No Salvation Outside The Church?

[tqualey]

Hi, Emerite,

Thank you for an excellent post! It was a pleasure to read!

God bless

John CS, if you give 100% obedience to Church doctrine, you might rely on the CC’s teaching, contained in the1994 Ligouri publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with imprimi potest by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict, himself), as Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, in Part One, The Profession of Faith, in its affirmation (at page 224, Nos. 846 and 847), “ … they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?” This applies to any non-Catholic who realizes the CC as the one, true church, but still refuses to convert, or Catholics who have turned away from the faith.

And at No. 847, it further states, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.” In this regard, I don’t think it’s necessary that one has to have never heard of the Catholic Church. I believe it’s possible for non-Catholics to be “invincibly ignorant” of the truth of the Catholic Church if they were taught differently by their parents, by another church, etc. This may not be their fault, and it might be difficult for them to “unlearn” what they were told or taught. This No. 847 says that these “invincibly ignorant” people, who live a good Christian life, “may” achieve eternal salvation (meaning that it is “possible.")

Can you cite for me where it’s mention about Christ specifically saying that the only ones to get to heaven MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Twb,

I see no error in your post - it sounds quite good to me!

God bless

Once again I will repost what I had offered previously in laymen’s terms and hope it resolves some of the confusion some of us have been facing;

No Catholic in a relationship with Christ through His Church would believe Jesus to be a God who would condemn to eternal damnation, anyone who possesses the heartfelt desire and devotion to respond to Him in the only way they have been taught was correct while not having any true knowledge of the Catholic Faith through her teachings of His Word. We seem here to have a slight conflict mostly among ourselves but I believe what I have said is a given knowing the posting of many here from other threads.

We all know that for a sin to be a sin according to CC teachings there must be intent and knowledge the considered activity is a sin. Of course ignorance is not a “get out of jail free” card but I am not referring to wanton ignorance so we can bypass that one. The Catholic Church holds that a Catholic who leaves the Church rejects the salvation Jesus offers through His Church and no, there is no salvation outside the Church without repentance under such a condition, but only God knows the hearts of man to man’s last breath. No one can unlearn what they have been blessedly taught, freeing them self to be a practitioner in a faith of less requirements just because it is more comfortable, convenient or has less demands. The more one is given the more is expected of them. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “ex-Catholic".

But, we are 500 years beyond that time of the “reformation” which has given birth to the many non-Catholic Christian Faiths and distorted teachings presented by those who preached from their own opinions, their own personalized beliefs, and lack of belief, derived from the inappropriately acquired writings of the apostolic Church. Scripture warned of it so we expected it or should have. We watch as time passes, the births of more and more established “opinions” described as “churches”, boasting names on their exterior walls, spring up. However, this ongoing tumor has raised the awareness and suspicion of distorted teachings and confusion among many non-Catholic Christians including preachers, ministers, pastors and scholars and conversion to the CC is also growing among the learned.

There is no salvation for non-Catholics who have found the truth in Catholicism and refuse to enter the one body of Christ, the Church He founded with His Blood. To belief in the Inspired Word of God one must become of His Body, the Church.

But for those who do not know the Catholic Faith as it truly is and only know Christianity in the teachings of a non-Catholic environment, there is the possibility of salvation as, according to the CC, they have in fact received partial knowledge taken from the Catholic Faith although introduced through a non-Catholic source and may live devoutly in their faith in Christ as best they know, not knowing otherwise, but if being presented with the knowledge of the Faith would sincerely desire to become part of that Body, His Church.

They who broke away and distorted His word have much to answer for but the Church acknowledges the 500 years of separation that left many devout worshipers of Christ with no knowledge of what the fullness and accurate teachings of His Church bestow to its faithful. For those who worship Christ devoutly according to what they have been led to believe is the way to salvation, as I said before, surely must be judged in heart as well as faith. One can not miss what one does not know exists. We pray for their enlightenment through the grace of God and questions they may raise regarding conflicts they may find between verses of His written word. But again, the Church has recognized their intent to worship Christ, there many years separated from the fullness and truth in His Teachings and the necessity to open her heart and doors to our separated brothers and sisters so they may feel welcome enough to ask the questions and learn with their due consideration what the Truth is. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they ask, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit we hope to answer accurately and compassionately… not always easy to do. They only know what others have told them against the CC which was told to them to justify their own “Christian” faiths separate of the Catholic Faith. When we take an active part we assume a major responsibility for the defense and clarification of “The Way” and I certainly hope those of you who may know of an error on my part will be there to point it out to me.

If anyone is of the opinion anything here is wrong, please feel welcome to show me the error I have made.

