Outside the Church There is no Salvation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E.E.N.S.:
This statement needs A LOT of expounding.

It is true that VISIBLE membership is not necessary (depepnding upon the knowledge/understanding of the individual), but anyone who does make it to heaven (whether they were “Catholics” in the visible form or not) get there only through the Church - this is a great mystery!
Click to expand...
Which is the teaching of the Catechism: all who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church.
 
40.png
waxednwaned:
Two things that need addressed here:
  1. This thread is on “Outside the Church there is no salvation” not “Baptism of Desire” which, by the way, was posted as being a “defined” doctrine of the Church- it is not. In fact, the term “Baptism of Desire” has never been spoken in any council or Bull, by any Pope. “The desire for it” was spoken of in a decree on Justification not Salvation. If you wish to learn more about the difference between these two conditions, you can start a topic on it. After I return from my vacation I would love to read what your thoughts on it are.
  2. The Catechism is kinda ‘low’ on the “Authority” scale. It can be full of errors, and even teach heresy- which was the case of a few on-the-record Catechisms. They are now on the Vatican “list” of heretical books. (Yes, they had the imprimatur).
    The Catechism is only a book. Not an infallible source. The highest authority comes in Decrees spoken in Dogmatic Councils and Bulls. They must meet certain criteria.
    An “imprimatur” is not a guarantee that what you are reading is in line with Church Dogma.
God bless you all, and have a fine week to come- God Willing.
Click to expand...
waxednwaned,

When people have a thread about salvation being non-existent outside of the Church I believe that baptism, sacramental or otherwise, is a germane topic. This is especially so when one considers that since the Day of Pentecost, hundreds of thousands of individuals have passed from this world without benefit of the Gospel let alone sacramental baptism, and their passing raises the important question what is their eternal fate? I have no idea when or by whom the term “Baptism of Desire” was first used to express the idea of salvation by a baptism other than that expressed in Jn 3:5, but I think it is the** concept** rather than the term which is the important issue. So of what difference is it to say “a desire for baptism” or “baptism of desire?”

Perhaps I should have finished the remaining part of the quote I posted from Trent. Here is the entire paragraph.

“In these words a description of the justification of the sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the ‘adoption of the sons’ [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, as it is written: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

Emphasis added to point out that by the phrase “as it is written” connects “the laver of regeneration …] or the desire for it” with the well known words of our Lord from the Gospel of St. John.

Yes, you are correct; this was in a section referring to justification; and why not? After all, justification follows the salvation wrought by the sacrifice of Christ. What is the first step in this “translation” from being a child of Adam to entering that “state of grace” if it is not baptism which is that “laver of regeneration, or the desire for it?”

I don’t know if this is the section (Session VI, paragraph 796) which prompted the late Fr. J.A. Hardon S.J. to write “At the Council of Trent …] the now familiar dogma of baptism of desire was solemnly defined.” I do know, however, that the Second Vatican Council also addressed the matter stating, “This means that it would be impossible for men to be saved if they refused to enter or to remain in the Catholic Church, unless they were unaware that her foundation by God through Jesus Christ made it a necessity.” This approach of salvation outside of the Church is from the invincible ignorance argument.

So, there it is, two Councils of the Church addressing the question of the possibility of salvation outside of the Church.

continued…
 
Lastly, there is this comment on Pope Pius IX’s 1863 encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore. It is from an article written by Michael J. Mazza entitled*: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: Father Feeney Makes a Comeback.*
“In this document, while cautioning against the error of religious indifferentism, the pontiff simultaneously affirmed the inexhaustible mercy of God, who really does desire that all men be saved and come to full knowledge of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4): We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God. . . will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment. However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of that Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, (to whom the Savior has entrusted the care of his vineyard), cannot obtain salvation.”

This expresses my sentiments very well.

No sarcasm in this but, I hope you had a great vacation!!
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
Maybe a better question should be, why is the Church necessary for salvation?

On another discussion forum, we discussed this ad nauseum a few years ago. This was when I was a lapsed Catholic and was attending an evangelical denomination.

I couldn’t believe that the Catholic Church would teach something so completely anti-biblical, in my opinion.
How dare they be so self-righteous, i assumed because salvation is in Christ alone, not some church. No church is going to stand between me and Jesus, was the way i was receving this dogma, and it was a big turn off.

But when i really understood why the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church, and understood the relationship between Christ and His Church, I saw that salvation in Christ alone necissarily meant that salvation must be through Christ’s Church because of the mystical unity of the Body of Christ.

