'Salvation outside of the Church' Revisited

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .My response would be, I think, the one I outlined in my post to rinnie above, namely that the harsh sounding decrees and bulls etc. were issued prior to the discovery of the New World and thus could only be applicable the then *known *world in which Pope Eugene lived and moved and had his being. In that world the message of the Gospel had been thought to have been proclaimed to all men and so none could hide behind invincible ignorance. They knew the Gospel and the claims of the Church and so were without excuse for refusing to embrace her.

Do you think that is a satisfactory explanation, my dear sister?

Pax,

Not exactly. If once the Gospel is proclaimed to all and none could hide behind invincible ignorance; my inability to accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff, thus placing me outside the Catholic Church, would send me to Hell, wouldn’t it?

Anna

Dear Anna Scott,

Hello again and thankyou for the above, dear sister.

A man can, I believe, still be inculpably ignorant if he sincerely believes that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church established by Christ upon St. Peter. . . . .

Pax,

That is the understanding today.

However, it defeats your argument that “harsh sounding decrees and bulls etc. were issued prior to the discovery of the New World and thus could only be applicable the then *known *world in which Pope Eugene lived and moved and had his being. In that world the message of the Gospel had been thought to have been proclaimed to all men and so none could hide behind invincible ignorance. They knew the Gospel and the claims of the Church and so were without excuse for refusing to embrace her.”

Hearing the Gospel and the claims of Catholicism as the one true Church does not necessarily lead to belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Peace,
Anna

 

[AbideWithMe]

Dear Portrait—

While I haven’t read the particular thread you spoke of in your opening post, I’d like to thank you for starting this thread. You do write in a considerate manner, and that’s much appreciated.

Thank you also, for taking seriously the concerns of those who stumble over the idea that the CC has not changed the teaching about the meaning of EENS. I am such a one—not with a hardened obstinacy, but with a genuine inability to see how the pre-Vatican II teaching can be reconciled withe the post-Vatican II teaching.

I had never heard of EENS before coming across it here at CAF about a year ago. Prior to that, though, I was well aware of the current CCC teaching on this subject. During the last year, off and on, I’ve tried to research the subject, as well as ocassionally talk about it with a few Catholics I know from another forum, whom I respect.

And, well, I haven’t made any headway–it still looks clearly to me (and, obviously, to others, both Catholic and non-Catholic), that the teaching has fundamentally changed. Don’t misunderstand me; I think the current CCC handles the topic with clarity and love…it just doesn’t seem to line up with prior teaching to me, though.

Here is a link to Mortalium Animos from 1928, in the Vatican archives. Please read the whole document. Paragraph 11, which seems very clear, is my main stumbling block.

Edit: I can’t get the link to go specifically to Mortalium Animos. It just goes to the home page for the Vatican archives. Please use Google to find the encyclical, as you (or anyone willing to try to answer) have time.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Would you define/explain the “Mystical Body as it was taught in Tradition and Scripture”?

Thanks,
Anna

Sure I will. Now this comes from my main Man the Bishop Fuleon J. Sheen.

Listen up

He tells it like it is, but in our understanding.

10 days after the ascension the glorified savior IN heaven sent upon them his Spirit, not in a form of a book but as tongues of fire. As cells in a body form a new human life when God breathes a soul into the embro so, the apostles appeared as the visible body of Christ when the Holy Spirit came to make them One. THIS Mystical body or THE CHURCH is called in Tradition and Scripture the WHOLE CHRIST or the Fullnest of Christ.

Pretty neat huh? And has anyone made it any clearer then My Man Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

The man Can teach, Can he not?

 

[rinnie]

Anna let me say this another way the post before may not have been as clear as I wanted it to be.

THe clear fact is this, Christ is it! Salvatiom comes from him, Case Closed.

Now with that said, You have until the LAST breath that you take in this world to accept Christ. Lets say you REFUSE to accept that on your last breath, God reveals this truth to you, but you reject HIM which is ALSO CHRIST!

