no salvation outside the church?

[Gorgias]

Baptism being necessary for salvation applies to everyone.

No… re-read the Catechism: “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” (Emphasis mine.)

For those who have not been sacramentally baptised they can gain the fruits of a baptism through baptism of desire and blood.

Agreed, but CCC 1260 makes the claim that even baptism of desire or baptism of blood is not necessary. God is not constrained by his sacraments.

 

[steve_b]

Actually, the language that is used here isn’t ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ – it’s “in full communion with”, which other Christian ecclesial communities are not.

LG doesn’t lose sight of the following realities

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

“ecclesial communities” = protestantism .
protestantism regardless of stripe = one of [The Great Heresies (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies) + schism

Are protestants regardless of stripe,

• invited to receive communion in the Catholic Church? No.
• Can they remain protestant and receive the sacrament’s of baptism, reconciliation, or confirmation? No.

As with all heresies, and schismatics, they don’t profess the same faith. And with all schismatics, they refuse submission to the Chair of Peter, and communion with the Church in union with him.

Irenaeus tells a story about John the apostle. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of St John.

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 4 (Against Heresies) any/all emphasis mine,

“There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself…[snip]” [Titus 3:10 (Douay-Rheims Bible, Titus Chapter 3)

Fast forward to the 16th century, I could see John, or Polycarp or Irenaeus, etc, responding the same way to Luther, or Calvin, or Smyth, et al, of the protestant heretics.
G:

Inasmuch as Lumen Gentium speaks to the ways that they are related to the Church, I think it would be more fair to say “inside, per se, but not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

Lumen Gentium doesn’t say they are “in” the Church. If they were “inside” the Church they would hold the same faith. They could then receive the sacraments. But they can’t. Because they don’t profess the same faith.

 

[thistle]

No… re-read the Catechism: “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.” (Emphasis mine.)

Agreed, but CCC 1260 makes the claim that even baptism of desire or baptism of blood is not necessary. God is not constrained by his sacraments.

CCC 1260 does NOT claim that baptism of desire or blood is not necessary. You simply made that up. Show me in 1260 where it states “baptism of desire or baptism of blood is not necessary”.
That is only your private interpretation which is the exact opposite to what it states.

 

[Abu]

“Extra Ecclesiam, Nulla Salus” …it is necessary to clarify the meaning of an old theological principle whose interpretation has caused difficulty in the past: Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus (literally, “outside the Church, there is no salvation”). Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

This is not to say that the maxim is false. Properly understood, it is quite true. The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

Re-emphasizing Blessed John Paul II’s reiteration in *Threshold of Hope *(Random House, 1994, p 140-1):
“Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation (Cf. p 101-117), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’”

The teaching MEANS that WITHOUT the Church there is no salvation – ALL salvation comes through Christ’s Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Are protestants regardless of stripe,
invited to receive communion in the Catholic Church? No.

That’s what “not in full communion” means…

Can they remain protestant and receive the sacrament’s of baptism, reconciliation, or confirmation? No.

Umm… you realize that Protestants are Christians, don’t you, and for the most part, they have received a valid baptism within their ecclesial communities? You know this, right?

Lumen Gentium doesn’t say they are “in” the Church.

From LG #15: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

… They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. … Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power."

So, the Church is linked to non-Catholic Christians, who are united with Christ and joined with us in the Holy Spirit who is operative among them. Yeah, you’re right… that doesn’t sound at all like they’re ‘in’ the Church.

If they were “inside” the Church they would hold the same faith. They could then receive the sacraments. But they can’t. Because they don’t profess the same faith.

We’re just quibbling, now, over minutiae about what ‘in’ and ‘out’ means…

 

[Gorgias]

CCC 1260 does NOT claim that baptism of desire or blood is not necessary. You simply made that up. Show me in 1260 where it states “baptism of desire or baptism of blood is not necessary”.
That is only your private interpretation which is the exact opposite to what it states.

LOL! No, I am not simply making stuff up, nor am I in opposition to what the catechism states. Rather, I am simply reading it critically, and understanding the implications…

Let’s go slowly, then:

One issue here might be with the notion of a ‘baptism of desire.’ The catechism alludes to this notion:

• “the desire for Baptism brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” (1258)
• “For catechumens who die before Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it… assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.” (1259)

In other words, the notion of a ‘baptism of desire’ implies two things: first, a conscious desire on the part of the unbaptized catechumen, and second, the inability to experience baptism due to an untimely death.

