'Salvation outside of the Church' Revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Portrait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Also Anna just a simple question.

If there was Salvation outside of Christ in his Church, Why did go to all of the trouble of sending the Apostles to teach the good news and Baptise, forgive sins, etc.?

What was the reason then?
 
About Mortalium Animos, it is in many respects a very “harshly” worded encyclical but this is to expected since Pope Pius XI was quite a fiery character - he certainly didn’t “suffer fools gladly”, so to speak. One of his encyclicals - a favourite of mine - was addressed to the Catholics of Germany. It was a condemnation, in 1937, of Nazi ideology - the first of any world leader, religious or otherwise - and was called, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (With Burning Grief). This kind of epitomizes for me his personality.

It appeared to most Catholics during the 1920s and 30s that ecumenism was significantly diminshed somewhat under the pontificate of Pius XI, which is not wholly the truth. The Pope was very happy to encourage ecumenism in that he wanted to bring all people everywhere into the Catholic Church. He was simply not prepared to enter into any negotiations with others on the grounds that divine truths can be the subject of debate.

The central concern of Mortalium Animos is that a movement directed towards peace or reconciliation can never think that it is acceptable to dispense with questions of truth; with the reality and finality of divine truth. In many respects its an early 20th century, politically incorrect rebuke of the very same spirit of “moral relativism” which Pope Benedict XVI is decrying in this day and age. Real unity, according to Pope Pius XI in this encyclical, cannot and will not in the end be achieved by mere tolerance or a kindly disposed good will to the doctrinal beliefs of other religious bodies, while in the process diluting or regarding as uneccessary the objective truths of divine and Catholic faith. At stake is the question of the very nature of God Himself and what the Christian faith means in essence.

These concerns weren’t given up by Vatican II; rather a new, more positive, developed, enlightened and receptive way was found to address them across the old boundary lines of demarcation and separation between ecclesial communities.
Vouthon—

You did a good job in providing more background on Pope Pius XI than I’d found on my own. I’m going to look up that “Mit Brennender Sorge” encyclical. Thank you.

I think I understand Pope Pius XI’s reason for the encyclical. It’s not the overall encyclical itself that I’m having a difficulty with. Rather, it seems like there are several places where he distinctly defines those “who are truly Christ’s” and who is in and who is out of the Church, with no recognition of the idea of people being “joined” salvifically to the Church without being demonstrably under the Pope as an explicit Catholic.

I’ll have to quote the specific passages I mean so we can look at them together. I’ll work on that tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks again, all, for putting your time into this, and a blessed night’s sleep to everyone.
 
My efforts were in vain as I tried to explain that the development of Church dogma has led to the conclusion that the Church extends not only to her avowed baptized membership, but also to all men of good will who earnestly seek after the truth.
Your Protestant friend is correct in understanding the Dogma to mean that only those in the bosom of the Church can be saved. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, as we all know.

Further, men of good-will will never be adverse to the Gospel. Such are the first to hear it and believe it. You would seem to confuse reasonable or civil people with those who objectively can be said to be of good will, which is rather something more than being civil or reasonable; strictly speaking it is very rare. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that reasonableness and civility is something we are all taught and made to practice. It does not come naturally to most, if any; intervention by authority (parents, society or the state) is often its cause, and where this is wanting we notice it immediately in its consequences.

Now our Catholic teaching lends us the suggestion that most men (and especially the unbaptized) are, in some way, under the sway, power, suggestion or influence of Satan and therefore are liable to believe his lies. Now lies vitiate good-will, and by believing them and propogating them we do Satan a real service. In the older Rites, catechumens underwent numerous minor exorcisms before being baptized.

Now anything that serves as an obstacle to the Faith is contrary to God, as it is God’s holy Will that men repent of their sins and come to salvation. As we can clearly see, there is much in this world that is actively trying to block or obstruct men from coming to the font of salvation that is the Catholic Church. This world is filled with distractions, amusements and temptations that corrupt our souls. These things are like poison that obstruct grace, because grace builds on nature. Now if our nature is corrupted, perverted or polluted, then where shall grace build? Where or in what can it be infused? If our heart’s desire is set on worldy dainties, entertainments, etc., then how can we be said to be seeking God or the truth? If one is content in these things even to such an extent as they prefer these things to all others, then how can we say that person is of God? Are they not of this world? Such are in need of our prayers.

