose of considering such people open to salvation, although they were not professed Catholics or even necessarily baptized. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine paved the way for making these distinctions.” (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.: The Catholic Catechism)

*“Of those helps to salvation that are ordered to the last end only by divine decree, not by intrinsic necessity, God, in His infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used in desire or longing…The same, in due proportion, should be said of the Church insofar as it is a general help to salvation. To gain eternal salvation it is not always required that a person be incorporated in fact as a member of the Church, but it is required that he belong to it at least in desire and longing.” (Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston; August 8, 1949)

 

[itinerant1]

The eminent Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain said “No salvation outside the Church” is a formula of unparalled ambiguity. Maritain continues to explain the ambiguity (See his On the Church of Christ ). Anne has categorically denied that the formula is ambiguous.

However, it is interesting to see that Catholic Answers makes a statement similar to the one made by Jacques Maritain: “One of the most misunderstood teachings of the Catholic Church is this one: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus).”

For a correct understanding of “Outside the Church there is no salvation” read Catholic Answers article What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means

Hopefully, the foregoing article will clear up the ambiguity.

 

[itinerant1]

Pitcharan:
A word of caution, Pitcharan, we cannot call other posters liars (even if it is true). It borders on being uncharitable and violates the discussion rules for CAF.

Chill out!

 

[Pitcharan]

For a correct understanding of “Outside the Church there is no salvation” read Catholic Answers article What “No Salvation Outside the Church” Means

Hopefully, the foregoing article will clear up the ambiguity.

Also do read my post on another thread whose link is:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6966907&postcount=770

 

[inkaneer]

There is definitely structure and authority in the NT but there is no elevated clergy. You all look and act more like Pharisees than servants of God. There are supposed to be overseers not rulers.

That is incorrect scripturally. In Acts 6:2 there clearly was an elevated clergy

"And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” [Acts 6:2]

The only priesthood in the NT is the priesthood of all believers. Jesus is the end of the priesthood as such because He is the ultimate high priest because He offered His own blood once forever. It is the perfectly complete sacrifice wiping away all sins forever. Never having to be offered over and over again as with an earthly high priest.

That also is incorrect. In Acts priests are mentioned all the time but you don’t recognize it. In your bible the word is translated as ‘elder’ but in the Greek it is presbuteros and that word transliterated into Latin is presbyter and Old English is proest and modern English is priest. Now if you don’t believe me then look up the entomology of the word ‘priest’ in Meriam & Webster’s dictionary. You will find one onliine.

Elders and deacons are to be the husband of one wife. The context that it is written in makes it a prerequisite for the office.

Actually no. Polygamy was rampant in the first century among Gentiles. A correct interpretation would be 'a husband of **no more **than one wife. It is not a prerequisite for marraige but an upper limit and that coincides with what Paul said as to why he preferred that people choose the celibate life.

So now you are saying it is satan who is doing these miracles. Why because your church doesn’t think God will work outside of itself. I have never seen any miracles done in a CC in my 28 years of attending. On a regular basis I see miracles done in my church. Demons cast out cancer healed the deaf hearing and more. Should you ever need a miracle from the hand of God in the name of Jesus let me know, you have an open invitation.

I see a miracle pccur everytime I attend Mass. I see bread and wine changed into the Body and blood of Jesus just as Jesus said we were to do. We do that because that is what Christ said would be His memorial. As for miracles in your denomination that remains to be seen. A lot of the so called miracles performed have been debunked when investigated by competant medical authorities. That is why any claimed miraculous cures in Catholicism are subject to intense scrutiny and must be truly miraculous and not just supernatural. Satan can and does do the supernatural.

As to the apostolic tradition you speak of, someone here told me God can use a donkey to accomplish His will.

He could but He didn’t. After all He used pagans like the Persians, the Egyptians and the Romans. He could even use protestants so donkeys are possible. God is, after all omnipotent so nothing in His creation is beyond his ability to use. But what is possible is not the crux of the issue. The real issue is what did He use? For that you need to study the history of Christianity especially the very early church. And if you do that you will see that Apostolic Succession was indeed seen by the early church as the pedigree of the church. In fact one early church writer would pen these words:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Another would put it this way:

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).

This is what the early church taught; that God preserved His word through the Apostolic Successsion of bishops in His Church.

 

[inkaneer]

A word of caution, Pitcharan, we cannot call other posters liars (even if it is true). It borders on being uncharitable and violates the discussion rules for CAF.

Chill out!

He didn’t call him a liar. He said what he posted was a lie. The poster may have made up what he posted knowing it was not true in which case he would be a liar. Or he may have simply repeated something he believed because that was what he was taught by his pastor or whoever taught him. Now, undoubtedly, using another way to phrase it, possibly saying “that is not true” instead of “that is a lie” may have been a more polite way to put it but it doesn’t really grab the attention of one as the other does which may have been his purpose. Still, the point being is that it wasn’t an attack on the person but on what the person posted.