Now, let’s look at those to whom CCC 1260 is addressed: “Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church.” Clearly, such a person can not be said to be consciously desirous of baptism; moreover, there’s no indication here that such people are asserted to be dead. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the persons to whom this paragraph refers are those to whom the notion of ‘baptism of desire’ applies. In fact, 1260 continues, “*t may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Now, if I said that “I would have had a cup of tea this morning”, then I’m clearly implying that I did not have a cup of tea. So, these persons, who “would have desired Baptism,” therefore, did not desire Baptism. What’s our conclusion, then? These people neither were baptized nor participated in a ‘baptism of desire.’

If it’s the case that baptism is necessary for all, then we must conclude that these people, to whom CCC 1260 is directed, must be damned. That’s not what 1260 says, though! It explicitly says that these “can be saved.” Therefore, we’re addressing a group of people who are not baptized, not desirous of baptism, and do not participate in either a ‘baptism of desire’ or a ‘baptism of blood’… but nevertheless are saved. And, therefore, it is not true that all must be baptized. (Rather, according to CCC 1257, baptism is necessary “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.”)

Is baptism (per se, or ‘of desire’, or ‘by blood’) necessary? For many, yes. CCC 1260 doesn’t explicitly say “baptism is not necessary,” per se, but it certainly describes a situation in which baptism is unnecessary for salvation. Therefore, we can say that, without some qualification (which, as it were, CCC 1257 provides), the necessity of baptism is not absolute (which is what, I believe, you’re asserting).

QED. *

 

[rightofcenter77]

If it’s the case that baptism is necessary for all, then we must conclude that these people, to whom CCC 1260 is directed, must be damned. That’s not what 1260 says, though! It explicitly says that these “can be saved.” Therefore, we’re addressing a group of people who are not baptized, not desirous of baptism, and do not participate in either a ‘baptism of desire’ or a ‘baptism of blood’… but nevertheless **are **saved. And, therefore, it is not true that all must be baptized. (Rather, according to CCC 1257, baptism is necessary “for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.”)

Is baptism (per se, or ‘of desire’, or ‘by blood’) necessary? For many, yes. CCC 1260 doesn’t explicitly say “baptism is not necessary,” per se, but it certainly describes a situation in which baptism is unnecessary for salvation. Therefore, we can say that, without some qualification (which, as it were, CCC 1257 provides), the necessity of baptism is not absolute (which is what, I believe, you’re asserting).

QED.

Again - “can be saved” does not mean “will be saved” as you are strongly suggesting here. You said “Therefore, we’re addressing a group of people who are not baptized, not desirous of baptism, and do not participate in either a ‘baptism of desire’ or a ‘baptism of blood’… but nevertheless are saved.”

So from this logic addressing the unbaptised, and applied to Protestants elsewhere in this thread:

Catholics - Saved unless in mortal sin

Protestants - Baptized but not in full communion - probably saved b/c invincibly ignorant and unaware of the true Church

non-Christians - probably saved b/c invincibly ignorant

So under this reasoning, the only ones not saved are bad Catholics. And I’m sure there is someone on this forum who will claim invincible ignorance applies here too. THIS is bad theology and de facto universal salvation without using the words.

Let’s define “invincible.” From Webster: “impossible to defeat or overcome.” That’s a pretty high standard. Would this, therefore apply to most Protestants? Unless you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to convert them, then no. What about non-Christians? Impossible? I think not, but this would arguable apply if we don’t try.

Of course, only God knows whether someone was TRULY “invincible” or not. But I would assume that most people DO NOT get to Heaven, especially without the sacraments. To think otherwise greatly reduces the significance of the one true Church and its sacraments.

So, again, we MUST convert everyone to the truth of Catholicism. To read “can” and “may” as “will” is ridiculous and leads to the fallacy of universal salvation, while greatly undermining the Church’s call to evangelize.

Sean

 

[Gorgias]

Again - “can be saved” does not mean “will be saved” as you are strongly suggesting here.

Absolutely not: I’m not making any assertion of the precise number who are saved in this way. However, if the assertion is that “all must be baptized in order to be saved,” all I have to demonstrate is that there is at least one who is saved and unbaptized in order to disprove the statement. I would assert that CCC 1260 makes the case that there is at least one person who is unbaptized and yet saved. Therefore, my case holds.

