'Salvation outside of the Church' Revisited

[Eric_Hilbert]

Lets go easy on the large print. It’s the internet equivalant of yelling.
Those of us with sight problems can adjust the font on our own computers.

 

[Vouthon]

Lets go easy on the large print. It’s the internet equivalant of yelling.
Those of us with sight problems can adjust the font on our own computers.

Apologies its a bad ‘habit’ of mine I must admit when referring to quotes and citations. I will bear it in mind for the future. I seem to have a slight obsession with putting quotes at font size “3” (used to be font size “4” - even worse!!!). I like to clearer separate quotations from saints, theologians and magisterial texts from the many body of my work, since I make so many references to them (I very rarely post without a quote from some other source). I may from now on simply put a citation in a quote box.

 

[Schism_hater]

**"…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff…" **

Read in light of the teachings of his predecessor which he references in the Bull to back up his definition, the Medeival papacy believed that it did in fact already posses jurisdiction over all human beings whether bodily within or outwith the Church. This ties in perfectly with the Church’s teaching on “spiritual membership” and further strengthens the Church’s understanding of EENS over and against your own. According to Boniface’s predecessors everybody is subject to the Roman Pontiff whether they like it or not,

So Boniface “solemnly defined” that it is was “absolutely necessary to salvation” for every human creature to be what they were already (subject to the Roman pontiff)? Do you really believe that an educated pope (Boniface VIII was an experienced canon lawyer before he became pope) would solemnly define a truism? According to your interpretation, the last sentence of Unam Sanctam is equivalent to “We solemnly declare that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be a human creature.” Sorry, that doesn’t ring true to me.

 

[Vouthon]

So Boniface “solemnly defined” that it is was “absolutely necessary to salvation” for every human creature to be what they were already (subject to the Roman pontiff)? Do you really believe that an educated pope (Boniface VIII was an experienced canon lawyer before he became pope) would solemnly define a truism? According to your interpretation, the last sentence of Unam Sanctam is equivalent to “We solemnly declare that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be a human creature.” Sorry, that doesn’t ring true to me.

My dear brother SH

Not quite. I am saying that Boniface is making a solemn statement not about the salvation of individual human persons but rather one about the essential nature of the papacy to the salvation of humanity and individual persons. He is trying to clarify his office and why it is essential at a time when the papacy was increasigly being challenged. His reign was very difficult. He had continued feuds with kings and their populace who rejected his authority. When King Frederick III of Sicily attained his throne after the death of Pedro III, Boniface tried to dissuade him from accepting the throne of Sicily. When Frederick persisted, Boniface laid excommunication on him, and an interdict upon the island of Sicily in 1296 that denied Catholic priests the right to conduct certain services there. Neither king nor people responded to this censure but ignored the Pope.

This happened on numerous occassions, and Boniface had simply had enough. And so on 18 November 1302, Boniface issued the bull Unam sanctam. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Roman pontiff.

It is a difference in degree, and not of kind. You have simply, to my mind, read it to mean something which it doesn’t.

Boniface is saying that the papacy is essential to the salvation of the world. All human beings are subject to his authority and this must be the case because the papal jurisdiction over humanity is essential. Its an ingenious slap in the dish to the plethora of kings who rejected his authority and told their populations to do so, and it made Boniface most unpopular. There was even a posthumous trial held after his death by the next pope because people were accusing him of ‘sodomy’ and heresy because they hated him so much for his standing up to Europe’s secular rulers.

If you read this in context, you can clearly see the desperate situation Boniface was in and why he had no choice but to make a solemn declaration of papal authority.

If he had said it “off-the-cuff” without the dire contemporaty circumstances in which Unam Sanctum was promulgated, then you would have more cause I think to ask: “Why is Boniface stating the obvious?”

He’s stating “the obvious” because actually, secular kings thought that they could control him like a pawn and rejected papal authority and so it wasn’t at all obvious that the office of papacy was essential in the minds of many laymen of the time.

And also its not my interpretation but rather Pope Innocent III’s and Pope Innocent IV’s and that of the Medeival Church

Boniface is simply taking their doctrine in their deecres, parts of which he referenced and quoted in the bull, and making it solemn, defined and irrefutable for the secular kings challenging his authority: The papal ministry of jurisdiction over all souls is essential to salvation and cannot be disputed.

