No Salvation Outside the Church

[JMJCatholic]

I know the more reasonable interpretation of the doctrine, but I was disheartened to read some of the declarations of past Popes, such as the one I will quote, and I hope to be reassured that such condemnatory proclamations were not infallible. Thank God the Catholic Church has softened its position into a more reasonable one. However, I can not see how such a reversal can be explained as a development of doctrine.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

JMJ

 

[R_C]

. Thank God the Catholic Church has softened its position into a more reasonable one.

The Church does not change nor soften her position, especially when it comes to salvation.

Especially such an official declaration by a reigning Pontiff is absolutely exempt from error in matters of faith.

The Church receives greater light according to the time in order to better fulfill her role. The Church still firmly believes that there is no salvation outside of her. She simply has received a greater understanding on the mysterious ways in which the universal salvation acts in such was as to incorporate - though not formally - all who are saved into the Church, that they may be saved through her by the merits of Christ (though we do not know exactly how Christ does this).

This post further clarifies some of what the Church holds and always will hold regarding salvation. This post goes over the relevance of the Church in salvation, and this one (continued) over the issues that non-Catholic Christians face regarding salvation.

Mind you: the Pope here did specify: “unless before death they are joined with Her”. On this principle did the Church receive further light: on how before death non-Catholics (even non-Christians) that by invincible ignorance do not know Christ or His Church are mysteriously incorporated into her, though not formally. The case for other Christians is different, for they are in a state of imperfect communion but nevertheless members of the Church. As for Catholics who abandon the Church by schism, heresy, or apostasy - the sole hope is rooted on ignorance that lead to such a decision.

I think as you learn more about the Depositum Fidei, you will be less prone to question what the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals, and whether the Vicar of Christ can err on these matters or not.

 

[EIF5A]

Was the pope exercising papal infallibility?

What exactly is the “merits of Christ”, as in is it something beyond Incarnation of God, suffering/death on the Cross, and resurrection?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it’s right for a Church to say all their non-members are not going to be saved. Because otherwise, why should anyone join them?

I know this is such a simplistic argument to make and the reality of salvation is far more complicated than that.

 

[JMJCatholic]

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

This is radically different from more recent interpretations. It is airtight with no room for exceptions that later developed. That is why I am hoping to find that such statements were not infallible.

Thanks, R_C.

JMJ

 

[ConstantineTG]

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

This is radically different from more recent interpretations. It is airtight with no room for exceptions that later developed. That is why I am hoping to find that such statements were not infallible.

Thanks, R_C.

JMJ

See, this is the problem with infallibility. You have to ask if something is infallible or not. The truth is not determined by the declarations of one man.

 

[JMJCatholic]

Constantine, I think it would be better if each Church would claim to have the truth, and it is incumbent upon each of us to seek truth. The Catholic Church now claims the “fullness of truth” which makes more sense than to condemn to hell even one who dies for Christ. What kind of a God would that be?

JMJ

 

[EIF5A]

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

This is radically different from more recent interpretations. It is airtight with no room for exceptions that later developed. That is why I am hoping to find that such statements were not infallible.

Thanks, R_C.

JMJ

Hmm…isn’t this justification for judging whether someone ends up in hell? (e.g., no one outside of the CC can enter the kingdom of God)

If a pope delivers a statement of faith, isn’t that always taken to be infallible?

 

[EIF5A]

Constantine, I think it would be better if each Church would claim to have the truth, and it is incumbent upon each of us to seek truth. The Catholic Church now claims the “fullness of truth” which makes more sense than to condemn to hell even one who dies for Christ. What kind of a God would that be?

JMJ

But the pope is protected from error in matters of doctrine and morality, so…? Was he wrong to issue a blanket statement or did he overstep?

 

[R_C]

I think it’s right for a Church to say all their non-members are not going to be saved. Because otherwise, why should anyone join them?

I know this is such a simplistic argument to make and the reality of salvation is far more complicated than that.

It’s not right unless it’s true.

When the Church of Christ makes the claim, it is true.

And as a member of an apostolic Church, you know this well.

When a cult such as the Watchtower Society makes this claim, it’s false and ridiculous because it underscores a sectarian understanding of salvation versus the universal salvation that the Church proclaims and that Christ teaches.

See, this is the problem with infallibility. You have to ask if something is infallible or not. The truth is not determined by the declarations of one man.