It is a bit complicated, but when properly understood, it really is the same as saying salvation is in Christ alone.
The Church doesn’t stand inbetween me and Christ. There is a unity there not a middle man.
Click to expand...

Well said 🙂​

There is one Church, because “there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God & Father of us all, One hope of our calling…”

If there could be two Christs, there could be two Churches. There is not - so there can’t. The Church is universal in time & space - so there is no “room” for any other. ##
 
I would like to comment on every post, but I can’t (it would be way too long) so I will only reply to a few things.

The decrees I have pasted are from the Chair. They address the whole church, they are teachings on faith and morals, they have a curse attached- all required. It may be helpful if I give some examples: The royal “We” and what they are doing; “We say, define, decree…etc” and somewhere in the decree is a curse; “Let him be anathema…” etc.

Vatican II did NOT define any dogma- This is admitted by the Pope and again by Ratzinger (at the time).

“Baptism of Desire” has never been defined. The ‘concept’ of it was expressed in the decree on Justification.
If you believe it has been defined, then by all means paste the definition. What is “Baptism of Desire?”

God Bless you.
 
The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): “He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent.

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

Baptism of Desire is narrow in its application. Greater emphasis for the possibility of salvation outside of the Church has been placed on ‘lack of knowledge’ or ‘invincible ignorance’ that the Church is necessary for salvation. I’m not recommending either over the Church and her Sacraments as a sure path to salvation. However, the Church has taught this in the past and continues to teach it today. CCC p.5 The Doctrinal Value of the Text…“is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith.” (JPII)

From your previous posts I’m aware of your opinion of the CCC. I don’t agree with you and we may have to simply agree that we disagree. However, it seems to me that you are only stating one side of what the Church has said about this matter. I would like to have had your opinion about what happend to all those who died having never heard of Christ, his Gospel message or his Church. I invite you to read Pope Pius IX’s statement on the mattter. You’ll find it in your Denzinger (DE1677)

Christ’s peace to you.
 
The dogma of no salvation outside the Church is a confusing one, though I believe unquestioningly what the Church teaches. I am reading the Life of Anne Catherine Emmerich (Imprimatuer). She states that the Protestants suffer the most in Purgatory because they ha :confused: ve no one to pray for them.

How did they get there if there is no salvation outside the Church??? :confused:
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
How did they get there if there is no salvation outside the Church??? :confused:
Click to expand...
Baptism is what unites us to the Church, and that includes Baptism by desire.

Deliberate schism, heresy, or apostacy is leaving the Church. It’s for God to judge whether or not Protestants are culpable of this. We should therefore bring them the Truth so they can come home to mother Church who is waiting for them to return with open arms. Then they won’t have to worry about possibly having schism, heresy, or apostacy on their conscience.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Baptism is what unites us to the Church, and that includes Baptism by desire.
Click to expand...
So, what you are saying, is that even though Protestants are already baptized, their means of achieving salvation is by baptism of desire at the moment of judgement (an act of perfect contrition?)
 
40.png
paramedicgirl:
So, what you are saying, is that even though Protestants are already baptized, their means of achieving salvation is by baptism of desire at the moment of judgement (an act of perfect contrition?)
Click to expand...
No, no. Baptism by desire applies to those who never received water Baptism.
 
40.png
Genesis315:
No, no. Baptism by desire applies to those who never received water Baptism.
Click to expand...
Okay, pardon my confusion, but how, in your opinion do Protestants get to Purgatory???
 
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
 
Thank you. I think now I understand that non-Catholics are saved through grace - by an act of perfect contrition or an act of Divine faith.
 
From what I understand they could be saved but maybe spend time in pergatory learning or attoning?
 
40.png
waxednwaned:
I would like to comment on every post, but I can’t (it would be way too long) so I will only reply to a few things.

The decrees I have pasted are from the Chair. They address the whole church, they are teachings on faith and morals, they have a curse attached- all required. It may be helpful if I give some examples: The royal “We” and what they are doing; “We say, define, decree…etc” and somewhere in the decree is a curse; “Let him be anathema…” etc.

Vatican II did NOT define any dogma- This is admitted by the Pope and again by Ratzinger (at the time).

.
Click to expand...
As is the Catechism: it’s a fundamental and huge part of the magisterium. It’s the teaching of the Church for the world’s Catholics. The Church cannot lead us into error…and one of yours is that there has to be a curse attached to a infallible declaration! Not at all true.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
As is the Catechism: it’s a fundamental and huge part of the magisterium. It’s the teaching of the Church for the world’s Catholics. The Church cannot lead us into error…and one of yours is that there has to be a curse attached to a infallible declaration! Not at all true.
Click to expand...
Nor is it necessary for the Holy Father to use the royal we.
 
