Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter dtreimer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I was asking you.

This is in the Catechism under the heading: Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

Invincible(adjective), incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued…

Does it really follow that Catholics who leave the Church are “invincibly” ignorance of the Church they just left? That their ignorance is “incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued”?
 
“Extra ecclesiam non est salus.” Or, “There is no salvation outside of the church.” Is this true? I’ve heard some Catholics talk about this not being the case at all, though that sounds like Calvinism to me.
 
The phrase is “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or “outside the Church there is no salvation.” The idea is basically that the Church is the Body of Christ, we are saved only through union with the Body of Christ, and so all who are saved are saved because they were united to the Body of Christ. This isn’t meant as being strictly literal–i.e. there are some who will be saved without being in visible unity with the Catholic Church, although even those will be saved by being united somehow to the Church.

-ACEGC
 
All of you on both sides of this discussion need to be a bit more careful in how you apply or do not apply invincible ignorance to a situation.

In reality, we cannot have a knowledge of the sum total of circumstances that may make someone culpable or take away that culpability. Let us not pass judgement before the time, for the day will disclose it. There are many factors at work in the human person.

Now, us discussing if we think a person is invincible ignorant or not does not change the situation. We are called to spread the Gospel to every creature. We are called to “And have mercy on those who doubt (and) save others by snatching them out of the fire” (Jude 1:22).

Go to the lost without distinction.

But be wary of an unsympathetic, unmerciful image of God. Do not let such thoughts cultivate in your minds. Remember that God did not spare his own Son for us, much less will he make a list of reasons he will keep us out of heaven. That is not to deny the truth that Mortal Sin breaks our communion with God. But it is a caution for those zealous for the Glory of God, for we must always remember that the Son of Man came to Save Men’s lives, not to destroy them.

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.” - John 10:10
 
All who believe and are baptized in the trinitarian formula, with Christian intent, are members of the Church - although some are in an imperfect communion (primarily protestants). That clearer?
 
Equally Grave, of course, is a foolish disposition in which we automatically assume that wrongful deeds have no gravity with God, or that God will not render judgement on every thing.

Sin is detestable beyond measure, and we should not excuse it or treat it lightly in our own life or the the lives of others.

God certainly did not treat it lightly, look at the cross.
 
Amandil #144
Does it really follow that Catholics who leave the Church are “invincibly” ignorance of the Church they just left? That their ignorance is “incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued”?
Reread the CCC #1793:
“If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.”

The error here is the perennial error of not listening to Christ and His Church:
“Judge not that you be not judged.” (Mt 7:1) We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but are commanded to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

We are commanded not to judge the guilt of anyone before God.

What we are commanded to do is to help and encourage people to know the fullness of truth.
St John counsels you: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

St Paul:
“Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).
 
I was asking you.

This is in the Catechism under the heading: Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

Invincible(adjective), incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued…

Does it really follow that Catholics who leave the Church are “invincibly” ignorance of the Church they just left? That their ignorance is “incapable of being conquered, overcome, or subdued”?
In my post to Thistle I mentioned that Peter Kreeft said something about Catholics not being knowledgeable about the Eucharist. I don’t know HIS understanding of invincible but I imagine it is the same as the Church’s understanding. One thing I do not want to do is make a judgment about the degree of anyone’s understanding because I do not know their heart and internal beliefs. Sometimes people say things because they communicate as the “loyal opposition”: Thomas Aquinas did that in his being able to argue from multiple points of view. I agree with the catechism references you quoted but I am not sure if you are asking me more than that ???
 
The Holy Office Explanation of this Doctrine:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office.

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it
. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.** Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.**

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children”.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM
 
40.png
Amandil:
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him.
This particular wording was previously taught by Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854, although the CCC does not specifically reference it.
“…It is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..”
Yet here we are, once again, with Thistle copy/pasting the same arguments used well over two years ago without missing a beat, and without listening to anyone whomsoever, including the Church.

I think many of us went beyond the call of duty here, and he does not accept our help. I suppose he thinks he is going to influence other readers, but there are just too many good threads on this forum from which a wise reader will quickly discern the falsity of his reasoning.

Imitation of Christ, Ch.16: “If you admonish any person once or twice, and he will not accept it, do not strive too much with him, but commit all to God, that His will may be done and His honor acknowledged in all His servants.”
 
This particular wording was previously taught by Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854, although the CCC does not specifically reference it.

Yet here we are, once again, with Thistle copy/pasting the same arguments used well over two years ago without missing a beat, and without listening to anyone whomsoever, including the Church.

I think many of us went beyond the call of duty here, and he does not accept our help. I suppose he thinks he is going to influence other readers, but there are just too many good threads on this forum from which a wise reader will quickly discern the falsity of his reasoning.

Imitation of Christ, Ch.16: “If you admonish any person once or twice, and he will not accept it, do not strive too much with him, but commit all to God, that His will may be done and His honor acknowledged in all His servants.”
I would like to thank you for all your good work on this thread. I especially appreciate your dedication and diligence. It must be a grace to have your time used in this way and I bet others on the forum appreciate it also. I learn much from all of you and that bolsters my faith so I can spread it more truthfully all over. Thanks again.
 
Sirach2 #149
Yet here we are, once again, with Thistle copy/pasting the same arguments used well over two years ago without missing a beat, and without listening to anyone whomsoever, including the Church.
I think many of us went beyond the call of duty here, and he does not accept our help. I suppose he thinks he is going to influence other readers, but there are just too many good threads on this forum from which a wise reader will quickly discern the falsity of his reasoning.
Imitation of Christ, Ch.16: “If you admonish any person once or twice, and he will not accept it, do not strive too much with him, but commit all to God, that His will may be done and His honor acknowledged in all His servants.”
Beautifully put.
As William James so aptly expressed it – “many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
 
Reread the CCC #1793:
“If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.”

