Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

[Abu]

dtreimer #121
That’s excellent … but is it dogmatic Abu?

May I point out that while a “dogma” is the highest form of teaching, it is not the only form of infallible teaching, which I think is what you may have had in mind.

So, the three levels are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25), not an assent of faith. [See the Explanatory Note on Ad Tuendam Fidem by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus there is also non-infallible doctrinal teaching to which loyal submission of the intellect and will must be given if one is to be a faithful Catholic.

 

[angell1]

regarding no salvation outside the church, i know it was mainly addressed to the eastern orthodox and thei schism when it was said that no one outside the church can be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ and they must be joined to the catholic church
in my previous post, it was mentioned that the definition of being joined to the church has changed, i’m assuming in pope Eugene’s time, he meant being a full fledged member of the catholic church. now the definition is slightly different, you have imperct unions and all the rest and even ignorance of those who don’t know the gospel. how do we know he didn’t just mean everyone under one blanket statement? and how is the definition of being joined to the church able to be changed if the council was infallible? people say he never said how one is joined to the church but it seems prett obvious to me, you had to be catholic, that’s it. any help is appreciated, thanks

 

[Abu]

In trying to interpret papal documents of an earlier age, a common error is to fail to appreciate the different historical facts which were being addressed – thus leading to false conclusions of “contradictions” between them and later teaching.

Re the Council of Florence: *Decree for the Jacobites *, 1442:
“….we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian ‘Ad Demetrianum,’ that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who in-culpably fail to find the Church. So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature – it had not – and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it.” [Fr William Most, *Our Father’s Plan, Trinity Communications, 1988, p 248].

 

[yogosans14]

No, Protestants are going to Hell. They should be burned at the stake!

Sarcasm

 

[Jon_S_1]

regarding no salvation outside the church, i know it was mainly addressed to the eastern orthodox and thei schism when it was said that no one outside the church can be saved even if they shed their blood for Christ and they must be joined to the catholic church
in my previous post, it was mentioned that the definition of being joined to the church has changed, i’m assuming in pope Eugene’s time, he meant being a full fledged member of the catholic church. now the definition is slightly different, you have imperct unions and all the rest and even ignorance of those who don’t know the gospel. how do we know he didn’t just mean everyone under one blanket statement? and how is the definition of being joined to the church able to be changed if the council was infallible? people say he never said how one is joined to the church but it seems prett obvious to me, you had to be catholic, that’s it. any help is appreciated, thanks

50 years after this council, Colombus sailed the ocean blue and a whole new world was discovered. Prior to that the church was under the impression the world had been evangelized and when that was not the case, they had to adjust their understanding.

No changes, one is still only saved in the Catholic Church. Even Protestants only through their baptism that joins them to the church whether they like it or not. Of course in 1440 there were no Protestants.

Just remember God has revealed the truth to the church. As such salvation lies within the ark of the church just as it did in the ark of Noah.

God can possibly save people outside the church, but it’s speculation.

I want myself, my friends, and the world on the ark. Not standing outside as the flood approached hoping God drops them a life ring.

 

[fred_conty]

The church is ever growing in her original knowledge. A doctrine can be seen in a very simple way but as time marches on, new understanding of man and for that matter all creation, adds new light in the way we now understand a simple doctrine. It may no longer look like the same doctrine since it now takes in so much more.

Once upon a time, the church would consent that a suicide person could not be burried from the church. But due to the expansion of our understanding of the emotional and mental dynamics of man, this is now allowed.

When the reformation took place, the people of that reformation came from catholic people leaving the church. And so at that time, they were seen as leaving, and anyone who is not attached to the church was seen as a heretic and would be lost. But today, the people who make up much of the other churches are not catholic to begin with, and so this fact then adds something to our understanding of who may be saved. And I believe this is what Pope John Paul mentioned when he said we should look at other christians as our brothers since they were not part of the reformation process.

So Monday morning quarterbacking on the faith, it is best to see these doctrines in the light the church had at that time and not in the light that it has today.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[angell1]

In trying to interpret papal documents of an earlier age, a common error is to fail to appreciate the different historical facts which were being addressed – thus leading to false conclusions of “contradictions” between them and later teaching.