My the Holy Spirit guide us on our way
Tom

 

[JohnCS]

John CS, if you give 100% obedience to Church doctrine, you might rely on the CC’s teaching, contained in the1994 Ligouri publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with imprimi potest by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict, himself), as Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, in Part One, The Profession of Faith, in its affirmation (at page 224, Nos. 846 and 847), “ … they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?” This applies to any non-Catholic who realizes the CC as the one, true church, but still refuses to convert, or Catholics who have turned away from the faith.

And at No. 847, it further states, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.” In this regard, I don’t think it’s necessary that one has to have never heard of the Catholic Church. I believe it’s possible for non-Catholics to be “invincibly ignorant” of the truth of the Catholic Church if they were taught differently by their parents, by another church, etc. This may not be their fault, and it might be difficult for them to “unlearn” what they were told or taught. This No. 847 says that these “invincibly ignorant” people, who live a good Christian life, “may” achieve eternal salvation (meaning that it is “possible.")

Can you cite for me where it’s mention about Christ specifically saying that the only ones to get to heaven MUST eat His flesh and drink His blood?

Hello and thankyou for the response. That is my point, I 100% support what the church teaches, and I have seen what the catechism says, but it leaves a little bit to interpretation. So where do I put my belief? Small possibility that a few who live near perfect lives despite not having the sacraments, or a near free pass to everyone who chooses not to believe Church doctrine because their conscience demands it of them?How much do we need to “know” to know the church. There are people in the church who support abortion rights…is it not possible to assume that they don’t know any better… they don’t know the Truth? What is the difference between knowing and believing? Protestants who come to this sight have seen the Truth and the arguments for it…yet they don’t believe it, can they say that they don’t know it? I am not arguing here, this is another honest question that has me wondering. Is there an authority that has written speciffically about the meaning of invincible ignorance? Do I need to go over to the Philosophy section to ask the difference between knowing and believing?
Oh, my cite is John 6:18
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. (bolding is mine) I said must, Christ says unless…
Thanks for the help and God bless

 

[JohnCS]

Once again I will repost what I had offered previously in laymen’s terms and hope it resolves some of the confusion some of us have been facing;

No Catholic in a relationship with Christ through His Church would believe Jesus to be a God who would condemn to eternal damnation, anyone who possesses the heartfelt desire and devotion to respond to Him in the only way they have been taught was correct while not having any true knowledge of the Catholic Faith through her teachings of His Word. We seem here to have a slight conflict mostly among ourselves but I believe what I have said is a given knowing the posting of many here from other threads.

We all know that for a sin to be a sin according to CC teachings there must be intent and knowledge the considered activity is a sin. Of course ignorance is not a “get out of jail free” card but I am not referring to wanton ignorance so we can bypass that one. The Catholic Church holds that a Catholic who leaves the Church rejects the salvation Jesus offers through His Church and no, there is no salvation outside the Church without repentance under such a condition, but only God knows the hearts of man to man’s last breath. No one can unlearn what they have been blessedly taught, freeing them self to be a practitioner in a faith of less requirements just because it is more comfortable, convenient or has less demands. The more one is given the more is expected of them. Therefore, there is no such thing as an “ex-Catholic".

But, we are 500 years beyond that time of the “reformation” which has given birth to the many non-Catholic Christian Faiths and distorted teachings presented by those who preached from their own opinions, their own personalized beliefs, and lack of belief, derived from the inappropriately acquired writings of the apostolic Church. Scripture warned of it so we expected it or should have. We watch as time passes, the births of more and more established “opinions” described as “churches”, boasting names on their exterior walls, spring up. However, this ongoing tumor has raised the awareness and suspicion of distorted teachings and confusion among many non-Catholic Christians including preachers, ministers, pastors and scholars and conversion to the CC is also growing among the learned.

There is no salvation for non-Catholics who have found the truth in Catholicism and refuse to enter the one body of Christ, the Church He founded with His Blood. To belief in the Inspired Word of God one must become of His Body, the Church.

But for those who do not know the Catholic Faith as it truly is and only know Christianity in the teachings of a non-Catholic environment, there is the possibility of salvation as, according to the CC, they have in fact received partial knowledge taken from the Catholic Faith although introduced through a non-Catholic source and may live devoutly in their faith in Christ as best they know, not knowing otherwise, but if being presented with the knowledge of the Faith would sincerely desire to become part of that Body, His Church.

They who broke away and distorted His word have much to answer for but the Church acknowledges the 500 years of separation that left many devout worshipers of Christ with no knowledge of what the fullness and accurate teachings of His Church bestow to its faithful. For those who worship Christ devoutly according to what they have been led to believe is the way to salvation, as I said before, surely must be judged in heart as well as faith. One can not miss what one does not know exists. We pray for their enlightenment through the grace of God and questions they may raise regarding conflicts they may find between verses of His written word. But again, the Church has recognized their intent to worship Christ, there many years separated from the fullness and truth in His Teachings and the necessity to open her heart and doors to our separated brothers and sisters so they may feel welcome enough to ask the questions and learn with their due consideration what the Truth is. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they ask, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit we hope to answer accurately and compassionately… not always easy to do. They only know what others have told them against the CC which was told to them to justify their own “Christian” faiths separate of the Catholic Faith. When we take an active part we assume a major responsibility for the defense and clarification of “The Way” and I certainly hope those of you who may know of an error on my part will be there to point it out to me.

