Saved Only Through Rome?

[Juxtaposer]

As the council of Florence states:
“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. -Ecumenical Council of Florence (infallible)”

What am I, a non-Catholic, to say to this? Am I damned because I’m not “within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”? As others have said, “there is no salvation outside the Church.” However, this isn’t quite what came out of Vatican II. What am I to make of this? It’s rather confusing. Especially if I subscribe to the idea of infallibility.

 

[francisca]

Juxtaposer:

As the council of Florence states:
“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. -Ecumenical Council of Florence (infallible)”

Please remember that the word “Catholic Church” was used for the first time by St. Ignatius. There was only ONE CHURCH then, no denominations at all.

Word “catholic church” became a name only after Reformation (to differenciate from “the protestants”). But this-- I think-- should not change the true meaning intended by the church father.

So “Catholic Church” supposedly refer to the one body of Christ. Then it’s true that outside it, one cannot be saved.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Do you know what the Council was about?
Do you know the context of the statement you quote?
Were you aware that the Council was addressing possible schism in the western church, as well as reunification of the Greek church with the Roman?

You can look up the Council of Florence–I recommend both the New Advent site and EWTN for good information. I also suggest that you “ask an apologist” about your concerns, that is, once you have actually studied the matter and not just “pulled a quote” from thin air and thrown it out for “consideration”.

 

[amarkich]

We should not attack a candid inquirer. He asks the question: “Is the Church necessary for salvation?” The answer (without reservation) is “Absolutely.” He asks: “Can nonCatholics be saved?” The answer (without reservation) must be “No.” We do not dance around the true answers in order to make people happy. This does not gain converts. The truth is that this is what the Church teaches and has always taught. Just because people come up with “speculative theology” that might allow nonCatholics to go to Heaven, that does not mean it is true and that does not mean it is the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches infallibly what you stated above. All must be converted to the Truth, or they cannot enter Heaven. The saddest thing is that you will see Catholics (even prominent Catholics, e.g., Priests, Bishops, even the Pope) hint that other religions can save or that members of them can be saved without conversion. The fact of the matter is, even in the context of the false speculative theology of multiple Baptisms, that anyone who has substantial knowledge of the Church and the proof for the Church’s infallibility, inerrancy, and necessity for salvation, must convert or will be damned. This is true for anyone thinking of converting. With that being said, anyone thinking of converting has no hope of salvation unless he fulfills this hope (according to any ‘faithful’ Catholic). The truth is that, outside the Roman Catholic Church “no one at all can be saved.” (Fourth Lateran Council; infallible). God bless.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Tantum ergo:

Do you know what the Council was about?
Do you know the context of the statement you quote?
Were you aware that the Council was addressing possible schism in the western church, as well as reunification of the Greek church with the Roman?

You can look up the Council of Florence–I recommend both the New Advent site and EWTN for good information. I also suggest that you “ask an apologist” about your concerns, that is, once you have actually studied the matter and not just “pulled a quote” from thin air and thrown it out for “consideration”.

Now that was correcting with love if I’ve ever seen it. I’ll read about it on New Advent and get back to you. I do know, however, that the Orthodoxy was a seperate church at this time. Therefore, would this council be saying that the Orthodox are damned?

 

[Juxtaposer]

amarkich:

