No Salvation Outside The Church?

[JoeytheItalian]

Jesus Christ, My only Lord and Savior, Reveal to me the wisdom granted to you by the fruits of your Sacred Heart. Allow me to have the gift of discernment, that I may 'know good from evil. Protect me me for all of eternity. May St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, St. Francis, St. Anthony, St. Clare, St.Ambrose, St. Rosa Lima, St. Dymphna, St. Jude, St. Thomas, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Benedict, St. Philomena, and all the saints, angels, martyrs and good people amongst us please pray with us that we may act as true disciples of Jesus Christ.

reality check.

 

[clmowry]

Why don’t we, instead of arguing so much, take a break and try to do some good deeds in the world? I think God would just love this, and He might even reward us in the afterlife. Rather than ruffling my feathers in argument, I’ve chosen to remain silent and calm by listening and reflecting on my tape of Mother Teresa’s general talk and talk to the youth, which I had recorded during her 1980’s visit to New Orleans. I’ve sent copies to others who didn’t have this tape: websites, an archdiocese, Catholic TV station, her Order of nuns, our Pastor, a friend who is ill, and will provide a copy of the transcript and tape to this website, if CAF is interested. Mother Teresa’s talks are so simple, yet full of wisdom and inspiring. A welcome respite!

The good news is that there is a 1000 post thread limit, the bad news is that a new thread can [and probablyt will] get started.

Chuck

 

[AnneElliot]

There are always threads on this subject on CAF. Salvation is an important subject, and everyone wants to talk about it.

 

[AnneElliot]

I never said that Rahab was not united to the Hebrews but merely quoted from the Psalms to tell that even nations that were considered enemies of the Hebrews and never united to them, would be saved.

The other poster said that no one who was not united to the Hebrews was saved in the Old Testament, you quoted the psalms-- I assumed as “evidence” of your opposition to his assertion since you quoted him. Thus, I responded showing you how the psalm you cited supported his assertion that no one who was not united to the Hebrews could be saved in the Old Testament.

What do you mean “never united to them”? How do you think persons in other nations could be saved in the Old Testament?

If Rahab was mentioned along with them, do you expect me drop it and distort the Scriptures? Why are you conveniently evading Babylon and Philistia?

I was not evading Babylon and Philistia… I figured one example would suffice. Grab any good Catholic Bible Commentary… it will say this is a prophecy of how God will later draw all nations to Himself (i.e., they will be united, in Him-- in the person of Jesus Christ).

From the Navarre Bible Commentary:
"These verses are a sort of oracle, spoken by God. The most obvious meaning, and the one followed by tradition, is that God will bring it about that Egypt (“Rahab”: cf. Is 30:7) and Babylon, the two great nations hostile to Israel, will be converted to the God of Israel, that is, will acknolwedge him (cf. Is 19:21). So, along with other lesser nations… their inhabitants will be regarded as having been born in Jerusalem and become members of the people of God… Christians too, regard the heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, as mother, for through her they are born to the life of grace: “Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: ‘We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation’ (Faustus of Riez, De Spiritu Sancto, 1,2). Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith …] The Church’s faith precedes, engenders, supports and nourishes our faith. The Church is the mother of all believers. ‘No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother’ (St. Cyprian, De Ecclesiae unitate, 6)”’

 

[clmowry]

There are always threads on this subject on CAF. Salvation is an important subject, and everyone wants to talk about it.

As an outside observer of the on going series of rebuttals I would submit that this thread has very little to do with “salvation” [which I agree is THE most important of subjects].

This thread has turned into a series of repetitive opinions on how different Catholics seek to limit the mean by which God can grant salvation to people.

To add my opinion to the mix, the Church “clearly” teaches that the graces necessary for the faith which leads to salvation may be granted to anyone [whether they have heard of the Catholic Church or not.]

The big problem I have with this true teaching is that many folks translate this “may” into what effectively amounts to religious and moral equivalence. [Give an inch and we take a mile.]

It seems to me unlikely that most people will actually live out that faith without benefit of the graces offered in the Sacraments provided through the Church Christ founded.

I mean, really, how many Sodom’s do we have on one side of the scale vs. Abraham and his like on the other?

It also seems apparent to me that very many who count themselves among the formal members of the Catholic Church will fare no better [probably worse].

The graces offered by the Sacraments of Initiation are no guarantee of Salvation, but some sure like to treat it that way: for many it is OSAS “Catholic” style.

All of that said the normal and most likely Way to salvation [the only “sure road” that has been revealed to mankind] is the road that Christ has laid out for all of humanity and it passes through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Chuck

 

[sidbrown]

The doctrine has never changed…

So it is true then that " that 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." So for example, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, outside of the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, if he practises almsgiving and has shed his blood for Christ, will not be saved since he remains outside of the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?

