Salvation outside the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
At_Trent said:
No heresy, because that’s it in a nut shell, the desire to be baptized and enter into Christ’s Church. The fact that they are catechumens is the definitive distinction.
Click to expand...
After having read your posts on the last two pages (11-12), it would seem that you and I are on the same side. My argument, then, would be directed toward chypmonk and Sir Knight. 😉
 
At_Trent said:
I’m not talking about the sweeping about face, I meant Doctrine.

EENS - What has changed that would require a Roman Catholic to accept the claim an educated pagan can be saved ?

All I’m saying, is one who desires to be in communion with, and accepts ALL Doctrine and Dogmas of, Holy Mother Church, can be saved.

If a pagan lies on his deathbed and repents, and accepts the Doctrine and Dogmas of the Church, sincerely, then yes, I believe the person may be saved if it be God’s will. The person just had better find a way to communicate it with God before his/her last breath. And ideally, have a priest by his/her side to secure the soul.
Click to expand...
I am done arguing with you and every other so-called “traditionalist” who feel sthey have the right to pick and chose doctrines.
 
StTommyMore said:
I am done arguing with you and every other so-called “traditionalist” who feel sthey have the right to pick and chose doctrines.
Click to expand...
Well, Carl, sorry you can’t find support for your argument. Without it , is is the end of the discussion anyway isn’t it ?
 
SouthpawLink said:
After having read your posts on the last two pages (11-12), it would seem that you and I are on the same side. My argument, then, would be directed toward chypmonk and Sir Knight. 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, I was mistaken earlier in the thread. It’s taken me 3 years of reading these long threads on EENS to realize it.

Hats off to those who spend hours milling over the documents and writings on the matter.
 
sidbrown said:
The Eastern Orthodox Churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church?
Click to expand...
I don’t have all the names memorized Sid. I think the Russian Orthodox are in talks with Rome over Papal primacy right now.
 
At_Trent said:
Well, Carl, sorry you can’t find support for your argument. Without it , is is the end of the discussion anyway isn’t it ?
Click to expand...
I have support, ewhich you choose to ignore. Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, City of God…
 
StTommyMore said:
I have support, which you choose to ignore. Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, City of God…
Click to expand...
The Vatican II documents have already been quoted in this thread, and neither teaches salvation outside the Church, nor salvation without divine faith.
 
SouthpawLink said:
The Vatican II documents have already been quoted in this thread, and neither teaches salvation outside the Church, nor salvation without divine faith.
Click to expand...
It is not for us to say. God provides the Church for the normative means, but neither can we exclude extraordinary means of salvation
 
Third_Day said:
Vatican II didn’t change anything.

From Vatican II
Decree on Ecumenism
For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation

LUMEN GENTIUM
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
Click to expand...
Dear third day, vatican ll did change everything, you don’t know what the church has taught before vatican ll and what vatican ll teaches now, they teach the opposite if you don’t believe me due the research, don’t go by blind faith. Don’t be scandalized by what I say, do the RESEARCH!!! For instance birth control, does vatican ll say its ok to use birth control???
 
tal said:
Dear third day, vatican ll did change everything, you don’t know what the church has taught before vatican ll and what vatican ll teaches now, they teach the opposite if you don’t believe me due the research, don’t go by blind faith. Don’t be scandalized by what I say, do the RESEARCH!!! For instance birth control, does vatican ll say its ok to use birth control???
Click to expand...
If you keep reading you will see that all validly baptized Christians are in way to be considered in the Body of Christ, although their unity with th institutional Church is incomplete. In other words, salvation is still coming through the catholic Church, although they are not fully in the Church. Of course this is dependent upon their knowledge.
 
una_fides said:
Here is some more of the context for Satis Cognitum that helps us to understand better what is being communicated:
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

Pope Leo here is explaining that the Church is not a body alone or a soul alone but that the true Church has both a body and soul, which is inseparable to the extent that there is not a separate soul of the Church and a separate body but they are united in one Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Exactly The Pius X Catechism SEPARATES them:

"29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"
Now what Pius X’s catechism proposes is that it can be that one could be a member of this Church through being united to the soul while being invincibly ignorant of the necessity of belonging to the body. Such a person would truly be a member and united to the Church but would not be visibly united to the body.
Click to expand...
It does not say that see above.
Membership in the Church is not dependent upon any other witness except God alone, and God alone weighs the hearts and its desires. If a person explicitly desires water baptism, but is unable to attain it, and has made an act of perfect contrition and has perfect charity for God, then he is united to the Church through his desire. If he is hindered from receiving the sacrament and dies in such a state, God would judge the person’s heart. His salvation is not dependent upon whether others thought him to be in the Church. It is dependent upon his desire, which unites him to the Church. Now if someone has a simple desire, but is unwilling to act upon it, then this desire would not be salutary but would actually condemn them. Therefore, with such a desire for baptism, the person must have a willingness to complete the action, which only God himself can judge.
Click to expand...
All very confusing here. How are they united to the Church?
Do they need to believe in the Trinity? The Incarnation? The necessity of Baptism for salvation?
Which infallible document defines “Baptism of Desire”?
Sources?

Pope Leo is saying it is a grave error to separate soul from the body but it is clearly stated as such in the Pius X catechism:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896:
“From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error:…It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature.”

