Unam Sanctam?

[Bob_Schiffer]

Pope Boniface VIII’s papal bull Unam Sanctam is drawn from the dogma of the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Was the bull made ex cathedra? Was it ever considered an infallible teaching? If so, is it applicable even today?

 

[Abu]

The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.).

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

There has been a legitimate development of doctrine that is in no way contradictory to what was stated in these decrees.

From the Catechism of St. Pius X on the Ninth Article of the Creed:
“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.”

 

[Bob_Schiffer]

The Latin word extra can mean either “without” or “outside.” The correct interpretation and sense of the maxim is that we cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846).

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.).

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

There has been a legitimate development of doctrine that is in no way contradictory to what was stated in these decrees.

From the Catechism of St. Pius X on the Ninth Article of the Creed:
“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.”

Oh, I see.

Does all of this mean that all non-Catholics, who have willingly ignored or abandoned the Church, are consequently damned? How about the “salvation through works” doctrine? Does it not apply to atheists and the like?

 

[Cathoholic]

Thanks Abu for a well-rounded and succinct answer concerning the Catholic doctrine on Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and the excellent catechetical clarity with which you presented it.

Bob Schiffer welcome to the forum (I see this is your first post).

I will consider weighing in more on this topic too but I want to make sure the thread isn’t pulled first as the answers take a lot of time and effort to research and construct. I am not saying you Bob Schiffer are trolling for controversy. I am saying that has happened on other threads and all the work and research that posters carry out, gets drained by the moderators in a matter of seconds (“appropriately so” I might add—no criticism here for that action of our moderators. It is all in accord with the rules and is also consistent with getting a good high quality forum like we have here).

I will make an effort to get back to this thread though and add more than a “thank you” and a “welcome” here later.

 

[Cathoholic]

Oh Oh. Before I got off the thread, I see Bob you have already responded to Abu.

But Bob, I thought you wanted to know about . . .

. . . . the dogma of the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Was the bull made ex cathedra? Was it ever considered an infallible teaching? If so, is it applicable even today?

I thought Abu did a pretty fair job of giving you a brief yet pretty complete implicit answer to your questions from appropriate authoritative sources of the Church.

I think Abu’s answer was insightful. Perhaps instead of deleting this whole thread it can just be closed (if it goes “south”) so we can preserve Abu’s answer in the archives yet not stray into unnecessary acrimony. If the thread doesn’t deteriorate, all the better! I like your question Bob.

But this (below) sounds like a straw man as Abu never said anything like that.

Does all of this mean that all non-Catholics, who have willingly ignored or abandoned the Church, are consequently damned? How about the “salvation through works” doctrine? Does it not apply to atheists and the like?

Possibly Bob Schiffer, it would be reasonable for you to address the quotes that Abu gave instead of saying something Abu never said.

People like me benefit from reading quotes such as has been provided. If there is MORE to what Abu said that you think needs to be filled out Bob Schiffer, I would like to read the “more” that you might have.

But in all honesty, I have seen some of the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus threads go astray in the past though, and the mods are less tolerant of that happening recently.

Bob Schiffer, tell us a little about your background on this doctrinal issue. Are you just hearing about Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) now and want clarity? Or have you been at a parish where the doctrine of EENS is stressed and want to really dive deep into the issue? Or perhaps you have a relative in a schismatic or former schismatic sect who is challenging you on the EENS issue?

I have even talked to people who call themselves “Catholic” who do not accept the authority of the Church.

All these different perspectives (concerning your question), demands answers with a differing emphasis (for example for someone who denies Vatican II, but stating they are “Catholic” anyway, I probably would favor citing pre-Vatican II sources to answer them as opposed to citing teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which would have been rejected by these people I have talked to [and yes I would later discuss the authority issue with them too]. Someone who is Anglican, yet calls him/herself “Catholic” I would answer with even a different emphasis).

The doctrinal background (not your personal background and not even your background in general, but the background ON THIS ISSUE) may help people who want to do some research to try hard to give you an adequate answer to your question, but also want to tailor it to your doctrinal perspective that brought your question to light in the first place. At least that’s where I am at in trying to answer you at this point. I sincerely want to help and I think this issue is interesting.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[PaulfromIowa]

How about the “salvation through works” doctrine? Does it not apply to atheists and the like?

I have never heard of this doctrine. What is your source?