Catholics - Saved unless in mortal sin

Protestants - Baptized but not in full communion - probably saved b/c invincibly ignorant and unaware of the true Church

non-Christians - probably saved b/c invincibly ignorant

This is a reasonable summary, although I’m not making any assertions about ‘probable’ salvation – these are purely your assertions, and I’m not going to take a stand for or against your assertions on this matter.

So under this reasoning, the only ones not saved are bad Catholics.

Huh? You’ve gone from good logic to bad. Certainly, Catholics in a state of mortal sin are in grave danger. Where in the world do you get that they are the only ones in danger? That’s an unwarranted leap of logic! Certainly, there are those in each of the categories you mention above who are in danger!

Let’s define “invincible.” From Webster: “impossible to defeat or overcome.”

One word of advice: it’s usually a bad approach to try and understand a theological term that the Church uses by relying on the (secular) dictionary’s definition of the term or some part of it. Just sayin’…

But I would assume that most people DO NOT get to Heaven, especially without the sacraments.

That’s quite an assumption, and presumes a particular interpretative stance on Scripture.

So, again, we MUST convert everyone to the truth of Catholicism. To read “can” and “may” as “will” is ridiculous

To look at my posts and read them as if I purport ‘can’ and ‘may’ as ‘will’ is likewise ridiculous…

 

[rightofcenter77]

Absolutely not: I’m not making any assertion of the precise number who are saved in this way. However, if the assertion is that “all must be baptized in order to be saved,” all I have to demonstrate is that there is at least one who is saved and unbaptized in order to disprove the statement. I would assert that CCC 1260 makes the case that there is at least one person who is unbaptized and yet saved. Therefore, my case holds.

Ok, my fault. When you said “Therefore, we’re addressing a group of people who are not baptized, not desirous of baptism, and do not participate in either a ‘baptism of desire’ or a ‘baptism of blood’… but nevertheless are saved,” I mistakenly read that as assuming all such people are saved.

This is a reasonable summary, although I’m not making any assertions about ‘probable’ salvation – these are purely your assertions, and I’m not going to take a stand for or against your assertions on this matter.

Again, this is NOT my point of view. Just a summary of what some people seem to be asserting around here. I think it’s extremely dangerous to assume Protestants are non-believers are saved by some sort of ignorance. In most cases, their ignorance is definitely NOT “invincible.”

Huh? You’ve gone from good logic to bad. Certainly, Catholics in a state of mortal sin are in grave danger. Where in the world do you get that they are the only ones in danger? That’s an unwarranted leap of logic! Certainly, there are those in each of the categories you mention above who are in danger!

I agree. My point was that “ignorance” whether “invincible” or not, is not a free pass.

One word of advice: it’s usually a bad approach to try and understand a theological term that the Church uses by relying on the (secular) dictionary’s definition of the term or some part of it. Just sayin’…

Perhaps, But “invincible” is a pretty clear word.

That’s quite an assumption, and presumes a particular interpretative stance on Scripture.

Better to assume this than to assume I and everyone else is saved.

God Bless,

Sean

 

[Abu]

rightofcenter77 #47
But I would assume that most people DO NOT get to Heaven, especially without the sacraments.
#49
Better to assume this than to assume I and everyone else is saved.
#20
Being a faithful Catholic, in a state of Grace is absolutely necessary to be saved.

The comparison of these didactic statements shows the confusion so prevalent here.

No one here is “assuming” that “everyone else is saved” – that is a pure figment of the imagination. In fact we need to “assume” nothing and need to listen to Christ and His Church.

Christ taught us: “Many are called but few are chosen.” [Mt 22:14]. But it is certainly NOT “absolutely necessary” to be “a faithful Catholic” to be saved – we now know what the Church actually teaches. As Bl John Paul II has taught, there is no licit dissent, and pursuing an erroneous assumption against the Church’s doctrine is just that.

 

[crochet_lady]

Gorgias # 46

The thief on the cross Couldn’t be baptized after he was told by Jesus Christ / that That very day that he would be with Him in Paradise / when they were Both on the crosses – the thief was acknowledging his personal belief that Jesus was the Christ – son of God.

Acts 4:10 - 12 "let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.
"This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has bescome the chief cornerstone.’
“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given amongs men by which we must be saved.”

