no salvation outside the church?

[Abu]

steve b #60
To assume any belief system (even Christian belief systems) outside the Catholic Church, is okay is either indifferentism or relativism whichever the case.

Real Catholics assume nothing. The Church teaches that Protestants are “indeed joined to us in some real way in the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium #15), and this confirms “no salvation without the Church” as a reality. Selfist assumptions help no one.

Without the Church There Is No Salvation
PHILIP C. L. GRAY
Issue: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
‘The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase, and means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church.’
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.htm

Membership in the Church (OSV Encyc. 1997)
cormacburke.or.ke/node/2417

Msgr Cormac P Burke was for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, and has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.
cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1

 

[Gorgias]

So people such as Martin Luther during the Protestant movement - did they act against the Church “knowingly and deliberately”?

Yes: those who left the Catholic Church to start their own are guilty of apostasy and heresy.

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.

The fact would remain that he was Catholic at one point, and then willingly left the Church. We cannot make the same assertion about non-Catholic Christians today, who are born into their communities.

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.

It depends on the situation – but please realize, you’re now constructing a particular example, with particular circumstances; in order to examine this situation, please realize that we’ve departed from the general discussion that the documents in question are addressing.

With that in mind, then, you’re suggesting one of two cases: either the person fully knows that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth and yet they refuse to enter it (because they don’t want to give up birth control) or they do not fully know that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth (perhaps, in part, because they see the Church’s position on birth control as evidence that the Church has gotten it wrong). In the former case, we’re asserting that their salvation is in jeopardy, since they know the truth; in the latter, we’re asserting that their salvation isn’t necessarily in jeopardy, presuming that they never reached the conclusion that truth is found in the Church.

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.

Not at all. If you are the kind of student who studies for your tests, then you have a known way to pass your tests; on the other hand, there are students who don’t study, yet hope to pass (by virtue solely of the mercy of God). Does the recognition that some non-studying students may pass convince you that you shouldn’t ‘preach the good news’ that studying leads to passing grades? Of course it doesn’t! Why would it? Same story here…

Only in the Church can we be saved.

This is the flawed understanding of ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ that we’ve been talking about. The Church is the only means of salvation; but this doesn’t mean that only those ‘in the Church’ may be saved. (Unless I’m misunderstanding what you mean… am I?)

Only with the Sacraments can we get the Grace to make it to Heaven.

No… Did the ‘good thief’ receive any sacraments? Did Moses or Elijah? Did they get 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.

Because these get into heaven by virtue of God’s mercy, not necessarily through the gift of grace, per se.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Because Orthodox have a valid priesthood and have already received First Communion; members of Protestant communities have not. Because Orthodox believe in the true presence; by and large, Protestants do not.

All you’re doing here is highlighting the ways in which there is not full communion between Protestants and the Church. We all know that we’re not in full communion; by pointing out these differences, you’re not proving your case, though…

Do you know why they are called Christian communities and not church or churches? Because they aren’t a Church. Do you know why?

Lack of a valid episcopate and lack of Eucharistic discipline, if I recall correctly from Dominus Iesus…

they are entering the Catholic Church? Because they aren’t “in” the Church to begin with.

The distinction being made here, in the context of RCIA, is between those who are not in the Church – who have not been baptized – and those who are coming into full communion.

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

Where did I ever say that “any belief system, even Christian belief systems, outside the Catholic Church is okay”…? You’re putting words into my mouth, here…

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.

And unless what they’re taught is “we came from the Catholic Church, who had the fullness of the truth, but our forebears decided to leave the truth for their own version of it”, then you don’t have a point here. Knowing how their communities began is not the same thing as knowing that they left the fullness of the truth, which is the standard that we’re addressing here…!

And I’m asserting

1791 ignorance isn’t always innocent

The context here (cf 1790) is “erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed”, not beliefs about Church teaching. Moreover, you’re failing to quote the part of the paragraph that qualifies this as applying to cases in which there is little attempt to find the truth or through habitual sin. I’d assert that this doesn’t hold in this case. Are you really saying that non-Catholic Christians “don’t attempt to find the truth”? Really?

1859 feigned ignorance is not ignorance re: mortal sin

Please don’t forget to quote this paragraph in full: it’s talking about mortal sin, which requires full knowledge. I’m asserting that Protestants do not have full knowledge.