If anyone is of the opinion anything here is wrong, please feel welcome to show me the error I have made.

My the Holy Spirit guide us on our way
Tom

Thank you

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JohnCS,

The questions seem to turn in upon themselves.

Maybe these links will help:

newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp

God bless

Hello and thankyou for the response. That is my point, I 100% support what the church teaches, and I have seen what the catechism says, but it leaves a little bit to interpretation. So where do I put my belief? Small possibility that a few who live near perfect lives despite not having the sacraments, or a near free pass to everyone who chooses not to believe Church doctrine because their conscience demands it of them?How much do we need to “know” to know the church. There are people in the church who support abortion rights…is it not possible to assume that they don’t know any better… they don’t know the Truth? What is the difference between knowing and believing? Protestants who come to this sight have seen the Truth and the arguments for it…yet they don’t believe it, can they say that they don’t know it? I am not arguing here, this is another honest question that has me wondering. Is there an authority that has written speciffically about the meaning of invincible ignorance? Do I need to go over to the Philosophy section to ask the difference between knowing and believing?
Oh, my cite is John 6:18
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, **unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. (bolding is mine) I said must, Christ says unless…
Thanks for the help and God bless

 

[itinerant1]

I’ve been quiet since our friend jericho777 stopped posting. But I HAVE been reading and thinking.

I’d be interested to read anyone’s comments on this idea. I’m positive that it is not new, but it developed in my mind after listening to an Old Testament reading at Mass one day:

Just as God picked His chosen people, the Israelites, to bring salvation to the world, now He has created a Church to bring salvation to the world. What parallels do you see? I often think (not referring to Church documents, just my poor human logic) that He is using His Church in a similar fashion:
Without the Church NO non-Catholic could be saved.
Care to expand or disagree with that thought?

You are very right, but I think there needs to be an expansion of our understanding of the Church as the Mystical Body along the lines that Fr. William Most understands it. He says,

"Let us notice the three things, just enumerated: St. Paul in Romans 3:29 asks: “Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the gentiles.” It means that if God made salvation depend on knowing and following the law of Moses, He would act as if He cared for no one but Jews. But God does care for all. Paul insists God makes salvation possible by faith for them (cf. Romans chapter 4). Faith in Paul includes the three things we have enumerated which Socrates did.

“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.”

Read the entire article at EWTN: NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
There are many theologically rich insights in this article that can be discussed, endlessly.

 

[itinerant1]

There’s nothing here that VALIDATES remaining where ‘you’ are or justify rejecting The Church! What all this speaks to, especially JP2, is HOW those who ‘remain’ outside The Church may be saved!

Invincible Ignorance and Baptism of Desire are the mysterious ways through which those who are ignorant of Christ or outwardly reject The Church MAY be saved.

If that is your position, I concur! Voila!

If not, well, FAILURE may be blind, like Justice!

These are the quotes I introduced way back, and have re-posted them, and I have been doing nothing but advocating the statements in these quotes. I’m glad you agree with the statements.

But Anne does not agree, which is what the discussion has been all about.

 

[itinerant1]

Actually, problems arose, within and without The Church, because there is no ambiguity in that statement!
That is why non-Catholics rage against it. It’s called ‘protesting.’

Your “historical” comment on this issue appears to be one your own making and imagination rather a conclusion that results from your study of Church history and the history of this dogma.

Tell me, where did the phrase “No salvation outside the Church” originate?

You should note also that it isn’t a proposition. It is an assertion; a statement of FACT!
It may be open to discussion but it isn’t put forward for consideration.

Propositional speech is any speech that makes a statement of fact. Hence, your statement is circular reasoning.

It is only ambiguous to those who try to explain THEIR understanding of it and confuse the exceptions offered through Baptism of Desire and Invincible Ignorance into their explanations. They are separate issues!

That is your personal opinion, and it does nothing to address the issue. In fact, you obfuscate the matter by referring to certain facts as “separate issues”.

**No Pope who has offered illuminations of the dogma has ever suffered from the AMBIGUITY you seem to cling to. **No Pope has EVER mentioned it this way because there is no ambiguity!

I don’t cling to it. I am merely re-stating an observation from history, one I have supported with reputable authorities such as Fr. John A. Hardon, Fr. Peter Stavinskas, and Jacques Maritain.

It is you who are fixated on the situation, and have conveniently refused to make any attempt to address the arguments or explanations of the three aforementioned sources.

