Outside the Church There is no Salvation?

[stanley123]

YADA:

The Church does not teach that all outside the faith are damned to hell.

I was wondering which Church you were talking about:
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Pope St. Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (# 2), April 15, 1905:

“And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: ‘We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.’”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted in *Summo Iugiter Studio, *590-604:

“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23)** and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. ** Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate****.”

 

[stanley123]

YADA:

The Church does not teach that all outside the faith are damned to hell.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

stanley123:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …”

You’ll find it nicely clarified in the Catechism…unless you think that the Holy Spirit stopped protecting the Church from error after HH Pius XII.

 

[RobinHood]

RobinHood:

I’m not sure as to how much more new information I can bring to this particular topic, but it seems that nobody mentioned what Pope Jean-Paul II wrote in his encyclical “The Mission of Christ the Redeemer”. He stated:

“…Salvation in Christ is offered to all. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church…For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ…”

A little further down you can also find this:

“…Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam…, this does not lessen her duty and resolve to proclaim without fail Jesus Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’…The fact that followers of other religions can receive God’s grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and Baptism which God wills for all people.”

Hope this helps.
RobinHood

 

[waxednwaned]

How misguided can one be as to actually think the Catechism cannot have errors.
Any book excluding the Holy Bible is able to contain errors. The CC is ONLY as good as the persons who wrote it (believe me, the Pope didn’t read the whole thing- and I bet you think he did, too )

Bishops are men with the same sinful nature we all have since the fall of man. The binding and loosing that the Church does is our only “absolute” guarantee. You cannot rely on new-age theologians to tell you what a Defined Doctrine of the Church means.
How silly would that be?!?
If I wanted to, I could take the defintion of a “Square” which is: A rectangle with four equal sides… a tell you that today we will re-difine that old definition and make it say that it is; A rectangle with four un-equal sides.

When the Church defined EENS it gave THE definition. It was approved in many OTHER Decrees. It doesn’t change- you cannot take “Outside the Church there is no salvation” and make it say “There IS salvation outside the Church” -
Furthermore, who IS and is NOT inside the Church has been defined- nothing can chage it-- and CERTAINLY not a book that is capable of containing the errors of the new-age “theologians” who wrote it. The ONLY way (even the Catechism states this fact) a person can become a member of the Catholic Church is by Water Baptism, and one cannot be save outside Her.
You must obey the Infallible Decree- no matter WHO or WHAT tells you differently. This is where the weeds are seperated from the wheat. This is where you must begin to notice that which is Truth- and that which is given to you by those who have an agenda- and will twist everything they can to get it.
Your only protection against these people is that which is BOUND, and only those things that reflect the definition of that which is bound- if it does NOT affirm it- it denies it.

 

[banjo]

I believe the Church has stated that once a doctrine is defined (infallibly stated) that all discussion, all speculation about the matter ceases. Case closed. If my recollection is correct about this then after the statements by Pope Eugene IV, Boniface VIII, etc. why have their been statements of any kind on this matter by subsequent popes and other Church authorities? For example:

“but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?” Pope Pius IX, *Singulari quadem, *1854

“It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.” Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, 1863

In an article in Fidelity magazine, regarding the matter of Fr. Leonard Feeney, Michael J. Mazza wrote the following:

“In its letter to Archbishop Cushing on the Boston heresy case (the protocol to which Pope Pius XII had so carefully attended), the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that “the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” The protocol goes on to say, however, that (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church (Suprema haec sacra, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15). **In other words, the magisterial texts used by Fr. Feeney and his followers can only be interpreted in context and in the light of other, equally authoritative Magisterial teachings not only in order to avoid confusion or charges that the Church has changed her teaching, but because it is only in harmony with the Magisterium of today that magisterial texts of yesterday may be rightly understood. **The protocol mentions, for example, Pope Pius IX’s 1863 encyclical *Quanto conficiamur moerore.” **“*Fr. Feeney and his followers in “the Boston heresy,” as it came to be known, insisted that theirs was the only orthodox interpretation of the extra ecclesiam doctrine. To aid their cause, they enlisted the help of several magisterial texts from primarily medieval popes and councils. …]Pope Boniface VIII, in his bull of 1302 entitled Unam Sanctam, …] By far the most favorite conciliar quote of the Feeneyites, however, comes from the Council of Florence. Pope Eugene IV issued the Bull Cantate Domino in 1441.”
continued…

 

[banjo]

Further, quoting Pope Pius XII from the same article:

“Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis, to which the 1949 protocol also makes reference. The protocol summarizes the pope’s teaching by saying that while membership in the Church is indeed an absolute requirement for salvation, such membership does not necessarily have to be visible to the human eye, and can be characterized by even “desire and longing,” whether explicit (in the case of catechumens) or implicit (in the case of the invincibly ignorant). At the same time, however, the pope affirms that those souls in the latter case “cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church.” The protocol concludes: With these wise words Pius XIII reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally in every religion.”