Moreover, the paragraphs of LG and the catechism that we’re talking about place themselves in the context of those who do not know the Church is necessary for salvation; you cannot then quote 1859 – which requires full knowledge – against them, given that exactly the opposite assertion is true, in the citations we’re discussing!

With all due respect, I disagree

Fair enough. I’ll rely on the education I received in the process of earning an S.T.B. against your opinion any day, though…

Blessings,

G.

 

[steve_b]

All you’re doing here is highlighting the ways in which there is not full communion between Protestants and the Church. We all know that we’re not in full communion; by pointing out these differences, you’re not proving your case, though…

My point is Protestants aren’t “in” the Church.
G:

Lack of a valid episcopate and lack of Eucharistic discipline, if I recall correctly from Dominus Iesus…

Shows they are not “in” the Church
G:

Knowing how their communities began is not the same thing as knowing that they left the fullness of the truth, which is the standard that we’re addressing here…!

That’s exactly how protestants justify themselves. Breaking from the CC and protestants returned the Church to the truth.
G:

Are you really saying that non-Catholic Christians “don’t attempt to find the truth”? Really?

I didn’t say that

As Card Newman stated, to be deep in history is to cease being protestant. That’s just stating an historical fact. He knew that if one took some effort to look at the facts, then they would be able to see truth about where protestantism began. That’s why I quoted the following regarding ignorance

1791 ignorance isn’t always innocent
1859 feigned ignorance is not ignorance re: mortal sin
G:

Please don’t forget to quote this paragraph in full: it’s talking about mortal sin, which requires full knowledge. I’m asserting that Protestants do not have full knowledge.

As for protestants not having “full knowledge” I would ask, do you assume that with all protestants? What I said in my previous post,

"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:

Moreover, the paragraphs of LG and the catechism that we’re talking about place themselves in the context of those who do not know the Church is necessary for salvation; you cannot then quote 1859 – which requires full knowledge – against them, given that exactly the opposite assertion is true, in the citations we’re discussing!

not having “full knowledge” isn’t always the be all to end all escape clause. Nor is it always innocent either. 1791 , 1859

"Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned. The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847). Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God. 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

 

[steve_b]

Membership in the Church (OSV Encyc. 1997)
cormacburke.or.ke/node/2417

From that source

"Can membership be lost? The character of Baptism is never effaced from the soul; it remains there, even in a soul in Hell. But communion with the Church, external or internal, can be lost. While some Christians - Catholic or Protestant - lapse completely from their faith, there is an important difference to note. A Catholic’s faith enriches him more than does that of a Protestant, and enables him to discover more concrete and immediate expressions of the extent of God’s love and mercy: in his Real Presence, truly offering himself to us and for us in the Eucharist; in his voice - that of the Good Shepherd (cf. Jn 10:14) - really speaking to us with steadying guidance in the Church’s authority and magisterium (“whoever listens to you, listens to me”); in his merciful word being spoken to us and healing power touching us in the sacrament of Confession. If a Catholic lapses, therefore, he ignores, neglects or rejects much more than the lapsed Protestant. If grace touches him to become aware of the extent of his loss, this can spark off a strong desire to return, to make up, and to recover so many wasted opportunities.

29. Schism

Sun, 09/01/2013 - 09:54 — webmasterSchism (OSV Encyc. 1997)
Under the title of “who belongs to the Catholic Church?”, the new Catechism notes that fullness of Catholic communion depends on maintaining “the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion” (no. 836).
Catholic communion is ruptured and one separates oneself from full life-giving participation in the Church, not only by heresy but also by schism. While heresy involves the formal denial of a point of doctrine taught by the Church’s Magisterium as revealed truth, schism as such does not relate to doctrine but simply implies a refusal to accept the central or supreme governing authority of the Church; not preserving “unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (CCC 838; cf 2089).
Schism can be express or implicit. Certain attitudes toward church government involve what might be termed incipient schism, insofar as (while often formally proclaiming a loyal acceptance of doctrine) they substantially involve a rejection of church discipline.
Those who follow schismatic trends thus separate themselves more and more from the full union with Christ which he himself made conditional on being united with his Church. His words, “whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me” (Lk 10:16), apply to government and discipline as well as to doctrine. They indicate the condition for remaining in life-giving communion not only with Christ’s Truth but also with his Will, on which our salvation and sanctification likewise depend.

