Salvation Outside of the Church

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Okay, I’m confused.

Is there really a disagreement on this board as to what the Church teaches on this issue? Tell me, does anyone disagree with the following, found in the Catholic Answers tract “Salvation Outside the Church”?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

. . . [T]he early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

. . . [T]he same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or " baptism of desire."

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament Church.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

I don’t think it helps to quote from papal statements written hundreds of years ago. Yes, they are authoritative. But they must be read in light of the teaching of today’s Mgisterium, and in their historical context, lest we commit the heresy of Feenyism.

So, does anyone disagree with anything quoted above; if so, please explain.

 

[Domini_Canis]

I don’t think it helps to quote from papal statements written hundreds of years ago. Yes, they are authoritative. But they must be read in light of the teaching of today’s Mgisterium, and in their historical context, lest we commit the heresy of Feenyism.

Actually, people known as “Feeneyites” are tolerated by the Magisterium of today. There are groups reconciled to the Church today who support Fr. Feeney. Even Jimmy Akin admitted this on his blog. So the issue is far from them adhering to “heresy”.

When it comes to Papal quotes, especially dogmatic ones, they are definitive. That’s why Pope’s make pronouncements; to clarify and give definitions. So I think the Papal statements written hundreds of years ago are just fine. Its the issue of Baptism of Desire and of Blood; and to some extend “invincible ignorance” that this issue is usually hotly debated.

Miguel.

 

[Pere_i_Pau]

No, what I disagree with is the common usage amongst the laity that appears to be one step away from universal salvation. What you just posted is correct…“some”. However what we are entering is a debate over what appears to be a broad definition.

Understand, no one is debating the merit of God’s final verdict, or that some Navajo in the 13th century will be judged on what he knew and…taking into consideration natural law, what God deems to be just. We understand this part.

Where it gets hazy is when we discuss what “knowledge” is. After all, is being exposed to the Gospel or the Church and its rejection sufficient to receive the grace of invincible ignorance, or is a “fuller” search required of all in contemporary society.

Is the hermit living in some remote part of America at a disadvantage, or did he create that circumstance? So, in effect, is the new ager who has read the Bible and selectively used it for his propaganda, invincibly ignorant, or at fault?

I think some of the invincible ignorance argument used by laity the same as the extraordinary minister, use it ordinarily. You should have seen how many were upset by Redemptionis Sacramentum, the whole entire time prior to it telling most of us conservative Catholics how wrong we were. The same way, I think some are using the “blanket” approach to invincible ignorance, and all the while preaching universal salvation.

I think the Church is clear, but some individuals, both clergy and laity are seeing it through liberal eyeglasses.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Actually, people known as “Feeneyites” are tolerated by the Magisterium of today. There are groups reconciled to the Church today who support Fr. Feeney. Even Jimmy Akin admitted this on his blog. So the issue is far from them adhering to “heresy”.

This, of course, says nothing of their orthodoxy, especially when they disagree with official Catholic teaching, as taught by the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, Vatican II, and the Catechism.

The Church today “tolerates” several Modernist, dissenting groups. This says nothing of their orthodoxy; it does say much about the way the Magisterium in recent years has been handling dissenters of all stripes.

So I think the Papal statements written hundreds of years ago are just fine.

Not when they’re taken out of context, and seem to imply that there’s some novel or untrue about the Church’s teaching today. Such methods are good among the scholars and theologians, but not for answering the inquiries of your average Catholic in the pews who want assistance.

 

[Pere_i_Pau]

That’s true Dominus. But, I don’t think anyone here has a problem with what the Magisterium teaches, but rather what “some” in the laity and clergy are defining.

I

 

[Domini_Canis]

Right; I think this issue needs to be proclaimed and clarified more by the Magisterium of today, since there is confusion among the faithful about this doctrine.

Miguel.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Agreed, Pere.

What worries me is that, by these discussions, the faithful like CatholicMom are walking away confused and scandalized.

I can’t help but get the suspicious feeling that, by quoting some of the more “rigorist” aspects of past papal teaching, some Catholics on this board are trying to cast the current teaching in doubt.

In truth, the teaching is the same today as it’s always been. What Vatican II did was finally reocncile two seemingly paradoxical aspects of the Church’s teaching: 1) There is no salvation outside the Church; and 2) Some non-Catholics can be saved.

 

[Pere_i_Pau]

Agreed Dominus. I’m not accusing anyone, but I get the feeling we might have some other branches of Catholicism in here.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Quite frankly, on a board like this, they shouldn’t be tolerated. They do more harm than good with the scandal they cause to inquirers.