John 14:6 “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but by Me.” Jesus Christ is saying that.

 

[steve_b]

That’s what “not in full communion” means…

When Orthodox can receive communion in the Catholic Church then it seems to me “not in full communion” is nuanced in a way, as to have more to it than meets the eye.
G:

Umm… you realize that Protestants are Christians, don’t you, and for the most part, they have received a valid baptism within their ecclesial communities? You know this, right?

So are gnostics, arians, pelagians, etc etc etc . One can’t be a heretic unless they are baptised.
G:

From LG #15: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.

Baptism is a start. It’s not a, be all to end all statement.
G:

… They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. … Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power."

True. Baptism when it is administered, restores original justice and sanctifying grace lost by original sin. That is done once in life. Post baptism however, mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, and separates one from God, Catholic and protestant alike. Catholics can have that restored again in the sacrament of reconciliation, just as Jesus established. What do Protestants do?
G:

So, the Church is linked to non-Catholic Christians, who are united with Christ and joined with us in the Holy Spirit who is operative among them. Yeah, you’re right… that doesn’t sound at all like they’re ‘in’ the Church.

To be “in” the Church one can’t be separated from the Church. To be separated in the context being used, is to be outside.

examples,

a Catholic is married in a protestant assembly. Are they considered married in the Church or outside the Church? Outside, right?

One then has to ask, If protestants are “inside” the Church based on being baptised, then what’s the big deal where a Catholic is married? Or where a Catholic worships? One could say hey we’re all baptised … right? Obviously that thinking is wrong.

Fact: Protestants are among The Great Heresies NONE have valid orders, so no valid priesthood. No valid Eucharist, No valid reconcilliation, No sacrament of confirmation, No valid sacrament of the sick, etc.

I repeat, If they are “in” the Church they could not only receive all the sacraments the Church offers they could give them as well. Can they do that? No.

the CCC says 846

taking an exerpt from #846, (all emphasis mine)

“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.”

Note: Not faith alone, and not baptism alone. If one has baptism but has a different faith from the Church, they aren’t “in” the Church.

Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , Division διχοστασίας dichostasia = dissension / sedition same word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19…

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. Which means it ultimately came from Jesus John 16:12-15
G:

We’re just quibbling, now, over minutiae about what ‘in’ and ‘out’ means…

It ain’t minutia.

Think of this in reverse.
Can a Catholic become protestant of whatever stripe, without it effecting their soul? That’s really the question. The Church condemns that. Why, if baptism is the only litmus?

Jesus wowed the 5000 in the preaching and feeding them with only a few loaves & fish. So they follow him, and the next day He gives them the bread of life discourse. Jesus gave them the rest of the story, and what did they do? They left Him. Saying this is too difficult to hear. Jesus let them go. He turns to His apostles and those who stayed, asking them “are you going to leave me too”?

The answer to this is, by leaving the Catholic Church, one would be leaving Jesus, body blood soul and divinity, and all the sacraments He suffered and died for to give us.

That’s not being “in” the Church.

 

[steve_b]

As we have seen (post #6) that is a corruption of the doctrine of Christ’s Church which teaches through the Magisterium in Vatican II, reaffirming in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) #16: “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.”

Footnote1:
Bl John XXIII, Address of 11 October 1962: “…The Council…wishes to transmit Catholic doctrine, whole and entire, without alteration or deviation…To be sure, at the present time, it is necessary that Christian doctrine in its entirety, and with nothing taken away from it, is accepted with renewed enthusiasm, and serene and tranquil adherence… it is necessary that the very same doctrine be understood more widely and more profoundly as all those who sincerely adhere to the Christian, Catholic and Apostolic faith strongly desire …it is necessary that this certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which is owed the obedience of faith, be explored and expounded in the manner required by our times. For the deposit of faith itself, or the truths which are contained in our venerable doctrine, are one thing; another thing is the way in which they are expressed, with however the same meaning and signification”: AAS 54 [1962] 791-792
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Matthew 16:18 says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Pope Pius IX, St. Pope Pius X, Pope Pius XII, Paul VI, Bl John Paul II, etc. all have taught that those who are invincibly ignorant, have the possibility of achieving salvation. None of the Popes mentioned downplayed the importance of people joining the Catholic Church. Here one has access to the salvific sacraments. They have left room for the possibility of salvation for those who though not directly joining the Catholic Church, still could be linked to the Church, if they truly desire, and respond to whatever grace God has given them. This the Church teaches is possible through Baptism of desire and by following the natural moral law written in their hearts – those people are linked to His Church and thus to Him.

