No Salvation Outside the Church

[clem456]

What we believe must always be reasonable, though. Perhaps, I’ll post this question separately, and see if I can get some additional insights. Thanks, again.

JMJ

I try to believe what the Church believes. If it does not seem reasonable, some work is required on my part. My abililty to comprehend is always second to giving my assent and trust to the Church’s interpretation of anything.

 

[JMJCatholic]

I try to believe what the Church believes. If it does not seem reasonable, some work is required on my part. My abililty to comprehend is always second to giving my assent and trust to the Church’s interpretation of anything.

Our faith can not be irrational, however, and that is why we have apologetics to defend it. To give assent is one thing, but it is important to know what one is assenting to. In regard to your quote, that is precisely what I am doing, the work on my part in an effort to comprehend (how contradictory statements in plain English can both be true).

JMJ

 

[R_C]

You may find this interesting (2000) from the International Theological Commission. There is a definite distinction in function, but there may actually have been Diaconate Holy Orders for women at one time

A few quotes worth mentioning to clarify things.

Council of Nicaea I, Canon 19:

Similarly, in regard to the deaconesses, as with all who are enrolled in the register, the same procedure is to be observed. We have made mention of the deaconesses, who have been enrolled in this position, although, not having been in any way ordained, they are certainly to be numbered among the laity.

Council of Orange I, Canon 15:

Deaconesses are certainly not to be ordained, and if there are some, they must bow their head under the blessing given to the people.

Epiphanius of Salamis:

It is true that in the Church there is an order of deaconesses, but not for being a priestess …] From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses. If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary to fulfill a priestly function. She was invested with so great an honor as to be allowed to provide a dwelling in her womb for the heavenly God and King of all things, the Son of God. . . . But he did not find this [the conferring of priesthood on her] good.

Council of Nimes, Canon 2:

There is a report that women seem to have been, we know not in what place, admitted to the levitical ministry, contrary to apostolic discipline,and unknown until today …an ordination of this sort must be annulled,and care taken that no one for the future be so bold.

Sixth Council of Paris, Canon 49:

That women must not go to the altar is abundantly found in the Council of Laodicea and in the decrees of Pope Gelasius. So this so illicit a thing, entirely abhorrent to the Christian religion, is forbidden for the future.

Apostolic Constitutions:

Chose as a deaconess a faithful and holy woman for the ministry of women …] For we need a female deaconess for many things …] A deaconess does not bless, but neither does she perform anything else that is done by presbyters and deacons

 

[concretecamper]

Our faith can not be irrational, however, and that is why we have apologetics to defend it. To give assent is one thing, but it is important to know what one is assenting to. In regard to your quote, that is precisely what I am doing, the work on my part in an effort to comprehend (how contradictory statements in plain English can both be true).

JMJ

Transubstantiation is not rational. It is not too difficult for the catholic faith to be entirely irrational in such a secular society. I cling to what Christ said to St. Faustina…at the moment of death, I am my greatest apostle. Let’s have faith that before judgement, Christ gives everyone the chance to accept Him in His fullness

 

[PRmerger]

Transubstantiation is not rational.

Right. But that doesn’t mean that it is irrational. Rather, Transubstantiation is supra-rational.

 

[Armin_kerusker]

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.

JMJ, this bull was written to bring agreement between the latins and the Copts. Just notice the wording at the beginning “holy ROMAN church”. This troubles me as infallible. If the pope was going to prophess the belief of the Universal Church he should have done it. To remark on this just notice also that elsewhere regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist with the armenians the Council of Florence states

" Since, therefore, both the HOLY ROMAN church taught by the most blessed apostles Peter and Paul and the OTHER churches of LATINS and Greeks, in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly, have behaved in this way from the very beginning of the growing church and still do so, it seems very unfitting that any other region should differ from this universal and reasonable observance"

So, the language of Florence clearly distinguishes the Roman Church from the the rest of the latins churches in communion with the Roman Church, hence that of the city of Rome.

But also see how this paragraph validates the sacramental life of eastern brothers when stating “in which the lights of all sanctity and doctrine have shone brightly”

So, in additon to the fact that not all the eastern churches (only the copts) signed it there is much to ponder whether this is infact an infallible statement.

