Sermon: No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

[pnewton]

From the writings of St. Faustina:

My daughter, do you think you have written enough about My mercy? What you have written is but a drop compared to the ocean. I am Love and Mercy itself. There is no misery that could be a match for My mercy, neither will misery exhaust it, because as it is being granted - it increases. The soul that trusts in My mercy is most fortunate, because I myself take care of it. (1273)

 

[Lief_Erikson]

FAB, Dogmatist and I agree with you about salvation. I was only disagreeing with your word choice which appeared to pit Pius XII against the Catechism.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That is an excellent post. I don’t think most Catholics think or care how they come across when responding to a nonCatholic.

I wouldn’t personally dare generalize to such a large group of people.

I’m all for passion in discussions and being passionate about one’s faith, but we aren’t discussing politics or sports, we’re (most of us) all Christians and should show Love toward each other.

I have said on here over and over that I am swayed by much of the Catholic faith. I mean step back, Lutherans and Catholics are FOR Christ, we all believe in Him, we all love Him and that fact alone should bring us together. We are not enemies, and I don’t care what “hardcore” Catholics say, Jesus would look down on us Christians and be mightily disappointed. Protestants for breaking away from the Church, and Catholics for being so prideful, willful, and in denial of all that is broken and has been broken. We are all culpible in this, and in my opinion, it is ALL of our responsibility to fix it. We and our leaders need to stop arguing and start healing. Not who is to blame, but how can we fix it?

Agreed. I think honest and kind-hearted discussions about the differences we hold in our faiths will also serve an important role in bringing about the healing process. Before we can call ourselves truly one, we need to agree in what our religion means, as Protestants (before they created new doctrines dividing themselves from the Church) and Catholics once did.

I do not deny there was one Church established, and that is the way it was intended. However in my opinion the Church and all of us broken away have really messed things up. Catholics (and Protestants) tend to sweep all of the awful things that have occurred under the rug, and just move on with more rules hoping we’ll all forget. If we as Christians all got our act together, united, and focused on Christ and His teachings (as the apostles did) I would be all for one Church.

As for the apostles teaching much outside the Scripture, yes, they did, but they had all that Jesus said to go off of!!! They didn’t use a Bible, but what they taught and spread was the Good News.

Are you sure it was only the Good News Protestants teach, though? I personally have found that Catholicism teaches even better news than there is in Protestantism, though Protestantism contains many aspects of the truth. That’s because I find it a more complete and glorious message. I’ll describe the Communion of Saints as one example, since you bring it up right below:

They taught Jesus life, his works, his resurrection, etc. They didn’t constantly talk about Mary, or saints or any of that.

How do you know they didn’t talk about Mary or the saints? I know they talked about Jesus, of course, as do we. Mary and the saints, as part of the Body of Christ, bind us together. As 1 Cor. 12:21-25 says, we all need each other.
"1 Corinthians 12:21-25:

20
But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21
The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”

In the same way, we cannot say to the saints that we don’t need them simply because they are in Heaven.
1 Corinthians 12:22-25:

22
Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary,
23
and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety,
24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it,
25
so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.

Every part of the Body is here called to have concern for every other part, that there may be no division. There is no division between the saints in Heaven and those on Earth. We all care for each other and love each other, and those in Heaven helps us. As Rev. 5:8 says, the saints carry our prayers to God because, as James 5:16 says, “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective,” and no one on Earth is more righteous than those living in Heaven. This is all about unity. As Jesus prayed in John 17, let us be one as He and the Father are one. Total unity, not divided. All of us working together just as the human body. Jesus doesn’t have two bodies, one on Heaven and one on Earth. He has just one Body, as 1 Cor. 12 says, which is integrally linked to itself and builds itself up, supporting and upholding itself. Gazing at and loving parts of the Body, loving one another or those in Heaven like Mary, is not taking our eyes of Jesus for a moment because we are loving the Body of Christ. It is a fuller expression of love to love Christ in all He is rather than only in part.

And the Early Church agreed with this and taught it, as the apostles told them to. It’s a mistake to view the Body of Christ as a distraction from Christ.

