Salvation outside the church

[triumphguy]

Just read basically this whole thread, I have one question… Is there salvation outside the church? It seems to me that no one has the answer, except God himself.

Yes.

Though of course Christ is the Word made flesh, the first born of all creation, through whom all things were made.

Christ is the Church.

Christ died and rose so that all may be one.

Christ handed on himself in the Church to Peter and the Apostles to bring the message of salvation to the world.

All religion, indeed all of creation contains the Seeds of the Word, and so using reason and natural and systematic religion people may align themselves towards the Truth.

Those who seek God sincerely will find salvation.

So, all those in Heaven are “Catholic” but not all Catholics will necessarily be in Haven.

 

[Jehannette]

Those who seek God sincerely will find salvation.

No Magisterial documents exist to support this statement; rather, it would be correct to say that “Those who seek God sincerely may find salvation,” but it is de fide definita “that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.”

 

[triumphguy]

No Magisterial documents exist to support this statement; rather, it would be correct to say that “Those who seek God sincerely may find salvation,” but it is de fide definita “that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.”

And they are joined to Her by desire.

 

[Jehannette]

And they are joined to Her by desire.

Amen to that, brother! However, how anyone can ever know that which they “do not know” was “through no fault of their own”? Point is that no one can culpably choose not to be Catholic just as no one can culpably refuse sacramental Baptism.

 

[QuickCat]

The question *was *an answer to yours, QC. The point being that we as Catholics do not need to proof-text our doctrines. Our doctrines are not distilled from the words of a book, no matter how holy. Our doctrines come from Christ, through his apostles, through the Church.

Hmmm! You mean the Word of God [the Bible] isn’t doctrinal for the Body of Christ???
Come through Christ and the apostles??? Do you not know that our Lord Jesus Christ came ONLY to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel?” He sent the 12 ONLY to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The twelve, through their leaders [James, Peter and John] agreed to confine their ministries to Israel.

Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (KJV)

Mt 10:5 ¶ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (KJV)
Mt 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (KJV)

Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (KJV)
for He who did work with Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, did work also in me in regard to the nations, (YLT)
Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (KJV)

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, very clearly presents the gospel of the grace of God [Acts 20:24] to a lost and dying world. The dispensation of the grace of God was committed to him for us [Eph. 3:2ff].

Hope this helps.
QC

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm! You mean the Word of God [the Bible] isn’t doctrinal for the Body of Christ???

What do you mean by “doctrinal”?

Come through Christ and the apostles??? Do you not know that our Lord Jesus Christ came ONLY to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel?” He sent the 12 ONLY to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The twelve, through their leaders [James, Peter and John] agreed to confine their ministries to Israel.

I am not sure what you’re proposing here. Could you clarify?

 

[PRmerger]

Come through Christ and the apostles??? Do you not know that our Lord Jesus Christ came** ONLY** to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel?” He sent the 12 **ONLY **to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The twelve, through their leaders [James, Peter and John] agreed to confine their ministries to Israel.

Mt 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (KJV)

Mt 10:5 ¶ These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (KJV)
Mt 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (KJV)

Ga 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles (KJV)
for He who did work with Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, did work also in me in regard to the nations, (YLT)
Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (KJV)

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, very clearly presents the gospel of the grace of God [Acts 20:24] to a lost and dying world. The dispensation of the grace of God was committed to him for us [Eph. 3:2ff].

Hope this helps.
QC

Incidentally, QC, I did a word search for the word “ONLY” in the above passages, and the only time “ONLY” appeared was in your comment (which I bolded). Is this not adding to Scripture?

Again, “ONLY” appears 0 times in the Biblical passages you quoted.

 

[Sirach2]

Sorry, I came in very late to this thread, and am responding to the last couple of posts.

To limit Jesus’s words confined to the Israelites, is to finger-point scripture to make it say what a person believes, regardless of other scriptures which contradict the verse. A couple of examples would be after the Resurrection when Jesus commissioned the apostles in Mark 16:15, “Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

And another in John 1016, “And **other **sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one Shepherd.”

Our Blessed Lord had his reasons for limiting the scope to Israel, initially, but his passion and resurrection opened the door to world-wide ministry to all.

I think QC was on track by mentioning the scriptures in Galations, et al.

 

[Sirach2]

Baptism does not save anyone.
Baptism is the normative means through which salvation is achieved.

“Normative,” true, but only if we follow the Lord’s teachings. It is good to remember that for the Israelites in the Old Testament, circumcision was the counterpart to baptism, if you will. Yet that did not save many of them, who were disobedient and were slain by God. Anybody remember Core and his band? (Maybe some spell it Korah)

King Saul is another example, among many, of those mightily favored and chosen by God, but lost His divine election of them through personal disobedience.