Then if God reveals this to you and you reject HIM which is CHRIST then you have rejected not only Christ but God also, Why? Simple they are the same person. Thats the plain and simple way of putting it, or being blunt!

Bottom line you don’t understand Christ, or the truth about him. okay last day, you time is up in this world, the truth is revealed to you. You either accept the truth or you reject it. If you reject Christ you have now rejected God.

Does that make better sense?

Remember the scripture that God says he puts blinders on the Jews but on the last day will open their eyes? Kinda the same thing here. But the last day for many is our mortal death, for some, they will be the here on the last day. Remember how God said he will come back and the Jews will cry and fall to their knees. Etc. well it is in the same lines. But not only the Jews, many do not see Christ until the last breath, but they have that last breath to accept him. If they do, they may have the cleanisng fire, but they are in!

Remember that cleansing fire is not a bad thing, it is a Grace from God. But eternal fire, you are done, you have had the truth revealed to you, you understand it all, but reject it!

Its as simple as this, you have God saying I am Jesus! If you say I reject you. Well if You reject God you reject Christ. You have the truth, you reject it. thats pretty much it!

 

[rinnie]

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means
This is the article that appeared in This Rock about this subject.

Rinnie, with your first post don’t we have to be careful when speaking to our separated brethren (protestants)? No one is going to be saved through “The St. Francis National Evangelical Spiritual Baptist Faith Archdiocese of Canada”.
(jamespedlar.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/the-longest-church-name-in-the-history-of-the-world/)

But anyone who will be saved will be saved by Christ, through His Body whether they know what His Body truly is or not.

Yes, my dear, and I believe when I explained what the Mystical Body is, that would be quite clear.

The fact still remains it is through his Body as you say!

I think its more of learning what exactly it is, and learning the clear understanding of the Mystical Body of Christ that will clear this teaching up.

But thats gonna take time I think

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mortalium Animos

No Salvation Outside the Church has not changed nor can it.

What has changed is the Ecumenical aspect

Vatican II is binding and all the Popes since Pope John XXIII have confirmed thus Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, BL JP-II. and Pope Benedict.

Remember that Pius XI is addressing the problem “ecumenism”. Pius XI rejected that ecumenism completely. Salvation is through Christ, not through human efforts. Therefore, no dealings with heretics or schismatics. But now Vatican II offers a “new ecumenism” asking to be accepted as the one true Church founded by Christ, and we will talk to you as “separated brethern”, and will explain what we mean. This opens the dialog without compromising the faith, or the authority which is really Christ’s. Simple.

Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) says: “3. …However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation 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 respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.
…The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation. It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Whats being confused here is whats Dogmatic and whats Ecumenical. The Ecumenical efforts are mandated today and were not during before V-II. “Dominus Iesus” from 2000 would be a the doctrine to read in understanding this.

Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical “Mortalium animos.” is no contradiction, because (1) MA’s prohibition on attending assemblies with non-Catholics is disciplinary rather than doctrinal, and (2) canon 6 of the 1983 code of canon law abrogated previous universal disciplinary and penal laws.

So here you arrive at what is Dogmatic Doctrine, what is disciplinary, what is mandated or any combination. Problem here is we are discussing two different aspects. One being the Ecumenical effort which vastly differ from centurys past. Then trying to force this to fit into Doctrine of No Salvation which has not changed. The ecumenical effort has changed.

It should be pointed out that it is the question of a possibility for salvation based on particular circumstances. One of these would be the acceptance of the Church as the true Church, which now provides information to others that their faith is really a faith in the Catholic Church, but not a full faith. Just a first step, but an important one. Different “ecumenisms” now incorporating different perspectives of “salvation”.

Salvation is truly through the C-Church!

and if others have left it partially, once they acknowledge this “new ecumenism”, thay may have some hope for salvation if they have acted in good faith. No guarantees, and of course, Vatican II is now part of the pastoral Magisterium. No question about it.