It was the Good News, which was also later contained in The Bible! Jesus and His ways are enough, we don’t need to add things.

Tradition was first, and believing in it isn’t adding to the Bible. Tradition in early Christianity simply wasn’t modern Protestantism, which has separated itself from the saints in Heaven by choice. It was about unity, more complete unity. Blessed be God .

I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to meet you, HisWill777. It’s a pleasure to talk with you.

 

[whatischarity]

He gave us the Church to keep from going to hell but it is also true that He gave us the church to come give us a better understanding of Him and to learn how to live a more rewarding life. In other words, the teachings of the Church are not meant to be a club or an obligation rather the teachings of the Church are an opportunity to acheive union with God. It is a delicate balance between the law and the spirit and it is imperative not to stress one aspect over the other. Additionally, although it is a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant, it is also a directive not to work at the speck in your brothers eye before addressing the beam in your own eye. In other words, it is dangerous to assume a protestant friend is ignorant. A follower of Jesus should be a city on a hill. That may well be more effective at bringing others to a closer union with God than scourging them with the negativity. Regardless, it appears to me the Roman Catholic Church has stopped trying to bring in converts by beating them with a negative message.
I know it is a serious and deep topic and it would take many months to discuss it sufficiently but I would just try to balance things by pointing out the many instances where Jesus cautioned about judging others and stated His followers need to humbly trust in Him. His message of hope is for sinners and not theologians. Theologians of course have their place, but those of us who are not theologians have to accept that. Heck, maybe we are the lucky ones!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

As the Creed states: He (Jesus) descended into Hell (or Shoal) - the abode of the righteous after He died in order to release all the souls to Heaven. Jesus opened up the gates of glory for them. These righteous souls were those who existed since the time of Adam and Eve. So, why would you even ask if Moses ever joined the Catholic Church? Why would you even ask if a devout Jew who died eithout ever hearing of Christ would go to hell?

The Church does not teach that. What it does teach (follow this closely because I know this is going to be extremely difficult on your part to comprehend) is that (as in Lumen Gentium - that’s a Vatican II document…you should take time to read it some time…very enlightening) those who, in good conscience, follow the precepts of their religion (nonChristian) and never heard of Christ *through no fault of their own *MAY - that is the word used - MAY be granted the grace of salvation.

But the Church also teaches that those who KNOW - the word is KNOW, understand - that the salvation of humankind resides within the Catholic Church yet refuse to accept this, cannot be saved outside of the Church.

The thing is, you have to know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s means of salvation on earth.

Yes, but one can receive this knowledge spiritually, or feel God calling one’s heart to this grace, and reject it and be judged. One can also lie to oneself and fill oneself with inexcusable ignorance.

Romans 1:21, “Although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.”

You don’t have to intellectually agree that the Catholic Church is the way to salvation to be culpable for rejecting it. All that is necessary for the chance of salvation to be removed is for that knowledge to be presented to one’s soul by the Spirit of God and rejected. Souls can choose ignorance when faced with truth, and they often do. That’s probably what Dogmatist has been thinking of when he talks about an inexcusable ignorance.

 

[yosupman]

What you heard was the Priest* quoting *St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Universal Church, that gave you pause. Here’s the quote:

**St. Augustine (354-430): **"*No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. *Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Regarding your comment about Protestants being able to confer a valid baptsim, which you said was contrary to what St. Augustine said, we have to keep the following in mind: Since the Catholic sacrament of baptism can be performed by anyone (a heretic, an infidel, etc.), it is possible for a Protestant to confer it validly. However, when a heretic receives baptism - even a valid baptism - he does not receive it unto salvation. The baptism might be valid, but a heretic does not receive grace through that valid sacrament. Why? Because right faith is necessary a person above the age of reason to receive grace through baptism. Right faith is not necessary to receive the sacrament validly, but it is necessary to receive grace through the sacrament. Let me explain…

Baptism produces a two-fold effect: It prints an indelible character upon the soul, and infuses sanctifying grace. When a heretic receives a valid baptism, he receives the character, but not sanctifying grace. Why? Because right faith is necessary for a person to receive sanctifying grace.