Speaking generally about ignorance,

as the CCC puts it

1791 ignorance isn’t always innocent
1859 feigned ignorance is not an excuse

Because information today on any subject, in most parts of the world, is so easily and readily available, it makes innocent ignorance tougher to use as an excuse on matters we need to know about.

As with all things, God will judge perfectly,

 

[crochet_lady]

steve b #52

You referenced the John account of the feeding of the 5,000 in chapter 6 and then Jesus Christ’s discourse about His being the Bread of Life. vs 40 "And this is the will of Him who sent Me., that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day. vs 45 "It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught by God ""Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. vs 47 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
Then in vs 66 "from that time on many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. vs 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, Do you also want to go away? But Simon Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. vs 69 “Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

I was just trying to relocate your comment and can’t – it was located in one of your really Long posts. But I’m thinking you were associating the disciples that had left except for the 12 disciples who remained as having left the Church. Some of those who’d been following Jesus during His ministering amongst the people – left Him because they were having a hard time understanding some of His comments. Peter had commented to Jesus that where else would the 12 Go? Who Else would they follow, because they believed that He was the Son of God. That even thought they Didn’t understand some of what they heard, that He was the One TO follow.
Jesus Christ Was and Still IS the One to follow. All through the time Since Jesus Ascended back to His Father in heaven, He still Is the One to follow to get To His Father. Jesus told His followers that while He was here on Earth - He could only be one place at a time ministering. But once He returned To heaven / His Father, the Holy Spirit Would come to indwell Every believer.
There were those who were chosen to give the Gospel of Jesus Christ to various groups – some gave the Jews the Gospel – some gave the Gentiles the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the ‘key’ to getting Into heaven or ending up in hell.

 

[Gorgias]

When Orthodox can receive communion in the Catholic Church then it seems to me “not in full communion” is nuanced in a way, as to have more to it than meets the eye.

Sorry… I’m not quite getting what you’re implying. Orthodox can receive communion in the Catholic Church, so… what are you saying?

Catholics can have that restored again in the sacrament of reconciliation, just as Jesus established. What do Protestants do?

Rely on God’s mercy.

To be “in” the Church one can’t be separated from the Church. To be separated in the context being used, is to be outside.

examples,

a Catholic is married in a protestant assembly. Are they considered married in the Church or outside the Church? Outside, right?

Presuming that the Catholic received the necessary permission, their marriage is valid in the Church. It’s not a marriage that’s ‘outside’ the Church.

One then has to ask, If protestants are “inside” the Church based on being baptised, then what’s the big deal where a Catholic is married? Or where a Catholic worships? One could say hey we’re all baptised … right? Obviously that thinking is wrong.

Obviously. Yet, your premises are flawed, and that’s why you’re seeing a problem here.

The big deal about where a Catholic is married is based on the fact that Catholic marriage requires consent, a lack of impediments, and proper form. (Non-Catholic Christians require the first two, but not the third.) Therefore, it is a big deal, for Catholics.

The big deal about where a Catholic worships is that a Catholic is presumed to know the necessity of the sacraments.

So, no, we couldn’t just say, “hey we’re all baptized”; to do so would be to judge Catholics by the standards appropriate to non-Catholic Christians. That’s the error in your assertion, and that’s why it appears ‘wrong’.

I repeat, If they are “in” the Church they could not only receive all the sacraments the Church offers they could give them as well. Can they do that? No.

That’s your definition of ‘inside’. I would assert that the CCC’s notion of the linkage between Catholics and other Christians makes a distinction that’s more subtle that what you’re asserting.

taking an exerpt from #846, (all emphasis mine)

“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.”

Note: Not faith alone, and not baptism alone. If one has baptism but has a different faith from the Church, they aren’t “in” the Church.

Your quote doesn’t help you in the way that you think it does. This excerpt explains the notion of “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It is explaining that what it doesn’t mean is “there is no salvation for someone who is outside the Church.” Rather, it means that the Church is absolutely necessary – without the Catholic Church, there is no salvation for anyone. The Church is what is being affirmed as necessary here. Therefore, if a person knows that the Catholic Church is what is necessary, but in spite of that knowledge, refuses to enter or stay in it, he cannot be saved.

