Salvation outside the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike316
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chypmonk said:
Sure it WOULD be sufficient if you were pope and there were NOT all those DOGMATIC statements that say the opposite. As Anne said above, maybe you have missed this infallible statement, which I have posted several times, but many on this thread seem to want to just ignore it:

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 link]

We are not saved by [natural law] good works (that would be semi-Pelagianism) but by the Grace of being incorporated into the Chosen People (Old Testament) or Mystical Body of Christ (New Testament).

By being incorporated into Christ, we are joined to the Chosen People:

St. Paul, Romans 11:17:
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,"
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=NIV

Baptism given to us by Christ allows us to be grafted into the Chosen People of God (the olive root) of the Old Testament.

The new testament is expansive and seeks converts. The old testament was closed and did not look for converts. It sought on average to be closed and exclusive. We only have knowledge of old testament saints being saved. People think Budda and Socrotese were “holy men” according to the world but they were never joined to the Chosen People thus died in their sins and were not saved.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that unbelievers who have never heard of the Gospel are damned for sins, which cannot be remitted without Faith, not because of the sin of infidelity.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 10., A. 1:
“If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because such like ignorance of Divine things is a result of the sin of our first parent. If such like unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article1

Vatican II in the “Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity” is very clear on this point too:
Pope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Ad Gentes:
“So although in ways known to Himself God can lead those, who through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him” (Ad Gentes, 1,7 link).

Which means that although an invincible ignorant person can be reached in extraordinary ways known only to God, so to bring them to Faith, and entrance to the Church thru the Sacrament of Baptism,because one is not a member of the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism and there is no remission of sins outside the Church.
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, EENS is referring specifically to the Church Militant alone?
 
At_Trent said:
I think you are sincere in your efforts, but frankly, I’m not sure where you stand either.

Are you saying it’s ok to be a Feeneyite ?
Click to expand...
is this th epost you are confused about #110:

"So you hold that there are two types of BoD:
1, Explicit
2. Implicit

**The explicit is for catechumens,( not eligible for implicit) which implies they implicitly do not want to be saved even though they are doing everything to be a member of the Church.

[implicit]** While Hundus who has a vague desire to go to heaven and only needs to follows his conscience, like worshiping cows (didn’t seem go over that well during Moses’s time with God) will be saved without believing in Christ nor desiring baptism."

I should have added the word implicit ( in red above) maybe to make it clearer that I was trying to clarify what BoDers ( Baptism of Desire Advocates believe).

I adhere to the absolute necessity, since Pentecost, of receiving Sacramental Baptism for salvation.
 
chypmonk said:
Please explain more of what you mean?
Click to expand...
By definition all who achieve salvation are of the Church Triumphant. So it can truly be said that there is no salvation apart from the Church, as all who are saved are in the Church. Further “God does not wish that any should perish, but all would come to the Truth.” If God indeed wishes this for all, then there must be a way for salvation for all, even those who have never been exposed to the Truth of the Church (as there are many of our separated brethren who do not accept the Church based on our testimony, rather than the content of the message), or even those who have never heard the message of Christ at all. What these methods are are not known to us, as they are not part of the Deposit of Faith. It should also be expressed that these that are saved apart from the Church Militant are definitely a very small minority, but God is capable af saving who He will, with or without the Sacraments.
 
StTommyMore said:
What in the world is a Feeneyite?!?
Click to expand...
It is a derogatory term (not forbidden like others on CAF) referring to members of communities started by Fr. Feeney. It has been used so much to describe defenders of the dogma:
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS)
that it has lost what ever sting it had. Kinda like Jesuit used to be a derogatory term for the Society of Jesus.

How could you be involved on such a thread without knowing who Fr, Feeney was?:confused:
Anyway :shrug:here is an interesting obituary by Cardinal Dulles ( who was a close personal friend) Pretty interesting. Cardinal Dulles’ godmother was on of th efounders of the women “Feeneyites” community.
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10724
 
I have become convinced that these EENS threads are not about sincerely seeking discussion of the faith. I think that for the most part they are used as vehicles by those that know their own beliefs on the topic differ from that of the Church. Despite being obviously well informed as to what the Church actually teaches, some persist in insisting the Church teaches differently, apparently because they want to either (1) debate the topic or (2) attempt to misinform true seekers. The first goal would be fine, but the debater should have the moral integrity to admit he dissents from Church teaching. The second goal is not fine. Either way, I’m not sure that these threads are either productive or healthy for the forum.
 
chypmonk said:
It is a derogatory term (not forbidden like others on CAF) referring to members of communities started by Fr. Feeney. It has been used so much to describe defenders of the dogma:
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS)
that it has lost what ever sting it had. Kinda like Jesuit used to be a derogatory term for the Society of Jesus.

How could you be involved on such a thread without knowing who Fr, Feeney was?:confused:
Anyway :shrug:here is an interesting obituary by Cardinal Dulles ( who was a close personal friend) Pretty interesting. Cardinal Dulles’ godmother was on of th efounders of the women “Feeneyites” community.
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10724
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is because I am unfamiliar with the minutiae of Church history. I focus on doctrines, and I do know that the confusion surrounding EENS is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, and it does not mean what many think it does because the Church is not both institutional and spiritual.
 
chypmonk said:
468 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 which there is no salvation nor remission of sin
Click to expand...
I removed the sizing.

This was sufficiently explained in the Mystici Corporis by venerable Pius XII
  1. And first of all let us imitate the breadth of His love. For the Church, the Bride of Christ, is one; and yet so vast is the love of the divine Spouse that it embraces in His Bride the whole human race without exception. Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another [184] as members and sharing in their suffering [185] but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Fr Feeney was a priest censured by the same venerable Pius XII in 1949, and excommunicated in 1953 for disobedience. He reconciled with the Church only in his old age in 1972. Let he rest in pace. His opposition did not changed the doctrine of the Magisterium.
 
Portrait said:
Vatican II decidedly did change the Church, and not for the better I feel. The multiple threads on this topic are an evidence that something is seriously amiss and that good Catholics are confused.
Click to expand...
Now they will really be confused if they are not cradle Catholics old enough to have known parochial schools.

Short of them falling under that criteria there is a chance they will think you are nuts.

But you are not 😉
 
chypmonk said:
Could you quote me how you are confused on my position?

Being a Feeneyite is fine with the Church and with me too.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for you honest reply.

To all here, please state your opinion. Is it ok to be a Feeneyite ? Yes or no. Feel free to explain, but answer yes or no please.

Up until a few days ago, I thought yes, it was fine. But after this thread and consulting a very informed member of another forum, I have retracted. I say no, Fr Feeney was wrong and in fact manipulated by racists in his midst.

1 yes
1 no
*confused
Please vote if you like. Not to prove or judge, just to clarify your position.

EDIT: added a too confused to vote option
 
TMC said:
I have become convinced that these EENS threads are not about sincerely seeking discussion of the faith. I think that for the most part they are used as vehicles by those that know their own beliefs on the topic differ from that of the Church. Despite being obviously well informed as to what the Church actually teaches, some persist in insisting the Church teaches differently, apparently because they want to either (1) debate the topic or (2) attempt to misinform true seekers. The first goal would be fine, but the debater should have the moral integrity to admit he dissents from Church teaching. The second goal is not fine. Either way, I’m not sure that these threads are either productive or healthy for the forum.
Click to expand...
Sure they are. I changed my opinion. I have actually formed an informed opinion I can live with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top