**St. Thomas: Whether faith is required on the part of the one baptized: **

I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (63, 6; 66, 9) Baptism produces a twofold effect in the soul, viz. the character and grace. Therefore in two ways may a thing be necessary for Baptism. First, as something without which grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Romans 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ.

Secondly, something is required of necessity for Baptism, because without it the baptismal character cannot be imprinted And thus right faith is not necessary in the one baptized any more than in the one who baptizes: provided the other conditions are fulfilled which are essential to the sacrament. For the sacrament is not perfected by the righteousness of the minister or of the recipient of Baptism, but by the power of God.

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord is speaking there of Baptism as bringing us to salvation by giving us sanctifying grace: which of course cannot be without right faith: wherefore He says pointedly: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article8

So, right faith is not necessary for baptism to be valid and produce the character; but right faith is necessary for baptism to give grace - and it is grace, not the character, that saves.

Now, it is possible for a person to be baptized outside of the Church (by a Protestant minister, for example) and not be in obstinate denial of a dogma. In this case (and God alone can judge such things), the person would receive both the character and sanctifying grace through baptism.

We hear a lot today about the “common baptism” we have with various non-Catholic sects, but we do not also share a common faith (the Catholic faith) the common baptism we share with those outside the Church wil not benefit them. Without right faith, baptism will not save anyone.

Ultima,

What you wrote above is covoluted and confusing. It’s not good writing, and certainly not clear. I’ve seen you do this in other threads. Can’t you explain your position in 3 or 4 sentances?

It’s almost impossible to follow your train of thought.

 

[whatischarity]

I have found in my parish church that the priest does not constantly talk about Mary or the saints but rather the focus is on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Mary or the saints are only brought up to give examples of someone who followed the teachings of Jesus so that we might be inspired to do the same. We know that for all generations Mary will be called blessed since it was her womb that brought Jesus into the the world and for her constancy at being present throughout His life from Bethlehem to Calvary. I would say there is no doubt in Catholics mind that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and Mary is a just a creature like the rest of us. Still, through Jesus we can become sons of God. It is a hopeful message that does not take away from God’s glory but adds to it by showing the power of His grace. Our souls can magnify the Lord if we are humble! This is all in Jesus’ book.

 

[yosupman]

I have found in my parish church that the priest does not constantly talk about Mary or the saints but rather the focus is on the teachings of Jesus Christ and Mary or the saints are only brought up to give examples of someone who followed the teachings of Jesus so that we might be inspired to do the same. We know that for all generations Mary will be called blessed since it was her womb that brought Jesus into the the world and for her constancy at being present throughout His life from Bethlehem to Calvary. I would say there is no doubt in Catholics mind that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and Mary is a just a creature like the rest of us. Still, through Jesus we can become sons of God. It is a hopeful message that does not take away from God’s glory but adds to it by showing the power of His grace. Our souls can magnify the Lord if we are humble! This is all in Jesus’ book.

How does your statement relate to no salvation outside the church?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

What you wrote above is covoluted and confusing. It’s not good writing, and certainly not clear. I’ve seen you do this in other threads. Can’t you explain your position in 3 or 4 sentances?

It’s almost impossible to follow your train of thought.

I’ll try to make it more simple for you. When a heretic receives a valid baptism, he does not obtain the state of grace. He will receive the character of baptism, but his heresy hinders him from receiving sanctifying grace (which is what saves). A heretic leaves the waters of baptism just as spiritually dead as he entered them.

My next point was that we always hear about the “common baptism” we share with various non-Catholic sects. But if, in addition to the “common baptism”, we don’t also have a common faith (the Catholic faith), the “common baptism” will not benefit them for salvation. In other words, baptism does not save anyone who does not also have the Catholic faith.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I think they need to have a consciousness that the Church is true in their souls to be culpable for rejecting it, but they don’t have to be aware of it in their conscious minds.