Why are people posting as a “doctrine” or “decree” of “Baptism of Desire” simple explainations of what the term implies from the Encyclopedia? Is this some kind of lunacy?

I asked for a Decree on Baptism of Desire from the Catholic Church.

This does NOT mean that I want you to go to your dictionary or encyclopedia- I want Church Doctumention defining “Baptism of Desire”

The problem here is that no one can find it- it does NOT exist- so they are grasping at straws.

The Church has never defined “Baptism of Desire” - it has never been mentioned in ANY Council.
"The desire thereof (of baptism, with the promise to obtain) was mentioned in the Decrees on JUSTIFICATION- not in the Decrees of BAPTISM.
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.
There is no slavation outside the Catholic Church- the ONLY way one becomes a member of the Catholic Church, is by WATER BAPTISM (the Sacrament of Baptism).
It has been decreed that prayers cannot save a person who dies outside the Church- IT CAN ONLY BRING THEM IN IF THEY ACCEPT THE GRACES- BEFORE DEATH. If they died without accepting the Faith of the Catholic Church, they go to hell- period. This is a Dogma of the Catholic Church- which cannot be denied.
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Nor is it necessary for the Holy Father to use the royal we.
Click to expand...
To make a statement Infallible or ex cathedra:
  1. The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.
  2. He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.
  3. His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.
  4. It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority.
    **In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as “We declare, decree and define, . . .”. **
  5. It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church.
    Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).
    There is not any specific phrasing required for an infallible definition by a pope or ecumenical council. Historically, almost all of these definitions have been attached to anathemas that state that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
 
40.png
waxednwaned:
To make a statement Infallible or ex cathedra:
  1. The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.
  2. He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue.
  3. His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously.
  4. It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority.
    **In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as “We declare, decree and define, . . .”. **
  5. It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church.
    Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).
    There is not any specific phrasing required for an infallible definition by a pope or ecumenical council. Historically, almost all of these definitions have been attached to anathemas that state that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Pope Pius XII’s infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."
Click to expand...
Here’s what the constitution/promulgation of the Catechism says:

3. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!"

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. Not only that, the *Imprimi Potest *for the volume was issued by the head of the Interdicasterial Commision for the Catechism, when he was also head of the Holy Office: Cardinal Ratzinger, now HH Pope Benedict XVI.

Thus fufilling #1, #2 (the Catechism as the teaching of the Catholic Church surely falls under the issue of faith and morals), #3 (if one understands that the Catechism’s teaching claifies and refines what went before), #4 (“by virtue of my Apostolic Authority”) and finally #5…unless you’re going to assert that the document wasn’t addressed to the whole of the Church.

I would contend that to state that the Catechism, promulgated by the Pope, on the invocation of his apostolic authority, addressing the whole of the Church, is in error is to seriously lapse into error, because it’s to say that Christ has failed in His Promise. Yes, the Pope can be wrong, but he is protected from leading the Church into error. Yes, EENS still applies, but the Church’s understanding of what that means is best explained in the Catechism.
 
Many here have touched on this, already.

The Church can only teach waht has been entrusted to her. Namely that Jesus died for our sins that we might have salvation. Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. We are brought into the Church by our baptism and the Church is the ‘pathway.’ The Church can teach this with assurance from what was written in Scripture, it is the faith backed by 2000 years of Tradition and practice.

What the Church cannot do is judge who gets into Heaven or not. God and only god is the final arbitor of who gets into Heaven. The Church cannot tell you that being a devout Methodist or Budhist or Muslim will provide salvation because that is not within the deposit of faith. The Church cannot say that that a devout Methodist or Budhist or Muslim will go to Hell, that is God’s decision and only God’s. The Church does not seek to be the world’s judge. The Church’s role is to be a witness to the Gospel of Jesus.

The Church, and we are the church a people of God, can rightfully share the Gospel, the “Good News” of salvation found in Christ Jesus. We can ask why someone would desire to seek another path (with less assurance, lacking in the 2000 years of faith, Tradition and practice) than this one. The Church cannot force an individual to accept Jesus.

Through out our history, some have tried to take the mission of the Church, her role in proclaiming gift of salvation in Jesus to an extreme that substitutes God with the Church, no good has ever come from this. Yes, the Church has the sacraments. Yes, the Church has a role in bringing us to Christ. No she cannot teach any other faith (or another way to salvation) than what was entrusted too her. The Church does not teach that all outside the faith are damned to hell. The Church does not know, they are left to the merciful and just Creator. PAX
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top