 

[Domini_Canis]

Well, so far, I see nothing written that should scandalize a person on these threads (and I apologize if Catholicmom was scandalized); but this issue does bring up many different opinions and its natural for “rigorists”, Feeneyites, conservatives or liberals to post their opinion on this controversial topic.

If the person is left confused on this issue; then the person should look towards the Magisterium (past and present) for clarification. Since its the Church’s definitive dogmatic statement that counts on this matter.

Miguel.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

catholic mom, the easiest way to understand it is that being outside of the CAtholic Church makes ones chances of salvation a lot more risky, Not impossible just less likely.

We all have friends and relatives who are not catholic for one reason or another and due to our relationship with them we do not like to think that we could be fortunate enough to be in heaven yet our brother/sister, mother/father, etc are down in hell, who wants to really accept that possibility/probability?

All one can do is hope and pray that if people die outside of the faith that they find mercy in Christ.

The reason you have got confusing answers to your question is because you are after a definitive answer to a question that has no definitive answer by any one other than God.

 

[Elizabeth]

I truly wonder if the knowledge that Catholics have of Protestants isn’t highly distorted too. I hear some amazing things said about what Protestants believe…apparently. I am one who is working toward becoming Catholic. I have been a Christian for 14 years and during that time I had NO IDEA that the Catholic Church claims to be the one and only True Church. It’s not like the majority of Protestants are out there saying, “Oh those Catholics, what are they thinking?! Only true Church my bottom!” Most don’t know the history of the ‘Reformation’ or that they are in fact Protesting anything! No. Most of us are ignorant - literally. Invincibly? Don’t know. God does.

Most of the Protestants I know are genuine in their faith, love Jesus and other Christians; non-Christians too and they are trying to work out their salvation, not knowing that there are different definitions of justification, sanctification etc or that the doctrines of ‘sola fide’ or ‘sola scriptura’ are sola Protestant!(thanks Scott Hahn).

So again, God knows. There areboundaries. Many people will NOT be saved; it’s an awful thought. BUT God alone has that knowledge and our need is to pray for non-Christians and non-Catholics that each will come to a complete and full faith and saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord has the last word. whew:

Elizabeth

 

[yochumjy]

I’ve heard another thought process about no salvation except through the Catholic Church, though I don’t have any links. Hopefully, I’m not munging this too badly.

The Catholic Church contains all the graces and the whole of salvation. So, within the Catholic Church, we have the ability to (more easily) recieve the most grace (although with that ability also comes greater responsibility). Others outside the Catholic Church can recieve grace only as it is defined in the Catholic Church. In other words, the things that the Protestant churches have inherited from the Catholic Church, baptism, marriage keeping holy the Sabbath does help bring them closer to God, although it is not as “fullfilling” as it could be. Is someone who is a dedicated peacemaker outside the church not blessed? I’d say no. Those blessings that the beatitudes give us would also bless non-Catholics, which I pray, would hopefully, enventually, lead them to the Catholic Church.

In line with this, I’ve also heard that (and maybe someone here knows more) in heaven there are capacities. All are fully in line with God, but our capacity for being full of God’s love could be different. I might be a 12oz can, Saint Mother Teresa a 2 liter, and Saint Peter a 1 gallon container. (just an analogy, I doubt I rate a 12oz can )

John

 

[Ichthus]

DominvsVobiscvm:

This, of course, says nothing of their orthodoxy, especially when they disagree with official Catholic teaching, as taught by the Church Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, Vatican II, and the Catechism.

The Church today “tolerates” several Modernist, dissenting groups. This says nothing of their orthodoxy; it does say much about the way the Magisterium in recent years has been handling dissenters of all stripes.

Care to state what they “disagree with” or where they err?

You may be suprised. I agree they make a mistake in theology, but unorthodox? (hint: They, or at least Fr. Feeney did not deny that baptism of blood or desire effect justification, they actually affirm this. Their error lies elsewhere)

 

[Ichthus]

yochumjy:

I’ve heard another thought process about no salvation except through the Catholic Church, though I don’t have any links. Hopefully, I’m not munging this too badly.

The Catholic Church contains all the graces and the whole of salvation. So, within the Catholic Church, we have the ability to (more easily) recieve the most grace (although with that ability also comes greater responsibility). Others outside the Catholic Church can recieve grace only as it is defined in the Catholic Church. In other words, the things that the Protestant churches have inherited from the Catholic Church, baptism, marriage keeping holy the Sabbath does help bring them closer to God, although it is not as “fullfilling” as it could be. Is someone who is a dedicated peacemaker outside the church not blessed? I’d say no. Those blessings that the beatitudes give us would also bless non-Catholics, which I pray, would hopefully, enventually, lead them to the Catholic Church.