Hence, you are merely stating your own opinion without the necessary supporting arguments. Thus, what you have said has little merit.

The most misunderstood ‘proposition’ of The Church is that a piece of wafer can house God.

And, so what is your point?

The Church holds that there is only one name under Heaven by which we are saved. Her mission in this temporal existence is to proclaim The Gospel (Jesus Christ) and baptize in the triune formula. Both are offered to everyone. If she cannot ‘get’ to someone before their death, it is ONLY then that Baptism of desire can be relied on…to have reached this soul. Even then, there are specific requirements to have been fulfilled (whilst alive) before salvation can be obtained.

Anne is correct in the first part.

I’ll have to ask her definition of catechumen to understand the second.

Be my guest!

We cannot ‘earn’ salvation after death.

If Jesus Christ is the only way we can be saved, are you saying it’s not true that the faith must be ‘placed’ in Christ in this life, before death?

I do not know you are getting at.

You can find my position stated clearly by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the article I previously linked to.

Perhaps He was only being half truthful when He stated; No one can come to The Father accept through Him. ?

…or no one comes to me unless the Father draws him. ?

Is that what you think, Christ was being half truthful? I see now where your difficulties lie.

As respected and learned as these gentlemen are, they are NOT Popes!
I have read some of both men and both have limitations.

And your point is what?

Hypothetical necessity is prone to error! *Baptism of desire and Invincible Ignorance *are NOT hypothetical musings of The Church! They’re not suggested theories, unproven or instead, until further development of knowledge.

You are not a theologian, are you? It shows.

Clearly you believe there are non-Catholics in Heaven!?

Since Jesus established The Catholic Church, do you say He is NON-Catholic?

Why then establish A church?

Does the multitude of splinters of His Gospel justify an acceptance that each ‘splinter’ is a door into Heaven?

You are taking the Catholic, non-Catholic post in question out of context, and giving it a little spin. Cute!

Since The Church is His Body, and NO ONE ELSE can save us, is there another vessel to Heaven?

Are you having some personal questions or doubts about this?

Baptism of Desire - a desire to be baptised into what??!!
**Invincible Ignorance **- ignorance of what??!!

Are those desires to be baptised into another faith?!! and is that *ignorance *of The Gospel, message, teachings, of this Church or another?!!?

Can you not see the **clear, core teachings **regarding salvation?

I see the teaching. It is you who are making useless contentions and raising useless arguments.

Elaborate, please.

If anyone asks you, ***“Where in this life can I find salvation?”….***what is your answer?

Will you engage them on lengthy theological discourse, or can you provide a simple answer?

If they’re of the same fluff as above, they’re time wasters……but knock yourself out.

Can’t type any more out of sheer boredom from reading all of this stuff you wrote. Excuse me, for saying so, but your’e killin’ me, Demoni.

 

[bluelake]

All who enter heaven enter through Jesus. The Church is the body of Christ, so all enter through the Church. Sometimes in mysterious ways when they are not formal members.

It is not our place to speculate on the eternal fate of another.

david,
I agree with your answer. Especially when the Bible teaches us in
Mt.7;1-5 “Do not judge, or you to will be judged. 2. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged , and with the same measure you use , it will be measured to you.”
Rom.2:11 "God shows no favoritism.
Jesus also taught us to love one another. In fact he commanded us to do this.
Please read Mt.22:36 Christ refers to this passage saying “The Greatest Commandment”

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Deconi]

Your “historical” comment on this issue appears to be one your own making and imagination rather a conclusion that results from your study of Church history and the history of this dogma.

Tell me, where did the phrase “No salvation outside the Church” originate?

I would venture that your query is rhetoric.

However, it being a dogma of The Church, you may find it’s ‘origin’ in Scriptures when Our Lord spoke His Church into existence, shortly after our first Pope made his proclamation! (Matt:16)

It is further spoken of in the Evangelist’s book when Peter again spoke when asked by Our Founder; “Where else can we go, Lord? To whom shall we go? You alone have the words that bring everlasting life.” (Jn:6)(paraphrased)

You may find the Church prefigured in the OT as well, if you have the time, 'though, I do not.

Propositional speech is any speech that makes a statement of fact. Hence, your statement is circular reasoning.

Since we are in agreement it is a fact, your strawman ending is discarded.

That is your personal opinion, and it does nothing to address the issue. In fact, you obfuscate the matter by referring to certain facts as “separate issues”.

It is an observation, gleaned from all that I have read on the subject and I find some support in the Catechism of our faith in regard to ‘issues.’ Even there, it treats the subject (issues) separately even though it is part of the ONE dogma!

CCC:846 – No salvation outside The Church defined

CCC:847 – The exceptions to the ‘rule.’

Please note there is no mention of your contention about a ‘second Tradition’ as espoused by your cited Theologians.