What this passage is not asserting is anything about a particular person’s condition, vis-a-vis salvation, based on their personal position “in” or “out” of the Catholic Church. If this is what you’re asserting (and it appears that it is), then you’re grievously misunderstanding this paragraph of the catechism. Sorry…

Think of this in reverse.
Can a Catholic become protestant of whatever stripe, without it effecting their soul? That’s really the question. The Church condemns that. Why, if baptism is the only litmus?

Poor foundation. There’s a big difference between the movement Christian–>Catholic and the movement Catholic–>Christian, since the latter implies a movement from the knowledge of the fullness of the faith to a community in which that fullness is lacking. That’s the reason that the Church ‘condemns’ this. Further, I’m not claiming that “baptism is the only litmus”; I’m claiming that baptism is sufficient to create a relationship between a Christian and the Catholic Church.

The answer to this is, by leaving the Catholic Church, one would be leaving Jesus, body blood soul and divinity, and all the sacraments He suffered and died for to give us.

Yet, that’s not what Protestants today are doing. They’re not “leaving the Catholic Church” by their presence in their ecclesial communities. Now, back in the time of the Reformation, that’s exactly what they were doing… but not so, these days. Therefore, you cannot use this line of reasoning, since it doesn’t fit the facts.

That’s not being “in” the Church.

Again, that’s your definition, not the Church’s …

 

[steve_b]

steve b #52

chapter 6 and then Jesus Christ’s discourse about His being the Bread of Life.

[snip for space]

I’m thinking you were associating the disciples that had left except for the 12 disciples who remained as having left the Church. Some of those who’d been following Jesus during His ministering amongst the people – left Him because they were having a hard time understanding some of His comments. Peter had commented to Jesus that where else would the 12 Go? Who Else would they follow, because they believed that He was the Son of God. That even thought they Didn’t understand some of what they heard, that He was the One TO follow.
Jesus Christ Was and Still IS the One to follow. All through the time Since Jesus Ascended back to His Father in heaven, He still Is the One to follow to get To His Father. Jesus told His followers that while He was here on Earth - He could only be one place at a time ministering. But once He returned To heaven / His Father, the Holy Spirit Would come to indwell Every believer.
There were those who were chosen to give the Gospel of Jesus Christ to various groups – some gave the Jews the Gospel – some gave the Gentiles the Gospel. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the ‘key’ to getting Into heaven or ending up in hell.

The 5000 followed Jesus from the previous day. Then Jesus gave them the rest of the story the theology of the Eucharist, and they couldn’t accept it. And they left Him.

Jn 6:
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”d] 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” 59 This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper′na-um. 60 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?e] 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. 67 Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

 

[steve_b]

Sorry… I’m not quite getting what you’re implying. Orthodox can receive communion in the Catholic Church, so… what are you saying?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11561134&postcount=52 I thought I was clear.
G:

Presuming that the Catholic received the necessary permission, their marriage is valid in the Church. It’s not a marriage that’s ‘outside’ the Church.

iow without that, it’s outside the Church
G:

The big deal about where a Catholic is married is based on the fact that Catholic marriage requires consent, a lack of impediments, and proper form. (Non-Catholic Christians require the first two, but not the third.) Therefore, it is a big deal, for Catholics.
The big deal about where a Catholic worships is that a Catholic is presumed to know the necessity of the sacraments.
So, no, we couldn’t just say, “hey we’re all baptized”; to do so would be to judge Catholics by the standards appropriate to non-Catholic Christians. That’s the error in your assertion, and that’s why it appears ‘wrong’.

your error is to say Protestants are in the Church.
G:

That’s your definition of ‘inside’. I would assert that the CCC’s notion of the linkage between Catholics and other Christians makes a distinction that’s more subtle that what you’re asserting.