The whole Bull is about defending papal authority, not judging the salvation of those outside the Church. That is giving it a meaning not warranted by the text of the Bull or the reasons for why it was promulgated - which is even more ludicrous given that Boniface bases his arguement on the writings of the Pope who defined papal authority as being already over all souls both within and without the Church each according to their own law.

Don’t shoot the messenger!

 

[Armin_kerusker]

Hello All.

I am new here. I’ve reading with interest some of the posts of this thread and I would like to comment with the following: Pope Eugene IV used the phrase "The most Holy Roman Church " with the word “Roman” instead of “Universal”. Does this breach the qualification for an ex-cathedra satement? With this realized, is it possible that the tenor (i.e., intention) of this bull was to address a particular situation and not the entire Church?

God Bless

 

[Schism_hater]

My dear brother SH

Not quite. I am saying that Boniface is making a solemn statement not about the salvation of individual human persons but rather one about the essential nature of the papacy to the salvation of humanity and individual persons. He is trying to clarify his office and why it is essential at a time when the papacy was increasigly being challenged. His reign was very difficult. He had continued feuds with kings and their populace who rejected his authority. When King Frederick III of Sicily attained his throne after the death of Pedro III, Boniface tried to dissuade him from accepting the throne of Sicily. When Frederick persisted, Boniface laid excommunication on him, and an interdict upon the island of Sicily in 1296 that denied Catholic priests the right to conduct certain services there. Neither king nor people responded to this censure but ignored the Pope.

This happened on numerous occassions, and Boniface had simply had enough. And so on 18 November 1302, Boniface issued the bull Unam sanctam. It declared that both spiritual and temporal power were under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Roman pontiff.

It is a difference in degree, and not of kind. You have simply, to my mind, read it to mean something which it doesn’t.

Boniface is saying that the papacy is essential to the salvation of the world. All human beings are subject to his authority and this must be the case because the papal jurisdiction over humanity is essential. Its an ingenious slap in the dish to the plethora of kings who rejected his authority and told their populations to do so, and it made Boniface most unpopular. There was even a posthumous trial held after his death by the next pope because people were accusing him of ‘sodomy’ and heresy because they hated him so much for his standing up to Europe’s secular rulers.

If you read this in context, you can clearly see the desperate situation Boniface was in and why he had no choice but to make a solemn declaration of papal authority.

If he had said it “off-the-cuff” without the dire contemporaty circumstances in which Unam Sanctum was promulgated, then you would have more cause I think to ask: “Why is Boniface stating the obvious?”

He’s stating “the obvious” because actually, secular kings thought that they could control him like a pawn and rejected papal authority and so it wasn’t at all obvious that the office of papacy was essential in the minds of many laymen of the time.

And also its not my interpretation but rather Pope Innocent III’s and Pope Innocent IV’s and that of the Medeival Church

Boniface is simply taking their doctrine in their deecres, parts of which he referenced and quoted in the bull, and making it solemn, defined and irrefutable for the secular kings challenging his authority: The papal ministry of jurisdiction over all souls is essential to salvation and cannot be disputed.

The whole Bull is about defending papal authority, not judging the salvation of those outside the Church. That is giving it a meaning not warranted by the text of the Bull or the reasons for why it was promulgated - which is even more ludicrous given that Boniface bases his arguement on the writings of the Pope who defined papal authority as being already over all souls both within and without the Church each according to their own law.

Don’t shoot the messenger!

Sorry, your strained interpretation is simply not credible. The issue for Phillip the Fair and other rebellious rulers was not “the essential nature of the papacy” but whether or not they had to obey the Pope. This wasn’t a dispute in some library or lecture hall about “the essential nature” of anything, it was a down-and-dirty dispute over whether Phillip the Fair could collect taxes from clergy, and other similar fights. Boniface VIII decided to put the full weight of his supposed ecclesiastical authority behind him and in effect said “You have a duty to obey me in all matters, and if you don’t, you are damned.” He decided at same time to deal with those recalcitrant Greeks who refused to submit to him. Read the Bull, it’s a quite clearly reasoned syllogism: Outside the church no salvation, one cannot be in the Church unless one is subject to the Pope, therefore oen cannot have salvation without being subject to the Pope, QED.

And you’re wrong, the medieval western church interpreted it exactly as I laid out- witness the statements of Florence, Lateran V and Trent.