I don’t cling to it. I am merely re-stating an observation from history, one I have supported with reputable authorities such as Fr. John A. Hardon, Fr. Peter Stavinskas, and Jacques Maritain.

You cited Maritain to support your insistence that the dogma is ‘ambiguous.’

If you’re not clinging to it anymore, kindly say so.

It is you who are fixated on the situation, and have conveniently refused to make any attempt to address the arguments or explanations of the three aforementioned sources.

Hence, you are merely stating your own opinion without the necessary supporting arguments. Thus, what you have said has little merit.

This tactic looks familiar as used on Anne. With ‘ambiguity’ destroyed, or at least, refuted, you now level the charge toward me as a fixation!

Nice!

Originally Posted by Deconi
The most misunderstood ‘proposition’ of The Church is that a piece of wafer can house God.

And, so what is your point?

That your proposition…(here)

To the contrary, this has been probably *the *most misunderstood proposition in the history of the Church.

… is mistaken!

I do not know you are getting at.

You can find my position stated clearly by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the article I previously linked to.

Originally Posted by Deconi
We cannot ‘earn’ salvation after death.
If Jesus Christ is the only way we can be saved, are you saying it’s not true that the faith must be ‘placed’ in Christ in this life, before death?

So we are in agreement!?

Is that what you think, Christ was being half truthful? I see now where your difficulties lie.

Again, nice twist! Too ‘difficult’ to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ huh?

No worries.

And your point is what?

That you should consider the authority of the author or view you cite. Popes always trumps esteemed theologians…unless they are one and the same.

You are not a theologian, are you? It shows.

Perhaps! But sometimes the bearer is less important than the ‘gift.’

A ‘fisherman’ steers us.

You are taking the Catholic, non-Catholic post in question out of context, and giving it a little spin. Cute!

Ahh! Perhaps your previous position has changed here also?
You posted;
#324* Anne says, “Others have asserted that there are, in fact, non-Catholics in Heaven. Yet cannot provide even one name.”
Say What? Only Catholics in Heaven? *Fail!

Anne is correct but you ‘FAILED’ her. Therefore you hold the contrary position to her and all the teachings…aww.never mind.

She’s correct, you err in ‘failing’ her.

Are you having some personal questions or doubts about this?

I was beginning to doubt you understood dogmatic profession and reformulated illumination doesn’t ‘change’ a proclamation.

I see the teaching. It is you who are making useless contentions and raising useless arguments.

Now the ‘contentions’ are mine!?..

Aww well…

Can’t type any more out of sheer boredom from reading all of this stuff you wrote. Excuse me, for saying so, but your’e killin’ me, Demoni.

Forgive me. I should have deduced earlier that you would find any rectification for mistakes in your views ‘boring.’ Perhaps your metaphoric anecdote is apt, but I simply meant to slay your ‘misdemeanours’ against a fair maiden! (Anne, call me!)

Seriously though, I take my leave in humility knowing that it is I who has benefited from our discourse.

NEXT, Please!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluelake,

Those are good verses … and, I do not think Davidv was either judging anyone or asking others to judge others. So, I guess I am a little confused on what it is that you are saying in your post. Would you kindly clarify what you mean by the verses you cited and the focus of this thread? Thanks

God bless

david,
I agree with your answer. Especially when the Bible teaches us in
Mt.7;1-5 “Do not judge, or you to will be judged. 2. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged , and with the same measure you use , it will be measured to you.”
Rom.2:11 "God shows no favoritism.
Jesus also taught us to love one another. In fact he commanded us to do this.
Please read Mt.22:36 Christ refers to this passage saying “The Greatest Commandment”

God bless,
bluelake

 

[itinerant1]

I would venture that your query is rhetoric.

However, it being a dogma of The Church, you may find it’s ‘origin’ in Scriptures when Our Lord spoke His Church into existence, shortly after our first Pope made his proclamation! (Matt:16)

It is further spoken of in the Evangelist’s book when Peter again spoke when asked by Our Founder; “Where else can we go, Lord? To whom shall we go? You alone have the words that bring everlasting life.” (Jn:6)(paraphrased)

You may find the Church prefigured in the OT as well, if you have the time, 'though, I do not.

Since we are in agreement it is a fact, your strawman ending is discarded.

It is an observation, gleaned from all that I have read on the subject and I find some support in the Catechism of our faith in regard to ‘issues.’ Even there, it treats the subject (issues) separately even though it is part of the ONE dogma!

CCC:846 – No salvation outside The Church defined

CCC:847 – The exceptions to the ‘rule.’

Please note there is no mention of your contention about a ‘second Tradition’ as espoused by your cited Theologians.

You cited Maritain to support your insistence that the dogma is ‘ambiguous.’

If you’re not clinging to it anymore, kindly say so.

This tactic looks familiar as used on Anne. With ‘ambiguity’ destroyed, or at least, refuted, you now level the charge toward me as a fixation!