Note: “who belongs to the Catholic Church?” = depends on maintaining “the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion”

iow, if one does NOT maintain

• “the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion”

they do NOT belong to the Catholic Church. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

 

[Abu]

steve b #65
if one does NOT maintain
“the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion”
they do NOT belong to the Catholic Church. Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

“belong to” = Be rightly classified in a class or category/ Be a member, adherent, inhabitant, etc. (of a group, organization)

So what is always missing in steve b’s presumptions is precisely what Bl John Paul II emphasises – the relationship to the Church OUTSIDE OF formal membership and which includes “OTHER FORMS OF RELATION” as “CIRCLES OF THE DIALOGUE OF SALVATION” and “indicated by the Council AS THE SPHERES OF MEMBERSHIP IN AND OF RELATION TO THE CHURCH.”

As Blessed John Paul II explains 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 Church teaches that Protestants are “indeed joined to us in some real way in the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium #15), and this confirms “no salvation without the Church” as a reality. Selfist assumptions help no one.

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

Real Catholics assent to the teaching of the Church not to assumptions or presumptions.

 

[Gorgias]

My point is Protestants aren’t “in” the Church.

Shows they are not “in” the Church

I think it all comes down to this: the question is whether ‘belonging’ to the Church is strictly a digital condition – that is, whether the only two states are ‘in’ and ‘out’. The alternative, of course, is that there aren’t simply two states.

The question of how non-Catholic Christians fit in is a difficult case. After all, by virtue of what sacrament do Catholics enter into the Church? Baptism, of course! “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life. … Through Baptism …we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission” (CCC, 1213)

And, of course, (in general) non-Catholic Christians tend to be validly baptized. How, then, can we say that they are not ‘in’ the Church, given that through baptism they “are incorporated into the Church”, unless what we’re saying is that only Catholics are validly baptized, or that baptism is only efficacious for Catholics?

Now, don’t get me wrong – I"m not suggesting that non-Catholic Christians are ‘in’ the Church in the same way that Catholics are ‘in’ the Church; but, this distinction is one of ‘full communion’ and not one of ‘belonging’ to Christ and his Church.
steve b:

Gorgias:

Knowing how their communities began is not the same thing as knowing that they left the fullness of the truth, which is the standard that we’re addressing here…!

That’s exactly how protestants justify themselves. Breaking from the CC and protestants returned the Church to the truth.

Huh? Protestants justify themselves by saying that they don’t realize that they left the fullness of the Church? And, of course, you’re comparing apples and oranges: in addressing my assertion about the situation of contemporary Protestants, you return to consideration of those who originally separated themselves from the Church. Apples. Oranges.
steve b:

Gorgias:

Are you really saying that non-Catholic Christians “don’t attempt to find the truth”? Really?

I didn’t say that

Fair enough. You quoted CCC 1791, though; in the context of CCC 1790-91, there are only two causes which apply to the case you’re making. Therefore, you’re either saying that non-Catholic Christians don’t attempt to find the truth or that they’re in habitual sin; or, of course, you’re misquoting or misunderstanding 1791. You can’t have it both ways; it’s either one of these two, or it’s an invalid premise. Which is it, then?

As Card Newman stated, to be deep in history is to cease being protestant. That’s just stating an historical fact. He knew that if one took some effort to look at the facts, then they would be able to see truth about where protestantism began. That’s why I quoted the following regarding ignorance

In other words, then, you’re asserting that a Protestant either knows his history (and therefore, should convert) or doesn’t know his history (and therefore, isn’t invincibly ignorant). Either way, then, the determining factor in the determination of their salvation is a knowledge of history. Really? C’mon…

As for protestants not having “full knowledge” I would ask, do you assume that with all protestants?

Of course not. Yet, your statements are the ones that seem to be categorical; therefore, I’m only attempting to demonstrate that your statements don’t hold for all (and are therefore incorrect). I’m not making any assertions about all Protestants (nor do my assertions fail if they don’t hold for all). Yours are the only assertions that attempt to hold for ‘all’…

"Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

I’m really surprised that you’ve quoted this, since your comments have seemed to put you in the ‘radical traditionalists’ category, whom this article asserts are in error. Are you saying that you are not?