But what part of the soul “knows”? Are there two parts of the soul that are capable of “knowing”. It seems as though you are confusing two things; namely, knowledge of something and a certain epiphany whereby a person knows that the particular truth is true. In other words, you seem to be confusing knowledge with understanding. For example, Bob has been told about the Incarnation, but just couldn’t bring himself to accept it. It just doesn’t make sense to him that God would become a man to die for our sins. Then one day out of the blue it all made sense and he believed. It seems as though you are arguing that prior to his epiphany he was invincibly ignorant whereas he was not so after. But this is confusing knowledge of something with understanding of the same.

Invincible ignorance is ignorance; and ignorance is not lack of understanding, but lack of knowledge. Invincible ignorance is ignorance of a truth through no fault of their own. It is not lack of understanding of the truth through no fault of their own.

Take the example of John 6. From what we read, none of the apostles understood what our Lord meant. As a result, most of them left “and walked no more with Him”. It also seems that Peter and those who remained also did not fully understand, but they remained none-the-less. They accepted the truth even though they did not understand what He meant.
Lief Erikson:

We’re talking about something very subtle here, the awareness of the spirit. It’s not like any good presentation of Catholicism will cleave through people’s invincible ignorance. The Spirit has to work on a soul to make the truth actually sink in or it will fall off like seed on the path.

I disagree. If a person hears a good presentation of Catholicism, their ignorance is dispelled. They may agree with what they heard, or it may not make sense to them that an all-powerful God would become a man to suffer and die for their sins, but they can no longer claim ignorance of it.

Again, I think you are confusing knowledge with understanding. The only understanding required is the understanding of what is being proposed. The person does not have to understand what is being proposed, see the truth in it, and then reject it. They only have to understand the true propostion.
Lief Erikson:

As the Second Vatican Council said, all souls have an obligation to adhere to the truth insofar as they are aware of it.

Exactly. They don’t have to agree that it is true, they only have to be aware of the particular truth.

Let’s use the example of birth control. Most Catholics are aware of the Church’s teaching on this subject, yet they don’t agree. For them, it just doesn’t make any sense. Above you said a good presentation of Catholicism is not enough to overcome their invincible ignorance because the “Spirit has to work on a soul to make the truth actually sink in”,. Well, with these people, the truth has not actually sunk it. They are aware of the truth, but it just doesn’t make sense to them, and they can’t “understand” why the Church teaches what it does. Are such people invincibly ignorance? If not, why?
Lief Erikson:

This doesn’t let people off the hook for suppressing truth the Spirit has shown them

But what about the truth that they have heard, but doesn’t make sense to them?

Agreed, but I’m not talking about a moment of epiphany being necessary for the creation of culpability. The greater the truth God shows a soul, the more it is culpable for rejecting it. And truth can be suppressed when we lie to ourselves. But I’m talking about the truth God

shows a soul, not the truth we show a soul.

But how does God show us the truth? That is the question. If you read Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII, the Pope explains how God communicates the truth to men. The way is not for the Holy Ghost to enlighten us internally. That is possible, and does happen from time to time, but the common way for God to teach us is through other men. That’s why the apostles preached and why “faith cometh by hearing”.

Conclusion: Ignorance and understanding are not one and the same. Once knowledge enters the intellect, a person is no longer ignorant of that proposition. They may not agree with it, or may not understand it, but they are not ignorant of it. In the same way, a person who has heard what the Church teaches but for what ever reason does not accept it, is no longer invincibly ignorant. It is for God, not us, to judge the guilt of such a person, but we cannot say a person is ignorant of a truth that has been made known to them.

 

[Jacafamala]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is a defined doctrine of the Church, to be believed by every Catholic under pain of heresy and excommunication: there is no Salvation outside the Church.

That’s how it is. Now, to go on about “invincible ignorance” serves what purpose? Is it to help us all to feel good? Invincible ignorance, what does the Church actually mean by that? It’s so vague and undefined (yes, I’ve read the CCC regarding the subject), so what’s happening now in our parishes–across the globe–is that we’re being led into a belief which is in direct contradiction to what the Church has always believed. Would our grandparents and great grandparents even recognize the Church as it stands today? To them it’d be heresy. They wouldn’t even recognize their local churches.