We should not attack a candid inquirer. He asks the question: “Is the Church necessary for salvation?” The answer (without reservation) is “Absolutely.” He asks: “Can nonCatholics be saved?” The answer (without reservation) must be “No.” We do not dance around the true answers in order to make people happy. This does not gain converts. The truth is that this is what the Church teaches and has always taught. Just because people come up with “speculative theology” that might allow nonCatholics to go to Heaven, that does not mean it is true and that does not mean it is the Church’s teaching. The Church teaches infallibly what you stated above. All must be converted to the Truth, or they cannot enter Heaven. The saddest thing is that you will see Catholics (even prominent Catholics, e.g., Priests, Bishops, even the Pope) hint that other religions can save or that members of them can be saved without conversion. The fact of the matter is, even in the context of the false speculative theology of multiple Baptisms, that anyone who has substantial knowledge of the Church and the proof for the Church’s infallibility, inerrancy, and necessity for salvation, must convert or will be damned. This is true for anyone thinking of converting. With that being said, anyone thinking of converting has no hope of salvation unless he fulfills this hope (according to any ‘faithful’ Catholic). The truth is that, outside the Roman Catholic Church “no one at all can be saved.” (Fourth Lateran Council; infallible). God bless.

For some reason, that doesn’t sound quite like the message of Christ to me. Which, is, of course, what you clicm to have; right?

 

[John_Higgins]

amarkich:

We should not attack a candid inquirer. He asks the question: “Is the Church necessary for salvation?” The answer (without reservation) is “Absolutely.” He asks: “Can nonCatholics be saved?” The answer (without reservation) must be “No.”

No really, the question is has Adam read anything written after the Council of Trent?

Once again, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 “All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”

837 “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

John

 

[Beaver]

Juxtaposer:

As the council of Florence states:
“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. -Ecumenical Council of Florence (infallible)”

What am I, a non-Catholic, to say to this? Am I damned because I’m not “within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”? As others have said, “there is no salvation outside the Church.” However, this isn’t quite what came out of Vatican II. What am I to make of this? It’s rather confusing. Especially if I subscribe to the idea of infallibility.

A valid baptism, makes you a member of the Catholic church. This means if you were baptisted with water and baptisted in the name of the Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit. You are a member of the Catholic church.

 

[RBushlow]

Juxtaposer:

What am I, a non-Catholic, to say to this? Am I damned because I’m not “within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”? As others have said, “there is no salvation outside the Church.” However, this isn’t quite what came out of Vatican II. What am I to make of this? It’s rather confusing. Especially if I subscribe to the idea of infallibility.

If you knowingly reject Christ and His church, you damn yourself. It’s a matter of your choice.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Well there you have it, amarkich. The infallible teaching of your Church. Or is it your Church? You obviously don’t believe everything it teaches. Or maybe it’s just ignorance that’s keeping you from “coming home”. The Catholic Church accepts me as a member as I am. I’m just not a full member.

“Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.”

Beware, amarkich.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Juxtaposer:

As the council of Florence states:
“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. -Ecumenical Council of Florence (infallible)”

What am I, a non-Catholic, to say to this?

Because of the use of the word “remain”, It would appear to me that this quote from the Council of Florence has to do with Catholics who are guilty of separating themselves from the Church, i.e., Catholics in schism. St. John said pretty much the same thing, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.” (1 John 2:18-19)

The quote from the Council of Florence does not appear to address non-Catholic Christians who have never been part of the Catholic Church.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Todd Easton:

The quote from the Council of Florence does not appear to address non-Catholic Christians who have never been part of the Catholic Church.

I will grant that it does not specifically address non-Catholic Christians who have never been Catholic, but it does specifically claim that Jews and pagans are damned unless they become Catholic. It is hard to imagine that non-Catholic Christians get a pass while Jews and pagans do not. It seems to me that amarkich’s reading of the Conciliar text is the most plausible. At the very least, we ought to have grave concerns about the welfare of non-Catholics, even when they have been baptized into Christ like us.

 

[JGC]

Juxtaposer:

Well there you have it, amarkich. The infallible teaching of your Church. Or is it your Church? You obviously don’t believe everything it teaches. Or maybe it’s just ignorance that’s keeping you from “coming home”. The Catholic Church accepts me as a member as I am. I’m just not a full member.

“Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.”

Beware, amarkich.