(And, just to repeat my answer to you from last post: I’m not asserting that “it makes no difference what church one belongs to”, only that salvation is possible for both Catholics and non-Catholics (which, again, is what the article you cited also asserts!)…

Notice, also, how the article you cited speaks of the people who you claim are stricly ‘out’ of the Church: they are not people who are ‘out’, but merely are those “who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).”

Blessings,

G.

 

[steve_b]

I think it all comes down to this: the question is whether ‘belonging’ to the Church is strictly a digital condition – that is, whether the only two states are ‘in’ and ‘out’. The alternative, of course, is that there aren’t simply two states.

The question of how non-Catholic Christians fit in is a difficult case. After all, by virtue of what sacrament do Catholics enter into the Church? Baptism, of course! “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life. … Through Baptism …we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission” (CCC, 1213)

And, of course, (in general) non-Catholic Christians tend to be validly baptized. How, then, can we say that they are not ‘in’ the Church, given that through baptism they “are incorporated into the Church”, unless what we’re saying is that only Catholics are validly baptized, or that baptism is only efficacious for Catholics?

Turn it around.

If they are “in” the Church, they can celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church. …right?

Can they do that? No

So why is that, given they are validly baptised?
G:

Now, don’t get me wrong – I"m not suggesting that non-Catholic Christians are 'in’ the Church in the same way that Catholics are ‘**in’ **the Church;

What value is “in” in that case?
G:

but, this distinction is one of ‘full communion’ and not one of ‘belonging’ to Christ and his Church.

Again…what the heck does that mean?
G:

Huh? Protestants justify themselves by saying that they don’t realize that they left the fullness of the Church?

I don’t discount for one minute, that when protestants teach protestants about protestant history and theology, they completely eliminate the Catholic Church in the story.

I have plenty of protestant friends. They know when / how they began. I know that because they’ve all tried to evangelize me. That’s when the fun begins
G:

And, of course, you’re comparing apples and oranges: in addressing my assertion about the situation of contemporary Protestants, you return to consideration of those who originally separated themselves from the Church. Apples. Oranges.

I know the distinction that the Church makes.

It doesn’t change the fact protestantism by definition, is a heresy ( The Great Heresies )500 years ago as it is today…true?

Augustine addresses this very issue you bring up. He takes a proactive role.

1. The Apostle Paul has said: 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. Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.(Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]) .Letter 43

The part I highlighted is a strong condition, and makes perfect sense.
G:

You quoted CCC 1791, though; in the context of CCC 1790-91, there are only two causes which apply to the case you’re making. Therefore, you’re either saying that non-Catholic Christians don’t attempt to find the truth

I don’t assume that
G:

or that they’re in habitual sin; or, of course, you’re misquoting or misunderstanding 1791.

Hey they might very well be up to their perverbial eyeballs in all kinds of sin. Again I don’t base my approach on that. As for misunderstanding 1791? I don’t think so
G:

You can’t have it both ways; it’s either one of these two, or it’s an invalid premise. Which is it, then?

How about I don’t buy your premises
G:

In other words, then, you’re asserting that a Protestant either knows his history (and therefore, should convert) or doesn’t know his history (and therefore, isn’t invincibly ignorant).

As I’ve said before, unless proven otherwise, I don’t assume a protestant doesn’t know their history. As for invincible ignorance, that’s an ignorance that can’t be overcome with effort. THAT’s not always an effort taken seriously. Thus the CCC says 1791
G:

Either way, then, the determining factor in the determination of their salvation is a knowledge of history. Really? C’mon…

I never said history alone.
G:

Of course not. Yet, your statements are the ones that seem to be categorical; therefore, I’m only attempting to demonstrate that your statements don’t hold for all (and are therefore incorrect). I’m not making any assertions about all Protestants (nor do my assertions fail if they don’t hold for all). Yours are the only assertions that attempt to hold for ‘all’…

I’ve given in the past all the necessary caveots. They don’t have to be restated every single post.
G:

I’m really surprised that you’ve quoted this, since your comments have seemed to put you in the ‘radical traditionalists’ category, whom this article asserts are in error. Are you saying that you are not?

I quoted it because it’s true.