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother Schism hater

Calm your horses!

First of all, I am studying for Law exams so I naturally cannot provide you with an adequate reply. Howeve I will when I get the opportunity.

I have provided you with my understanding of the historical context underlying the Bull of Pope Eugene IV. You have come up with a very different one, and so I don’t think that there is any point in debating this point further. Rather let us leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves which is the more palatable.

Again, you say “read the Bull, its quite clear” - however this is ridiculous because as I have explained to you before any personal reading of any text is interpretation and magisterial texts are not open to personal interpretation. The Catholic Church does not understand this statement of Pope Eugene IV in the way that you do, and so from the Catholic perspective that’s it. However from a scholarly perspective, it obviously isn’t and so purely on that front I will continue to discuss this with you.

You mention the Council of Trent as an example of, “the medieval Church interpreting it exactly as I laid it out”. This demonstrates quite clearly to me that you have not read or considered in any depth the previous posts in this thread. You have simply come on with your own beliefs and are determined to push them regardless. For if you had the previous contributions to this thread and honestly considered them you would have been fully aware that the Council of Trent in an infallible anathema statement that is of equal weight with Pope Eugene IV’s (if we consider his infallible, as you know there is debate about this among scholars on this but given the strong wording ie “we define, declare” I will accept it as such) CLEARLY TAUGHT BAPTISM BY DESIRE - WHICH THEOLOGIANS THEN AND MAGISTERIAL TEXTS SINCE HAVE DEFINED AS “IMPLICIT” OR "EXPLICIT".

You cannot, surely, be unaware of this and so therefore I am truly puzzled as to why you are still claiming that Trent “supports your interpretation” (emphasis on your again). You can cross Trent off of the list of medeival, infallible authorities which support your interpretation. Trent clearly states that desire is enough to constitute baptism and so therefore its understanding of EENS is not the one you profess, since it clearly teaches that one does not have to bodily a member of the Church or water baptized to actually be a member of the Church.

In this thread, I am not backing up my own interpretation of EENS but rather the Church’s, which understands and has ever understood it in the broad sense of invincible ignorance and implicit/explicit baptism by desire.

You claim:

"…Outside the church no salvation, one cannot be in the Church unless one is subject to the Pope, therefore oen cannot have salvation without being subject to the Pope…"

And yet I have explained to you in quite some depth that:

*The whole Bull is about defending papal authority, not judging the salvation of those outside the Church. That is giving it a meaning not warranted by the text of the Bull or the reasons for why it was promulgated - which is even more ludicrous given that Boniface bases his arguement on the writings of the Pope who defined papal authority as being already over all souls both within and without the Church each according to their own law. *

You cannot take any magisterial statement of a Pope, solemn or otherwise, and give it your own “spin” without taking into consideration the theological backdrop from which it emerged - that is because no Papal pronouncement is made in a vacuum.

There are people who are bodily outside the Church and yet belong to her in soul through baptism of desire which stems from a perfect contrition of heart whereby a person tries to the best of his potencial and understanding to obey the will of God as known to the dictates of his/her conscience; making them in a certain sense Catholics without knowing it and therefore in a special sense subject to the authority of the Pope (just like baptized Roman Catholics) whom they are already in another sense already subject tooby nature of the Pope’s office and universal jurisdiction (according to medeival understanding)
(continue…) *

 

[Vouthon]

Do you know who was Pope Eugene IV’s main defender when he made this solemn statement of papal authority? He underwent much opposition but his staunchest defender was a man called Nicholas of Cusa. This man stuck by him all the way, and because of this Pope Eugene IV wanted to make him a Cardinal but Cusa declined. Later on the dying Pope Eugene IV basically told his close friend and defender to accept this honour, and so obeduently did, upon which he became the Papacy’s right hand man - the highest ranking Cardinal in the entire Church at this time, to the extent that when the subsequent Pope Pius II wasn’t in Rome Cardinal Cusa ruled in his stead as de facto leader of the Church there. He was a Titan of the medeival church, as powerful then as Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) was under John Paul II’s pontificate in the late 20th century,

Read:

**"…Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), cardinal, theologian and envoy of Pope Eugene IV. His efforts on the pope’s behalf earned for Nicholas the nickname ‘Hercules of the Eugenians’…"

“…Nicholas of Cusa, the determined champion of Pope Eugene IV at so many imperial diets during the 1440s, was rewarded by the Pope by being made a Cardinal…”