This man has as a bishop a share in what the Church Fathers call the infallible charism of truth, and as the Bishop of Rome he has a particular primacy (acknowledged even by our Orthodox brothers) which at least further reinforces that He would not err on matters of faith - especially when his teaching is fully consistent with the Sacred Tradition.

Hmm…isn’t this justification for judging whether someone ends up in hell? (e.g., no one outside of the CC can enter the kingdom of God)

That’s not what is being said in that statement. The Church has no authority - as far as I know - to judge who will end in hell. She simply points to the ordinary means of salvation as the Lord revealed it to her. After all, a faithful member of another religion could argue the very same thing not for the CC but for Christianity based not on this statement but on the Lord’s statement in John 3:5 (mind you, he’d also think the Lord is just a man). These statements are not judging who goes to Hell, just pointing towards the narrow gate of the Kingdom.

 

[R_C]

See, this is the problem with infallibility. You have to ask if something is infallible or not. The truth is not determined by the declarations of one man.

This man has as a bishop a share in what the Church Fathers call the infallible charism of truth, and as the Bishop of Rome he has a particular primacy (acknowledged even by our Orthodox brothers) which at least further reinforces that He would not err on matters of faith - especially when his teaching is fully consistent with the Sacred Tradition.

 

[R_C]

“No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

This is radically different from more recent interpretations. It is airtight with no room for exceptions that later developed. That is why I am hoping to find that such statements were not infallible.

Even the blessed apostles Peter and Paul teach this

I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. …] A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinned, being condemned by his own judgment.

there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Furthermore, our Lord teaches this:

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ And then will I profess unto them: “I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.”

I think we must always focus on the “big picture”, keeping in mind that the Church does not err in matters of faith and morals, nor does she ever contradict herself on her teachings.

 

[Nine_Two]

This man has as a bishop a share in what the Church Fathers call the infallible charism of truth, and as the Bishop of Rome he has a particular primacy (acknowledged even by our Orthodox brothers) which at least further reinforces that He would not err on matters of faith - especially when his teaching is fully consistent with the Sacred Tradition.

We don’t acknowledge the particular sort of primacy you’re talking about.

 

[R_C]

We don’t acknowledge the particular sort of primacy you’re talking about.

This goes greatly off-topic. I’ll briefly reply to clarify what I meant.

The Orthodox church considers the Bishop of Rome to be the primus inter pares. More specifically, in Ravenna in 2007, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches drew a document whose point 41 reads as follows:

Both sides agree . . . that Rome, as the Church that ‘presides in love’ according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch, occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the *protos *among the patriarchs.

They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium.

And we cannot forget that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Fourth Ecumenical Council , accepted by the Orthodox Church) it was written: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].”

In short: for the Orthodox Church the bishop of Rome is not “just a man” when speaking about the faith - as if you and me were the same as him when speaking on the faith. No bishop is, and especially not that bishop.

On a different page, I wish to further add a quote on papal infallibility:

His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years, sometimes hundreds of years, of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope’s hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching. (source)

 

[Vico]

I know the more reasonable interpretation of the doctrine, but I was disheartened to read some of the declarations of past Popes, such as the one I will quote, and I hope to be reassured that such condemnatory proclamations were not infallible. Thank God the Catholic Church has softened its position into a more reasonable one. However, I can not see how such a reversal can be explained as a development of doctrine.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

JMJ

Cantate Domino is accurate. What is lacking is a common understanding of the meaning of outside the Church. (However we know that those the willfully and knowingly reject God are not assured of salvation.)
99. Jesus taught:

“unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5);
from which we understand the need for sacramental Baptism.[133] Likewise, he said:“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (Jn 6:53);
from which we understand the (closely related) need for participation in the Eucharist. However, just as we do not conclude from the latter words that someone who has not received the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be saved, so we should not deduce from the former words that someone who has not received the sacrament of Baptism cannot be saved. What we should conclude is that no-one is saved without some relation to Baptism and Eucharist, and therefore to the Church which is defined by these sacraments. All salvation has some relation to Baptism, Eucharist and the Church. The principle that there is “no salvation outside the Church” means that there is no salvation which is not from Christ and ecclesial by its very nature. Likewise, the scriptural teaching that “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” (Heb 11:6) indicates the intrinsic role of the Church, the communion of faith, in the work of salvation. It is especially in the liturgy of the Church that this role becomes manifest, as the Church prays and intercedes for all, including unbaptised infants who die.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

​

 

[Schism_hater]

And we cannot forget that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Fourth Ecumenical Council , accepted by the Orthodox Church) it was written: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].”