Anyone who earnestly seeks after the Truth will find Him. “Seek and you shall find; knock and the door shall be opened” etc. But this requires an active commitment on the part of the person, to such an extent that they will humbly receive and accept the Truth. A general observation would be that most men seem to simply give-up on this, even though it its urged and written in their very hearts, though indeed things happen in our lives that prompt us out of our lethargy or complacency or acedia, and this is certainly a kindness on the part of God. But depending on our will, we will either receive correction (or direction) or become worse, e.g. become bitter and angry with God. The proud are liable to take offense (if life or success turns for the worse, for example) but the humble will turn to God for help in times of trial and calamity. They will see their works as vanity for the usual reasons, such as the old proverb says, “You can’t take it with you.” My virtue, my honour, my kindesses, etc., while all well and good, do not purchase me a leave from death; and if they are done not for Christ’s sake, then they are not even good works or Charity, since I would be doing them for my own sake, and have already received its reward.

Beware of anyone, therefore, who thinks that being nice or kind or honourable will merit us salvation. Far better is it, I think, to recognize that we are all sinners in need of God’s mercy and grace; otherwise, we seem to have a salvation by works mentality that thinks man can somehow redeem himself. Now if that were so, then what need was there for Christ to come? For what purpose was His Passion?

Further, all human beings have a positive duty to worship the True God and give Him thanks, as He is ultimately the source and cause of all the good we might have or possess, including virtue. True enough, those who are legitimately virtuous are far more likely to be baptized, but they still need baptism and they still need grace. Without grace no one can have true Faith, Hope or Charity. Now if God has been so kind to a man that he can be legitimately virtuous, then such a man has all the more cause and reason to honour the Triune God and worship Him in spirit and in truth.

If I might add something here, in my experience, I frequently find that it is not the apparently good or virtuous who are most likely to be receptive to the Faith, but usually the tired, disillusioned, disgruntled, etc. Those who are used to being blamed or told that they are insufficient or faulty or what have you. The coldness and cruelty they have suffered in life, at least has some good here, in that many people half-believe it, such that they do not hold themselves in overly high-esteem or make an idol of themselves. Neither do they usually hold the world in inordinately high esteem. Nor do they think too highly of men in general, knowing as they do the cruelty, coldness and mercilessness that man is quite capable of. In comparison, their faults are usually trivial. Manners and habits are much easier to correct than say pride or greed.

Finally, let me summarize by saying that the hindrance to salvation is not and never the Church or Her Teaching or Dogma- far from it! But it is always sin that obstructs. It is sin that is the obstacle to salvation and it is sin that has to be removed:
Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.
 
Vouthon—

You did a good job in providing more background on Pope Pius XI than I’d found on my own. I’m going to look up that “Mit Brennender Sorge” encyclical. Thank you.

I think I understand Pope Pius XI’s reason for the encyclical. It’s not the overall encyclical itself that I’m having a difficulty with. Rather, it seems like there are several places where he distinctly defines those “who are truly Christ’s” and who is in and who is out of the Church, with no recognition of the idea of people being “joined” salvifically to the Church without being demonstrably under the Pope as an explicit Catholic.

I’ll have to quote the specific passages I mean so we can look at them together. I’ll work on that tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks again, all, for putting your time into this, and a blessed night’s sleep to everyone.
My dear brother/sister Abide With Me 🙂

Thank you very much for your reply!

We must also remember, when reading this encyclical, that apart from condemning the false ecumenism - as the Pope saw it - behind the plan to create a “federation of Churches” loosely united at the expense of doctrinal truth, Pope Pius XI actually had a very positive attitude towards “separated brethren” (other Christians) to the extent that he actually said in 1927, addressing an audience of Italian undergraduates (a year before Mortalium Animos was promulgated in 1928),

“…Catholics are sometimes lacking in a right appreciation of their separated brethren, and are even wanting in brotherly love, because they do not know enough about them. People do not realize how much faith, goodness, and Christianity there is in these bodies now detached from the age-long Catholic truth. Pieces broken from gold-bearing rock themselves bear gold. The[se]…Christian bodies…keep so venerable a holiness that they deserve not merely respect but complete sympathy…”

*- Pope Pius XI, 1927 (cf. Radio Replies, Volume 2, pp. 76). *

Lumen Gentium - a key doctrinal text of the Second Vatican Council - in Section 15 builds on this teaching when it celebrates the elements of faith, goodness and Christianity in “our separated brethren” (other Christians) and grounds this affirmation by stating that these examples of Christian life derive from a special union in the Holy Spirit, who leads non-Catholic Christians through the gifts and graces he grants them. In other sections of LG, like Section 8, the faith and Christianity non-Catholic Christians is further explained as belonging to the Church and not possessed independently by these separate bodies.