Indeed, the new ecumenism based on the Chair of Peter and the Power of the Keys, with all its possibilities, now extends itself towards the whole of mankind, not just to all Christians. There is only one God in reality, proclaimed by Christ as God Incarnate. A God who is One with three Divine Persons, a Triune God. Therefore, not just what Christ taught, but the reality of what He actually is provides the reason for affirming this unique way to access God that His Church preaches, facing all other religions. The fact that it is unique comes not only from any logical coherence it may have, but from the very fact that “this way” of accessing God is proclaimed by God Himself, because it is the divine way. All other historical ways of access are really human ab-errant ways, groping through intellectual steps, and searching for an access to the real divinity “in” the depths of everything real. As St. Paul put it to the Areopagus in Athens: phelaphán tón Theón, "grope for God” (Acts 17:27). taken in part from…[Catholic Ecumenism]

Thus you begin to also see where I am coming from in the above post. Catholics today need ecumenism, we are in a different period of time. The Chair of Peter and the Power of the Keys, still remain intact.

Peace

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Thank you also, for taking seriously the concerns of those who stumble over the idea that the CC has not changed the teaching about the meaning of EENS. I am such a one—not with a hardened obstinacy, but with a genuine inability to see how the pre-Vatican II teaching can be reconciled withe the post-Vatican II teaching… . . .

And, well, I haven’t made any headway–it still looks clearly to me (and, obviously, to others, both Catholic and non-Catholic), that the teaching has fundamentally changed. Don’t misunderstand me; I think the current CCC handles the topic with clarity and love…it just doesn’t seem to line up with prior teaching to me, though.

AbideWithMe,

I can relate, because it is the same for me. I have been involved in a number of discussions here re EENS. There was a point when I thought I understood how views of the past are reconciled with Vatican II. Sadly, it didn’t take. I find myself back at square one.

Since there are only a few serious stumbling blocks to my acceptance of Catholicism, the apparent inconsistencies of EENS being one of them; it’s important for me to continue to consider how past teachings of the CC are consistent with current teachings.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna how do you figure that? Where does it ever say that if you accept Christ or if you do not accept Christ it changes anything?

Salvation is Because of Christ. Where does the gospel say if you see this or if you don’t, or if you accept this or if you don’t changes anything.

Also where was it ever said that there was indeed Salvation before Jesus Christ, And if there was, why did he have to die for our sins.

The simple fact remains there is salvation outside of Christ or this is not? Of course you cannot have it both ways. There is only one way, And that way is there is NO salvation outside of Jesus Christ.

Again do you believe this? Lets say you do, lets say you don’t. Does it change anything?

Nope! If there WAS salvation outside of Jesus Christ or aka the CC, then why did Abraham not go to heaven at the time of his death? What was he held in hades?

Is there Salvation outside of Jesus Christ? If there is, or was, then what was the Cross for?

Your post above does not address the issues I raised.

You said (emphasis is mine):

Nope nothing changed there is no Salvation outside of the CC. But what people do not understand this teaching was directly for the people in the Church.

I said:

In order for your argument to work, one must believe “pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics” were part of the Catholic Church at the time of the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and that the teaching was given directly for them as people within the Catholic Church. This argument just doesn’t work.

You said:

The CC at that particular time of teaching was always meant to be Jesus Christ.

I said:

Regarding EENS, Pagans, Jews, etc. would not be included, since they do not accept Christ.

If there WAS salvation outside of Jesus Christ or aka the CC. .

Even if you believe the “Catholic Church equals Jesus Christ”; this still does not address the fact that Pagans, Jews, etc. were outside the CC (and outside of Christ), according to Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, which was very specific. He identified pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics as existing outside the Catholic Church; and he clearly stated they cannot share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Link: catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation

So, the argument that “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church” just doesn’t work.

So, again: Pope Eugene IV identified pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics as being outside the CC; and clearly stated they cannot share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

So, how can you claim, “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church”?

Peace,
Anna

 

[AbideWithMe]

AbideWithMe,

I can relate, because it is the same for me. I have been involved in a number of discussions here re EENS. There was a point when I thought I understood how views of the past are reconciled with Vatican II. Sadly, it didn’t take. I find myself back at square one.