There is more in *Lumen gentium *16 and in JPII’s Redemptoris Missio. Also the quotes from the CCC have been stated more than once.

If the matter is was settled, Ex Cathedra, why would these statements continue?

 

[Domini_Canis]

JKirkLVNV:

The old Holy Father invoked his apostolic authority, he spoke on a matter of faith and morals, and he published it for the whole of the Church. As such, it is protected from error.

If the Catechism was protected from error, it would be infallible, but as a whole, it’s not - it does, however, contain infallible pronouncements (like the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption et al).

Jimmy Akin has blogged on this subject here. And elsewhere he writes…

Despite a popular impression to the contrary, the Catechism is not an infallible document (hence it’s already been revised once to fix some minor issues that needed correction). It is a realiable guide to the teaching of the faith, and it does repeat a number of infallible teachings, but it does not, as a whole, enjoy the property of having been written under the charism of infallibility.

…taken from here here

DC.

 

[Domini_Canis]

waxednwaned:

Please leanr the differences of term in the Catholic Church, and what they are used for- Justification is not Salvation- Justification can result with the desire for Baptism (with the absolute intention of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism as soon as possible) NOT Salvation.

The Council of Trent taught that those who are justified have everything they need for salvation if they were to die in that state:

For, since Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified, like the head into the members, and like the vine into the branches, which virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, and without which nothing could in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God: we must believe that Nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its due time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace (Denz. 809)

DC.

 

[YADA]

waxednwaned, stanley123, et al,

I expect the Church to teach the Gospel as it has been handed down. We as Christians (specifically Catholic Christians) are bound to the faith that has been entrusted to us. We are the recipients of the Gospel, we have heard Jesus preached, been baptized. What of those who have not had the opportunity to hear and accept? And it is not for you to judge whether they have heard or not!

You can read a good historical explaination here of the Doctrine:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4085

Only God judges the hearts of men (and women), not you or me. For that we are eternally thankful. Like St. Paul, I am working out ‘my salvation in fear and trembling.’ Even from inside the Church, having received the Gospel, it is possible to turn away from God. God is eternally faithful, his covenant is forever. However, we must consent, turn away from sin and embrace the Gospel as we are instructed each Ash Wednesday.

St Paul’s letter to the Romans speaks to this very issue when he tells his Jewish Brethren that they cannot hold onto their circumcision ‘the outward sign of their obedience tot he Law’ as proof of their salvation. St. Paul tells them that they have been given much in the reception of the Law and God will hold them to the Law. But others have a natural law written on their hearts. That natural law is the standard by which God will judge. He tells them that a person can be circumcised in the flesh and remain uncircumcised in their hearts. He goes further and declares that the gentile who lives the law written upon his heart is the one truly circumcised.

I hear in this Letter a warning against being a CINO. I am saved while you (the unCatholic masses will burn in hell) are not. The Catholic Church does not hold this doctrine, you may.

Pax

 

[LSK]

The Iambic Pen:

As a Protestant who is studying Catholicism, I find it discouraging to discover that the Catechism is full of error. If the Catechism is supposed to be a statement of Catholic belief, why doesn’t it state the correct beliefs? If the Catechism is indeed in error, as waxednwaned says, how are those who approach the Church supposed to know what is true? If Catholicism is true, I want to accept it fully, so I’m not looking for excuses to remain Protestant. However, I must say that I find the “no salvation whatsoever outside the Church” view to be very depressing (to say the least). What this means is that all of those billions who have not heard the Gospel are condemned to Hell. In effect, God, knowing these people would never hear of His Church, created them for Hell. Plus, this basically means that all those righteous men and women of the Old Testament are also damned. So much for justice and mercy.

The Catechism is not full of error - there may have been some books pulled because of printing errors but do NOT fall under the spell of those who are trying to take down the Church by claiming to be “better” Catholics than faithful Catholics. Read up on Father Feeney. It is an interesting story.

