Outside the Church there is No Salvation

[havemercy]

… However, as soon as they adhere to one of the many errors taught by their sect (or reject any dogma of the Catholic Church),** they sin mortally against the supernatural faith within them, become a heretic, and fall from grace.**

Ouch. So, if the previously mentioned Calvinist…Believes what he does, then [insert sound effect here]-- he’s fallen from grace and has lost the promise of salvation. This doesn’t sound quite right.

What the Catechism says is not wrong, but can be very misleading. Why? Because, the unity necessary for salvation is a supernatural unity; not merely a natural unity of belief in this or that point. And supernatural unity has no gray areas. It is either 100% unity, or no unity at all. No in between.

So a failure to adhere to correct dogma (even though they have no idea what the right dogma is), or adhering to a strange dogma not recognized by the Church cuts any significant ties they have to the Church, Christ, and salvation. Incredible.

Just like a person who is either in the state of grace or mortal sin. There is no middle ground. They may have venial sin, but they are still in the state of grace. Either they are in the state of grace, or they are not. No gray areas. Similarly, either a person (or group) is united to the Church or they are not. No middle ground.

Oh, I agree. There is no grey area. However, it seems like ignorance plays a larger role in a non-Catholic Christian’s placement in the Body of Christ than you seem to illustrate.

It is true that a person can be united to the soul of the Church and not the visible body, but their unity with the soul is either 100% or none; and the union with the soul of the Church is what saves. Think of how many people claim to be Catholics yet reject this or that dogma. These are united to the body, but not the soul.

Amen.

As you may be able to see, when you get into the subtle “exceptions” it can become a little confusion. That is why the Church used to boldly proclaim the dogma; and why Pope Pius IX told the Bishops of his day to teach the dogma, and not the exception. In fact, he forbade the Bishop from inquiring into the possible exceptions. The reason is pretty clear to me: For one, if there are any exceptions that have resulted in the salvation of a soul, only God knows. And two, too much focus on the exception has, in our day, resulted in an explicit denial of the dogma by many; and this denial constitutes heresy…

Piux IX made the best possible decision.

I hope that helped a little. If not, let me know and post any follow up questions.

It did help, thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiries.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

 

[fix]

Fix,

I wrote an article several years ago that deals with the topic “exceptions” to the rule, and goes into a few more related points. Pleas read it and give me your comments.

Here’s the link: seattlecatholic.com/article_20030523.html

(BTW, the name I used is a pen-name, and not my real name.)

I will read it and get back to you.
I am sorry that site closed up.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Well, I think that the average Catholic, myself included, can do more. We live in a very advanced culture and know all sorts of nonsense. Certainly, we have room to study things more deeply. Now, I do not think we each have to be an expert in every arcane matter of theology, but if we are to have a zeal for evangelization we need to at least try to understand we salvation through the CC is taught. I see your point and I agree a failure to grasp this teaching has serious implications for immortal souls.

Now, I would say that the ordainary means is what you wrote, but those means do not exclude those outside visible membership.

The problem is that “Join us or you’ll go to Hell” is a terrible way of evangelising. However “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you try to be a good person” is worse.

In the normal run of things, if you are not a member of the golf club then you won’t go to the golf club Christmas dinner. That is not to say that if a non-member says that he cannot afford the subs, but he’d really like to go the dinner, and there happen to be spare places, an exception might not be made. But the last thing you want to do is rely on such an exception, unless you genuinely don’t have any money for the subscription, in which case there is no choice.

However we also have to strip away the non-member’s illusions about his actual spiritual state. Most people reckon that because they are white and not out of a job and have a sexual partner, they must be OK. In the world’s terms, they are probably the sort of citizens the state desires. However none of these attributes are really helpful in Jesus’ way of looking at things. The problem with talking about “those who sincerely seek to do right” is that it flatters the masses. Yes there are a few very noble non-Christians, like the men who flew the aeroplanes into the WTC, of whom we can say they acted according to their own lights. However the average person isn’t like that.

 

[StMarkEofE]

Oh, I agree. There is no grey area. However, it seems like ignorance plays a larger role in a non-Catholic Christian’s placement in the Body of Christ than you seem to illustrate.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum,

A soul devoid of sin is full of grace, right?
A soul having mortal sin is not full of grace?
A soul having venial sin and grace is still clear, not even a little grey?

If there are no grey areas? What color is venial sin.

 

[fix]

The problem is that “Join us or you’ll go to Hell” is a terrible way of evangelising. However “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you try to be a good person” is worse.