 

[Vico]

R_C, You gave six quotes from Nicea I, Orange I, Salamis, Nimes, Paris VI, and Apostolic Constitutions.

We also know that the discipline varied in different jurisdictions and with time. Especially:

• Council of Nicea (325) considered deaconesses as clergy.
• Council of Nimes (394) annulled orders of deaconesses.
• Council of Orange (441) deaconesses no longer ordained.
• Council of Orange (553) reissued ban of 441.

We also have in the eastern Church that deaconesses continued to be ordained:

Council of Trullo (692), Canon 14:Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back. For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty.

The understanding of Holy Orders developed later. For the earlier Church you can read in The Catholic Encyclopedia, the deaconess received the Holy Spirit with the laying on of the hands of the bishop with appointment to the ecclesiastic office of deaconess:
In any case there can be no question that before the middle of the fourth century women were permitted to exercise certain definite functions in the Church and were known by the special name of diakonoi or diakonissai.
…
Apostolic Constitutions say:

Concerning a deaconess, I, Bartholomew enjoin O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her with all the Presbytery and the Deacons and the Deaconesses and thou shalt say: Eternal God, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of man and woman, that didst fill with the Spirit Mary and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah, that didst not disdain that thine only begotten Son should be born of a woman; Thou that in the tabernacle of witness and in the temple didst appoint women guardians of thy holy gates: Do thou now look on this thy handmaid, who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess and grant unto her the Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily accomplish the work committed unto her, to thy glory and the praise of thy Christ.

… in the case of the deacon, prayer is made that he “may be counted worthy of a higher standing”, a clause which not improbably has reference to the possibility of advance to a higher ecclesiastical dignity as priest or bishop, no such praise being used in the case of the deaconess.
​

 

[Christian_Soul]

From the Catechism

Salvation Outside the ChurchOutside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence 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

Is there a difference between knowing the Catholic Church teaches this and accepting or believing this teaching? I only ask because I think there are people who might well know Catholicism teaches the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, but who might not believe it. If someone knows the Catholic Church teaches this but does not accept or believe it and does not then enter or remain, can they still be saved?

 

[Vico]

Christian Soul, a Catholic has accepted the faith, therefore must assent, even without rational understanding. Some such matters are not understandable rationally, and also some do not have the capacity to understand them even when rationally understandable.

What is assent? Consent or approval that it is a teaching of the Church to be accepted and heeded.

 

[PRmerger]

I only ask because I think there are people who might well know Catholicism teaches the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, but who might not believe it. If someone knows the Catholic Church teaches this but does not accept or believe it and does not then enter or remain, can they still be saved?

I think you misunderstand. You are not saved by knowing that the Catholic teaches that the CC is necessary for salvation.

If you know that the CC is the One True Faith, yet reject this, then you cannot be saved.

 

[Christian_Soul]

I think you misunderstand. You are not saved by knowing that the Catholic teaches that the CC is necessary for salvation.

If you know that the CC is the One True Faith, yet reject this, then you cannot be saved.

But does knowing require belief? If somebody, either a non Catholic or a dissenting “Catholic” for that matter, knows this CC teaching and yet rejects it, and does not enter or remain, could that mean they don’t truly know the CC is the One True Faith and they can be saved?

 

[Brendan_64]

If any christian religion or private devotion of Christ is an acceptable pathway to salvation, then what is the purpose of the Catholic Church? Is the purpose to just get the ball rolling? Then why be catholic? Why be one? Why convert people for the reason of bringing the fullness of faith to them if it does not matter one lick. Who cares if one has the fullness of faith if it does not matter.

The reason to be a Catholic is not to gain a better chance of getting oneself into Heaven. As you point out, the fullness of Truth, lies within the Catholic Church (as the Church founded by God on Earth) then surely the reason to be a Catholic would be to partake in that fullness of Truth in order to be closer to God. It’s not about joining in order to have a better shot at getting to Heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

But does knowing require belief?

Yes, of course it does.

If somebody, either a non Catholic or a dissenting “Catholic” for that matter,** knows this CC teaching **and yet rejects it, and does not enter or remain, could that mean they don’t truly know the CC is the One True Faith and they can be saved?

Again, this is not the teaching. It is not the bolded part.

Take this metaphor:

A professor says: anyone who knows everything in the book cannot flunk this test.