Since there are only a few serious stumbling blocks to my acceptance of Catholicism, the apparent inconsistencies of EENS being one of them; it’s important for me to continue to consider how past teachings of the CC are consistent with current teachings.

Peace,
Anna

Well said, Anna.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hi Gary, fellow Northeasterner—

Thanks for your response. I’ve only had time to skim it so far, since I have to get back to work, but I’ll re-read it thoroughly later.

I think I do understand fairly well the difference between disciplines, which may change as needed, and doctrines, which may not change. I see your point, that the prohibition against Catholics taking part in non-Catholic services would be a discipline. However, though that is a main part of what Mortalium Animos is about, that isn’t where I’m having difficulty with it.

I’ll reply more after I get to mull over your response later.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .The reason this gets out of hand, is because we have to remember back in the day, all Christians were united together in One Church. So if you were a Christian back then, you were all taught the same thing. You saw the true teaching, and understood it more clearly. . . .

Rinnie,
If all Christians were united and believed the same thing; there would be no one to fall under the label of “schismatics.” So, this doesn’t work either.

Rinnie,
I didn’t see a response to this. If you answered, just give me a post number.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well said, Anna.

AbideWithMe,

I think what you said is really important; because some non-Catholics come here with a closed mind about all things Catholic.

Others, such as you and I, really want to understand Catholic beliefs and doctrines. God’s truth is the ultimate goal.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna let me say this another way the post before may not have been as clear as I wanted it to be.

THe clear fact is this, Christ is it! Salvatiom comes from him, Case Closed.

Now with that said, You have until the LAST breath that you take in this world to accept Christ. Lets say you REFUSE to accept that on your last breath, God reveals this truth to you, but you reject HIM which is ALSO CHRIST!

Then if God reveals this to you and you reject HIM which is CHRIST then you have rejected not only Christ but God also, Why? Simple they are the same person. Thats the plain and simple way of putting it, or being blunt!

Bottom line you don’t understand Christ, or the truth about him. okay last day, you time is up in this world, the truth is revealed to you. You either accept the truth or you reject it. If you reject Christ you have now rejected God.

Does that make better sense?

Remember the scripture that God says he puts blinders on the Jews but on the last day will open their eyes? Kinda the same thing here. But the last day for many is our mortal death, for some, they will be the here on the last day. Remember how God said he will come back and the Jews will cry and fall to their knees. Etc. well it is in the same lines. But not only the Jews, many do not see Christ until the last breath, but they have that last breath to accept him. If they do, they may have the cleanisng fire, but they are in!

Remember that cleansing fire is not a bad thing, it is a Grace from God. But eternal fire, you are done, you have had the truth revealed to you, you understand it all, but reject it!

Its as simple as this, you have God saying I am Jesus! If you say I reject you. Well if You reject God you reject Christ. You have the truth, you reject it. thats pretty much it!

Rinnie,
Interesting to hear your views in the above post; but this does not explain your statement, **“But what people do not understand this teaching was directly for the people in the Church.” **

Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, was very specific. He identified pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics as existing outside the Catholic Church; and he clearly stated they cannot share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Nor does it respond to my statement, "If all Christians were united and believed the same thing; there would be no one to fall under the label of “schismatics,” which was a response to:

. . . .we have to remember back in the day, all Christians were united together in One Church. So if you were a Christian back then, you were all taught the same thing. You saw the true teaching, and understood it more clearly. . .

Peace,
Anna

 

[Portrait]

Pax,

That is the understanding today.

However, it defeats your argument that “harsh sounding decrees and bulls etc. were issued prior to the discovery of the New World and thus could only be applicable the then *known *world in which Pope Eugene lived and moved and had his being. In that world the message of the Gospel had been thought to have been proclaimed to all men and so none could hide behind invincible ignorance. They knew the Gospel and the claims of the Church and so were without excuse for refusing to embrace her.”

Hearing the Gospel and the claims of Catholicism as the one true Church does not necessarily lead to belief that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

Peace,
Anna

Dear Anna Scott,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for the above response.