 

[inkaneer]

So it is true then that " that 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." So for example, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, outside of the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church, if he practises almsgiving and has shed his blood for Christ, will not be saved since he remains outside of the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?

Yep! and Nope! Don’t make the same mistake that far too many people do. there is an important word in that quote which you and others choose to ignore. It is the word ‘remain’. To remain in the church you must first be in it. Is that logical? So ask yourself the question if an EOC christian is in the church. If you answer no then how can he remain in something he is not in. If you anser yews then he is in the church and remains therein. This is directed at people who deny a doctrine of the shurch and by doing so excommunicate themselves from the Church. They were in the church but did not remain in it. This is why Feeney’s friends from the Diocese of Worcester had him reconciled to the church. I still think that whole matter of his alleged reconciliation needs investigated as I don’t think it was valid. And it would be the irony of all ironies if the guy who made ‘‘outside the church there is no salvation’’ his tombstone epitaph would die outside the church.

 

[sidbrown]

Yep! and Nope! Don’t make the same mistake that far too many people do. there is an important word in that quote which you and others choose to ignore. It is the word ‘remain’. To remain in the church you must first be in it. Is that logical? So ask yourself the question if an EOC christian is in the church. If you answer no then how can he remain in something he is not in. If you anser yews then he is in the church and remains therein. This is directed at people who deny a doctrine of the shurch and by doing so excommunicate themselves from the Church. They were in the church but did not remain in it. This is why Feeney’s friends from the Diocese of Worcester had him reconciled to the church. I still think that whole matter of his alleged reconciliation needs investigated as I don’t think it was valid. And it would be the irony of all ironies if the guy who made ‘‘outside the church there is no salvation’’ his tombstone epitaph would die outside the church.

The Eastern Orthodox Christian will tell you as he has told me that he is completely outside of the Roman Catholic Church and that he does not accept the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility, the filioque, papal supremacy, the immaculate conception, purgatory, or indulgences.
But it is not held today that an Eastern Orthodox Christian will not be saved, because he is allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church according to the teaching of the RCC today, which was not true in the past. Further, the EO Christian does not have to join the RCC to receive Holy Communion in a RCC.
So all in all, I don;t see why people are denying that the teaching has changed.

 

[chypmonk]

I understand the present teaching of the RCC and I agree with it.
But it looks like the present teaching is a radical change from the previous papal statements which said:

1. A martyr for Christ will not be saved if he has not persevered within the bosom and unity of the RCC.
2. In order to be saved, you must be subject to the Pope of Rome.
3. A jew cannot be saved unless he converts and partakes of the Sacraments and practices of the Christian militia.
   Reference:
4. 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.”
5. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
   “ 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.”
6. 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.”

Were did you get this!??
“practices of the Christian militia.”

Never read it before by any EENers.
Are saying that converted Jews have to serve in the army to be saved?

 

[inkaneer]

The Eastern Orthodox Christian will tell you as he has told me that he is completely outside of the Roman Catholic Church and that he does not accept the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility, the filioque, papal supremacy, the immaculate conception, purgatory, or indulgences.
But it is not held today that an Eastern Orthodox Christian will not be saved, because he is allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church according to the teaching of the RCC today, which was not true in the past. Further, the EO Christian does not have to join the RCC to receive Holy Communion in a RCC.
So all in all, I don;t see why people are denying that the teaching has changed.

The reason that an Eastern Orthodox will tell you all that is because if they admit to it then they are admitting that they too are Catholic. But ask an EOC who has "supremacy of honor the pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople? Ask an EOC what “Final Theosis” is. [Hint: purgatory] Ask an EOC if Mary was tainted by sin? Then ask an EOC if they thought that the conquering of the Byzantine Empire [which was essentially 90% EOC] by the Islamic forces was God’s retribution for ther schism with the Catholic Church. Then you can aslk your EOC friend why is it that the Byzantine Catholic Church is united with Rome and their beliefs are the same as the EOC.

P/S. Don’t get me started on the EOC because I consider them to be the Benedict Arnolds of Christianity.

 

[chypmonk]

Sorry, but you are still making the very same interpretive error as those who apply a rigorist reading to “no salvation outside the Church.” That maxim is true, when properly interpreted. And I assure you that Pope John Paul II would not agree with your view that his teachings represent any change in Church dogma.

I agree that JPII, if in the midst of the present discussion, would say he hasn’t changed dogma but remember that 2 Feeneyite communities were approved during his pontificate, so he didn’t have a problem with the “rigorist” view,

Also remember that dogmatic definitions are not interpreted. This was clearly taught in Vatican I:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra:

" 13. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
* not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
**
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding"**
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

Vat. I condemns moving away from the understanding of a dogma which the Church has once declared to a different meaning, under the claim of a “deeper understanding.”