 

[FAB]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is a defined doctrine of the Church, to be believed by every Catholic under pain of heresy and excommunication: there is no Salvation outside the Church.

That’s how it is. Now, to go on about “invincible ignorance” serves what purpose? Is it to help us all to feel good? Invincible ignorance, what does the Church actually mean by that? It’s so vague and undefined (yes, I’ve read the CCC regarding the subject), so what’s happening now in our parishes–across the globe–is that we’re being led into a belief which is in direct contradiction to what the Church has always believed. Would our grandparents and great grandparents even recognize the Church as it stands today? To them it’d be heresy. They wouldn’t even recognize their local churches.

Once again:

Redemptoris missio
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…missio_en.html

Quote:
Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

1. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.”

 

[Jacafamala]

Once again:

That seems to be a real change from before, isn’t it? Redemptoris missio seems to be saying something very different from what has always been taught. It appears to have been revamped to suit the times. To say that, for example, a pagan can be saved outside belief in Christ? Why did Christ die on the cross if some can be saved without accepting His Precious Blood on Calvary? Belief in the cross is central to our Salvation. What is this “mysterious relationship” which saves? It’s cryptic.

The Church must believe what God reveals. God can’t lie. We’re bound to believe what’s been revealed. So what was true in the 1800’s must still be objectively true today. In all honesty, the more I read, the more I find the documents of VII all to be utterly confusing in light of what’s been said previously.

It’d be better to warn people that we’re all in danger of hell then to comfort people with false ecumenism.

 

[Adeodatus]

That seems to be a real change from before, isn’t it? Redemptoris missio seems to be saying something very different from what has always been taught. It appears to have been revamped to suit the times. To say that, for example, a pagan can be saved outside belief in Christ? Why did Christ die on the cross if some can be saved without accepting His Precious Blood on Calvary? Belief in the cross is central to our Salvation. What is this “mysterious relationship” which saves? It’s cryptic.

The Church must believe what God reveals. God can’t lie. We’re bound to believe what’s been revealed. So what was true in the 1800’s must still be objectively true today. In all honesty, the more I read, the more I find the documents of VII all to be utterly confusing in light of what’s been said previously.

It’d be better to warn people that we’re all in danger of hell then to comfort people with false ecumenism.

I already indicated in the CCC where it states in plain black and white what the Church has always taught. So then the question of Redemptoris Missio arises, and I have to consider which one is better at interpreting the perennial teaching of the Church: this housewife or Pope John Paul the Great? Subjectively I suppose I could say that each option has a probability of <1… but I know where the smart money goes.

Let’s actually read an excerpt of the quoted passage of Redemptoris Missio:

This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit.

Do you see in this a manifest contradiction to what the Church has always taught?

Let me also remind you of this:
Matthew 16:19:

And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Church recognizes the possibility of salvation through Christ outside of visible union with the Church. To deny this is to exchange the religion of Roman Catholicism for the heresy of Feeneyism, and like so many before to raise the red flag of revolution against the Catholic Church.

 

[FAB]

That seems to be a real change from before, isn’t it? Redemptoris missio seems to be saying something very different from what has always been taught. It appears to have been revamped to suit the times. To say that, for example, a pagan can be saved outside belief in Christ? Why did Christ die on the cross if some can be saved without accepting His Precious Blood on Calvary? Belief in the cross is central to our Salvation. What is this “mysterious relationship” which saves? It’s cryptic.

The Church must believe what God reveals. God can’t lie. We’re bound to believe what’s been revealed. So what was true in the 1800’s must still be objectively true today. In all honesty, the more I read, the more I find the documents of VII all to be utterly confusing in light of what’s been said previously.

It’d be better to warn people that we’re all in danger of hell then to comfort people with false ecumenism.

Redemptoris missio is not a VII document it is from Pope Paul II in the late 1990’s. It is also the current teaching of the church. Our belief is that the Holy Spirt guides the Church, why do insist that this document is less valid than one written 100 years ago. This document more fully explained the previous teaching.

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

Do you see in this a manifest contradiction to what the Church has always taught?