Pope Eugene’s remarks regarding no salvation for those outside of the borders of the Church do admit of a general application within the context of the then known world. It was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that the Evangel had been widely proclaimed and that men had heard it and had had opportunity to respond accordingly. However, even a Pope, dear sister, cannot read men’s hearts, only God can do that, so Pope Eugene would have realized that his stern condemnations in Cantate Domino could obviously not pertain to the inculpably ignorant, who, through no deliberate fault of their own, could just not realize the authority of the Church or the veracity of its claims. Such men have not intentionally rejected the Church or its teachings and are therefore still invincibly ignorant. Non-Catholics who have sincerely failed to understand the claims of the Church are not blameworthy in their refusal of obedience and the Popes, who promulgated vehement condemnations concerning those outside the Church, would have been well aware of that.

It is because the Catholic Church realizes that a mere hearing of its claims does not necessarily result in acceptance of said claims and an embracing of Catholicism, that she holds to the position that she does respecting the inculpably ingnorant. It is actually a very merciful and charitable stance, for it makes room for the great obstacles some men face when confronted with the Catholic claims and authority of the Church; it allows for their, sometimes, very deep seated prejudices and ignorances.

Moreover, you must remember, dear sister, that with the discoveries of new regions and continents, with their billions of ‘pagans’, the Church naturally had to develop (not change) its teaching concerning non-Catholics, to meet a wholly new set of circumstances that the earlier Pope’s could just have not envisaged during their lifetime.

Does that go at least some way in helping you to understand the teaching of the Church? May I just say that I really do appreciate the genuine difficulties that people have with this whole issue, indeed, that was my sole purpose in starting this thread, so that we could address the various problems and endeavour to understand clearly what the Church does teach.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Hi Portrait,

You know what I thought of from reading through this; EWTN today. Today EWTN ran a new Journey Home show. In the show is profiled a married couple, one whom was a very devote and educated Lutheran, and her husband who was a lapsed Catholic.

Peace

Dear Gary Taylor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for submitting the above, it rather follows on quite nicely, I think, with what I said in my post to Anna.

God bless, dear brother.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .Problem here is we are discussing two different aspects. One being the Ecumenical effort which vastly differ from centurys past. Then trying to force this to fit into Doctrine of No Salvation which has not changed. The ecumenical effort has changed. . . .

Gary,
I always appreciate your posts. We’ve discussed EENS on other threads.

I understand the CC’s Ecumenical efforts differ vastly from centuries past. That is very obvious.

What is less obvious, to me anyway, is the way in which the Ecumenical effort is separated from EENS. The idea of providing "information to others that their faith is really a faith in the Catholic Church, but not a full faith. . . " doesn’t seem to explain why those labeled “schismatics” were considered, in centuries past, to be outside the CC and thus destined for Hell. Nor does it explain the necessity of one being under the authority of the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved.

If it were plainly obvious that NNES has not changed, and that the confusion is merely over a matter of change in ecumenical efforts; there would not have been “breakaway” Catholics, such as Traditionalists, who believe Vatican II did change the teachings of the CC.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, founded in 1949 by Father Leonard Feeney, certainly cannot reconcile past teachings of NNES, and statements by previous Popes and Church Fathers, with Vatican II. Here are quotes from their website:

"Ordinary Magisterium. . . .

Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 – 1216): “With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (Denzinger 423)

. . . .Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 – 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 – 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae )

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 – 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane )

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 – 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum )

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 – 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )

Pope Pius XII (A.D. 1939 – 1958): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.” (Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953)

Extraordinary Magisterium

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes “in concrete,” so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

**Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 – 1445): **“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Link: catholicism.org/eens-popes.html

This just doesn’t make sense to me.

Anna

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ

Allow me to offer some reflections on this apparent “conundrum”. I address this post most especially to our dearly beloved siblings in the Lord Anna Scott and Abide With Me.

Being a Catholic, I am of the firm opinion that the teaching of Holy Mother Church has never changed but that it has developed (as doctrine does over time through the progressive enlightenment of the human individual and civilisation itself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). When I first looked into this issue I was perplexed by the apparent incongruence between the pre-conciliar view of salvation outside the Church and the post-conciliar one. Indeed it seemed to me that the Church had moved from a position of rigid exclusivism to moderate inclusivism.