More amarkich …

The fact is bad enough that the Church no longer offers the unaltered Holy Week, for even in the 1962 Missal “perfidious” was removed as describing the Jews in favor of “ecumenical vocabulary.” In addition to this, a genuflection was made when praying which had not been done previously for the perfidious Jews (“Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis”). In the name of “ecumenical dialouge” we dishonor Our Lord Who was slain on Good Friday, abandoned by those who were “once [His] chosen people” c.f., Quas primas, Pope Pius XI. Or was that whole tradition of the Church a worthless, hate crime? The fruits of “ecumenical diction” have been seen in the forms of heresy, indifference and loss of faith among the People of God, i.e., Catholics. It is a shame that we abandon the proclamation of truth and the just condemnation of those who broke their Covenant with Almighty God in order to please the very people who have committed this horrible act against God.

(post by amarkinch)

JGC response

Find the whole story in the Catholic Encyclopedia thread.

The footer simply illustrates a position (clear from his other posts) that if you are not a visible member of the Catholic Church then you are not saved. Which is not Catholic teaching.

As an ex protestant I would say I have more dialogue with protestants than the average cradle catholic. My life to explain the faith is made much more difficult by uncharitable Catholics whose line is ‘join the Catholic Church or perish’ or ‘You are not Catholic therefore not a Christian.’ That’s what annoys me and results in :tsktsk: , not simply quoting a council. Oh, and these attitudes delayed my entry to the Church significantly. I’m sure it has stopped others completely. Is that what you want?

 

[GrzeszDeL]

JGC:

Oh, and these attitudes delayed my entry to the Church significantly. I’m sure it has stopped others completely. Is that what you want?

Shoot, if you want simply to take issue with Amarkich’s talk about “gain[ing] converts,” then you will get no argument from me. This is hardly a good argument, however, for muting the historic teachings of the Catholic faith in order to appear more palatable to would-be converts. It seems to me that we should proclaim the 200-proof Catholic faith, nothing more nor less, and let the listener decide for himself about whether he wants to convert to such a Church. After all, we could make ourselves much more attractive to would-be converts by jettisoning many of the less popular teachings (like the infallibility of the Pope or the immorality of artificial contraception), but then we would no longer hold the Catholic faith.

The Council of Florence (as well as many other important magisterial documents) makes clear that one must be united to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It is neither imprudent nor uncharitable to say as much without a lot of unnecessary hemming and hawing.

 

[jeffreedy789]

this is supposed to be a HAPPY occasion…let’s not bicker and argue about…er…who’s saved or not…

i, too, am a convert. i know what the cradle catholics are saying (and not even just them! i’ve got a convert friend who is now a traditional catholic, and believes in ‘no salvation outside of the Church’ to mean that you have to be a baptized Roman Catholic to be saved, and even THEN you’re on shaky ground!), that we can’t just go changing things that the early popes have spoken on. we can’t change the magisterium. and we don’t want to. but we do have to reinterpret what we understand of the Bible, and the church fathers, in light of what we know, and see to be true, today. not to contradict, but to illuminate.

even though i’m a convert, i hold a VERY conservative view of Tradition and Biblical inerrancy, and hold that the RCC is right in everything it teaches. but i also see that Vatican II makes sense of alot of things that have previously been unclear.

is there salvation outside of the church? no! of course not. He is in the church, and there is no salvation outside of Him. but He can reach outside of the church, and outside of the boxes we put Him in, and save anyone He chooses.

i hope and pray that He saves all of us.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

jeffreedy789:

i know what the cradle catholics are saying (and not even just them! i’ve got a convert friend who is now a traditional catholic, and believes in ‘no salvation outside of the Church’ to mean that you have to be a baptized Roman Catholic to be saved, and even THEN you’re on shaky ground!)

Slightly off topic, but I kind of wonder what percentage of hard-core EENS folks (like myself) are cradle and what percentage are convert? I know that a lot of the St. Benedict Center folks are converts, and Gerry Matatics and Bob Sungenis are both converts. I am a convert. I suspect that the majority of us who believe in a strict interpretation of EENS are converts.