Re the Council of Florence: *Decree for the Jacobites *, 1442:
“….we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian ‘Ad Demetrianum,’ that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who in-culpably fail to find the Church. So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature – it had not – and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it.” [Fr William Most, *Our Father’s Plan

, Trinity Communications, 1988, p 248].

hmm, that is an interesting gpoint, i guess the statement can’t bind something that it didn’t know about

 

[DavidFilmer]

8and how is the definition of being joined to the church able to be changed if the council was infallible?

Who says it was infallible? It was Ecumenical, but I don’t know that the Church has ever designated any of it as infallible.

There is a common misconception that all Ecumenical Councils are automatically infallible. This is false. Just like with a Pope, a Council MAY teach infallibly, but (just like a Pope) often does not.

 

[angell1]

Who says it was infallible? It was Ecumenical, but I don’t know that the Church has ever designated any of it as infallible.

There is a common misconception that all Ecumenical Councils are automatically infallible. This is false. Just like with a Pope, a Council MAY teach infallibly, but (just like a Pope) often does not.

i guess i got caught in the misconception then. i did thinkg i heard that ecumenical councils were infallible

 

[waxwings]

Who says it was infallible? It was Ecumenical, but I don’t know that the Church has ever designated any of it as infallible.

There is a common misconception that all Ecumenical Councils are automatically infallible. This is false. Just like with a Pope, a Council MAY teach infallibly, but (just like a Pope) often does not.

Preceding the Council Of Florence.
Papal Bull of Pope Boniface V111,Unam Sanctum,issued November 18,1302,in answer to Philip 1V of France who denied the Popes authority.Only the last sentence is irreversible doctrine in which Pope states" 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".The preceding part of the document deals at length with the relation of temporal and spiritual powers of the church

 

[Amandil]

i guess i got caught in the misconception then. i did thinkg i heard that ecumenical councils were infallible

Not necessarily. But once ratified they do require our intellectual assent and obedience(unless I’m mistaken).

 

[robertkchacon]

I beg to differ.

Invisible ignorance runs amok on our people, and has been for ages. I was one of those and I am definitely not alone and not the exception to the rule.

While in college in the 80’s and to this day - we are still lacking a good nationwide program to keep our young adults in the Church. They were poorly catechized and are unprepared to face the challenges from atheists and from protestantism, both of whom are really strong in most colleges. Which means that our foundational program needs to get stronger as well.

It wasn’t until we started to get fired up people from protestantism that things started to turn around. Look at this website, for example - How many of the great folks working for Catholic Answers are cradle Catholics?

It is a shame that I had to learn form them instead of the cradle crowd. And that is not to take away from them, but that we should have already have people like them in place educating and defending the faith.

Also, make no mistake. I take full responsibility on my lack of effort, but I will not take responsibility for the lack of programs and the poor foundational religious education I received. I should have pushed harder and have more initiative, but like many Catholics, when College came - I took the high road… shame on me.

I came back to Christianity, not through Catholicism but through Protestantism. And the craziest thing was that the Bible made me Catholic again. Never - and I mean never did I read the Bible as much in my Catholic upbringing - and don’t bring up how we read it at Mass. I mean read it every day and make it a part of my life. This was never emphasized in my foundational upbringing. There is invisible ignorance here.

Thank God things are changing for the better, slowly but changing nonetheless.

I have rambled enough, .

For the OP - Have you read Dominus Iesus? If not, I am confident it will help you understand Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus better.

 

[thistle]

Thanks for the links, though they don’t really relate to the specific hypothetical posed in this thread, namely, a baptized Catholic who leaves the Church (for reasons more fully set forth in previous posts). But I do thank you for posting these.

A baptised Catholic who leaves the Church for ANY reason is not invincibly ignorant and puts themselves in a state of mortal sin. No salvation possible unless they come back to the Church, confess and repent.
None of the faithful should be making excuses for them and saying its okay for them to walk away.

 

[dtreimer]

A baptised Catholic who leaves the Church for ANY reason is not invincibly ignorant and puts themselves in a state of mortal sin. No salvation possible unless they come back to the Church, confess and repent.
None of the faithful should be making excuses for them and saying its okay for them to walk away.