A student says: I accept this teaching! I believe that the professor has said that anyone who knows everything in the book cannot flunk the test! Amen!

But the student doesn’t read the book.

He will still flunk the test. Why? Because he said amen! to the wrong thing.

You are like this student. You think we need to say amen! to “the CC teaches that the CC is necessary for salvation”.

No. The Catholic Church teaching to which we cannot be saved if we reject is this: * I think with my fully informed intellect and will, that the CC is the One True Faith, but I reject the Faith because of …insert any reason involving your full intellect and will. *

Then, you cannnot be saved if the above is your paradigm.

 

[Basilios]

AudioSancto just released a brand new sermon on this very topic. I really urge you to listen to it in full because he gets to all the questions. What a great Priest Once you hear that sermon, all will make sense!

God Bless

 

[concretecamper]

The reason to be a Catholic is not to gain a better chance of getting oneself into Heaven. As you point out, the fullness of Truth, lies within the Catholic Church (as the Church founded by God on Earth) then surely the reason to be a Catholic would be to partake in that fullness of Truth in order to be closer to God. It’s not about joining in order to have a better shot at getting to Heaven.

I do not think the reason to be catholic is to have a better chance at heaven. I do not believe I advanced that. I was simply thinking out loud. My conscience is troubled about the salvation of good Christians in light of the topic. But just because I cannot square it in my mind does not make it false.

In fact, if you follow the bible, it is pretty evident that membership in the catholic church is needed. All you need to do is read John chapter 6. Where else other than the catholic church can you eat the flesh of Christ…without which you have no life in you.

In the end, I’ll leave this one to the Lord.

 

[PRmerger]

In the end, I’ll leave this one to the Lord.

Yes. I think that is the best paradigm.

“Strive to enter” is my mantra.

Yet evangelism is also our mission. We leave it to the Lord, yet do all we can to proclaim the gospel.

 

[Nabooru]

I’ll be honest, I would love to be a full-fledged Catholic, but this speculation on the fate of the non-Christian is one of the things that stops me. Keep in mind I say non-Christian, not non-Catholic. To me a Christian is a person who agrees with the early Creeds and believes they receive Christ in some form at the Eucharist.

I personally accept that the Holy Scriptures have taught me that those who do not accept Christ as Savior are not saved. That is the case whether it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside or not. That being said, I cannot speak in any certainty or specificity what happens to the unsaved. That’s not my call. What I know is what God has told me. God has told me that acceptance of Christ is a neccessity to salvation and I assume that since that is all He has told me, that is all I am to know and believe. My job in my spiritual life, as laid out by God in His Word, is to live as a follower of Christ and win souls to Him. It is not to spectulate on God’s judgement outside of that revelation. If God had other plans concerning salvation, He did not reveal them to us, which means we should accept what has been given, rather than guess that what, if anything, has not been.

For the Church to make definitive statements regarding the salvific, eternal fate of those outside the flock is attempting to dictate the mind of God concerning an issue that, were we supposed to been privy to it, we would have been already. The Church can speak for itself, obviously taking into consideration God’s revelation, but it cannot speak as God.

Were the Church to make an Scriptually-informed statement regarding this issue, it would be that as far as we know, no, there is no salvation outside explicit acceptance of Christ. There is a possibility that there may be some other device of salvation, but if there is, it hasn’t been revealed to us, and under no circumstances should we assume that one is in place if God has been silent on it. God has told us what He wishes for us to know and what He wishes us to do with that knowledge. That’s all that matters.

Now, were you to ask me personally, I think the Church’s more compromising attitude concerning salvation in recent decades, or its proclamations on the same couched in such language as to seem compromising or “inclusive”, is mostly due to societal pressures. Nowadays we’re not comfortable with any life view that doesn’t proclaim that anything goes, or that there is such a thing as real, definitive truth. Unfortunately, like many other organizations, the Church has, at least at times, given into relativism or pretended to do so under those same pressures. Until it swings back to admitting belief in Christ as the only known means of salvation and forget the rest, I’ll have to stay outside of it, as it seems to be promoting a heretical doctrine.

 

[Christian_Soul]

Yes, of course it does.

Again, this is not the teaching. It is not the bolded part.