In this respect, there are both “inclusive” Magisterium texts prior to Vatican II and seemingly restrictive or “exclusivist”-sounding ones. This is important to note, since if these inclusivist elements existed prior to Vatican II, and indeed as far back as the Early Church Fathers, then this in itself mitigates the notion. It would lead us to conclude only one thing: The Church started out largely inclusive in terms of salvation and then during the Middle Ages for a period went rabidly exclusivist before become inclusivist once more in the mid-20th century.

It is important to be aware of both of these “currents”, so to speak, so that one does not simply come up with the idea that the Church has had a role reversal.

To begin with we must take something into consideration: Many of the Early Fathers espoused a semi-inclusivist view of salvation and this was important since they operated in a diverse, pluralistic, multi-religious world - the world of the Roman Empire.

Conversely, Pope Eugene lived in the Middle Ages, in Christian Europe where the only non-Christian people to inhabit Christian lands in even miniscule numbers were the Jews, and in a climate in which most people were faithfully Catholic. Historians say that there has never been a time in history when a society was so ardently committed to a single Christian (Catholic) identity as pre-Reformation, Middle Age Europe.

This change in society, influenced beyond doubt the language, approach and attitude of the Church towards the subject of salvation. No longer living in a pluralistic world, it focused less on the idea of salvation for the non-believer and more on the importancve of faithful adherence on the part of believing Catholics.

After World War II, the Church emerged once more into a diverse, pluralistic world and its approach changed once more, in many respects reflecting the earlier patristic view.

In all of this the Church’s doctrine did not change one bit - however how it was presented, understood and expressed by Catholics, obviously did given the great changes to society brought about by strict confessionalism to one religion for so many hundreds of years.

And yet despite this, there are still remarkably inclusivist texts from the Middle Ages, which demonstrate that the Church did not change its doctrine.

First I want you too reflect on the views of two Church Fathers:

“…How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!..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 in heart are saved in the unity of the ark…”

- Saint Augustine, Church Father (354–430 AD), Baptism 5:28:39

“…He was ours [a Christian] even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside [the Church] belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need only the name, having the reality…”

- St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 18.5 (c. 374 AD)

From these two early Church Fathers we learn that there is a very important distinction between having the name of Christian and being bodily a formal member of the Church; and on the other hand having the reality of a Christian and a member of the Church in heart - and therefore without explicit faith in Christ - or indeed an erroneous understanding of faith in Christ in the case of a heretic or schismatic - one is really a Christian and so is “saved” by this mystical joining to the Church through following the dictates of conscience, placed in the soul of every person by the Spirit of Christ.

This patristic teaching is very important for understanding the latin phrase, “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” (Outside the Church there is no salvation).

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

It is important to understand that nobody can attain salvation through being a “pagan, Jew, Heretic or Schismatic” as Pope Eugene explains. Anyone bodily outside the Church is outside of the visible Ark of Salvation. Technically speaking, a “pagan, Jew, Heretic or Schismatic” is bodily outside the Church and therefore Pope Eugene is correct to say that anyone bodily outside the Mystical Body of Christ, in name, cannot attain to salvation ipso facto by the very nature of not being formally a member of the Catholic Church. And yet “name” is different from “heart”. As a Christian, Pope Eugene would surely have known that he does not have the authority to judge the the eternal fate of another human being - whose mental state can be known only to God. But he does not judge “pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics” as individuals - that is subjectively. He does not judge them at all in this way. He states, quite correctly, that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are bodily outside the Church and therefore cannot be saved unless they are joined to the Church before their death. He thus judges them from the perspective of objective truth rather than subjective grasping of that truth whether explicit or implicit (that is baptism of desire).