• Joachim W. Stieber

“…In 1437 the orthodox minority sent Nicholas of Cusa to Eugene IV, whom he strongly supported. The pope entrusted him with a mission to Constantinople, where, in the course of two months, besides discovering Greek manuscripts of St. Basil and St. John Damascene, he gained over for the Council of Florence , the emperor, the patriarch, and twenty-eight archbishops. After reporting the result of his missions to the pope at Ferrara, in 1438, he was created papal legate to support the cause of Eugene IV. He did so before the Diets of Mainz (1441), Frankfort (1442), Nuremberg (1444), again of Frankfort (1446), and even at the court of Charles VII of France, with such force that Æneas Sylvius called him the Hercules of the Eugenians. As a reward Eugene IV nominated him cardinal ; but Nicholas declined the dignity. It needed a command of the next pope, Nicholas V , to bring him to Rome for the acceptance of this honour. In 1449 he was proclaimed cardinal-priest of the title of St. Peter ad Vincula…”

“…Nicholas worked so hard to unite the church behind a papal authority which was not absolute that in 1446 Eugenius IV made him cardinal in petto (secretly, ‘in the breast’). His successor, Nicholas V, did so publicly in 1450, giving him the cardinalate of San Pietro in Vincoli and the bishopric of Brixen. His countrymen were astounded, since few cardinals had been German, and Nicholas was everywhere enthusiastically received as Cardinalis Teutonicus…In Rome, Pope Pius II and Nicholas undertook fundamental reforms, but the times and human temperament were against them. Whilst Pius was out of the city, Nicholas governed Rome as vicarius generalis – the temporal authority of the papacy – with great success…”

“…Nicholas of Cusa was known in his time as one of the great defenders of Pope Eugene IV…He agreed with Pope Eugene IV (and that includes the role the Church has in salvation). He was also able to look beyond the Christian faith, and to see other religious traditions as being representations of the same basic religious truth, with each religion pointing in various ways to the one truth known and possessed by Christians. This is not to say each religion is of equal value or worth; he believed that the founders of world religions were inspired by God, but the human equation got in the way, and led to various imperfections which need to be purified in order for the members of those religions to see how their faith and tradition ultimately points to what is found in the Christian faith…He could be said to be an inclusivist…”

• Henry Karlson **

(continue…)

 

[Vouthon]

Now this a BIG PROBLEM for you. If the “Hercules of the Eugenians” himself, the chief defender of Pope Eugene IV’s views on papal authority and salvation outside the Church and the leader of this conservative pro-Eugene minority in the Church, can be considered an “inclusivist” and had such an open attitude too people of other religions, what does this mean for Pope Eugene and his ‘followers’ understanding of his Bull vis-a-vis your own rigid interpretation?

It ain’t anywhere close too how you interpret it. Here’s some words of Cardinal Cusa himself, his writings had the full patronage of Pope Eugene IV, Pope Nicholas and Pope Pius II:

“…With many groanings I beseeched the Creator of all, because of His kindness, to restrain the persecution that was raging more fiercely than usual on account of the difference of faith between the religions…For all men have the desire and the hope only for eternal life in their own human nature…The goal and intent of the book of the Qur’an, is not only not to detract from God the creator or from Christ or from God’s prophets and envoys or from the divine books of the Testament, the Psalter, and the Gospel, but also to give glory to God the Creator, to praise and bear witness to Christ (the son of the Virgin Mary) above all prophets, and to confirm and approve of the Testament and the Gospel. When one reads the Qur’an with this understanding, assuredly some fruit can be elicited from it…We find passages in the Qur’an that are useful for us…Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets…”

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), the ‘Hercules of the Eugenians’,
defender of Eugene IV’s views on papal authority/salvation,
leader of his minority faction

“…Therefore, come to our aid you who alone are able. For this rivalry [among religions] exists for sake of you, whom alone they revere in everything that all seem to worship. For each one desires in all that he seems to desire only the good which you are; no one is seeking with all his intellectual searching for anything else than the truth which you are. For what does the living seek except to live? What does the existing seek except to exist? Therefore, it is you, the giver of life and being, who is being sought in different religions in different ways, and who are named with different names, because as you are you remain unknown and ineffable to all…Therefore, do not hide (occultare) Yourself any longer, O Lord. Be propitious, and manifest Your face; and all peoples will be saved, who no longer will be able to desert the Source of life and its sweetness, once having foretasted even a little thereof. For no one departs from You except because He is ignorant of You. If You will deign to do the foregoing, the sword will cease, as will also the malice of hatred and all evils; and all will know that there is only one religion in the variety of faiths (rites)…”

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), the ‘Hercules of the Eugenians’,
defender of Eugene IV’s views on papal authority/salvation,
leader of his minority faction

One religion in a variety of rites…

Do I even have too comment?