Take this metaphor:

A professor says: anyone who knows everything in the book cannot flunk this test.

A student says: I accept this teaching! I believe that the professor has said that anyone who knows everything in the book cannot flunk the test! Amen!

But the student doesn’t read the book.

He will still flunk the test. Why? Because he said amen! to the wrong thing.

You are like this student. You think we need to say amen! to “the CC teaches that the CC is necessary for salvation”.

No. The Catholic Church teaching to which we cannot be saved if we reject is this: * I think with my fully informed intellect and will, that the CC is the One True Faith, but I reject the Faith because of …insert any reason involving your full intellect and will. *

Then, you cannnot be saved if the above is your paradigm.

Maybe you are misunderstanding me. I don’t know if I am exactly like this student. I don’t think saying amen! to simply knowing the CC teaches Catholicism is the One True faith is enough without actually believing it. I think if someone knows the teaching but doesn’t believe it, then they don’t really know in their heart the CC is the One True faith. That’s why I asked if knowing requires believing. IOW if a person must believe in order to truly know? But if I understand you correctly, we may not be too far off the same pg.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe you are misunderstanding me. I don’t know if I am exactly like this student. I don’t think saying amen! to simply knowing the CC teaches Catholicism is the One True faith is enough without actually believing it. I think if someone knows the teaching but doesn’t believe it, then they don’t really know in their heart the CC is the One True faith. That’s why I asked if knowing requires believing. IOW if a person must believe in order to truly know? But if I understand you correctly, we may not be too far off the same pg.

Yes, a person must believe in order to actually know.

 

[Christian_Soul]

I’ll be honest, I would love to be a full-fledged Catholic, but this speculation on the fate of the non-Christian is one of the things that stops me. Keep in mind I say non-Christian, not non-Catholic. To me a Christian is a person who agrees with the early Creeds and believes they receive Christ in some form at the Eucharist.

I personally accept that the Holy Scriptures have taught me that those who do not accept Christ as Savior are not saved. That is the case whether it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside or not. That being said, I cannot speak in any certainty or specificity what happens to the unsaved. That’s not my call. What I know is what God has told me. God has told me that acceptance of Christ is a neccessity to salvation and I assume that since that is all He has told me, that is all I am to know and believe. My job in my spiritual life, as laid out by God in His Word, is to live as a follower of Christ and win souls to Him. It is not to spectulate on God’s judgement outside of that revelation. If God had other plans concerning salvation, He did not reveal them to us, which means we should accept what has been given, rather than guess that what, if anything, has not been.

For the Church to make definitive statements regarding the salvific, eternal fate of those outside the flock is attempting to dictate the mind of God concerning an issue that, were we supposed to been privy to it, we would have been already. The Church can speak for itself, obviously taking into consideration God’s revelation, but it cannot speak as God.

Were the Church to make an Scriptually-informed statement regarding this issue, it would be that as far as we know, no, there is no salvation outside explicit acceptance of Christ. There is a possibility that there may be some other device of salvation, but if there is, it hasn’t been revealed to us, and under no circumstances should we assume that one is in place if God has been silent on it. God has told us what He wishes for us to know and what He wishes us to do with that knowledge. That’s all that matters.

Now, were you to ask me personally, I think the Church’s more compromising attitude concerning salvation in recent decades, or its proclamations on the same couched in such language as to seem compromising or “inclusive”, is mostly due to societal pressures. Nowadays we’re not comfortable with any life view that doesn’t proclaim that anything goes, or that there is such a thing as real, definitive truth. Unfortunately, like many other organizations, the Church has, at least at times, given into relativism or pretended to do so under those same pressures. Until it swings back to admitting belief in Christ as the only known means of salvation and forget the rest, I’ll have to stay outside of it, as it seems to be promoting a heretical doctrine.

If the Church says Christ died for all… But some through no fault of their own might not know Him before they die. And of those who do, no one but the Lord knows where their heart is at their moment of death. So as PRmerger and concretecamper said, they leave it to the Lord. But whoever is saved the CC says it is thru Christ and His Church. If these are the things the CC is saying, how is that heretical? I would think Christ is capable of saving someone who was never taught about Him thru no fault of their own or anyone whose heart in the end warrants salvation. So I must agree with PRmerger and concretecamper, it is best left to the Lord.