Pius XII understood Leo like me:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 14), June 29, 1943:*
“Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: “the Church is visible because she is a body.” [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.” link

There are very few people left in the world who could claim invincible ignorance but even so this goes for especially for Protestants, Leo’s same encyclical says:

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 8), June 29, 1896:
“He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.”

again
“Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).” link to Satis Cognitum

While in general the encyclical seemed to be aimed at Protestants it still well establishes that there is no way a person could belong to the soul of the Church with out belonging to the body but again Pius X catechism says:

“such a man is indeed separated from the body** of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation”**

clear I think
 
una_fides said:
The quote in Mortalium Animos seems to not be distinguishing between the body and soul of the Church separately but is instead referring to the Church as the body of Christ. In this way, one cannot be separated from the Body of Christ and still be a member of the Church.

By “scattered abroad and disunited,” Pius XII is referring to those groups of protestant sects dispersed throughout the world and is refuting the error that anyone who believes in Christ is somehow united to the Church, which is a doctrine held by many protestants.
Click to expand...
(Pius XI not XII) He was establishing a Catholic PRINCIPLE while it was applicable to the Protestant idea of unity it is a Catholic truth so it is applicable universally also to the Pius X catechism:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928:
“For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

Pius X Catechism:
"29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation"

There is a clear difference:
Encyclical: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it,

Pius X Catechism:such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church,
He did not have in mind to refute the commonly held and understood belief that baptism can be received in re OR in voto
Click to expand...
Let us be clear I was not pointing to the fact that the Pius X catechism is in error according to Baptism of Desire. I am pointing out that the method of arriving at the BoD conclusion, used in that catechism, was condemned and not submissible. So if you would like to propose Baptism of Desire (BoD), it can not be claimed to be against divine faith technically ( yet:rolleyes: because the Church seems to be allowing discussion of it) but trying to explain HOW this happens, by saying that one can belong to the Soul and NOT the Body of the Church is not a viable MEANS of explaining the BoD theory. I hold BoD is in error, and that it is open to being debated at this present time in the Church. The separation of belonging to the soul and not the body is a dead end for this discussion.
as the Council of Trent *and *the 1917 Code of Canon Law both clearly state both using different Latin words for the word “or,” which makes it so that it could not be any less clear that the proper desire for baptism is capable of eliciting the effect of the sacrament,
Click to expand...
Canon Law is not infallible The 1917 Code was definitely not an ex cathedra pronouncement because it does not bind the whole Church and is a disciplinary document, for only the Latin Church (not the Eastern Rites), as stated in Canon 1 of the 1917 Code.

Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this
Code: 
 applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.”[The 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, translated by Dr. Edward Von Peters, Ignatius Press, 2001, Canon 1, p. 29]




> just as perfect contrition with a desire to go to confession as soon as possible for us is able to attain for us the graces from that sacrament. You must admit that the defense concerning Trent and the Code of Canon Law is weak, especially when you have official interpretations of those both understanding it clearly as stating that baptism is capable of being received *in voto*.





These Church men could have been in error just like St. Catherine's denial of the Immaculate Conception. Obviously there is some confusion on the topic or you would produce an infallible pronouncement of Baptism of Desire. Council after council had the opportunity to clarify it as you suggest but they wrote that our Lord's words are to be taken literally, as it is to be  written, just like "this is my body" ( BTW is it harder to believe God will provide Sacramental Baptism to those who want it than to believe bread becomes living flesh?)

 Jn 3:5:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Baptism and Confession are different in kind not in degree.
Baptism makes one a member of the Church and gives a sacramental character only those Sacramentally Marked are members of the Church and there is no forgiveness of sins outside the Church. ( covered in posts [#15 link](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7140256&postcount=15) and #10 )

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: 
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”[Denzinger 468-469]
 
SouthpawLink said:
After having read your posts of AT TRENT] on the last two pages (11-12), it would seem that you and I are on the same side. My argument, then, would be directed toward chypmonk and Sir Knight. 😉
Click to expand...
In fact If things stayed the way you two seem to believe, I would have never even bothered to investigate the subject. It is the Rahnerites who forced me to re-examine all the history of BoD. And I see no other way than to deny it. But if more were like you the topic would hardly come up. As far as I know most CAF people would consider your positions Feeneyite.
They also consider me to be a Feeneyite but I am not either, because I deny the entire premise of the possibility of receiving Sanctifying Grace, since Pentecost, before recieving Sacramental Baptism.
My problem is that Rahnerites use the tradition you two hold, to be theirs too, which is false and more disturbing.
 
At_Trent said:
I’ll stick with the Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Lumen Gentium is the Dogamtic Contstitution of the Church, which is, as a document from an Ecumenical Council, contains dogmatic statments and is authoritative. You do not have the option to simply disregard it.
 
StTommyMore said:
Lumen Gentium is the Dogamtic Contstitution of the Church, which is, as a document from an Ecumenical Council, contains dogmatic statments and is authoritative. You do not have the option to simply disregard it.
Click to expand...
One need not read far into it to see the New Covenant mentioned. One who rejects the NC can not be saved. EENS is clear on that.

Does LG abrogate EENS ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top