(to be cont)

 

[steve_b]

(And, just to repeat my answer to you from last post: I’m not asserting that “it makes no difference what church one belongs to”, only that salvation is possible for both Catholics and non-Catholics (which, again, is what the article you cited also asserts!)…

Notice, also, how the article you cited speaks of the people who you claim are stricly ‘out’ of the Church: they are not people who are ‘out’, but merely are those “who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).”

Blessings,

G.

(cont)

As far as what I quoted

"Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned. The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God. 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

As an observation about that quote and others, I’ve found people react viscerally to the highlighted part or anything like it , as if it can’t possibly be true, or that no one would qualify for this anyway, so why even give it a thought or space in a post.

Here’s some quotes from the ECF’s that the CCC references

Ignatius of Antioch
"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism *, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the Passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3-4:1 [A.D. 110]) .Epistle to the Philadelphians

Justin Martyr
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9] . Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid” (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]) .First Apology

Irenaeus of Lyons
“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]) .Bk 3 Chapter 24

Irenaeus of Lyons
"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘Reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place " (ibid., 4:33:7-8) .Bk 4 Chapter 33

(to be cont)*

 

[steve_b]

Gorgias:
Cont

Clement of Alexandria
“Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews” (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]) aka.Stromata Book I

Origen
“[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God” (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]) .Bk BOOK IV

Cyprian of Carthage
“Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: `And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deuteronomy 17:12-13]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church” (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]) .Epistle 61

Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]he baptism of public witness [desire] and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72[73]:21 [A.D. 253]) .Epistle 72

Lactantius
“It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject” (Divine Institutes 4:30:11-13 [A.D. 307]) .Book IV

(cont)

 

[steve_b]

Gorgias:
(Cont)

Augustine
“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]) .On Faith and the Creed

Augustine
“At the time when the Lord showed, by the example of recent punishment, that there was need to guard against the sins of olden days, and an idol was made and worshipped, and the prophetic book was burned by the wrath of a scoffing king, and schism was attempted, the idolatry was punished with the sword (cf. Exodus 32), the burning of the book by slaughter in war and captivity in a foreign land (cf. Jeremiah 36), schism by the earth opening, and swallowing up alive the leaders of the schism while the rest were consumed with fire from heaven (cf. Numbers 16). Who will now doubt that that was the worse crime which received the heavier punishment? If men coming from such sacrilegious company, without baptism, as you maintain, could not defile Cyprian, how could those defile you who were not convicted but supposed betrayers of the sacred books? For if they had not only given up the books to be burned, but had actually burned them with their own hands, they would have been guilty of a less sin than if they had committed schism; for schism is visited with the heavier, the other with the lighter punishment, not at man’s discretion, but by the judgment of God… Wherefore, while shunning the lighter offenses… have ye committed the heaviest offense of all, the sacrilege of schism?” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 2, Ch. 6:9, 7:11)

Augustine
“Why have you severed yourselves, by the heinous impiety of schism, from the unity of the whole world? … Wherefore will you be guilty of dividing the garments of the Lord, and not hold in common with the whole world that coat of charity, woven from above throughout, which even His executioners did not rend? … If you hate those who do evil, shake yourselves free from the crime of schism… [W]herein has the Christian world offended you, from which you have insanely and wickedly cut yourselves off? … If the surrendering of the sacred books to destruction is a crime which, in the case of the king who burned the book of Jeremiah, God punished with death as a prisoner of war, how much greater is the guilt of schism!” (Letter 76, 1, 3, 4)

.
Augustine
“If any can have good grounds (which indeed none can have) for separating themselves from the communion of the whole world, and calling their communion the Church of Christ, because of their having withdrawn warrantably from the communion of all nations—how do you know that in the Christian society, which is spread so far and wide, there may not have been some in a very remote place, from which the fame of their righteousness could not reach you, who had already, before the date of your separation, separated themselves for some just cause from the communion of the whole world? How could the Church in that case be found in your sect, rather than in those who were separated before you?.. We, however, are certain that no one could ever have been warranted in separating himself from the communion of all nations, because every one of us looks for the marks of the Church not in his own righteousness, but in the Divine Scriptures, and beholds it actually in existence, according to the promises” (Letter 93, Ch. 8:25, 9:28).

Augustine
“[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]) .Book 4

(cont)

 

[steve_b]

Gorgias:
(cont)

Augustine
"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44-48] , while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13-19] " (ibid., 4:21[28]) .