Baptism is the door, as was circumcision, but does not specifically guarantee salvation apart from a holy life.

 

[chypmonk]

The Council of Carthage did not qualify “baptism.” The Council could have said “the sacrament of baptism,” “sacramental baptism,” “baptism in water,” etc. Indeed, St. Pope Innocent I who held the Throne of Peter at the time of Carthage stated:

Still, it has been the constant faith of the Catholic Church that there are children who end this life in “original sin alone”:

The present Catechism affirms St. Thomas’ teaching (who is also directly quoted by the Catechism seven times):

So, unless one is going to claim that Saint Thomas and the CCC are teaching the existence of “null sets,” then it is clear that there are at least some children who are in Limbo, having ended this life without sacramental Baptism. We are, of course, “allowed to hope” (CCC, #1261) that there are some exceptions.

Jehannette-- We have been over this already. Augustine and Aquinas BOTH believed in Limbo, the controversy was about punishment not to its existence… As does the whole tradition of the Church belive in Limbo. To try to twist some meaning otherwise is disingenuous.

The Council of Carthage (cf. Tractoria of Zosimus) did refer to Baptism of Water because there is only: One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.
Ephesus confirms Carthage as the Holy See’s own: “Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage, [418 AD] we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136)
In addition the canon I sighted partly above, as I believe I point out before to you, or maybe I forgot, or you forgot, anyway, the full text of the canon does refer to the Sacrament of Baptism by definition-- “being born again of water and Spirit”:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

People were attacking Limbo in the 1950’s were this error seems to have originated as a speculative opinion. But the Holy Office at the time said there is no solid foundation to think infants can be saved with out the Sacrament of Baptism:

The Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation." (Apostolicae Sedis, L, 114)

 

[Sirach2]

Corso:

Just read basically this whole thread, I have one question… Is there salvation outside the church? It seems to me that no one has the answer, except God himself.

**YES **

This question has come up repeatedly on Catholic Answers and there is now a thread with all the rebuttal information to the naysayers’ rigid dogmatism that is outside the official position of the Catholic Church. The links can be followed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8760245&postcount=206

By the way, a number of threads have been closed after the correct documentation has been shown. Certain members who obstinately oppose it, preferring their own interpretation, have been banned.
I suspect this thread will be short-lived, as well.

 

[Corso]

Thank You for the answer

 

[chypmonk]

**YES **

This question has come up repeatedly on Catholic Answers and there is now a thread with all the rebuttal information to the naysayers’ rigid dogmatism that is outside the official position of the Catholic Church. The links can be followed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8760245&postcount=206

By the way, a number of threads have been closed after the correct documentation has been shown. Certain members who obstinately oppose it, preferring their own interpretation, have been banned.
I suspect this thread will be short-lived, as well.

I think you are mistaken the strict understanding of No Salvation Outside the Church has never been forbidden, One is still a Catholic in good standing if one holds the strict understanding as opposed to the the more popular liberal understanding. It is similar to the Molinism controversy. The Church has left it undecided.

In 1988 Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s
Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the
following:
“1) The Sisters [holder’s of the strict understanding–St. Anne’s
House in Still River, MA] were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents.
2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required …]
In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.”

Canon lawyer Peter Vere ( who doesn’t hold the strict view) is honest enough to admitt **both **strict and liberal are acceptable for now.
catholicism.org/downloads/Peter_Vere_SBC.pdf

Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect
for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?

 

[Jehannette]

**YES **

This question has come up repeatedly on Catholic Answers and there is now a thread with all the rebuttal information to the naysayers’ rigid dogmatism that is outside the official position of the Catholic Church. The links can be followed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8760245&postcount=206

By the way, a number of threads have been closed after the correct documentation has been shown. Certain members who obstinately oppose it, preferring their own interpretation, have been banned.
I suspect this thread will be short-lived, as well.

Even Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the following as being a de fide definitia statement from the Church’s Magisterium:

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Please help me understand the above? What does it mean? Do you believe that this statement from an ecumenical Council of the Church to be in error? Do you believe that it is an infallible, an ex cathedra statement of the Church’s Magisterium? If not, what doctrinal status does it have, if any?

P.S. This thread is now on 16 pages and is still open; so much for “short-lived.”

 

[Sirach2]

Ah, Chypmonk, you have come a long way from your former dogmatism. You now seem to accept and state that the interpretation promoted by rigid EENS Catholics is not the sole interpretation that may be believed by a Catholic or non-Catholic.