Nice!

Originally Posted by Deconi
The most misunderstood ‘proposition’ of The Church is that a piece of wafer can house God.

That your proposition…(here)… is mistaken!

Originally Posted by Deconi
We cannot ‘earn’ salvation after death.
If Jesus Christ is the only way we can be saved, are you saying it’s not true that the faith must be ‘placed’ in Christ in this life, before death?

So we are in agreement!?

Again, nice twist! Too ‘difficult’ to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ huh?

No worries.

That you should consider the authority of the author or view you cite. Popes always trumps esteemed theologians…unless they are one and the same.

Perhaps! But sometimes the bearer is less important than the ‘gift.’

A ‘fisherman’ steers us.

Ahh! Perhaps your previous position has changed here also?
You posted;
#324* Anne says, “Others have asserted that there are, in fact, non-Catholics in Heaven. Yet cannot provide even one name.” *
*Say What? Only Catholics in Heaven? *Fail!

Anne is correct but you ‘FAILED’ her. Therefore you hold the contrary position to her and all the teachings…aww.never mind.

She’s correct, you err in ‘failing’ her.

I was beginning to doubt you understood dogmatic profession and reformulated illumination doesn’t ‘change’ a proclamation.

Now the ‘contentions’ are mine!?..

Aww well…

Forgive me. I should have deduced earlier that you would find any rectification for mistakes in your views ‘boring.’ Perhaps your metaphoric anecdote is apt, but I simply meant to slay your ‘misdemeanours’ against a fair maiden! (Anne, call me!)

Seriously though, I take my leave in humility knowing that it is I who has benefited from our discourse.

NEXT, Please!

Just like your last posts, you have not added anything to the discussion. You have not pointed out any mistakes I made. You just obfuscate the issues by quibbling and making sophistic remarks. I takes a small person to act the way you do.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Membership in the church occurs at Baptism. That is why the early church equated Baptism with circumcision. Well, that and Paul’s words in Col 2:11-12:

" 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [Col 2:11-12]

I am referring specifically to membership in the Catholic Church. The word “Church” with an upper-case “C” in a Catholic forum refers to the Catholic Church when the word “Catholic” is not placed before “Church”.

Okay then, Membership in the Church occurs at Baptism. That is why the early Church equated Baptism with circumcision. Well, that and Paul’s words in Col 2:11-12:

" 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. [Col 2:11-12]

So in your example a child of eight is in the Church if she was Baptized as an infant. And since the Church recognizes most protestant Baptisms as valid then protestants are in the Church by virtue of their valid baptism.

 

[tqualey]

Hey, JustMeAndrew,

I am still waiting for a response to my post

 #331

God bless

 

[itinerant1]

from On the Church of Christ by Jacques Maritain

No Salvation outside the Church
A Formula with a Double Meaning

1. “No salvation outside the Church,” – this is a formula of unparalleled ambiguity. According to the sense in which one takes it, it is either a misleading assertion which immures the mind in a dungeon where it believes itself forced to despair of all those who are not our own, – or the statement of a holy truth in which we can nourish our hope toward all those who are not our own.
2. In the first sense, the formula in question signifies: “No salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the visible Church.” Unfortunately this first sense has prevailed for a long time. It is said that St. Francis de Sales wept at the thought that all Protestants would be damned. It was to confuse the man, the human subject member of a non-Catholic spiritual family, and the sin of heresy abstractly considered in itself.

In the second sense, the formula in question signifies: “No salvation for those who to the visible Church do not belong visibly or invisibly.” And these last ones are doubtless innumerable, among non-Christians as also among non-Catholic Christians: because the Church of Christ extends invisibly beyond her visible limits, and embraces in her bosom all those who are saved by the grace of Christ, even if they do not know Him, or if they know Him poorly, or if, for any reasons whatever of which sad human history is not avaricious, their ancestors separated themselves from the Church of which Peter continues in his successor to be here on earth the leader, in other words from the person of the Church under her earthly state. (1)

---

(1) The formula “No salvation outside the Church” is an abridgment in current language of a declaration of the Council of Florence (1438-1445), Denz.-Schö n., 1351: “Firmiter credit, profitetur et praedicat, nullos intra catholicam Ecclesiam non exsistentes, non solum paganos, sed nec Judaeos aut haereticos atque schismaticos, aeternae vitae fieri posse participes.”

What matters here is the declaration itself, not the manner in which one understood it in that epoch. That in actual fact the Fathers of the Council of Florence themselves understood it, – according to the mentality of the epoch, and without having been conscious of its ambiguity, – of a visible belonging to the Church, this seems evident to me. The fact remains that the declaration itself does not at all say it.