Thistle, once again you fail to cite any specific Church teaching or document, and rely solely upon your opinion. In fact, you haven’t cited to any authority in this entire thread. You don’t *persuade *-- you merely assert. Others who have attempted to answer this question have provided a wealth of historical authority (as reflected in this thread) and are much more persuasive. If you can provide some authority for your assertions, they might be more credible. Peace.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Great insights (and very similar to my own journey)! I will read what you’ve referenced and thanks for the link. Peace, brother.

Thanks and peace with you as well!

 

[Lion_Heart]

Friends, how does the “invincibly ignorant” doctrine regarding salvation outside the Church apply when a poorly catechized cradle Catholic leaves the Church as an adult to join another Christian church? Understanding that ultimately only God knows the person’s heart, is that person’s salvation in jeopardy for leaving the Church?

Greetings in Christ Dtreimer,

To answer the question: FIRST we have to know: What is the Church?

ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD:

The Church is the Body of Christ. – Eph.5:25-32; 1 Cor.12:12-13, 20, 27.
The Church is the Bride of Christ. – 2 Cor.11:2.

ANSWER: The Church is the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ.
The name of the Church is: UNIVERSAL (Catholic) CHURCH.

THE FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND THE WHOLE BUILDING:

The FOUNDATION of this Church is Jesus Christ (1 Cor.3:11), with the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit. – Eph.2:20-22.

Catholics + Orthodox + Protestants = One Holy Universal Church, the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ.

This maybe new for someone, but theologically:

If a Protestant leaves the protestants and joins us Catholics or a Catholic leaves us and joins the Protestants, they change ONLY ADMINISTRATION but NOT the Church that Jesus has founded on Himself, on the Apostles and the Prophets end every Christian has been built into ONE Holy Temple in the Lord.

ALL Christians are one composite in the Body of Christ and has been built into ONE HOLY TEMPLE IN THE LORD.

ONE Body of Christ, ONE Church/Holy Temple, ONE composite and every Christian is a part of this ONE composite.

So, if a Christian goes from one Christian denomination to another Christian denomination, he has changed ONLY ADMINISTRATION but NOT CHURCH. – He is still in the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ/Church that Jesus has founded. Universal (Catholic) Church.

This is THE CHURCH having Christ’s promise: “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)

There is only a change of Christian Church, if a person leaves their Church for the non – Christian faith.
Example: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Scientologists etc.

SECOND we have to know: Who are the members of the Universal Church (Body of Christ/Bride of Christ)? – This is the only One Church which Christ has founded.

ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD AND THE [CCC]:

Every member from the entire human race who believes the Word of God and have valid Baptism. – John 5:24; [CCC 818]; [CCC 819]; [CCC 1271].

There is NO first and second class membership in the Body of Christ. – 1 Cor.12:20-27.

The Word of God referring to them also as:
The ELECT. – 1 Pet.1:2.
The PREDESTINED to glory. – Rom.8:30.

As the Orthodox Christians and the Protestants are good enough for God and He has Baptized them into the Body of Christ [CCC 818]; [CCC 819]; [CCC 1271], they should be good enough for us Catholics as well and we SHOULD NOT treat them as second class members of the Body of Christ/Universal Church.

THIRD we have to know: The COMPOSITE of the Church which still exists here on earth. (Not just only predestined to glory are in the Church.)

Scripture Catholic by John Salza. (Catholic Apologetics)
III. Predestination and the “Elect”

Quote: “There are two types of predestination, TO GRACE and TO GLORY.
Predestination is either to grace (which we could lose) or to glory (which we cannot lose).

1 Tim.2:6 – Jesus Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (not just for the elect).

But only those predestined to glory will be saved.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

In Matt. 13:24-30, 36-42 Christ has explained:

When He has founded the UNIVERSAL (Catholic) CHURCH, He has planted into the Church the members of the Body of Christ.
Christ has also explained: Satan also planted into the Church his “undercover agents” in sheep’s clothing.

We can read the same warnings REPEATEDLY and CONTINUALLY throughout the Bible.
FOR EXAMPLE: Acts 20:29-32; Matt.7:15-16; Matt.24:4, 11, 24; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 1 Tim.4:1-3; 2 Pet.2:1-3; Jude 4.

Acts 20:29-32; “ … After My departure savage wolves will come in AMONG you … to draw away the disciples after themselves.”

Matt.7:15-16; “Beware of false prophets, who come to you IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.”

Matt.24:4, 11, 24; “And Jesus answered and said to them: ‘Take heed that no one deceives you. … many false prophets will rise up and DECEIVE MANY … so as to DECEIVE, if possible, even the ELECT.”