In the normal run of things, if you are not a member of the golf club then you won’t go to the golf club Christmas dinner. That is not to say that if a non-member says that he cannot afford the subs, but he’d really like to go the dinner, and there happen to be spare places, an exception might not be made. But the last thing you want to do is rely on such an exception, unless you genuinely don’t have any money for the subscription, in which case there is no choice.

However we also have to strip away the non-member’s illusions about his actual spiritual state. Most people reckon that because they are white and not out of a job and have a sexual partner, they must be OK. In the world’s terms, they are probably the sort of citizens the state desires. However none of these attributes are really helpful in Jesus’ way of looking at things. The problem with talking about “those who sincerely seek to do right” is that it flatters the masses. Yes there are a few very noble non-Christians, like the men who flew the aeroplanes into the WTC, of whom we can say they acted according to their own lights. However the average person isn’t like that.

How do you explain things like this:

I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers."

 

[Tomster]

USMC,

If someone gifted with an average Catholic culture and moved by his love for the Church were to read the documents of Vatican II, his mind would gradually be filled with questions as he progressed in his study.

Right in the first Chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, he would be in for a surprise: “This . . . sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic . . . constituted and organized as a society in the present world SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter . . . Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines [sic]. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity” (LG 8b).

This passage would have been clear if it had stated that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church or that the Church of Christ exists exclusively in the Catholic Church. As written, it implicitly affirms that there are two distinct realities - the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church - and that the latter, which is more restricted receives its life from the former, more universal and more noble.

What “Church of Christ” would this be, different from and nobler than the Catholic Church, which receives its very life from it? Could this “church” contain the “elements of sanctification and truth” that are found “outside” the visible Catholic structure? As he searches for an explanation the average Catholic ends up in even greater confusion: Could there be, then, habitually, “sanctification and truth” outside the sacred bosom of the Catholic Church?

An ex-grunt,

Tomster

 

[USMC]

A soul devoid of sin is full of grace, right?
A soul having mortal sin is not full of grace?
A soul having venial sin and grace is still clear, not even a little grey?

If there are no grey areas? What color is venial sin.

A person is either in the state of grace or they are not - no middle ground. Venial sin does not destroy sanctifying grace.

So, to answer you question: If a soul in the state of grace is white, and a soul in mortal sin is black, then the color of the soul in venial sin is white. The person is either in the state of grace or they are not - no middle ground. Similarly, on the supernatural level, a person is either united to the church or they are not, no middle ground.

 

[USMC]

USMC,

If someone gifted with an average Catholic culture and moved by his love for the Church were to read the documents of Vatican II, his mind would gradually be filled with questions as he progressed in his study.

Right in the first Chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, he would be in for a surprise: “This . . . sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic . . . constituted and organized as a society in the present world SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter . . . Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines [sic]. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity” (LG 8b).

This passage would have been clear if it had stated that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church or that the Church of Christ exists exclusively in the Catholic Church. As written, it implicitly affirms that there are two distinct realities - the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church - and that the latter, which is more restricted receives its life from the former, more universal and more noble.

What “Church of Christ” would this be, different from and nobler than the Catholic Church, which receives its very life from it? Could this “church” contain the “elements of sanctification and truth” that are found “outside” the visible Catholic structure? As he searches for an explanation the average Catholic ends up in even greater confusion: Could there be, then, habitually, “sanctification and truth” outside the sacred bosom of the Catholic Church?

An ex-grunt,

Tomster

Vatican II: “This . . . sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic . . . constituted and organized as a society in the present world SUBSISTS IN the Catholic Church”.

That quote, all by itself, could be interpreted one of two ways. It could be interpreted to mean that the Church if Christ subsists in the Catholic Church alone, or it could be interpreted to mean that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and also in heretical and/or schismatic Churches.

Fortunately, we do not have one quote to go on. We have 2000 years of Catholic teachings, including infallible dogmas, to guide us in our interpretation. If we interpret that verse in according to 2000 years of Catholic teaching, we will know that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic church, and that no heretical sect or schismatic Church is part of that one true Church.

For years the liberals were trying to bring about the novel teaching that the Church of Christ is actually larger than the Catholic Church, and were, at the same time, reducing to a meaningless formula the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation. Therefore, conscious of his duty of protecting the faith, Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical in 1950, in which he condemned both of those errors (along with many others).

Remember what you wrote in you post? You said “This passage would have been clear if it had stated that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church”. Well that is exactly what Pope Pius XII said when he condemned the contrary error:

Pope Pius XII: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation” (Humani Generis, #27).