It is with time that the ambiguity in question appeared, – and at the same stroke the true sense in which the declaration must be taken. There has therefore been mutation, not with regard to the declaration itself, but with regard to the manner in which those who formulated it understood it. The declaration itself is infallibly true (provided it is rightly understood). The assistance of the Holy Spirit is a thing from above, it bears on things infallibly true to be caused to be declared, not on the personal mentality of those who declare them.

 

[itinerant1]

excerpt from On the Church of Christ by Jacques Maritain

II INVISIBLE PRESENCE IN THE VISIBLE CHURCH

All Non-Christians and Non-Catholic Christians Who Have in Them the Grace of Christ Are Invisibly in the Visible Church

1. They are in the visible Church invisibly, either from the fact that (non-Christians) they belong visibly to a spiritual family originally other than the Church, or from the fact that (non-Catholic Christians) they belong visibly to a confession in more or less profound dissidence with the Church.

The non-Catholic Christians, by the very fact that they all have faith in Christ (a faith not diminished in the regions of the dissidence least removed from the center) must clearly be placed in another category than the non-Christians. Moreover, as we shall see in the third part of this chapter, the degrees to be considered in the more or less profound dissidence of the confessions to which they belong raise, with regard to the latter, a problem (that of the “elements of Church”) which does not present itself, at least at first sight (it presented itself only after the Council), with regard to the non-Christian spiritual families. Finally the diverse degrees of dissidence in question require that one make, with regard to the non-Catholic Christian confessions, distinctions which matter greatly to the theologians, but which are extraneous to the subject-matter of this book.

Let us make another preliminary remark: unless he is completely dehumanized by business or by the life of pleasure, every man, by the very fact that the human soul is spirit, worries about religious matters and has concerning them, which, if he does not profess the faith which the Church professes, can be more or less near to this faith or more or less opposed to it.

And let us understand that, in this last case, a man who for example is firmly attached to a non-Christian religion or even makes profession of atheism (I have known some whose greatness of soul I envied) can have in reality the grace of Christ in him, if, while not knowing or not recognizing in his head Christ and His divinity, he has without knowing it, at the bottom of his heart, and in the supraconscious and supraconceptual state, faith in Him, through the most profound élan of his moral being and of his volition of the good.

I have just employed the words “supraconscious” and “supraconceptual.” They relate to a higher psychological sphere, to a “heaven of the soul,” in which the latter knows in a wholly intuitive manner, unformulated in concepts and in words, things which it does not know itself that it knows, because this knowledge is supraconscious. In the presently envisaged case it is also a knowledge of volitional type, in which “the appetite passes to the condition of object,” but which includes a speculative element due to the lumen fidei.

As soon as one has to do with the supraconscious of the spirit, the words “implicit faith” and “explicit faith” are to be rejected in like manner: because, drawn from current language which concerns itself only with the conceptual register, they enclose us in this register. If one believed for a long time that in order to have in oneself grace it was necessary to believe “explicitly” the two articles containing virtually all the rest (“to believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him”) which the Epistle to the Hebrews (11, 6) mentions, it is because one remained solely at the plane of conscious and conceptual thought, and because one neglected thus a good half of the human psyche. What is necessarily required is not a faith (in these two credibilia at least) formulated in concepts at the plane of conscious thought; it is a faith (in these two credibilia at least) which is present in the soul and has a hold on it actually and formally, even if as a result of one of those blockages which are not rare in human psychology, it cannot pass into consciousness and be formulated there in concepts and in words. An atheist can have such a faith completely unbeknownst to him. It is the secret of God.

This is why we are not obliged to admit that for a man who professes atheism to be saved it is necessary that an Angel come and instruct him and teach him to recite the two first credibilia; – nor are we obliged to send into Hell a great atheist like Nietzsche (this atheist, – one can indeed believe that it was through thirst for God, in the supraconscious of the spirit, that at the plane of conscious thought, obstructed by modern philosophy, he announced the death of God in the words which he uttered).

 

[AnneElliot]

There is no need to further this discussion if people cannot discuss the Dogma without insulting persons they disagree with. This thread should be closed. The information has been presented.

Popes, or theologians… I hope the readers of this thread can sift this mess to see the true teachings of the Church which have not changed, and are clearly defined… by Popes and Councils, not theologians.

 

[itinerant1]

from On the Church of Christ by Jacques Maritain

That in Order to Be Saved It Is Necessary to Belong Visibly or Invisibly to the Visible Church, – This Is Because the Person of the Church Is Already Here on Earth the Plenitude of Christ, His Body and His Bride, and Because in Heaven She Gathers Together in Her, Until the Last Day and for Eternity, All the Saved

1. Another question presents itself finally, and one which it is important, I believe, to bring to light. It has for object the reason for which no one is saved if he is not visibly or invisibly a part of the visible Church.