 

[Abu]

Bob Schiffer #3
Does all of this mean that all non-Catholics, who have willingly ignored or abandoned the Church, are consequently damned? How about the “salvation through works” doctrine? Does it not apply to atheists and the like?

As James teaches: “Faith without works is dead.” (See Jam 2:14-26). But no one can ensure their salvation by “works alone”. So to merit salvation the individual must strive to know what is true and good and follow their conscience.

The Church teaches, and emphasises in Her Sacred Scriptures, that to live as Christ wants we must love and obey:
“Love is the fulfilling of the law.” (Rom 13:10). The new commandment is: “Love one another as I have loved you.” (Jn 13: 34-35). If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” (Jn 14:15). “If a man loves Me, he will keep My word and My Father will love him and we will come to him and make Our home with him.” (Jn 14:21).
“He became the source of salvation to all who obey Him.” (Heb 5:9). “It is not those who say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of My Father in heaven.” (Mt 7:21).
When asked “What must I do to have eternal life?” Jesus answered, “Keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:16-17).

“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).

God “will award to every man what his acts have deserved.” (Rom 2:6).

“The apostle notes that ‘there is a graciousness, then, in God, and there is also severity. His severity is for those who have fallen away, his graciousness is for thee, only so long as thou dost continue in His grace; if not, thou too shall be shalt be pruned away’ (Rom 11:22). Paul wrote this to people who were already ‘saved’, in a state of grace – a grace they could lose, becoming ‘unsaved’.”

“Consider Romans 5:2: ‘We are confident in the hope of attaining glory as the sons of God.’ If we….are now sure of heaven, and know nothing can deprive us of it, then we have no reason to hope because we know that heaven is ours. But ‘our salvation is founded on the hope of something’ says Paul. ‘Hope would not be hope at all if its object were in view; how could man still hope for something which he sees?’ (Rom 8:24). We hope for heaven, however well disposed we might be spiritually, because we know we still have a chance to lose it.” [Karl Keating, *Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Ignatius 1988, p 174-5].

“All, of us have a scrutiny to undergo before Christ’s judgment-seat, for each to reap what his mortal life has earned, good or ill, according to his deeds.” (2 Cor 5:10).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ! We are redeemed by Christ’s Passion and Death (heaven was opened); we are not saved until we co-operate with Him.

“Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12).

“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.” (Bl John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10).

 

[Bob_Schiffer]

I have never heard of this doctrine. What is your source?

St. Bishop Cyprus and Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) have affirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Boniface VIII later reaffirmed this through his papal bull Unam Sanctam.

Oh Oh. Before I got off the thread, I see Bob you have already responded to Abu.

But Bob, I thought you wanted to know about . . .

I thought Abu did a pretty fair job of giving you a brief yet pretty complete implicit answer to your questions from appropriate authoritative sources of the Church.

I think Abu’s answer was insightful. Perhaps instead of deleting this whole thread it can just be closed (if it goes “south”) so we can preserve Abu’s answer in the archives yet not stray into unnecessary acrimony. If the thread doesn’t deteriorate, all the better! I like your question Bob.

But this (below) sounds like a straw man as Abu never said anything like that.

Possibly Bob Schiffer, it would be reasonable for you to address the quotes that Abu gave instead of saying something Abu never said.

People like me benefit from reading quotes such as has been provided. If there is MORE to what Abu said that you think needs to be filled out Bob Schiffer, I would like to read the “more” that you might have.

But in all honesty, I have seen some of the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus threads go astray in the past though, and the mods are less tolerant of that happening recently.

Bob Schiffer, tell us a little about your background on this doctrinal issue. Are you just hearing about Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) now and want clarity? Or have you been at a parish where the doctrine of EENS is stressed and want to really dive deep into the issue? Or perhaps you have a relative in a schismatic or former schismatic sect who is challenging you on the EENS issue?

I have even talked to people who call themselves “Catholic” who do not accept the authority of the Church.

All these different perspectives (concerning your question), demands answers with a differing emphasis (for example for someone who denies Vatican II, but stating they are “Catholic” anyway, I probably would favor citing pre-Vatican II sources to answer them as opposed to citing teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which would have been rejected by these people I have talked to [and yes I would later discuss the authority issue with them too]. Someone who is Anglican, yet calls him/herself “Catholic” I would answer with even a different emphasis).