As you can see, the documents of Vatican II serve to organically develop, purify, strengthen, clarify and perfect the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

Doctrine develops but it does not change.
 
Your Protestant friend is correct in understanding the Dogma to mean that only those in the bosom of the Church can be saved. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, as we all know.

Further, men of good-will will never be adverse to the Gospel. Such are the first to hear it and believe it. You would seem to confuse reasonable or civil people with those who objectively can be said to be of good will, which is rather something more than being civil or reasonable; strictly speaking it is very rare. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that reasonableness and civility is something we are all taught and made to practice. It does not come naturally to most, if any; intervention by authority (parents, society or the state) is often its cause, and where this is wanting we notice it immediately in its consequences.
Dear AugustSon7,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post and a warm welcome to the world of CAF.

It is imperative that we understand what our Church really means by their being no salvation outside of the bosom of the Church. As the Church explains it and believes it, the statement does not mean that all those who are not baptized members of the Catholic Church are ipso* facto* unsaved or ‘lost’. Notwithstanding that our Church has never taught this, my Protestant interlocutor was maintaining that in previous teaching it had. Moreover, he was contending that unless a man heard the Gospel message and made a conscious response by embracing Christ, then he could not be saved, since that is what the N.T. teaches. Catholics certainly believe that the fullest riches of the means intended by Christ for salvation exist within our Church. These include the sacraments and liturgical life, unity of faith, communion in organization and other elements of Catholic spirituality. It further holds that if any man is saved outiside of the borders of the Church, for example in a non-Christian religion, then he is saved not by his false religion, but rather in spite of it.

As regards, dear friend, non-Christians who have no knowldege of Christ, or even perhaps of God in any explicit way, our Church believes they, too, are under the saving love and care of our gracious and merciful God, and share (even if they are unaware of it) in the redemptive merits of our dear Lord’s death and resurrection. The Constitution of the Church (16) affirms: “Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them”. This repeats tradtional Catholic teaching when it adds: “Divine providence does not deny the help necessary to salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace”.

Therefore Church recognises that earnest men of good will and those with aspirations after goodness, may indeed be finally saved. Indeed, it does involve much more than civility or reasonableness, it involves an diligent seeking after truth and a striving to do meritorious works, aided by the grace of God, of course.

The Catholic Church’s understanding of the biblical injunctions about the necessity of faith in Christ has developed to take into account changing circumstances. In the old world it was quite understandably thought that all men had the opportunity to accept or reject our Blessed Saviour and the claims of the Church. This explains, as I have remarked previously, why you have the harsh sounding language of a decree like Cantate Domino etc. However, with the discoveries of new religions and continents, with their billions of pagans, all that changed. For this reason and others, the Church gradually came to realize that, unless the salvation Christ set out to achieve was a failure for most of mankind, then the Holy Spirit must surely be at work in ways that have not heretofore been thought of.

Of course, my dear friend, we firmly believe and truly, that Jesus Christ is the source and fulfillment of all salvation. Any individual anywhere and at anytime, is saved only through and in Him and through the community of faith, Holy Mother Church. If that salvation is, however, truly at work in the world today, faith in Christ, and in the heavenly Father whose love He revealed, must be possible in ways other than explicit, conscious acts of “accepting Him as Lord and Saviour of one’s life”, as my Protestant brother was contending.

However, we are, I think dear friend, singing from the same hymn sheet and I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought that being nice, honourable and civil was all that was involved in salvation beyond the borders of the Church.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Vouthon—

Thanks for that excerpt from Pope Pius XI’s talk…you’ve come up with lots of useful information.

It looks now like I’m going to be having a very busy day and evening, then all day Saturday I’m at a silversmithing class, so I just wanted to let you know that my further questions will probably be slow in coming. I take it you’re going to be having a long day, too…so God bless your day.
 
I don’t understand what you are asking me then:confused: Nothing has changed there is no salvation outside of the CC or as I said Jesus Christ.

But it also states as I have told you that there are Visible and Invisible ways that they can be saved that is only known to God. But that in no way means they are not still saved through the Cross.

The only way we are saved is by Jesus Christ and by his Cross to save our sins. I do not see where this teaching or any teaching of the RCC has ever changed.

Lets make this a little easier. Do you feel that there is any way possible for ANYONE to be saved without Jesus Christ?

As I stated if he stated NO ONE can be saved outside of Jesus Christ. What do you feel the current Pope or John Paul II changed or said any different.

The only difference is they said that although it may not be visible, and rather it is, or it is not there is only one way to Salvation is Through the CC or Jesus Christ.

Again what are we disagreeing on here?:confused:

Are you trying to say the teaching has changed?