Augustine
“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (ibid., 5:28[39]) .

Augustine
“The apostle Paul said, `As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10] . But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]) .Letter 43

Augustine
“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (ibid., 141:5) . (Letter 141, 5).

Fulgence of Ruspe
“Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church” (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524])

 

[Abu]

As the one and only Catholic Church teaches in Lumen Gentium #15 of Vatican II:
“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. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. 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. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
Notes:
14 Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26.
15 Cf. Jn. 16:13.
16 Cf. Eph. 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:4 Gal. 5:22.
17. Rev. 22:17”

As we have seen, the relationship to the Church outside of formal membership includes “other forms of relation” as “circles of the dialogue of salvation” and “indicated by the council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the church.” [Blessed John Paul II in *Threshold of Hope].

It really is quite remarkable the lengths to which some will go to discredit what the Church actually teaches in Her Ecumenical Councils, just to support whims, opinions, prejudices, feelings and desires, wishful thinking – not real thought, nor fidelity in this case.

 

[TRH1292]

Real Catholics assume nothing. The Church teaches that Protestants are “indeed joined to us in some real way in the Holy Spirit” (Lumen Gentium #15), and this confirms “no salvation without the Church” as a reality. Selfist assumptions help no one.

Without the Church There Is No Salvation
PHILIP C. L. GRAY
Issue: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
‘The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase, and means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church.’
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.htm

Membership in the Church (OSV Encyc. 1997)
cormacburke.or.ke/node/2417

Msgr Cormac P Burke was for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, and has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.
cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1

Hey Abu,

Thank you for providing that quote. In explaining this doctrine I have often said it could be expressed as “Without the Church there is no salvation”. But I had felt a little guilty for doing so. I feel better about saying it that way now, thanks.

 

[Gorgias]

Turn it around.

Five posts? In a row? Talk about a target-rich environment!

OK… like any good debater, let me first pick off the low-hanging fruit…

If they are “in” the Church, they can celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church. …right?

Nope; not even all Catholics “can celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church.” After all, Catholic women and Catholic married men cannot participate in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and Catholic priests and consecrated religious cannot participate in the sacrament of Matrimony. Those Catholics who are in a state of mortal sin cannot partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and those Catholics who are under the penalty of excommunication cannot participate in the sacraments. So, no, even those who are ‘in’ the Church cannot “celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church.”

What value is “in” in that case?

Again…what the heck does that mean?

It means exactly what it says – there is a relationship to the Church (they are sons of their Heavenly Father and brothers and sisters of Christ) – but they are not in full communion with the Church of Christ. ‘In’ and ‘out’ are too coarse of measures of expressing this relationship.
steve b:

Gorgias:

you’re comparing apples and oranges]

I know the distinction that the Church makes.

Oh! So you realize that you’re mischaracterising what the Church says about formal and material heresy? OK, then…
steve b:

I don’t assume that

Hey they might very well be up to their perverbial eyeballs in all kinds of sin. Again I don’t base my approach on that. As for misunderstanding 1791? I don’t think so

CCC 1790, which provides the context for CCC 1791, asserts only these two bases for its claims. If you claim that neither necessarily applies, then you’re either misunderstanding 1791, or consciously misquoting it.

How about I don’t buy your premises

Fair enough. That means that you’re consciously misquoting the Catechism. I can deal with that.

I never said history alone.

No, you never said it explicitly; yet, it’s the only rational conclusion that one can draw, when we attempt to take your claims seriously.

I’ve given in the past all the necessary caveots. They don’t have to be restated every single post.

Fair enough. In other words, you’re saying that your statements are not categorical? Ok, then: when you say “Protestants aren’t ‘in’ the Church”, and “I assume [Protestants’] teachers have told them specifically where they came from”, and “if they remain protestant they are guilty of what their predecessors are guilty of”… then you’re not speaking categorically? Yeah… nice try.

With respect to what the ECFs say, I would respond (in general) that they are addressing the situations of their day. These situations are not, in any way, the same as the situation that the Church finds itself in today – the situation in which the actions of the ‘Reformers’ have created a population of Christians who have neither defected from the Church personally nor have necessarily had the opportunity to engage honestly in the teachings of the Church, nor truly understand these teachings. To utilize the statements of the ECFs as if they address this situation, then, unfairly appropriates their thought.