2 Cor.11:13-15; “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, TRANSFORMING THEMSELVES into apostles of Christ.”

2 Pet.2:1-3; “But there WERE also false prophets among the people, even as there WILL BE false teachers AMONG YOU, who will SECRETLY bring in destructive HERESIES, … and MANY will follow their destructive ways.”

Jude 4; “Certain people have SECRETLY INFILTRATED AMONG YOU.”

Continues on the next post.

 

[Lion_Heart]

Continuation

The COMPOSITE of the Church still exists on earth.

a. The Body of Christ. With other words: Predestined to glory.

• According to Catholic teaching: All those who are predestined to glory will end up in Heaven.

b. Darnel/sons of the wicked one (Satan’s “undercover agents.”)

• According to biblical teaching: All of Satan’s “undercover agents” will end up in hell. – 2 Cor.11:13-15; 2 Pet.1-3.

c. Predestined to grace.

• According to Catholic teaching: All those who are predestined to grace will end up in hell. – Probably for the reason, instead of Church doctrines, (WITHOUT TESTING THEM), they believe the false doctrines of Satan’s “undercover agents” presented as GENUINE CHURCH DOCTRINES, described in 2 Pet.2:1-3.

If we want to make sure, we are among those who are the predestined to glory, we MUST TEST every doctrine BEFORE we accept it as genuine Church doctrine, as it is described in 1Thes.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27.

Of course, Satan’s “undercover agents” teach “authoritatively” that we CAN NOT test their teachings, we MUST accept them without test. – If we believe them, we have a big chance that we are among the predestined to grace for the reason of our own disobedience.
The refusal of God’s command (to do the tests) given to us for our protection in 1Thes.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27.

THE COMPOSITE OF OUR CHURCH:

a. The members of the Body of Christ/Bride of Christ/predestined to glory.
b. Satan’s “undercover agents” in sheep’s clothing.
c. Predestined to grace.

The crucial question is: How can we know which group do we belong to from the three groups?

IT IS VERY SIMPLE:

We have no choice, if we want to find the fullness of the truth, we must obey God’s COMMAND given to us for our PROTECTION described in 1 Thess.5:21 + Acts 17:11 + 1 John 2:26-27.

1 John 2:26-27; “… Concerning those who try to deceive you. YOU DO NOT NEED THAT ANYONE TEACH YOU; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning ALL THINGS, …”
Conditions:

1. No private interpretation/exegesis.
2. Accept the BIBLICAL EXEGESIS of the Holy Spirit!!!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CLEARLY TEACHES:

The Catholic Understanding of the Bible by Fr. John Harden SJ.

Quote: “The Scriptures are holy because their main author is the all-holy God. But they are also holy because they are able to sanctify those who READ the Bible as NO OTHER LITERATURE in the world is capable of doing.

St. Thomas does not hesitate to speak of the Scriptures as a KIND OF SACRAMENT.
SIMULAR to what happens when we receive BAPTISM or the EUCHARIST.

The same Holy Spirit who first inspired the Bible CONTINUES TO ENLIGHTEN those who now READ the Bible.” End quote. Emphasize mine.

When in faith, READING or HEARING the Word of God we are consuming the BREAD OF LIFE, in which He (Jesus), Himself is consumed and we unite ourselves to Christ.

[CCC 108]; Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.”
Christianity is a religion of the “Word” of God, “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living.”
If the Scriptures are not remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

In 1 John 2:26-27 we have God’s promise: If we obey His command given to us for our protection, we will never be deceived.

Then and ONLY THEN we can have a reasonable confidence that we are among those who are predestined to glory.

So, WE SHOULD ASK FROM OURSELVES THE QUESTION:
Did I ever obeyed the above command of God which He has given to me for my own protection?
If the answer is: NEVER. Then it is the good time to start right now. – Tomorrow maybe too late!

If we want the safest security, put our faith into the Word of God (John 5:24).
Obey God’s command given to us for our protection in 1 Thess.5:21, in the way as it described in Acts 17:11 and in 1 John 2:26-27 and accept the teaching and the interpretation of the Holy Spirit as it is described in 1 John 2:26-27.

The tests PRECEDES to know and to able to distinguish between Church doctrines and the doctrines of our “uninvited guests.”