Because to me, it is explained much clearer is all. But its never changed.
rinnie,

I give up, There’s only so many times I will ask a question. 🤷

Anna
 
. . .“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 Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

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; . . . .(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
. . .But what people do not understand this teaching was directly for the people in the Church. The CC at that particular time of teaching was always meant to be Jesus Christ. . . .
Rinnie, 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. . . .
. . .Regarding your remarks above, this was actually one of the lines of argument that I also took, that is that* Ext**ra Ecclesiam Nulla *Salas (no salvation outside the Church) was addressed to those already within the bosom of the Church, lest they should be tempted to join heretical bodies and forsake the one true religion of Christ. It was not a statement that all non-Catholics would be condemned to Hell. . . .
Again, the Jews, pagans, etc were not within the bosom of the Church. . .
. . . .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. . .
. . .Moreover, I am not sure even if it is official Catholic teaching that the decree of Pope Eugene was directed to those who were already Catholics and who were toying with the idea of abandoning their most holy religion.
. . .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. . . .
. . . .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. . . .
That is the understanding today. However, it defeats your argument that . . . .“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.” . . .
. . . 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. . . .

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. . .
. . . .If there WAS salvation outside of Jesus Christ or aka the CC. . . .
. . .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. . . .So, the argument that “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church” just doesn’t work. . .So, how can you claim, “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church”?
. . . .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. . . .
. . .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. . . .
Frustrated.
 
Frustrated.
Anna,

I just read through this entire conversation and I do not blame you in the lease for being frustrated. While I understand what rinnie and the others are saying, I don’t think they directly addressed your question which is based uopn the fact that pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are, by definition, outside of the Catholic Church.
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. . . .So, the argument that “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church” just doesn’t work. . .So, how can you claim, “this teaching was directly for the people in the Church”?
First of all I don’t agree that this was written just to Catholics, but rather to the whole world. The words appear to be very harsh, indeed, and without much room to wiggle. That being said, I believe they are true, within the proper understanding of what is required to be included within each of these categories. I think that is exactly what the Church, especially in Vatican II, attempted to explain. If one knew the truth and then, while having this knowledge, remained in one these groups, they could not be saved. I think Pope Eugene IV could have and should have chosen his words more carefully, but he was, in fact, stating a truth. If we consider the Church as the family of God and one, through their full consent and having full knowledge of the truth, made the decision to remain outside of the family of God then they certainly could not be considered to remain within the family of God. He was stating a theological truth.

I would compare this with the theological truth that one cannot enter heaven without being baptized. That seems rather harsh, yet it was not a Pope, but rather Christ who said “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (Jn 3:5). So we might ask, what about the poor baby who dies before it was baptized, or the person who lead a righteous life but had never even heard of baptism? The Church then, who was given the authority to bind and loose, has the duty to explain the meaning of these words in light of the mercy and love of God who desires that none be lost.

I’m not sure if I have answered your question at all, but reading through this conversation I shared in your frustration. The Church was right in expanding on the words of Pope Eugene IV just as it was right in expanding on the words of Christ concerning baptism.

God bless.
 
My dear sister Anna Scott 🙂

I am deeply sorry if we have only frustrated you more by our attempts to set forth and articulate the continuity and development of Church teaching vis-a-vis salvation for those bodily outside the visible Church.

It is very difficult for simple, fallible laymen such as ourselves to explain the divine truths of a tradition spanning 2,000 years and with such dense, in-depth, lofty spiritual and theological foundations. Nonetheless as the old adage goes, “God loves a trier”. The truths we are grappling with are divine truths, well beyond our finite minds to ever fully comprehend but we can try - and do our very best. As Blessed Mother Theresa once wisely said, “We cannot do great things in this life; we can only do small things with great love”.

I would be most happy if you could express any bewilderment or misunderstandings you might have about my own personal contributions to this thread. How do you personally find the posts I have written? Have they only served to confuse or irritate you more? Do you understand the distiction I have drawn between having merely the ‘name’ of Christian as opposed to the ‘reality’ and being bodily outside the Church yet possesing implicit, unconcious desire and spiritual membership in the Church through having the correct disposition of ‘will’ and ‘heart’ in a faithful adherence to the good and truth known to oneself through the dictates of conscience? I have contended that Pope Eugene’s definition of “pagans, Jews etc.” being outside the Church must understood in the sense of ‘name’ and the lack of ‘bodily membership’ in my posts on page 3 of this thread.

May God bless and keep you my beloved sister. I pray that God enlightens your conscience through the active grace of the Holy Spirit and grants your mind certainity and assurity in the areas of thought which are currently causing you frustration.