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation of previous post

Those who do not know their faith haven fallen into the error of interpreting the word “subsists” to mean that the Church of Christ is not the same thing as the Catholic Church. That, however, is not primarily the fault of those laymen who read the document, but of the document itself. That is why the Church has always condemned ambiguously worded documents.

For example, during the Arian heresy there was a big uproar over the addition of one single letter to the Greek word Homoousianism, which means “of the same substance”.

Since the Arians did not believe that Jesus was “of the same substance” as the Father, they added the letter “i” to the word, so that it read Homoiousianism. That one little letter changed the meaning from “the same substance” to “a *like *substance”. This was a word both sides could interpret according to what they believed. In todays state of confusion, this would be looked upon as a great ecumenical achievement, since eccumaniacs are not nearly as concerned with truth as they are with so-called “unity”.

Have you ever heard the term “not one iota”? Well, that’s where it came from. Iota, or “i”, is what was added to Homoousianism to produce Homoiousianism. The Church condemned that because it was too ambiguous and could be interpreted in a way that was heretical. The Church cared enough about the faith of its children to condemn that error in order to prevent cunfusion and disunity between those who desired to follow the truth.

Unfortunately, Vatican II has some very poorly worded documents, which have resulted in a tremendous amount of confusion in the Church today. According to the liberals who took part at Vatican II, this ambiguity was put into the documents on purpose so that they could later be “interpreted” according to the liberals views.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx: “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards” (Liberal “peritus” of Vatican II, Open Letter to confused Catholics, pg. 106).

I personally believe that when the current crisis is over, Vatican II will be dumped in the trash bin of history and declared the second “robber council”, but that is just my opinion.

But, what is not my opinion, is that Vatican II did not engage the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, which means nothing in the documents was protected from error. The only doctrinal teachings in the Vatican II documents that are infallible are those in which Vatican II is merely repeating what a previous council defined. Nothing new was defined at Vatican II and nothing new in those documents was protected by the charism of infallibility. As such, it is certianly within the realm of possibility for the Church to declare that council null and void - and the sooner the better!

 

[rr1213]

…I personally believe that when the current crisis is over, Vatican II will be dumped in the trash bin of history and declared the second “robber council”, but that is just my opinion.

But, what is not my opinion, is that Vatican II did not engage the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, which means nothing in the documents was protected from error. The only doctrinal teachings in the Vatican II documents that are infallible are those in which Vatican II is merely repeating what a previous council defined. Nothing new was defined at Vatican II and nothing new in those documents was protected by the charism of infallibility. As such, it is certianly within the realm of possibility for the Church to declare that council null and void - and the sooner the better!

Could you please elaborate on these statements? Are you saying that Catholics cannot rely on the teachings of Vatican II? If so, why not?

 

[USMC]

Could you please elaborate on these statements? Are you saying that Catholics cannot rely on the teachings of Vatican II? If so, why not?

First let me affirm that there are some very good things in the Vatican II documents. However, there is also a lot that can be interpreted in a way that is contrary to the Catholic faith. In fact, the surface meaning of certain portions of the documents (particularly Dignitatis Humanae ) are hereitcal, which is why so many people now believe in these errors - they think that Vatican II taught them.

If you read the documents closely, they actually do not say what it appears on the surface that they say. That may seem to be a strange comment. You may be wondering, “how can something seem to say what it does not say”. It can, and it does. The same is true for the New Catechism. In certain places it appears to say what it doesn’t actually say. Or, maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say that they gives the impression of saying what they don’t actually say.

In addition to that problem found in the Vatican II documents, there is also the matter of outright deception.

Fr. Brian Harrison is a conservative Catholic priest, and defender of Vatican II, who tries his best to reconcile some of the more “difficult” part of Vatican II (as he calls them) with the Catholic faith. He has done a great deal of research into the official Acts of the council, which are recorded in Rome, and found some interesting facts. The following article tells of one interesting thing that he found. I would place this “interesting fact” in the category of what I mean by deception.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-skeletons.htm

In addition to the poorly worded documents and the deceptions, there is also the problem of double-speak, which allows for more problems and division. For example Vatican II specifically says that the canon of the Mass should remain in Latin. However, it also says that a more generous use of the vernacular should be incorporated in the Mass. The later phrase was used to nullify the former.

If I had more time I could give you a lot of other examples. I would suggest that you read the article by Fr. Harrison that I linked to above.

Post any follow up questions and I will respond when I have time.

I will end with a few quotes showing the Vatican II was not infallible:

Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”

Cardinal Ratzinger: “Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II… The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.”

