Saved Only Through Rome?

[John_Higgins]

For all you EENS rigorists’ information the pope responsible for the bull Unam Sanctam was Boniface VIII, not VII. Boniface VII was an antipope in the late 900s.

John

 

[Juxtaposer]

I suppose my main problem with all of this (regardless of wether or not Protestants can be saved) is that Jesus never (from what I know) taught that being a part of an organization is required for salvation.

 

[nucatholic]

Your completely right, Jesus never said that you needed to be part of an ORGANIZATION, but since when was his holy, spotless bride an organization? It wasn’t anything but the Church in general until parts of the Eastern Church decided to go with the patriarch of Constantinople. So what is the true Church? The one that accepts and practices the teachings of Jesus who handed them down to his apostles. If I had a map that was supposed to lead me out of a very dangerous place, I think I’d rather have one that didn’t have missing directions…

 

[JGC]

GrzeszDeL:

Those who are truly loyal to the bishop of Rome are the ones who agree that there is no salvation outside of communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Well, Catholic teaching is that if you are a non-Catholic Christian you are in some way in communion with the Church and by extension the Bishop of Rome.

Unfortunately some siege mentality Catholics interpret communion as being visible communion only.

We are going to have to agree to disagree I’m afraid.

Horsefeathers! Not heard that one before. Not being familiar with it I’m assuming its a charitable way of expressing diagreement

 

[Todd_Easton]

GrzeszDeL:

“With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people…” (Council of Florence)

If Jews and pagans who have not heard the gospel preached in charity and kindness can be saved, then surely babies, even unbaptized babies, are in the clear, no? Given, then, that the council claims that babies must be baptized in order to be saved, I see little reason to suppose that the council means for us to understand that unevangelized Jews and pagans (and by extension, non-Catholics in general) can be saved without coming into the Catholic Church.

When the council fathers say that baptism is “the only remedy available” to children. They are speaking of children born into a Catholic culture where the sacrament of baptism is known and available. They are not addressing the question of children born where the sacrament of baptism is unknown or unavailable.

You must realize that to condemn unbaptized children and pagans, Jews and non-Catholic Christians to hell because no one was there to baptize them, in the case of children, or to instruct them by word and deed so that the truth of the Christ and his Church becomes manifest to them, in the case of those who have reached the age of reason, is to believe that God does not give everyone sufficient grace for salvation. To say that God does not give everyone sufficient grace for salvation means that God predestines some to hell which is contrary to the Catholic faith and contrary to God’s word, “This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:3). Therefore, there must be some other “remedy” for these folks.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

John Higgins:

For all you EENS rigorists’ information the pope responsible for the bull Unam Sanctam was Boniface VIII, not VII.

Good catch.

 

[Matt16_18]

from Catholic Answers: Salvation outside the Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). …

 

[ccav]

GrzeszDeL:

Far be it from me to discourage anyone from reading Vatican II, but while you are at it, if you really want to come to a thorough and well-informed opinion on this matter, you should also read Florence, Trent & Vatican I. Trying to consider Vatican II in isolation from the larger tradition from which it emerged is a recipe for the sort of AmChurch nonsense that prevails so rapantly in so many places today.

At the same time, reading Florence, Trent & Vatican I as a way to trump Vatican II doesn’t work either. That’s what has lead to all the SSPX “nonsense that prevails so rapantly in so many places today” (borrowing from your quote).

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Matt16_18:

from Catholic Answers: Salvation outside the Church
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774–776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). …

Dear Matt,

I would be loathe to disagree with the sentiments expressed above, but it is hard to understand why you bother to mention this, or draw special attention to the boldface lines. The quotes which the good CA folks cite show that one can be saved despite having not yet been baptized with water by virtue of the baptisms of blood and desire. I have not seen anyone here dispute the efficacy of the baptisms of blood or desire on this thread. I am pretty sure that we all acknowledge their worth. What some of us do dispute is the much less well-established idea of being in the Church despite the explicit denial of being Catholic.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

ccav:

At the same time, reading Florence, Trent & Vatican I as a way to trump Vatican II doesn’t work either. That’s what has lead to all the SSPX “nonsense that prevails so rapantly in so many places today” (borrowing from your quote).

It is not obvious to me that one can speak of the SSPX as prevailing “rampantly” anywhere. They are a tiny fringe movement (and rightly so). In any case, I agree wholeheartedly that one cannot use Florence to trump Vatican II (or vice-versa). I am firmly convinced that the teachings of all the ecumenical councils can be reconciled into a harmonious whole. I am, however, not convinced that this harmonious reconciliation can be effected by giving in to the longings of our inner-Americanist-heretic and claiming that one might be in the Church despite a stated conviction of not being Catholic.

 

[Matt16_18]

GrzeszDeL:

What some of us do dispute is the much less well-established idea of being in the Church despite the explicit denial of being Catholic.

St. Augustine had to grapple with this issue when dealing with the Donatists. The Donatists had valid baptisms, and they claimed that they were the true church. It is the same situation that we have today - many Protestants have valid baptisms, and they claim that their denomination is the true church.