No group or partisan denies that God grants actual grace to those outside the Church, otherwise no one would ever join her.

Are you saying that these graces (from sacraments administerd by heretic or schismatic communities) are efficacious in terms of prevenient grace only, or also sanctifying grace?

In line with this, I’ve also heard that (and maybe someone here knows more) in heaven there are capacities. All are fully in line with God, but our capacity for being full of God’s love could be different. I might be a 12oz can, Saint Mother Teresa a 2 liter, and Saint Peter a 1 gallon container. (just an analogy, I doubt I rate a 12oz can )

John

Correct

The next quality is brightness, by which the bodies of the Saints shall shine like the sun, according to the words of our Lord recorded in the Gospel of St. Matthew: The just shall shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. To remove the possibility of doubt on the subject, He exemplifies this in His Transfiguration. This quality the Apostle sometimes calls glory, sometimes brightness: He will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory; " and again, It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. Of this glory the Israelites beheld some image in the desert, when the face of Moses, after he had enjoyed the presence and conversation of God, shone with such lustre that they could not look on it.

This brightness is a sort of radiance reflected on the body from the supreme happiness of the soul. It is a participation in that bliss which the soul enjoys just as the soul itself is rendered happy by a participation in the happiness of God.

Unlike the gift of impassibility, this quality is not common to all in the same degree. All the bodies of the Saints will be equally impassible; but the brightness of all will not be the same, for, according to the Apostle, One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars, for star differeth from star in glory: so also is the resurrection of the dead.

Catechism of Trent, on the 11th Article of the Creed

 

[Ichthus]

Ichthus:

Care to state what they “disagree with” or where they err?

You may be suprised. I agree they make a mistake in theology, but unorthodox? (hint: They, or at least Fr. Feeney did not deny that baptism of blood or desire effect justification, they actually affirm this. Their error lies elsewhere)

Actually I will just answer. For I am curious myself and this may put my head to rest

Feeney affirmed thre main posits

1. Baptism of desire/blood justifies and gives sanctifying grace and therefore one cannot go to hell
2. However without water baptism one cannot enter heaven
3. There is no middle state, ergo no souls exist

Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.

Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.

Q. Do they go to Hell?
A. No.

Q. Do they go to Heaven?
A. No.

Q. Are there any such souls?
A. I do not know! Neither do you!

The way I see it he held that the character of baptism was necessary to enter heaven, and neither baptism of blood nor desire confers this. On the latter part he is beyond rebuke, so the question is whether or no the baptismal character is necessary to enter heaven

I believe that his posits impose a false dichotomy between justification and salvation, but whether the Magisterium has definitely declared that the baptismal mark is not necessary or that only justification is necessary for salvation, I fail to see how it is unorthodox rather than opino tolerata. Willing to be correct if anyone can show that the Magisterium indeed has definitely taught that justification alone suffices and by implication the baptismal mark is not necessary.

 

[yochumjy]

Ichthus:

Are you saying that these graces (from sacraments administerd by heretic or schismatic communities) are efficacious in terms of prevenient grace only, or also sanctifying grace?

I am suggesting that if a person receives grace because of an action they participate in, then that action they are participating in is fully revealed in the Catholic church. I would make no claims to know what God would or would not accept, as only He knows us and the true nature of our actions. I would guess that a person who, say, goes into a marriage whole-heartedly and gives themselves as the Catholic church requires (Fully, Faithfully, Freely and Fruitfully), then they would be eligible for some gift of grace from God.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Thanks for . . .um . . .clearing (?) that up . . . Icthus . . .



Yet more proof that heresy clouds the intellect.

 

[yochumjy]

DominvsVobiscvm:

Thanks for . . .um . . .clearing (?) that up . . . Icthus . . .

Hmm, not sure how to take the eyeroll. I’m not trying to be difficult, but I was trying to be quick… I don’t have any idea how God deals with those who are not in the church, yet are in alignment with Church teaching other than not being in his one true Church. (such as marriage, yes, yes, minus getting married in the Church…)

Yet more proof that heresy clouds the intellect.

Hmmm, not sure about that quip either… Are you saying there is no grace outside of the Church? Or just that I have heretic thoughts? (not, I suppose, improbable) Maybe you could expand on your one-liner?

John

 

[cmom]

We are bound by the Sacraments, the Lord God is not.