You have missed the key line in this passage of Pope Eugene, which is why you misunderstand this text - as do most people - as being “restrictive”:

“…unless before death they are joined with Her…”

You have assumed, as do most, that “joined with her” means physically becoming a formal member of the Catholic Church (Ie undergoing baptism), becoming a “card-carrying” member so to speak. But this is not at all the case. Pope Eugene did not say at any point in this passage that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics must become Catholics or Christians. If he had said, “unless before death they are converted to the Christian faith” or “embrace the Christian faith” or “become Christians”, then you would have cause to read this text as restrictive and in opposition to other “inclusivist” Church teachings on the salvation of those outside the visible confines of the Church. But he didn’t. Rather he said they must be “joined”, and in this respect he obviously understood perfectly the Augustinian dictum. But even if we supposed (incorrectly I think) that he didn’t then it matters not - for Pope Eugene being a man may have thought pagans were damned but the Holy Spirit did not allow him to say this, and its the Holy Spirit that counts speaking through us men, limited as we are by culture, language and time period. However the evidence in my opinion proves this not to be so.

Vatican II did not dispute Pope Eugene’s contention that bodily pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are outside the visible confines of the Church and on this basis cannot attain to salvation unless they are joined to her before their death - a concept which many of the Early Fathers of the Church and thinkers during the Middle Ages and in modern times, have understood as pertaining to the heart which may in fact be within the Church and therefore joined to her even if bodily speaking the individual is not a formal member. And how are they joined to Holy Mother Church? Through following the dictates of conscience which is a direct engagement with the Logos (Jesus), therefore making the individual spiritually a Christian whilst physically outside the Church. If pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics do not sincerely follow the dictates of their conscience, then they would not be Christians and therefore would be outside the Church, because they have not “joined” themselves to her through an adherence to reason, and on the basis (therefore) of their being physically outside the Church, they are surely doomed.

From the perspective of absolute, objective truth Pope Eugene is correct to say that anybody outside the Church in body is in principle unable to attain to salvation. From the perspective of subjective conscience, he cannot and did not say that “pagans, Jews etc.” are damned, which is made apparent by the qualifying phrase “unless they be joined” to the Church which some of the Fathers of the Early Church and the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council rightly understand as meaning implicit membership in the Church through having the “reality” and the “heart” of a Christian; that is by adhering to the dictates of conscience placed there by the Spirit of Christ, and thereby following Christ. This is sometimes known as baptism of desire or at least a form of it (another being the case of a catechumen who dies before being formally baptised).

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

And so any pagans, Jews or else who sincerely follow their consciences are actually in “reality” and in “heart” Christians, members of the Church, even though they lack the “name” and “bodily” participation (formal membership).

John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions writes:

“For such people [those who do not formally enter the Church] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the
Church, does not make them part of the Church.”

This “mysterious relationship” is how the Church interprets being “joined” to the Church.

And believe or not contemporaries of Pope Eugene agreed.

The great Medeival Church theologian Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) for example believed that God had given enough revelation for the salvation of pagans and those who had never heard the gospel to attain salvation.

And last of all why don’t we consider Pope Gregory VII’s letter to the Muslim King of Mauritania in 1076:

“…He who enlightens all men coming into this world (John 1.9) has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. This affection we and you owe to each other in a more peculiar way than to people of other races because we worship and confess the same God though in diverse forms and daily praise and adore Him as the creator and ruler of this world. For, in the words of the Apostle, ‘He is our peace who hath made both one.’ This good action was inspired in your heart by God…This grace granted to you by God is admired and praised by many of the Roman nobility who have learned from us of your benevolence and high qualities . . .] For God knows that we love you purely for His honour and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in this life and in the life to come. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long years of life here on earth…”

- Pope St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI to Al-Nasir the Muslim Ruler of Bijaya (Algeria), 1076

Do you think that these are the words of a man who thinks that King Al-Nasir is damned because of his Islamic faith? He even hopes that he is welcomed into the “bosom of Abraham” (reflecting knowledge that Muslims claim to worship the God of Abraham) and said that Al-Nasir had received “GRACE” from God and that the Holy Spirit was with him! Outside the Church?

And so now you should know why the Jansenist heresy - which claimed that supernatural (saving) grace is not imparted outside the Visible Church - was expressly condemned by Pope Clement XI in 1713