On that occasion, Peter was speaking “through the mouth of Leo”, i.e. Leo was proclaiming the Apostolic Faith, and that is what the Fathers recognized. They were not saying that whenever the Bishop of Rome speaks, Peter speaks through him. That would be to read something into the statement that isn’t there.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s not right unless it’s true.

When the Church of Christ makes the claim, it is true.

And as a member of an apostolic Church, you know this well.

When a cult such as the Watchtower Society makes this claim, it’s false and ridiculous because it underscores a sectarian understanding of salvation versus the universal salvation that the Church proclaims and that Christ teaches.

This man has as a bishop a share in what the Church Fathers call the infallible charism of truth, and as the Bishop of Rome he has a particular primacy (acknowledged even by our Orthodox brothers) which at least further reinforces that He would not err on matters of faith - especially when his teaching is fully consistent with the Sacred Tradition.

That’s not what is being said in that statement. The Church has no authority - as far as I know - to judge who will end in hell. She simply points to the ordinary means of salvation as the Lord revealed it to her. After all, a faithful member of another religion could argue the very same thing not for the CC but for Christianity based not on this statement but on the Lord’s statement in John 3:5 (mind you, he’d also think the Lord is just a man). These statements are not judging who goes to Hell, just pointing towards the narrow gate of the Kingdom.

My point wasn’t about truth. I’m just questioning why JMJCatholic is lamenting the claim of Rome that non-Roman Catholics won’t be saved when each “group” rightfully should make that claim regardless if we think their claim is valid or not. Because if we don’t believe that our Chruch/denomination/community/sect/etc. is the true path of salvation, then what purpose is our existence?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This goes greatly off-topic. I’ll briefly reply to clarify what I meant.

The Orthodox church considers the Bishop of Rome to be the primus inter pares. More specifically, in Ravenna in 2007, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches drew a document whose point 41 reads as follows:

And we cannot forget that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Fourth Ecumenical Council , accepted by the Orthodox Church) it was written: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].”

In short: for the Orthodox Church the bishop of Rome is not “just a man” when speaking about the faith - as if you and me were the same as him when speaking on the faith. No bishop is, and especially not that bishop.

On a different page, I wish to further add a quote on papal infallibility:

The Apostolic Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.) says this:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Yet Pastor Aeternus says:

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So Pastor Aeternus already violated the very constitution written by the Apostles.

 

[Schism_hater]

Cantate Domino is accurate. What is lacking is a common understanding of the meaning of outside the Church.

I don’t see that Cantate Domine (or Unam Sanctam before it) is missing an understanding of “outside the Church”. It has a very clear understanding of what is required for salvation: either explicit membership in the Roman Church by water baptism, or “baptism by desire”, which required explicit acceptance of Roman teaching (i.e. being a catechumen). There was no idea of “invincible ignorance” as developed by Pope Pius IX, or “implicit faith” as developed prior to Vatican II. That explains the words about joining prior to death; if there was an idea of “implicit membership”, those words would be superfluous, since “implicit faith” means a certain disposition, not an act. Cantante Domine clearly has an act in mind.

If you mean that the understanding expressed in Cantante Domine is outside the mainstream of the thought of the patristic church, and at odds with the understanding presently held by Rome, I would agree. But, unfortunately for the dogma of Papal Infallibility, both Unam Sanctam and Cantante Domine are clearly dogmatic statements.

 

[Nine_Two]

This goes greatly off-topic. I’ll briefly reply to clarify what I meant.

The Orthodox church considers the Bishop of Rome to be the primus inter pares. More specifically, in Ravenna in 2007, the international mixed commission for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches drew a document whose point 41 reads as follows:

And we cannot forget that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (the Fourth Ecumenical Council , accepted by the Orthodox Church) it was written: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo [the then-reigning Pope Leo I].”

In short: for the Orthodox Church the bishop of Rome is not “just a man” when speaking about the faith - as if you and me were the same as him when speaking on the faith. No bishop is, and especially not that bishop.

On a different page, I wish to further add a quote on papal infallibility:

I agree the Orthodox Churches do accept a form of Petrine Primacy, however we don’t accept the form you are ascribing to us. You are also interpreting all of that as a Catholic, and not with a view to how we actually accept them.