 

[ThunderFox]

THe catholic church is promoting Ecumenism which is exteremly damning. We are called to warn others to pull them away from false religions, not enoucrge them to be in false religions

 

[Abu]

Hi TRH1292
Glad to help understanding.

God bless

 

[steve_b]

Five posts? In a row? Talk about a target-rich environment!

Just providing the ECF’s part of the reference in [846 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 846)
G:

OK… like any good debater, let me first pick off the low-hanging fruit…

Nope; not even all Catholics “can celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church.” After all, Catholic women and Catholic married men cannot participate in the sacrament of Holy Orders, and Catholic priests and consecrated religious cannot participate in the sacrament of Matrimony. Those Catholics who are in a state of mortal sin cannot partake in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and those Catholics who are under the penalty of excommunication cannot participate in the sacraments. So, no, even those who are ‘in’ the Church cannot “celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church.”

• Confession takes care of mortal sin
• Re: converts to the CC. If a man is unmarried, he can, participate in all the sacraments. Look at even late vocations where a man’s wife died and he enters the priesthood. Yes Holy Orders is the only sacrament a woman can’t participate in. But all the others are accessable.

G:

It means exactly what it says – there is a relationship to the Church (they are sons of their Heavenly Father and brothers and sisters of Christ) – but they are not in full communion with the Church of Christ. ‘In’ and ‘out’ are too coarse of measures of expressing this relationship.

Really? What about being in and out of grace with God?
G:

Oh! So you realize that you’re mischaracterising what the Church says about formal and material heresy? OK, then…

I gave all the proper caveats the Church gives re: knowledge and what a person knows. I don’t feel I have to restate those each and every post.
G:

CCC 1790, which provides the context for CCC 1791, asserts only these two bases for its claims. If you claim that neither necessarily applies, then you’re either misunderstanding 1791, or consciously misquoting it.

That section of the CCC starts with this context (emphasis mine)
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

I would suggest you completely misunderstand me and the CCC section I quoted. If a person’s conscience is in ignorance, and that ignorance is not innocent ignorance, iow, if [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) is the case, then they have no escape clause for their ignorance in what they do that is wrong.
G:

Fair enough. That means that you’re consciously misquoting the Catechism. I can deal with that.

I showed where I didn’t misquote the CCC.
G:

No, you never said it explicitly; yet, it’s the only rational conclusion that one can draw, when we attempt to take your claims seriously.

If you go back on my posts I quote ECF’s, scripture, and the CCC.
G:

Fair enough. In other words, you’re saying that your statements are not categorical? Ok, then: when you say “Protestants aren’t ‘in’ the Church”, and “I assume [Protestants’] teachers have told them specifically where they came from”, and “if they remain protestant they are guilty of what their predecessors are guilty of”… then you’re not speaking categorically? Yeah… nice try.

If you quote me please quote accurately and not with an agenda

I wrote

As I’ve said before, unless proven otherwise, I don’t assume a protestant doesn’t know their history.

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 areguiltyof what their predecessors were guiltyof.

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.

See the difference?

 

[steve_b]

With respect to what the ECFs say, I would respond (in general) that they are addressing the situations of their day. These situations are not, in any way, the same as the situation that the Church finds itself in today –

Really?

Tell me how this quote (to pick just one of the quotes presented) is somehow not applicable to use today?

**Augustine **
“The apostle Paul said, `As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10] . But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics” (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]) .Letter 43
G:

the situation in which the actions of the ‘Reformers’ have created a population of Christians who have neither defected from the Church personally nor have necessarily had the opportunity to engage honestly in the teachings of the Church, nor truly understand these teachings. To utilize the statements of the ECFs as if they address this situation, then, unfairly appropriates their thought.

Every heretic in history created populations of followers.

And one can’t be a heretic unless they are baptised…agreed? That means all the great heresies I posted earlier, are ALL baptised Christians by definition.

Re: utilizing ECF’s today,

In listening to the stories told by many of the great converts to the CC, they say the ECF’s played a huge part in their journey to the CC.