The error here is the perennial error of not listening to Christ and His Church:
“Judge not that you be not judged.” (Mt 7:1) We may not judge motives, intentions, and guilt before God but are commanded to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

We are commanded not to judge the guilt of anyone before God.
Abd where did I ever say, or even give the impression, otherwise?
 
This particular wording was previously taught by Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854, although the CCC does not specifically reference it.

Yet here we are, once again, with Thistle copy/pasting the same arguments used well over two years ago without missing a beat, and without listening to anyone whomsoever, including the Church.

I think many of us went beyond the call of duty here, and he does not accept our help. I suppose he thinks he is going to influence other readers, but there are just too many good threads on this forum from which a wise reader will quickly discern the falsity of his reasoning.

Imitation of Christ, Ch.16: “If you admonish any person once or twice, and he will not accept it, do not strive too much with him, but commit all to God, that His will may be done and His honor acknowledged in all His servants.”
This is why the term “invincibly ignorant” needs to be properly defined. What does it mean?

I can perfectly understand someone in a third world country, who never had access to any sort of media, and simply doing the best he can according to his conscience to do good and avoid evil. That’s invincible ignorance.

I can even understand someone raised in Kansas or even where I live in Missouri, raised all thrir lives in protestantism, and having zero contact with the Church except the anti-Catholic tracts they pass out after Sunday services or through the preaching of the pastor. I can even grant in that case that there could be invincible ignorance.

But a cradle Catholic, or a revert, or even a professed Catholic who explicitly denies essential teaching (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden are great examples), can we honestly say that they meet the criteria for invincible ignorance.

I’m in no way saying anything about the destiny of their souls.

But let’s call a spade a spade, there’s no way that a Catholic Christian can be invincibly ignorant of the Church. That term “invincible”, if I’m understanding it correctly, sets an extremely high bar on the level of ignorance that a person is culpable for.

And if they have not done everything possible to properly inform their conscience before making the decision of leaving the Church, bought and read a Catechism, the Bible, Papal Encyclicals, etc., then they cannot claim invincible ignorance.

I just don’t see how its possible; and frankly I think its rather incredulous.
 
There is no salvation outside the Church: This is true, and it has never changed.

But the definition of “outside the Church” has narrowed (such that “inside the Church” has broadened).

This is hardly a “new” question. The Early Church was confronted with various heresies, each of which claimed to bestow Christian Baptism upon pagan converts. The heresies were suppressed, but what about those Baptized in them? Were these people “inside the Church?” The Church said, ‘yes,’ much to the consternation of St. Cyprian.

In more modern times, the Church has confronted the question of Baptism by protestants (usually presumed valid).

The Grace of Baptism is the ONLY means that ANYONE has to salvation. The Church extends this Grace even to those Baptized by heretics, and those who are Baptized into a denomination that was invented by heretics.

But the Church, from very ancient times, has also recognized that the Grace of Baptism can also be extended to those who desire it, but die before they are able to receive it. This is appropriately called “Baptism of Desire” (or its subset, “Baptism of Blood”).

In more modern times, the Church has recognized that someone who WOULD desire Baptism but was never able to make this choice COULD be numbered with those who had the choice and made this decision. Such a person COULD be a Christian without even knowing it.

But this is NOT any sort of assurance. The Church acknowledges that such a thing is POSSIBLE, but not that any such thing has ACTUALLY occurred. There might be millions of people who have attained salvation this way, or there might be five, or there might be NONE.
 
To expand on David Filmer’s last post, I highlight this paragraph from the Holy Office that TRH posted.
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.
In other words, the person embraces the natural law written in his conscience, that St. Paul states in Roman 2:14-16 is salvific.
 
This is why the term “invincibly ignorant” needs to be properly defined. What does it mean?
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

This is commonly called baptism of desire, and as St. Paul indicated in Romans 2:14-16, is living the natural law infused into every soul, and may be salvific. Only God can judge this, understandably.
 
I would like to thank you for all your good work on this thread. I especially appreciate your dedication and diligence. It must be a grace to have your time used in this way and I bet others on the forum appreciate it also. I learn much from all of you and that bolsters my faith so I can spread it more truthfully all over. Thanks again.
Beautifully put.
As William James so aptly expressed it – “many who think they are thinking are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
Many thanks and appreciation to both of you for your encouraging words. May God always help us to be instruments of His holy Truth in a chaotic world that does not value it, and worse yet, distorts it.
 
Many thanks and appreciation to both of you for your encouraging words. May God always help us to be instruments of His holy Truth in a chaotic world that does not value it, and worse yet, distorts it.
Continuing to work on that problem with the time I have left on this planet.
 
Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Romans 10:9
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Salvation is a gift of God not any particular church.
There is no question that salvation is a gift from God, because we certainly are not worthy of salvation based on our own merits. No matter how hard we try to be perfect, we will always fail, but that does not mean that we should not strive for perfection.

There is always a problem when we selectively quote verses from the Bible without having a “panoramic view” of the entire book, because when it is done this way, the Bible will most likely be the most self-contradictory book on the face of the earth, because for each verse we selectively quote, we can always find another verse that contradicts it in another place.

How about if I quote to you from Matthew (25:31 - 46):

31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Here we can very clearly notice that it is Jesus HIMSELF telling us that on the last day He will separate people on His left and on His right according to their works and not according to their faith alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top