 

[Todd_Easton]

GrzeszDeL:

I will grant that it does not specifically address non-Catholic Christians who have never been Catholic, but it does specifically claim that Jews and pagans are damned unless they become Catholic.

Thank you for providing a link to the council decrees.

The holy synod decreed that pagans and Jews are to have the truth of the gospel preached and expounded to them frequently and in such a way, and they are to be treated with such charity and kindness, that the truth of the gospel becomes manifest to them and they come to a recongnition their errors. So, the pagans and Jews who are damned are those for whom the truth of Christ and his Church is manifest yet they reject it.
Council of Florence:

This holy synod following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it. It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear it can recognise their errors. … But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other kindnesses.

 

[JGC]

GrzeszDeL:

Shoot, if you want simply to take issue with Amarkich’s talk about “gain[ing] converts,” then you will get no argument from me. This is hardly a good argument, however, for muting the historic teachings of the Catholic faith in order to appear more palatable to would-be converts. It seems to me that we should proclaim the 200-proof Catholic faith, nothing more nor less, and let the listener decide for himself about whether he wants to convert to such a Church. After all, we could make ourselves much more attractive to would-be converts by jettisoning many of the less popular teachings (like the infallibility of the Pope or the immorality of artificial contraception), but then we would no longer hold the Catholic faith.

The Council of Florence (as well as many other important magisterial documents) makes clear that one must be united to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It is neither imprudent nor uncharitable to say as much without a lot of unnecessary hemming and hawing.

We agree on holding the catholic faith, if anyone asks then the answers they get from me will pretty much come straight from the cathechism - a sure norm for teaching the faith JPII, or as you put it the 200 proof faith. Or do you have a problem with a document prepared following a Ecumenical Council, endorsed by the current bishop of Rome following consultation with ‘the whole episcopate’

I’ve said this in many posts. It’s how it’s said. I accept ‘no salvation outside the Church’ - its catholic teaching, I just follow the Pope and the catechism i.e Orthodox and all Christians are in some way joined to Church. I find it strange that the no salvation if you are not a Roman Catholic types completely ignore the teaching here of the current Bishop of Rome.

 

[Michael_Howard]

Juxtaposer:

Well there you have it, amarkich. The infallible teaching of your Church. Or is it your Church? You obviously don’t believe everything it teaches. Or maybe it’s just ignorance that’s keeping you from “coming home”. The Catholic Church accepts me as a member as I am. I’m just not a full member.

“Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.”

Beware, amarkich.

**

[846](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/846.htm’)

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336It’s important to clarify that the church (Catholic) is necessary for salvation and this has not changed for 2000 years. Christ has One body on earth that he is the head of and that is the Holy catholic church. Those who explicitly “know” that the catholic church is the true church of christ are in grave danger of losing their souls for they are in rebellion to the truth and living a lie. The same goes for those who have known the truth of the Catholic church and reject it for a Protestant sect. They as well will lose their salvation. Grace may be allowed for someone Catholic “by name” only who knew nothing of the faith but remained in the church…but I am not absolutely sure about that.

End Part I…

 

[Michael_Howard]

Part II…

**

847

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

[848](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/848.htm’) "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, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

So to clarify, those Protestants seeking God with humility and sincerity, who love Jesus Christ with all their hearts* “may” be saved* simply for the fact that they are living up to the light that they know. They cannot or do not have the fullness of the truth. But ,God is just in His doings and it’s my opinion that a just and Holy God would not send someone to hell trying to find Him with all their heart…that to me is ludicrous!

It comes down to the light of conscience. Perhaps there are Protestants out there who know that they are not living the truth, and that the Catholic church is the true way. Yet, because they have built their world around there religious community, and are afraid to convert to the true faith, this is different, they are now accountable to come ro they are in rebellion towards the Almighty.
In Christ - Michael