So, don’t make the fatal mistake, that you think you can do the test in the light of the Church doctrines, because the test is to DISTINGUISH between Church doctrines and secretly brought in doctrines of demons PRESENTED as genuine Church doctrines. – 2 Pet.2:1-3.

With love in Christ,
LH.

 

[mdcpensive1]

A baptised Catholic who leaves the Church for ANY reason is not invincibly ignorant and puts themselves in a state of mortal sin. No salvation possible unless they come back to the Church, confess and repent.
None of the faithful should be making excuses for them and saying its okay for them to walk away.

A person baptized as a Catholic as a baby who never was catechized, went to public schools and in his/her teens joined a protestant/bible church is damned ?? Is that what you believe ? Peter Kreeft who teaches apologetics along with Patrick Madrid says that most Catholics that leave the faith do so because they don’t understand the Eucharist.

Can you please tell us what you consider invincible ignorance so we can better understand the meaning of your post.

 

[Amandil]

A person baptized as a Catholic as a baby who never was catechized, went to public schools and in his/her teens joined a protestant/bible church is damned ?? Is that what you believe ? Peter Kreeft who teaches apologetics along with Patrick Madrid says that most Catholics that leave the faith do so because they don’t understand the Eucharist.

Can you please tell us what you consider invincible ignorance so we can better understand the meaning of your post.

Is it that they don’t understand the Eucharist, or us it that God hasn’t given them the grace to understand the Eucharist? Have they ever bother to “ask” or “seek” or “knock”?

When I was in my early teens and I questioned my Baptist Sunday school teacher about John 6, I knew that her answer, that Jesus was teaching “metaphorically”(when over and over we were being taught that the Bible is the Word of God and meant to be interpreted word-for-word), was not right. I knew that there was absolutely something more to this teaching than what she said.

After telling this story to a priest-friend of mine he affirmed that I had been given the grace of belief in the Eucharist. By grace I had been given implicit knowledge of the Eucharist before I had ever seen or heard a single Mass or ever read a single teaching from the Catholic Faith on the subject.

I never explicitly asked God for an understanding of the Eucharist, in my journey from atheism I never explicitly asked God for an understanding of the truth. What I did was decidethat I was ggoing to follow the truth no matter where it led me and I would stick to yhat truth like white on rice. I made the implicit decision to love the truth for it’s own sake, not for what I may or may not get out of it.

My point is don’t you think that God greatly desires to give us all an understanding of the Eucharist. If so, how is it that there are Catholics who leave the Church for that very reason?

Can it truly be because of “invincible” ignorance? How can it be “invincible” if they knew of the Eucharist but never sought nor asked God for understanding, and yet left because of that failure to understand?

Think about the meaning of the word “invincible”.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Is it that they don’t understand the Eucharist, or us it that God hasn’t given them the grace to understand the Eucharist? Have they ever bother to “ask” or “seek” or “knock”?

When I was in my early teens and I questioned my Baptist Sunday school teacher about John 6, I knew that her answer, that Jesus was teaching “metaphorically”(when over and over we were being taught that the Bible is the Word of God and meant to be interpreted word-for-word), was not right. I knew that there was absolutely something more to this teaching than what she said.

After telling this story to a priest-friend of mine he affirmed that I had been given the grace of belief in the Eucharist. By grace I had been given implicit knowledge of the Eucharist before I had ever seen or heard a single Mass or ever read a single teaching from the Catholic Faith on the subject.

I never explicitly asked God for an understanding of the Eucharist, in my journey from atheism I never explicitly asked God for an understanding of the truth. What I did was decidethat I was ggoing to follow the truth no matter where it led me and I would stick to yhat truth like white on rice. I made the implicit decision to love the truth for it’s own sake, not for what I may or may not get out of it.

My point is don’t you think that God greatly desires to give us all an understanding of the Eucharist. If so, how is it that there are Catholics who leave the Church for that very reason?

Can it truly be because of “invincible” ignorance? How can it be “invincible” if they knew of the Eucharist but never sought nor asked God for understanding, and yet left because of that failure to understand?

Think about the meaning of the word “invincible”.

Since I was addressing thistle are you asking me or him to think about the meaning of “invincible”. I don’t have a problem with my understanding but I was asking him to tell us his.