Nicholas of Cusa tells us that:

• Islam [and other religions] should be respected by Catholics
• The Qur’an [and other holy books] has laudable things in it as well as human elements not compatible with Catholicism
• There is inspired truth in all the world religions
• All religions and their members are unconciously seeking the Christian God
• They do not wilfully reject Him but are simply (Invincibly) ignorant of his true nature
• There is only One Religion (the Catholic Church) and all the members of these other faiths who seek God to the best of their abilities are members of the Church without knowing it

 

[Vouthon]

“…We praise our God, whose mercy rules over all His works and who alone has the power to bring it about, that such a great diversity of religions would be brought together in one harmonious peace. We, who are His work, cannot disobey His direction. Nevertheless we request instruction, as to how this unity of religion can be introduced by us…You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere…There can only be one wisdom. For if it were possible that there be several wisdoms, then these would have to be from one. Namely, unity is prior to all plurality…Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one, which you call wisdom…Since God, the Creator, creates everything in wisdom, He Himself is necessarily the wisdom of the created wisdom. That is, prior to every creature there is wisdom, through which everything created is that which it is…”

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 –1464), De Pace Fidei

And that faith is the Catholic Faith And that “one Wisdom” is the Lord Jesus Christ - the Logos and Wisdom of God who is present in the heart and to the conscience of every man, God Himself.

Cusa taught that the unity of the world religions would eventually come about through the rites of the Holy Catholic Church, when all men who are earnestly seeking the truth will realize that they are actually unconciously seeking the Catholic (Universal) Church and are unconcious members of it. The rites of the Church would allow all peoples to retain their own religious and cultural values/expressions/practices etc. that are compatible with Catholic Faith on the basis that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit working outwith the confines of the Visible Church.

Blessed Pope John Paul II hoped and Pope Benedict XVI hopes that this unity of religion predicted by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa will come about in the 21st century:

“…The Pope does indeed cherish a great expectation that the millenium of divisions will be followed by a millenium of unifications. He has in some sense the vision that the first Christian millennium was a millennium of Christian unity-there were schisms, as we know, but there was still the unity of East and West; the second millennium was the millennium of great divisions; and that now, precisely at the end, we could discover a new unity through a great common reflection…The emergence of ecumenism at the Second Vatican Council is indeed a sign of a sort of renewed approach to a new unity. It is thus filled with the hope that the millenia have their physiognomy; that all the catastrophes of our century, as the Pope says, will be caught up at the end and turned into a new beginning. **Unity of mankind, unity of religions, unity of Christians **- we ought to search for these unities again, so that a more positive epoch may really begin. We must have visions…In the history and universe of religions, there is always a great necessity to purify religion so that it does not become an obstacle to the right relation to God but puts man on the right path…In all religions there are men of interior purity who through their myths somehow touch the great mystery and find the right way of being human…There are as many ways to God as there are people. For even within the same faith each man’s way is an entirely personal one. In that respect there is ultimately one way, and everyone who is on the way to God is therefore in some sense also on the way to Jesus Christ. But this does not mean that all ways are identical in terms of conciousness and will but on the contrary, the one way is so big that it becomes a personal way for each man…There is a new awareness of solidarity, of responsibility for humanity as a whole, of responsibility for creation. There are movements towards unification…The dialogue with other religions is under way. We are, I think, all convinced that we can learn something, for example, from the mysticism of Asia and that precisely the great mystical traditions also open possibilities of encounter…The Christian can also find the secret working of God behind them. Through the other religions God touches man and brings him onto the path. But it is always the same God, the God of Jesus Christ…”

- Pope Benedict XVI (when Cardinal Ratzinger), Salt of the Earth

 

[Armin_kerusker]

Dear Anna

You said:

"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

But one thing is the veracity and understanding of “No salvation can be found outside the church” and another thing whether the above bull is infallible. We must remember that the Pope is only infallible in very restricted and defined occasions. Here, although he has the right intention as the Vicar of Christ he is not talking for the Universal Church but the Roman Church. Technically these two are not the same and one, we agree?