 

[Gorgias]

• Confession takes care of mortal sin
• Re: converts to the CC. If a man is unmarried, he can, participate in all the sacraments. Look at even late vocations where a man’s wife died and he enters the priesthood. Yes Holy Orders is the only sacrament a woman can’t participate in. But all the others are accessable.

Agreed; yet, that wasn’t your claim: you claimed that those who are ‘in’ the Church “can celebrate all the sacraments in the Catholic Church” (putatively, in order to demonstrate that an inability to celebrate a sacrament is evidence of being ‘out’ of the Church). I demonstrated that your premise was faulty: not all who are ‘in’ the Church can celebrate all the sacraments (and therefore, the inability to participate in a sacrament is not evidence of being ‘out’ of the Church).

Really? What about being in and out of grace with God?

Irrelevant: we’re talking about your assertion of ‘in’ and ‘out’ of the Church – there are many who are (by your definition) ‘in’ the Church who are ‘out of grace with God’. The two notions are not dependent on each other, per se.

I would suggest you completely misunderstand me and the CCC section I quoted. If a person’s conscience is in ignorance, and that ignorance is not innocent ignorance, iow, if [1791 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1791) is the case, then they have no escape clause for their ignorance in what they do that is wrong.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. However, it sure seems like you’re attempting to use 1791 without appealing to its context – that personal responsibility for ignorance is due to “tak[ing] little trouble to find out what is true and good, or … through the habit of committing sin.” Since you assert that these two cases are not what you’re claiming, then you’re cherry-picking 1791 in order to make it say what you want it to say, without allowing it to speak on its own behalf. Does this mean that I misunderstand the CCC? How silly…

I showed where I didn’t misquote the CCC.

My mistake. You showed where you’re consciously mischaracterizing it.

In all seriousness, though: you provided this citation to the CCC, and I’m simply asking you to address the fact that this paragraph provides two conditions which are present if one’s behavior applies to the assertions being made therein. You have said that you are not asserting that either condition holds. If the conditions aren’t met, and yet you still assert that the assertion holds, what other conclusion can I draw than that you are attempting to cherry-pick the CCC and misuse it through context-free proof-texting?

If you quote me please quote accurately and not with an agenda

I’m sorry – did I misquote you? No… I quoted what you wrote. Did I mischaracterize what you’re saying? I don’t think so. The issue at hand was my assertion that the criterion of ‘full knowledge’ for mortal sin is not one that can be categorically applied to all Protestants; when you asked whether I “assume that with all protestants”, I replied that I do not, but that your statements have the appearance of painting all Protestants with the same broad stroke. (When you do that, of course, it’s easy to disprove your assertions: if you claim something for all, I only have to show it fails for one or some in order to refute your claim.) You claim that you don’t have to restate your ‘caveats’ in each post, but I demonstrated where your ‘caveats’ seem to implicate all Protestants. That’s not “quoting you with an agenda”, that’s asking you to be judged according to your own words. If that’s uncomfortable for you… if that feels like an ‘agenda’… well, then perhaps you might ask yourself whether a re-evaluation of your position is in order…!

Tell me how this quote (to pick just one of the quotes presented) is somehow not applicable to use today?

No problem. (You should really stop lobbing these softballs at me; they’re too easy to hit out of the park. )

Augustine is talking about people whose parents are formal heretics, and who have either witnessed their rejection of the Church or at least have been being taught by them subsequent to their sin. Plausibly, then, the bulk (if not all of) their family is Catholic, and their parents’ estrangement from the Church is visible to them as such. For these children of formal heretics, then, Augustine hopes for re-establishment of communion with the Church.

Yet, this is not applicable to use today, per se. We’re not talking about folks whose families converted to Protestantism in the last few years; rather, we’re talking in general about Protestants: that is, about folks who have been Protestants – and their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents have been Protestants – for generations!

And one can’t be a heretic unless they are baptised…agreed? That means all the great heresies I posted earlier, are ALL baptised Christians by definition.

Agreed. Yet, the difference is between those who, in their heresy, left the Church, and those who never were in full communion with the Church. Critical difference, there!

Re: utilizing ECF’s today,

In listening to the stories told by many of the great converts to the CC, they say the ECF’s played a huge part in their journey to the CC.

Agreed. The ECFs are a valuable source of information. I’m not claiming that their words are without value; just that the way you’re using their words, to condemn all Protestants who live today, is without merit.