Much love in Christ 👍
 
. . .First of all I don’t agree that this was written just to Catholics, but rather to the whole world. . . .
Steve,

Really, I would need to see teachings of “invincible ignorance,” by the Popes who seem to teach against it. Do such teachings exist from the following Popes; and if not, when was the first Papal teaching on “invincible ignorance”?

I’m not expecting you to answer regarding all of them.

I have quoted Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV in previous posts. So, providing teachings on “invincible ignorance” from even one of these two Popes would be a good start.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”[ccxciii]

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[ccxciv]

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311-1312, ex cathedra: ” Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non-exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”[ccxcv]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”[ccxcvi]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”[ccxcvii]

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”[ccxcviii]

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

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”[ccc]

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra****: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”[ccci]

Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832: “Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”[cccii]

Peace and blessings to you, Steve. Good to bump into you again. 🙂
Anna
 
. . . .I would be most happy if you could express any bewilderment or misunderstandings you might have about my own personal contributions to this thread. How do you personally find the posts I have written? Have they only served to confuse or irritate you more?

Vouthon,

I’m not really irritated by anything that has been written by you or anyone. There has been a great deal of effort by many to explain the issue; and I am grateful for that.

I know what the CC teaches today. As I just told SteveVH; I need to see teachings of “invincible ignorance,” by the Popes whose statements seem to teach against it.

Peace,
Anna
 
Hi Anna…

I have reflected on this and your questions…

The pope is the sign of communion of all believers…we must have one head, not two…and I pray for the reunion of the Latin and Orthodox.

The Church has the full understanding and means for us to enter the life of Christ and to lead us to Him for eternity in heaven. Everything else has most or part or some of the way of salvation.

Check out www.calledtocommunion.com…it has an article by an Anglican priest who in time could see he was in schism. He finally entered into full communion with the Church. I have witnessed a former Anglican priest, now Roman Catholic, who states he can now preach with authority and with difinity.

The Catholic faith is binding…and this all comes from the Primacy of Peter and the Apostles.

The great benefit in being in communion with the Holy Father and the bishops in communion with him…is communion…total inner peace…not based on the Holy Father or the bishops…but in the Holy Spirit. Our understanding of faith, Scripture and Sacraments endows us with the reality of communion not only as Church, but in communion with all of God’s creation.

Please pray to the Holy Spirit. The Church is not the source of salvation. But it has the full means to teach us everything about salvation based on Jesus Christ, she points to God, but the Church can never take the place of God or the pope.

The Holy Father holds the keys to the Living Tradition of faith. Our faith is binding and if we are faithful to our faith’s demands and the sacraments…such as avoiding contraception or the discipline of priestly celibacy…it is Christ Himself Who sustains us.

You are looking too much at man and projecting the divine onto it. All our faith is centered, not on the pope…he is Christ’s representative…but our focus on faith instead is God Himself…

God, not the pope, is the center of our life. The ecclesiastics speak on behalf of the will of God…but the Holy Spirit is the one, not our human understanding, Who resonates what is of Him…or of man.

We follow God. Outward appearances look like we are following humanity. We are absolutely not. Our inner and outward focus is on God.

We come to the Church for God, not men. We don’t look at men. We look at God. It is the Holy Spirit Who is at work and discerns for us…we are in the mystical body of Christ, and put on the mind, eyes, and heart of faith…and here the Holy Father is the same as us.

Only God Himself can judge Who is worthy for eternal life and who is not. That is what Vatican II is saying.
 
Interesting. A conversation about “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” with not a lapsed Catholic, but with an Episcopalian. Not only an Episcopalian but a TEC Episcopalian. I’m amused.

You guys should Google “jefferts schori” sometime.

The document that covers this issue is “Dominus Iesus.” You can find it at the Vatican website.
 
Interesting. A conversation about “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” with not a lapsed Catholic, but with an Episcopalian. Not only an Episcopalian but a TEC Episcopalian. I’m amused.

You guys should Google “jefferts schori” sometime.
iloveangels,

I really don’t appreciate these cheap shots. You’ve done this before. When all else fails, just insult the person asking the questions.

Anna
 
iloveangels,

I really don’t appreciate these cheap shots. You’ve done this before.

Anna
It’s not a cheap shot. Who exactly is the presiding bishop & primate of your church in the United States? If it’s not Jefferts Schori, please let me know.
 
It’s not a cheap shot. Who exactly is the presiding bishop of your church in the United States? If it’s not Jefferts Schori, please let me know.
iloveangels,
This thread has nothing to do with TEC.

Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top