And hang in there - AND WELCOME HOME

 

[pnewton]

waxednwaned:

The CC is ONLY as good as the persons who wrote it (believe me, the Pope didn’t read the whole thing- and I bet you think he did, too )

Too questions, how do you know this? Did you read it, talk to the Holy Father or receive it in a revelation?

Second, what reason does anyone here have to believe you (or any poster) over official church channels?

For Iambic Pen,

As a former protestant myself, I know that there will always be wolves among the sheep regardless, both in Protestant and Catholic churches. This is one of the very attractions to the authoritatvie structure of the Catholic Church. We have a reliable norm in the Catechism by which to build our faith. this norm is also a test against those on the fringe who seek to promote their own understanding and interpretation over that of the Church.

The only difference in Catholic circles is that there is a ton more material to pull out of context and twist into misunderstanding.

 

[neophyte]

waxednwaned:

The Catechism is kinda ‘low’ on the “Authority” scale…

Not to put too fine a point on it waxed, but on the authority scale you’re down here with me and all of the phytoplankton.

Given a choice between listening to you vs listening to the Catechism, sorry pal, I love ya but the smart money isn’t on you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Domini Canis:

If the Catechism was protected from error, it would be infallible, but as a whole, it’s not - it does, however, contain infallible pronouncements (like the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, Assumption et al).

Jimmy Akin has blogged on this subject here. And elsewhere he writes…

…taken from here here

DC.

The pope cannot lead the Church into error nor cause the Church to be lead into error. People think that ONLY the formal declarations such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption are infallible. Heck, the ordinary magisterium is reckoned infallible! The pope cannot propose something for belief to the whole of the Church and lead her astray. The Catechism IS the sure norm for the instruction in the faith. If the pope, using his apostolic authority, promulgated it for the instruction of the entire Church in the faith, called it a “sure norm” for instruction in that faith, then he’s addressed the whole of the Church on a matter of faith/morals, and he’s invoked his apostolic authority. I’m not saying that things IN the Catechism can’t be put better, or spelled better, or that at some point in the future it won’t be expressed more clearly. I’m saying it contains no doctrincal error, for the reasons I’ve already stated.

I’m not attempting to negate EENS. I don’t think that the Catechism does either. I think it distinguishes between material and formal heretics and schismatics. I don’t think it’s given away a bit of the faith. It’s clear that what saves those who are saved is the Catholic faith. What they have that is salvific, they get from the Catholic faith.

How long does a pope have to be dead before some people recognize that he, too, held the charism promised to Peter?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

waxednwaned:

How misguided can one be as to actually think the Catechism cannot have errors.
Any book excluding the Holy Bible is able to contain errors. The CC is ONLY as good as the persons who wrote it (believe me, the Pope didn’t read the whole thing- and I bet you think he did, too ) You don’t really want to do sarcasm. I don’t think you’d really care for the result.

Bishops are men with the same sinful nature we all have since the fall of man. The binding and loosing that the Church does is our only “absolute” guarantee. You cannot rely on new-age theologians to tell you what a Defined Doctrine of the Church means. ** I wasn’t brought into the Church by new-age theologians…nor by anyone so ill-informed as to think that infallibility had the remostest connection to the use of the royal “we.” Wow, bishops are sinners? You mean, like the former Archbishop of Atlanta, who fathered a child, the former Archbishop of Santa Fe who turned out to be a bit of a skirt chaser? Not really news, is it? But kudos for contributing to the the conversation.**

How silly would that be?!?
If I wanted to, I could take the defintion of a “Square” which is: A rectangle with four equal sides… a tell you that today we will re-difine that old definition and make it say that it is; A rectangle with four un-equal sides. Hmmm, ya see, not really comparable, is it: math problem on one hand, mystery of Redemption on the other? Good first attempt at analogy, though.

When the Church defined EENS it gave THE definition. It was approved in many OTHER Decrees. It doesn’t change- you cannot take “Outside the Church there is no salvation” and make it say “There IS salvation outside the Church” -
Furthermore, who IS and is NOT inside the Church has been defined- nothing can chage it-- and CERTAINLY not a book that is capable of containing the errors of the new-age “theologians” who wrote it. John Paul II, a new age theologian (promulgated it/published it)? Joseph RATZINGER…an new age theologian("Imprimi Potest)? Pardon me while I .

The ONLY way (even the Catechism states this fact) a person can become a member of the Catholic Church is by Water Baptism, and one cannot be save outside Her. Oh, dear, I’m catching a slight wiff of Feeneyism.