By insisting that infallible DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by fallible statements (e.g., from theologians, catechisms, etc.) you deny the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. You are subordinating dogmatic teaching from the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human minds, thereby inverting dogmatic definitions authority, and denying their purpose.

 

[chypmonk]

The Eastern Orthodox Christian will tell you as he has told me that he is completely outside of the Roman Catholic Church and that he does not accept the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility, the filioque, papal supremacy, the immaculate conception, purgatory, or indulgences.
But it is not held today that an Eastern Orthodox Christian will not be saved, because he is allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic Church according to the teaching of the RCC today, which was not true in the past. Further, the EO Christian does not have to join the RCC to receive Holy Communion in a RCC.
So all in all, I don;t see why people are denying that the teaching has changed.

This is a matter of discipline not doctrine, which IMHO is imprudent, but to my understanding it is granted not in general to the whole orthodox church but to individuals who do accept the teachings of the Church. For example I know Malcolm Muggerich received this permission while he was still an Anglican. He was in the processes of becoming Catholic, which he did become.

I assume Br. Roger of Taize also received permission at JPII’s funeral.

But I think this subject should be another thread if you would like to pursue it further, since it only lightly touches the present discussion.

 

[paul_c]

These menas of salvation is to do what the Church teaches:
Here’s what St. paul has to say about it in Romans 2:
12 All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.

Now granted. Its a lot easier to follow the Churches teachings if you know what they are and its immeasurably easier with the Graces from the sacraments. Those are the advantages of being Catholic in the path to Salvation.

 

[sidbrown]

Were did you get this!??
“practices of the Christian militia.”

Never read it before by any EENers.
Are saying that converted Jews have to serve in the army to be saved?

See: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441

 

[JM3]

I still think that whole matter of his alleged reconciliation needs investigated as** I don’t think it was valid**.

The excommunication was lifted in 1972. Your accusation that it is invalid is a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. The reasons for the lifting of the excommunication are irrelevent. The Church does not need to justify its actions to you.

 

[chypmonk]

See: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441

Could you be a little more specific? quote link?

 

[chypmonk]

The excommunication was lifted in 1972. Your accusation that it is invalid is a denial of the authority of the Catholic Church. The reasons for the lifting of the excommunication are irrelevent. The Church does not need to justify its actions to you.

Canonically the grounds for excommunication were dubious, but needless to say, if valid, he was fully reconciled Petr Vere (canon lawyer) fully investigated the issue and he does not hold the Feeneyite position:

“1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul
VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that
Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s
excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on
behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I
spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr.
Feeney with the Church.
On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott
diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of
several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic
news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the
quotations and context of the primary sources.
Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard
Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had
Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest
from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from
doctrinal or moral error.** Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or
sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the
Church without recanting his position.**”
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

 

[sidbrown]

Could you be a little more specific? quote link?

post#934

 

[guanophore]

I am not a Feeneyite because Fr. Feeney theorized in his book, “Bread of Life” that a man could be justified, but if he were not baptized, that justified person could not be saved (cf. p 121). Without the character from the sacrament of Baptism, where could sanctifying grace adhere in the soul in the first place? Thus, I disagree that a man could even be justified, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without having received the sacrament of Baptism. The Council of Trent defined the instrumental cause of justification as the sacrament of Baptism (cf. Trent, sixth session, Justification, ch. 7).

God would simply provide a way for that person to receive the Sacrament, even if it required miraculous means.

Anne, God is not bound by the sacraments, we are. He can save whoever He wants, however He likes.

I agree that all those who are saved are members of His One Body, the Church. I also agree that God provides the means.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism is necessary for salvation (as the Church teaches), and since God does not withhold the grace(s) necessary for salvation from anyone (as the Church also teaches) we must conclude that all persons are given the opportunity to receive the grace they need to be saved and this includes Baptism.

God is not dependent upon water to regenerate the human soul.

If He were, then Enoch and Elijah would not have been taken up to heaven, and all those righteous dead that came from their graves after His resurrection.would not have been able to be taken up with Him, as they were.

Nor would any of the OT prophets been able.

Baptism is the normative means, but God is not bound by it.

This is some sort of doublespeak that ends up being complete rubbish. The nature of dogma in defining Catholic teaching is not so that it has to be interpreted to say that it doesn’t say what it really says. Dogmas are clear. They are truths fallen from heaven that the Church cherishes and teaches.

Yes, and the Church has always taught that God is not bound by the sacraments that He has so graciously afforded us.