 

[Deconi]

I take then you are in agreement with what Pope John Paul II has taught. I also take it that in consequence of your agreement here, you are in disagreement with Anne, when she denied that (regarding the early Church Fathers’ reflection on Cornelius in Acts) that a pagan can be an “upright and God-fearing” man and saved although he, through no fault of his own, was never a professed member of the Church or even baptized.

Anne also denied that a person can be saved extra-sacramentally by a baptism of desire and therefore without actual membership by resaon of at least his implicit desire to belong to the Church. I take it that you are not in agreement with her denial here, either.

In the context of these denials, to subsequently cite a papal document that simply states there is no salvation outside of the Church, is misleading and erroneous in regard to how the Church understands the undeniable truth of “no salvation outside the Church”. It’s all about context.

This is too loaded, Iti. My agreement with the Pope does not mean I disagree with Anne as a consequence because I have only seen that she agrees with him also!

Some of the multiple documents she cited INCLUDE the ‘unseen’ exceptions to the rule. I must have missed where she explicitly denied The Church’s illumination of baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as means of salvation. In fact, as I’ve mentioned, the documents cited included them, expressly and implicitly.

It cannot be misleading to cite / quote documents that support the various dogmas of The Church. How can it be? Has the dogma changed? Has someone used Papal Authority to unlock it or remove it?

The underlying context of the latter Fathers that make address of those documents is, first and foremost, acceptance at face value that it is true! You can see that by understanding their attempts of reformulating the dogma, instead of stating that it is confined to a time and place in history or, God forbid, that it is erroneous or ambiguous.

On the subject of Cornelius as a pagan reckoned “upright and God-fearing”…I can exegete that passage as… that no pagan can be ‘God-fearing’ unless by his own instincts he is ‘aware’ there is a God! or there must be a Supreme Presence beyond all he sees and experience in his life. (I can be wrong there of course)

It is similar to Abram who was a Gentile when he was reckoned righteous and God calls him. In fact ‘the promise’ was made him whilst still an uncircumcised Gentile.

 

[Deconi]

…
The issue under discussion was, and you can check the earlier posts to confirm this, that there existed a second Tradition that developed early in Church history regarding those who could be saved even though they never, through no fault of their own, heard about or joined the Church. This Tradition had as one of its witnessing texts, the fact that Cornelius, a pagan, was considered “God fearing and upright” while still a pagan. It is irrelevant to the point under consideration that the historical Cornelius converted.

Such a person, according to this second Tradition, may never know during his lifetime, anything explicitly about the Church.

Being considered “God-fearing and upright” doesn’t ACTUALLY save you.

I’m not too sure about multiple traditions either! There has always been just one, regarding salvation. The fact that the dogma has been further illuminated to expose it’s “unseen” aspect that makes salvation available to every human soul that has ever lived doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t part of the one / original, revealed deposit.

…
As an aside, among the Jews, there was frequently found the tendency to believe they were more righteous before God than any non-Jew. But it’s interesting to note that the most righteous person in the Old Testament, Job, was not even a Jew.

A timely reminder toward humility.

 

[Deconi]

The Papal Bull quoted in her post # 399. There is no reference to the background or context for this Papal Bull. By simply reproducing verbatim after pulling it out of its context, a wrong message that there is no hope of salavtion for non-catholics is sent out. This is a complete contradiction of what the CC teaches as already quoted and explained by other posters, which clearly point out that no one is excluded by God.

That is a lie. You tried to supress all genuine objections by other posters and went out of the way to give sanctity to Anne’s views by taking technical advantage of documental authenticity after delibrately ignoring the context of those documents. You further tried to whip up sympathy for Anne in order to divert attention from the point of debate. Your hypocrisy and true colour stand exposed by this question because the common contention of all posters who took objection to Anne’s attempt to distort CC position, is well known to you and most others on this thread.

Just so you know, we are confined to our five senses!

The visible signs to salvation is found ONLY in the Catholic Church! The dogma holds true as it ever was! True then, now, and in the future!

The issue is confused if not kept within it’s context…as to suggest one can be saved by staying put wherever one is…even though The Church is present.

*Baptism of desire *and Invincible Ignorance are BEYOND the visible senses and are matters in the realm of God, alone! The various expositions by the latter Fathers and Popes are illuminations to help us comprehend the mercy of God and His reach toward every soul…and if you examine those expositions closely, there are still specific requirements, even in the unseen realm, to attain salvation.

Salvation may be available to all, but it is still a choice! Whilst there is no salvation outside The Church, it also does not mean Catholics are guaranteed salvation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, AnneElliot,

I just joined this thread … and… I have read several of your posts… and… I am honestly confused!

Would you please simply state your position on the statement, “No Salvation Outside The Church” ?

Thank you and God bless

Of course!

FYI, I didn’t deny anything about Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles, I simply pointed out that he converted… demonstrating my point that God leads those who are open to the Church (even if a miracle is needed… like an Angel in a vision). Anyone can be saved. Anyone can join the Church. I fully trust in Divine Providence.