Are you trying to say that JP II is in error? Or are you choosinng to to accept teaching only from those popes your aree with?

Peace,
FAB

 

[Jacafamala]

Are you trying to say that JP II is in error? Or are you choosinng to to accept teaching only from those popes your aree with?

Peace,
FAB

Well, so the Popes can disagree with regards to the faith, then? Isn’t that moral relativism?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

That seems to be a real change from before, isn’t it? Redemptoris missio seems to be saying something very different from what has always been taught.

The quote from Redemptoris missio actually does not contradict what the Church teaches, even though just about everyone will interpret in such a way that it nullifies the dogma in question. Let me give a quote from the catechism of Pius X:

8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?

A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. …

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. …

21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?

A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.

22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?

A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?

A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government. …

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. …

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

The last part is what could be called the “exception” to the rule. Since Vatican II, focus has shifted almost exclusively from the “rule” to the possible “exception”. The result of this shift of emphasis is that most Catholics no longer believe a dogma that they are bound to believe.

Let me pose a question: What would happen if a person put a loaded gun to their head and pulled the trigger? A normal person would reply by saying “they’ll kill themselves”. But wait! I have heard of guns jamming and not firing. Therefore, we can’t say for sure the person would kill himself, or even get hurt for that matter. Further, I once saw a story on TV where a person was shot in the head from about 1 foot away and lived. In fact, he never even went unconscious. Therefore, we can’t say for sure that a person who puts a gun to their head and pulls the trigger will kill themselves. In fact, if the gun doesn’t go off, they won’t even be hurt! **False conclusion: **What’s so bad about a person putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger?

That is similar to the conclusion most Catholics have drawn from placing the emphasis almost exclusively on the exception rather than the rule. All we hear about today are the possible exceptions - and these have been stretched beyond their limits. The result has been a denial of a dogma Catholics are bound to accept and a drying up of the missionary spirit. These fruits explains why Pope Pius IX *forbade *the Bishops of his day from even discussing such “exceptions” to the rule. If you want to quote I’ll look it up later and post it. You don’t see this quote very often.

When a person really studies the “exceptions” and how difficult and rare they must be in our day, they will no longer presume on them. Just as a person would do all in their power to prevent a loved one from putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger, so to should they do all they could to bring those outside of the Church formally into it.

And let us not forget that a person who has been presented with the teachings of the Catholic Church and has either not entered, or failed to investigate it further cannot be considered outside of the Church “through no fault of their own”. Such people are not on the path to salvation. This effects me personally, as it does most others. My mother, father, brother and sister are all Protestants (one’s an Agnostic). They’ve all been instructed in what they Church teaches and rejected it. I am under no illusions that they are invincibly ignorant. It would be wrong for me to reject the dogma just because it might make me “feel” better. Instead, I accept the dogma and do all I can to bring them into the Church, hoping that, if nothing else, they will have a death bed conversion.

 

[Shin]

As I’ve said before… just because the gates of Hell cannot prevail, does not mean they cannot go pretty far that way.

The neglect of the past few popes towards preserving traditional language has led to this result.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Pope Boniface VIII: “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to hold that there is One Holy Catholic and truly Apostolic Church. And this we firmly believe and simply confess: outside of Her, there is neither salvation, nor the remission of sins, just as the Bridegroom in the Canticles proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. One is her mother; elect is she who bore her.’ [Canticles 6:8]. And this represents the one mystical body, whose head is Christ, and truly God [is the head] of Christ. [1 Corinthians 11:3] In Her, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. [Ephesians 4:5]”
(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, n. 1.)

Fourth Lateran Council: “There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”
(Fourth Lateran Council, Confession of Faith.)

Pope John Paul II: “Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ – stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). The axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical ‘Redemptoris Missio,’ salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. Redemptoris Missio, n. 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded. In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a ‘yes’ to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that ‘sine ecclesia nulla salus’ – ‘without the Church there is no salvation.’ Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however **implicitly **and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.”
(Pope John Paul II, All Salvation Comes through Christ, General Audience, 31 May 1995.)