What disturbs me is the continuing hard-line fixation that some spread on these fora to the detriment of a person seeking Truth. Many times, these opinions hinder them from entering the Church whatsoever. If they finally enter out of terror of being damned because of these proselytizations, but have no real belief in their hearts, what have these opinions done to souls that are loved by God and willed by him to enter his kingdom … freely?

Just because the Still River community is permitted to hold their belief, does not qualify it as authentic Church teaching.

Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff?

So? And this is relevent how???

 

[Jehannette]

Jehannette-- We have been over this already. Augustine and Aquinas BOTH believed in Limbo, the controversy was about punishment not to its existence… As does the whole tradition of the Church belive in Limbo. To try to twist some meaning otherwise is disingenuous.

The Council of Carthage (cf. Tractoria of Zosimus) did refer to Baptism of Water because there is only: One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism.
Ephesus confirms Carthage as the Holy See’s own: “Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage, [418 AD] we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136)
In addition the canon I sighted partly above, as I believe I point out before to you, or maybe I forgot, or you forgot, anyway, the full text of the canon does refer to the Sacrament of Baptism by definition-- “being born again of water and Spirit”:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

People were attacking Limbo in the 1950’s were this error seems to have originated as a speculative opinion. But the Holy Office at the time said there is no solid foundation to think infants can be saved with out the Sacrament of Baptism:

The Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) in 1958 provided as follows:

"The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature–a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism.

Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible. . . . Pastors and preachers are exhorted to urge the fulfillment of this obligation." (Apostolicae Sedis, L, 114)

You make excellent points; thank you. However, the Church, in her Magisterium, never saw fit to condemn theologians such as Jean Gerson, Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, etc., so in that respect, we are “allowed to hope,” even if that hope is without foundation.

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette, it is clear you did not read the links provided. Maybe we can discuss it after you do so.

 

[Jehannette]

Ah, Chypmonk, you have come a long way from your former dogmatism. You now seem to accept and state that the interpretation promoted by rigid EENS Catholics is not the sole interpretation that may be believed by a Catholic or non-Catholic.

What disturbs me is the continuing hard-line fixation that some spread on these fora to the detriment of a person seeking Truth. Many times, these opinions hinder them from entering the Church whatsoever. If they finally enter out of terror of being damned because of these proselytizations, but have no real belief in their hearts, what have these opinions done to souls that are loved by God and willed by him to enter his kingdom … freely?

Just because the Still River community is permitted to hold their belief, does not qualify it as authentic Church teaching.

So? And this is relevent how???

The Second Vatican Council never said that someone could be saved outside the Catholic Church, only that “those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel…” may attain eternal life… However, how do you know that the “through no fault of their own” category of individuals is anything but a “null set” (zero members) or perhaps, a very small set of individuals, who, perhaps, at “death’s door” receive salutary repentance so that they can become fully Catholic?

 

[Jehannette]

Jehannette, it is clear you did not read the links provided. Maybe we can discuss it after you do so.

Okay, you quote Pope Pius IX who said:

And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (suppliciis). However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of the Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of His vineyard), cannot attain salvation. (Quanto conficiamur, 7-8)

The Church clearly declares that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. (Singulari quadam, 7)

Do you believe that it is impossible for the One and Triune God, by His “power of divine light and grace” to deliver someone who is “afflicted with invincible ignorance” and lead that person to the Catholic Church if that individual is “prepared to obey God”?

 

[Sirach2]

Jehannette:

Do you believe that it is impossible for the One and Triune God, by His “power of divine light and grace” to deliver someone who is “afflicted with invincible ignorance” and lead that person to the Catholic Church if that individual is “prepared to obey God”?

Not impossible, but not entirely likely that if he does NOT lead them to the CC, they are automatically without salvation.

The Second Vatican Council never said that someone could be saved outside the Catholic Church, only that “those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel…” may attain eternal life… However, how do you know that the “through no fault of their own” category of individuals is anything but a “null set” (zero members) or perhaps, a very small set of individuals, who, perhaps, at “death’s door” receive salutary repentance so that they can become fully Catholic?

You and others love to quote Vatican II and assume conclusions that “zero members” can become fully catholic in this way.

These two sentences, immediately preceding and immediately following your quote are critically important.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things and as Saviour wills that all men be saved

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel

In your example, Mohammedans are excluded, and any such who are like them, as well as those who have the actual grace from God to live a good life, independent of explicit knowledge of God. Some who are in another faith without the clear grace yet to recognize Catholicism, are also excluded in your interpretation of the quote. However, other V-II documents, not necessarily Lumen Gentium from which you quoted, reinforce the belief that God does not limit salvation to card-carrying Catholic, water-baptized individuals.