It’s not subtle. It’s direct

Let me ask, why does the Church receive a Protestant “into” the Church on Easter if they are already “in” / “inside” the Church?
G:

Your quote doesn’t help you in the way that you think it does. This excerpt explains the notion of “outside the Church there is no salvation.” It is explaining that what it doesn’t mean is “there is no salvation for someone who is outside the Church.” Rather, it means that the Church is absolutely necessary – without the Catholic Church, there is no salvation for anyone. The Church is what is being affirmed as necessary here. Therefore, if a person knows that the Catholic Church is what is necessary, but in spite of that knowledge, refuses to enter or stay in it, he cannot be saved.
What this passage is not asserting is anything about a particular person’s condition, vis-a-vis salvation, based on their personal position “in” or “out” of the Catholic Church. If this is what you’re asserting (and it appears that it is), then you’re grievously misunderstanding this paragraph of the catechism. Sorry…

846 is clear, (emphasis mine)

“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.”
G:

Poor foundation. There’s a big difference between the movement Christian–>Catholic and the movement Catholic–>Christian, since the latter implies a movement from the knowledge of the fullness of the faith to a community in which that fullness is lacking. That’s the reason that the Church ‘condemns’ this

What you mean to say, Catholic à Protestant = death direction for the Catholic
G:

. Further, I’m not claiming that “baptism is the only litmus”; I’m claiming that baptism is sufficient to create a relationship between a Christian and the Catholic Church.
Yet, that’s not what Protestants today are doing. They’re not “leaving the Catholic Church” by their presence in their ecclesial communities. Now, back in the time of the Reformation, that’s exactly what they were doing… but not so, these days. Therefore, you cannot use this line of reasoning, since it doesn’t fit the facts.

when a Protestant is made aware of their situation, at the point they know, they have to make a decision to become Catholic. If they remain protestant they are guilty of what their predecessors were guilty of.

again, (emphasis mine)
“However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”
catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church

catch that? Heresy **or **schism.
G:

Again, that’s your definition, not the Church’s …

I’ve quoted the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11561134&postcount=52 I thought I was clear.

No, that’s why I asked. Repeating yourself doesn’t help me to understand, but hey…

Let me ask, why does the Church receive a Protestant “into” the Church on Easter if they are already “in” / “inside” the Church?

Because you’re not using the terminology that the Church uses, but rather, are just going by the casual shorthand that folks use. At Easter, if a Protestant person is confirmed, then we say that they’re being accepted “into full communion with the Church” (not coming “into” the Church).

From the USCCB website: “What is meant when people refer to men and women coming into ‘full communion with the Church’?
Coming into full communion with the Catholic Church describes the process for entrance into the Catholic Church for men and women who are baptized Christians but not Roman Catholics. These individuals make a profession of faith but are not baptized again. To prepare for this reception, the people, who are called “candidates,” usually participate in a formation program to help them understand and experience the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Some preparation may be with catechumens preparing for baptism, but the preparation for candidates is different since they have already been baptized and committed to Jesus Christ, and many have also been active members of other Christian communities.”

“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.”

I don’t understand why you keep getting stuck on this: a Protestant doesn’t “know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God”! Moreover, this quote is from Lumen Gentium 14 – that paragraph describes salvation for Catholics. (Christians are dealt with in paragraph 15.)

What you mean to say, Catholic à Protestant = death direction for the Catholic

I mean exactly what LG 14 – the passage you just quoted, above! – is talking about: for a Catholic, if he knows that the Church is necessary, to leave the Church… then he “could not be saved.”

when a Protestant is made aware of their situation, at the point they know, they have to make a decision to become Catholic. If they remain protestant they are guilty of what their predecessors were guilty of.

I’m asserting the difference between knowing and being told. If you just walk up to a Protestant and tell them, “the Church is necessary for salvation,” you haven’t met the burden of LG 14. They need to know it and accept it, internally in their heart. Just providing them with a quote from a document isn’t sufficient.

again, (emphasis mine)
“However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.”
catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church

catch that? Heresy **or **schism.

Catch that? “knowingly and deliberately.”

I’ve quoted the Church.

With all due respect, you’ve misunderstood what you’ve quoted.

Blessings,

G.

 

[rightofcenter77]

Catch that? “knowingly and deliberately.”

So people such as Martin Luther during the Protestant movement - did they act against the Church “knowingly and deliberately”? One could argue that Luther really must not have “known” since no sane person would reject the one true Church. Perhaps he didn’t “know.” Or perhaps like many, he only picked the facts he wanted to follow and conveniently ignored the rest. This is not “innocent” at all. If someone is looking at the Catholic Church, and says “man - I just can’t give up birth control” and they therefore look no further, that’s not “innocent” at all. That is “knowingly and deliberately” rejecting the faith. Did that person 100% know the truth? No - because that person chose not to look any further.