 

[adoglover1956]

Ah…heaven is an exclusive club for Catholics only. But who is a Catholic. SSPX would say the majority of us are not. Very sad when fundy Catholics know the mind of God. I’m still trying to a find somewhere in the NT where Jesus said that only those who follow the pope can get to heaven.

IT’S NOT THERE. HE TALKS ABOUT FAITH IN HIM. ENOUGH SAID. THE REST IS PURE UNADULTERATED HOGWASH.

 

[rinnie]

There is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The CC is of course Jesus Christ.

With that said, Can you be saved without Baptism? The bible tells us that all must be Baptised in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Did you guys know that ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church??

It is a true fact.

Although they are not Perfectly united they are united to the Catholic Church.

No one can be Baptised in the name of the Trinity and NOT be tied to the RCC.

Hows that for the truth.

Anyone who is baptised in the name of the Trinity is considered a part of his Church. So sorry, if you are Baptised in the name of the Trinity you are indeed part of the CC and welcome to the family

 

[Pitcharan]

For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. (1Cor 13:9,10,13)

 

[Vouthon]

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

**778. Has everyone an equal chance of getting to Heaven? **

Not necessarily. The attaining of heaven depends upon the reception of actual baptism in the case of infants, and upon Baptism at least implicitly by desire on the part of adults… But God gives to every adult sufficient grace for salvation. He has no obligation to give to every soul those extraordinary graces which, in His sheer generosity, He bestows upon some.

Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43.

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. The CC is of course Jesus Christ.

With that said, Can you be saved without Baptism? The bible tells us that all must be Baptised in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Did you guys know that ANYONE who is Baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity is a part of the Catholic Church??

It is a true fact.

Although they are not Perfectly united they are united to the Catholic Church.

No one can be Baptised in the name of the Trinity and NOT be tied to the RCC.

Hows that for the truth.

Anyone who is baptised in the name of the Trinity is considered a part of his Church. So sorry, if you are Baptised in the name of the Trinity you are indeed part of the CC and welcome to the family

Hi Rinnie,

Would you explain this to Catholics who are offended by we, Anglicans, calling ourselves Catholic?

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Vouthon]

Hi Rinnie,

Would you explain this to Catholics who are offended by we, Anglicans, calling ourselves Catholic?

Peace and blessings,
Anna

Believe me Anna sis, I’ve been there, done that, and still haven’t got the T-shirt

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rinnie,

Would you explain this to Catholics who are offended by we, Anglicans, calling ourselves Catholic?

Peace and blessings,
Anna

If it were just that simple huh. Actually in all honesty I myself never truly looked at it that way until I truly investigated the No Salvation outside of the CC.

I kept reading what all of the Pope’s said trying to make sense of it. It was then a found somewhere in my searching one of the Early Fathers of the Church teaching that this is what is meant by it.

He explained that all who come to Christ in a Christian Baptism in the name of the Trinity are united to Christ through his Church. Then I started thinking about this, how could we NOT all be united to Christ through his Church with Baptism.

Baptism is considered a Sacrament in the CC and even if others deny Sacraments, if they understood it was an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace they would and could not disagree with that.

Then I started thinking this has to be true, because when my husband and I got married he never changed to Catholic right away. I did not think it was fair to push anyone to change and the call had to come from within by God. But anyway when we got married he had to be baptised. That was all that had to be done. And Father asked him if he had his baptism papers, all he had to prove was a Christian baptism, Father said you can’t be baptised twice.

So then I asked him why? He said there is only One Christian baptsim, if its done in the name of the Trinity its valid. So then I started thinking we all have to be tied in together then by Baptism, no matter what our faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This is a very difficult matter to interpret and so far the one statement that seems to be in complete disagreement with accepting Salvation outside the Church is:

Unam Sancta

I started a thread on the Apologetics side about it:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Peace.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

This is a very difficult matter to interpret and so far the one statement that seems to be in complete disagreement with accepting Salvation outside the Church is:

Unam Sancta

I started a thread on the Apologetics side about it:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

Peace.

Your post even got the notice of James White LoL.