 

[Tomster]

USMC,

I appreciate your reply and couldn’t agree with you more regarding the documents of Vatican II. All any informed Catholic would have to do is, as you said, is to refer to previous pre-conciliar statements and documents of our Sovereign Pontiffs to get the clear and UNAMBIGUOUS teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Ubi Primum, Parvenu, Satis Cognitum, Mortalium Animos and Mystici Corporis Christi come to mind.

A person who analyzes the ensemble of the Vatican II documents beginning with Lumen Gentium enjoys a moment of calm as he reaches Chapter II. Indeed, it reads: “Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessary institution, would nonetheless refuse either to enter it, or to persevere in it” (LG 14a).

In fact, we are facing here the perennial axiom of dogmatic teaching: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation).

In this passage the whole Tradition of the Church gives the person studying it a feeling of security, confidence and hope that the ambiguities cited previously can be resolved by a crystal clear explanation.

Nevertheless, such hopeful and filial sentiments are shattered when the person reaches the text of the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio; and further on, the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae; and finally, the Declaration on Relations with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate.

continued . . .

 

[Tomster]

USMC,

Let us consider, for example, the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio which reads: “Large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church . . . However, one cannot charge with the sin of separartion those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with the respect and affection as brothers . . .Moreover, some, even very many of the most significant elements and endowments which go together to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements . . . The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion . . . These . . . can aptly give access to the communion of salvation” (UR 3a,b,c).

In this case we no longer appear to be dealing with ambiguities; one would say that we are faced with inconsistency and contradiction. How could one not see a contradiction between what has been said here and the above quotation from Lumen Gentium?

Tomster

Have you read the lead essay in the latest “Remnant”, “The Great Moral Flaw in the Second Vatican Council” ? It’s terrific!

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

How do you explain things like this:

I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers."

Mother Theresa, at a guess.

She will probably be made a saint, and its hard to say that she doesn’t deserve it. However saints can make doctrinal errors.

In this case, she was doing charitable work amongst the poor in a multi-faith Indian community. A natural accusation was that she was trying to make “rice Christians”. Now if people object to the message of the church, that doesn’t mean that we must fail to offer them material assistance. If they will accept some of Jesus’ teachings, but not recognise Him as divine, that doesn’t mean that we need to ignore those teachings.

So we have someone who didn’t hold any offical teaching post in the church, faced with a very specific and delicate situation, maybe bending things slightly to be accomodating to the followers of untrue religions.

 

[fix]

Mother Theresa, at a guess.

She will probably be made a saint, and its hard to say that she doesn’t deserve it. However saints can make doctrinal errors.

In this case, she was doing charitable work amongst the poor in a multi-faith Indian community. A natural accusation was that she was trying to make “rice Christians”. Now if people object to the message of the church, that doesn’t mean that we must fail to offer them material assistance. If they will accept some of Jesus’ teachings, but not recognise Him as divine, that doesn’t mean that we need to ignore those teachings.

So we have someone who didn’t hold any offical teaching post in the church, faced with a very specific and delicate situation, maybe bending things slightly to be accomodating to the followers of untrue religions.

I am not being critical of Mother Teresa, but I wanted a genuine explanation as to how those thoughts could be reconciled with the teaching being discussed in this thread.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I am not being critical of Mother Teresa, but I wanted a genuine explanation as to how those thoughts could be reconciled with the teaching being discussed in this thread.

What was wrong with my explanation?

 

[scylla]

I am not being critical of Mother Teresa, but I wanted a genuine explanation as to how those thoughts could be reconciled with the teaching being discussed in this thread.

The best way to answer that is to check to see if Mother Teresa’s statements are in line with Catholic belief. Many times in life we can be quoted with statements we may not mean also.

Example,

A pastor giving a eulogy, rarely is honest as he doesn’t know that person is in heaven, even though he says he is.

We make statements all the time, whether they are in fact true depends if we are confirming an infallible truth or just stating our opinion.

Mother Teresa’s comments are not a proclamation of official Catholic belief and she could be wrong, as you can make mistakes and still be a saintly person.

God Bless
Scylla

(Malcom, I like your minesweeper game it is clever)

 

[StMarkEofE]

A person is either in the state of grace or they are not - no middle ground. Venial sin does not destroy sanctifying grace.

So, to answer you question: If a soul in the state of grace is white, and a soul in mortal sin is black, then the color of the soul in venial sin is white. The person is either in the state of grace or they are not - no middle ground. Similarly, on the supernatural level, a person is either united to the church or they are not, no middle ground.

So if I understand this correctly, sin can be considered white but serious sin is not? And that grace resides side by side with sin but not Mortal sin?

 

[fix]

What was wrong with my explanation?

I think it was fine.