Why is this so? It is not by reason of the means of salvation which the Church offers to men. Alone here on earth the Church of Christ, of Christ come, offers to us in their full integrity the means of salvation which the divine wisdom had in view from all eternity and which Christ entrusted to His Bride. But it is not for this reason that in order to be saved it is necessary to belong visibly or invisibly to the Church. In no domain do the means at our disposal suffice to enable us to attain the end which we are pursuing: we must use these means, and use them well. And to use the means of salvation which the Church offers to us is the affair of our liberty aided by grace. And it depends on our liberty, faithful or unfaithful to grace, to use or not to use these means, and to use them well or badly.

1. The reason for which there is salvation only in the visible or invisible belonging to the Church does not stand in the perspective of the means of salvation. It stands in the perspective of salvation itself. Salvation is in Christ. To be saved is to be in Christ, in Him Who in saving by His death assumes into His life all the saved. But, on the one hand, already in her peregrinal state the person of the Church is the Plenitude of Christ, His Body and His Bride. How is it possible to be in way of being saved if already here on earth one does not belong visibly or invisibly to His Plenitude, to His Body, to His Bride? On the other hand, in her state of consummated grace or of eternal glory, the Church gathers together in her, since the repentance of Adam, and she continues in the course of time, – until the day when Purgatory and this earth will come to an end, and when the dead will come to life again, – to gather together all the saved in her glory. How is it possible to be a saved one in eternal glory if one is not a member of Christ in glory, and of the person of the Church in her state of glory? That which supposes that from here on earth one belongs already visibly or invisibly to this same person in her peregrinal state?
2. Such is, in my eyes, the true reason which founds the maxim “No salvation outside the Church” and permits one to understand it in its proper meaning. I believe that if during too long a time one has understood this maxim in an erroneous sense (no salvation if one does not belong visibly to the visible Church), it is because for too long one has assigned to it a reason which was not the true one, in seeking the reason why of it in the perspective of the means of salvation, which only the Church offers to us in their integrity (no salvation therefore if one does not have at one’s disposal these means in their integrity).

Let us add that on this question of the reason why it is important for us to keep ourselves always on guard. If, even today when no one believes any longer that in order to be saved it is necessary to be visibly in the visible Church, we continued to envisage the problem of salvation in the perspective of the means of salvation, would we not run the risk of being led to think, be it subconsciously, that the number of the saved is a dependent variable of the more or less perfect and more or less complete means of salvation which men have at their disposal? Who would dare to say however that there are more saved among the Christians than among the non-Christians? Who would dare to dream of establishing (with what theological supracomputers?) a statistics of the elect of God? The Christians have at their disposal more means of salvation than the others. But, as I indicated above, there is always human liberty which can slip away from grace and misuse the better. And there is also this terrifying saying: “When much has been given a man, much will be required of him. More will be asked of a man to whom more has been entrusted.” And there is also what Jesus has showed us: His severity toward the Pharisees, so studious to use (badly) the means of salvation prescribed by the Law, and His refusal to condemn the adulterous woman, like so many of those who came to Him without having used these means of salvation.

 

[inkaneer]

There is no need to further this discussion if people cannot discuss the Dogma without insulting persons they disagree with. This thread should be closed. The information has been presented.

Popes, or theologians… I hope the readers of this thread can sift this mess to see the true teachings of the Church which have not changed, and are clearly defined… by Popes and Councils, not theologians.

Not so fast there. I have only begun to discuss this. Here is a question for you. If you say that there is no salvation **outside **the Catholic Church then I ask you what is it that places you inside the Catholic Church? Is not Baptism the entry rite into the church as was circumcision the entry rite into Judiaism? Didn’t the early christian writers make this comparison? I think so and apparently the catechism of the Catholic Church upholds this:

"1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), 4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. **Through Baptism we **are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, **are incorporated into the Church **and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

That being the case, any validly baptized [proper form and matter] person is**“incorporated into the Church”** [words from the Catechism]. The Church does recognize most protestant Baptisms as valid [again proper form and matter]. Therefore, protestants are, in the words ofthe Catechism, ‘incorporated into the Church’ [NOTE: Capital “C” in Church denoting the Catholic Church] and therefore, salvation is at least possible for them.

NOW you can close the thread!

 

[AnneElliot]

Not so fast there. I have only begun to discuss this. Here is a question for you. If you say that there is no salvation **outside **the Catholic Church then I ask you what is it that places you inside the Catholic Church? Is not Baptism the entry rite into the church as was circumcision the entry rite into Judiaism?

Yes, Baptism is the door to the Church… I stated this earlier in the thread.

Pope Pius XII, *Mystici Corporis Christi *“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 separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Therefore, protestants are, in the words ofthe Catechism, ‘incorporated into the Church’ [NOTE: Capital “C” in Church denoting the Catholic Church] and therefore, salvation is at least possible for them.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, “41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

Possible… yes, of course, if they convert and embrace the true Faith.