God may be more merciful than I am (and perhaps I fall short in that regard), but your generous definition of “knowingly and deliberately” may cause scandal by not getting us into the streets and converting Protestants. Only in the Church can we be saved. Only with the Sacraments can we get the Grace to make it to Heaven. Outside of the Church, there are no guarantees, and I have a hard time seeing how those who don’t receive the sacraments can get the necessary Grace. Those not in perfect communion MIGHT be saved. Of course, with God, all things are possible.

Peace,

Sean

 

[steve_b]

No, that’s why I asked. Repeating yourself doesn’t help me to understand, but hey…

Both protestant and Orthodox for example are baptised. Why is only the Orthodox allowed to receive communion in the Catholic Church?
G:

Because you’re not using the terminology that the Church uses, but rather, are just going by the casual shorthand that folks use. At Easter, if a Protestant person is confirmed, then we say that they’re being accepted “into full communion with the Church” (not coming “into” the Church).

From the USCCB website: “What is meant when people refer to men and women coming into ‘full communion with the Church’?
Coming into full communion with the Catholic Church describes the process for entrance into the Catholic Church for men and women who are baptized Christians but not Roman Catholics. These individuals make a profession of faith but are not baptized again. To prepare for this reception, the people, who are called “candidates,” usually participate in a formation program to help them understand and experience the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church. Some preparation may be with catechumens preparing for baptism, but the preparation for candidates is different since they have already been baptized and committed to Jesus Christ, and many have also been active members of other Christian communities.”

Do you know why

• they are called Christian communities and not church or churches? Because they aren’t a Church. Do you know why?
• they are entering the Catholic Church? Because they aren’t “in” the Church to begin with.

Don’t get confused or sidetracked with “Roman”. The issue is entering the Catholic Church.

To assume any belief system (even Christian belief systems) outside the Catholic Church, is okay is either indifferentism or relativism whichever the case.
G:

I don’t understand why you keep getting stuck on this: a Protestant doesn’t “know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God”! Moreover, this quote is from Lumen Gentium 14 – that paragraph describes salvation for Catholics. (Christians are dealt with in paragraph 15.)

I don’t automatically assume protestants regardless of stripe are ignorant. I don’t automatically assume these folks have no idea where their protestant religion began. Unless told otherwise, I assume their teachers have told them very specifically where they came from. If they think they were in history prior to the 16th century then we have to talk
G:

I mean exactly what LG 14 – the passage you just quoted, above! – is talking about: for a Catholic, if he knows that the Church is necessary, to leave the Church… then he “could not be saved.”

Did LG make this up? No. It came from scripture.

Romans 16:17-20 , , Division διχοστασίας dichostasia = dissension / sedition same word in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19…

Division from the Catholic Church is condemned in scripture from the beginning. If one stays that way they don’t go to heaven. Paul is writing to the Church, which means he is writing to the baptised. And this isn’t Paul’s opinion it comes from the HS which means it came from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) . So Jesus is telling us in advance how He will judge division from His Church.
G:

I’m asserting the difference between knowing and being told. If you just walk up to a Protestant and tell them, “the Church is necessary for salvation,” you haven’t met the burden of LG 14. They need to know it and accept it, internally in their heart. Just providing them with a quote from a document isn’t sufficient.

And I’m asserting

[1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) ignorance isn’t always innocent
[1859 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1859) feigned ignorance is not ignorance re: mortal sin

Alot of emphasis is placed on baptism, except when certain relaities are expected from the baptised. Start talking this way then the indifferent and relativist Catholics get nervous. If baptism really does what it is supposed to do, then one can’t use excuses for being irresponsible. Jesus through baptism is drawing the baptised to truth. Therefore, to His Church the Catholic Church. The HS draws a person to our Lord’s Church, and not away from it because what the HS teaches He received fron Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16)… Jesus isn’t going to divide His Church. He isn’t going to guide a person to be a protestant.
G:

Catch that? “knowingly and deliberately.”

Grace is powerful. It draws one to Our Lord’s Church. Not away from Our Lord’s Church. One can’t pull a fast on on Jesus.
G:

With all due respect, you’ve misunderstood what you’ve quoted.

Blessings,

G.

With all due respect, I disagree