 

[Domini_Canis]

JKirkLVNV:

The pope cannot lead the Church into error nor cause the Church to be lead into error. People think that ONLY the formal declarations such as the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption are infallible. Heck, the ordinary magisterium is reckoned infallible! The pope cannot propose something for belief to the whole of the Church and lead her astray. The Catechism IS the sure norm for the instruction in the faith. If the pope, using his apostolic authority, promulgated it for the instruction of the entire Church in the faith, called it a “sure norm” for instruction in that faith, then he’s addressed the whole of the Church on a matter of faith/morals, and he’s invoked his apostolic authority.

If the Catechism as a whole were infallible through ex cathedra, that would mean every single thing in the catechism would be elevated to the status of dogma - something Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly denies.

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible in virtue of any individual teaching (eg. something in a encyclical). It’s infallibility stems from the fact that the Church has constantly held or taught a certain teaching (eg. the intrinsic evil of contraception).

I’m not saying that we should reject the Catechism just because it’s not infallible. We have to give religious assent to teachings that the Church presents us, even if it’s not infallible.

DC.

 

[banjo]

banjo:

I believe the Church has stated that once a doctrine is defined (infallibly stated) that all discussion, all speculation about the matter ceases. Case closed. If my recollection is correct about this then after the statements by Pope Eugene IV, Boniface VIII, etc. why have there been statements of any kind on this matter by subsequent popes and other Church authorities?

Looking back on this statement, I realized that its wording could be misleading. I want my position to be clear. I agree completely with the Catholic dogma that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. However, I’m not sure we all have a proper understanding of EENS or of its history.
The link provided by YADA in post #70 on this thread is excellent and I think beneficial in forming a better understanding of this Church dogma.

Peace in Christ

 

[Asking]

could we say that the souls of the kings and queens of england since Henry VIII have been generally in jeopardy due to their status as heads of an “heretic” church?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Domini Canis:

If the Catechism as a whole were infallible through ex cathedra, that would mean every single thing in the catechism would be elevated to the status of dogma - something Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly denies.

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible in virtue of any individual teaching (eg. something in a encyclical). It’s infallibility stems from the fact that the Church has constantly held or taught a certain teaching (eg. the intrinsic evil of contraception).

I’m not saying that we should reject the Catechism just because it’s not infallible. We have to give religious assent to teachings that the Church presents us, even if it’s not infallible.

DC.

No,no, I quite agree, I’m not saying every dot and tittle is infallible. What I mean to say is that the Church, in her teachings, cannot lead us into error. We cannot err in thinking that those outside the Church (material heretics, schismatics, etc) CAN be saved if the Church teaches that they can be saved (which the Catechism does), as long as it doesn’t cross over into indifferentism, ie. “it doesn’t matter what you believe at all,” or universalism. Nothing presented in the Catechism can lead the Church into error. It isn’t all a dogma, though.

I don’t know about anyone else here who converted, but I do not believe that my thoroughly devout, obedient, and loving grandmother is now in hell, though there is no absolute certainty. Nor do I believe that my equally devout, obedient, and loving grandfather is in danger of hell, though he will never convert to Catholicism (he’s a Baptist deacon and he’s 88), though again, there is no absolute certainty. That doesn’t mean I believe that it’s great to be Baptist. It’s obviously a “deficient” ecclesial community, to use the words of *Domine Jesus. *BUT…the Catechism still says what it says and that gives me great reason for hope (in the mercy of Christ) that in the end all will be well for these two and all others who sincerely loved Jesus Christ and sought to follow him. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t bear witness to the Truth contained in the Catholic Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Iambic Pen:

As a Protestant who is studying Catholicism, I find it discouraging to discover that the Catechism is full of error. If the Catechism is supposed to be a statement of Catholic belief, why doesn’t it state the correct beliefs? If the Catechism is indeed in error, as waxednwaned says, how are those who approach the Church supposed to know what is true? If Catholicism is true, I want to accept it fully, so I’m not looking for excuses to remain Protestant. However, I must say that I find the “no salvation whatsoever outside the Church” view to be very depressing (to say the least). What this means is that all of those billions who have not heard the Gospel are condemned to Hell. In effect, God, knowing these people would never hear of His Church, created them for Hell. Plus, this basically means that all those righteous men and women of the Old Testament are also damned. So much for justice and mercy.

Not the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church), but many local catechisms can teach heresy. This is the main reason that the CCC was instituted.