The doctrinal background (not your personal background and not even your background in general, but the background ON THIS ISSUE) may help people who want to do some research to try hard to give you an adequate answer to your question, but also want to tailor it to your doctrinal perspective that brought your question to light in the first place. At least that’s where I am at in trying to answer you at this point. I sincerely want to help and I think this issue is interesting.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Thank you and Abu for your wonderful replies in this topic. As for my doctrinal background, I have simply come across it while doing some research on the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I probably simply need clarification. Also, I do not wish to doubt the validity of the doctrine, but it seems a bit contradictory when the term catholic means universal.

Also, Pope Boniface was charged for multiple sins, such as immorality, heresy, simony, corruption, etc. I was wondering if this reputation for seeking temporal power would somehow affect the impact of this doctrine.

But oh well. It seems all my questions have been answered. Thank you, and God bless you for your time.

 

[Cathoholic]

PaulfromIowa. You stated:

I have never heard of this doctrine.

The doctrine is called “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”. This is just Latin for “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.”

But what does this doctrine mean?

The Church is still unpacking it for us in a more explicit manner. Basically it means you must be in Jesus Christ and you must be in the body of Christ (Jesus’ Church) in order to get to Heaven.

Why?

Because apart from Christ, you cannot be in Heaven. An analogy might be a deep sea diver cannot be in “the depths” without a proper suit (incomplete analogy though—sorry).

Likewise we cannot be in Heaven apart from having Christ in us and we in Him. Yet Jesus never divorces Himself from His bride, the Church—the Catholic Church that He Himself founded (see Ephesians 5).

So must we be in Christ? Yes.

ACTS 4:8-10a, 12 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a cripple, by what means this man has been healed, 10 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth . . . . 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

The question then becomes HOW do we get IN Christ?

Fortunately St. Peter already told us that earlier in the Book of Acts. We must receive the Holy Spirit.

OK. But HOW do we receive the Holy Spirit?

Fortunately the Church tells us that too . . . .

ACTS 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children . . . .

Jesus likewise told us this . . . .

JOHN 3:3, 5-7 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” . . . . 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’

Baptism brings us into Jesus Christ AND Baptism brings us into the Church (His body).

1st CORINTHIANS 12:12-13 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

• What happens if we KNOW of the necessity of being in Jesus and we say, “I don’t want you!”?
• What happens if we KNOW of the necessity of Baptism and we say, “I don’t want it!”?
• What happens if we KNOW of the necessity of being in The Church and we say, “I don’t want it!”?

Does God say: “Well I am going to FORCE myself on you anyway!”? No.

It is a grace to be sure, but we must cooperate with the grace and accept God’s gifts.

God gives us many appeals over a lifetime. We must cooperate with this.

Being outside of Christ/His Church is termed: “Extra- Ecclesiam” or “outside the Church” or “apart from the Church” in English.

So “Extra Ecclasium nulla sallus” is often translated as: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.

**
CCC 1257b **. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation . . . The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”

This (and other teachings beyond the scope of this thread) is sometimes called by theologians: The ordinary means of salvation.

Q: Yikes! Does this mean nobody can possibly get to Heaven if they do not have water Baptism and are enrolled down at the Catholic parish?

A: No. More of CCC 1257 would answer that question in a fuller manner.

**CCC 1257 ** The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

This is probably also WHY Abu, quoting the late Pope St. Pius X stated:

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."

What is the possibility of people getting to Heaven outside (or “extra to”) the usual or ordinary means for salvation that God gives to us often called by theologians?

Answer continued on next post . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

The POSSIBILITY of people getting to Heaven outside the usual or ordinary means that God gives to us to receive the Holy Spirit is often called by theologians: “The extra-ordinary means of salvation”.

Ordinary means = What we know (Christian Baptism).
Extraordinary means = God working over and above what we can see with ordinary means.

**

• Ordinary means of salvation

---

• Extraordinary means of salvation

**
Catholics affirm both!

Q: So if someone NEGLECTS Baptism etc. he automatically gets to go to Heaven anyway right?
A: Wrong.

Q: Well nobody would choose Hell over Heaven.
A: Tell that to the fallen angels.

Q: Well is there NO WAY for the guy who for whatever reason “sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will” yet “through no fault of his (own)" be saved after he dies?
A: Yes there is hope of this possibility for a person who falls into this category. This hope is still in God, but it is via extraordinary means instead of hope in God via ordinary means.

Q: So who gets saved by extraordinary means and who doesn’t?
A: We do not know the who’s, hows, and whys of God. We DO know we are told we must be “born of water and spirit” and to submit to the Church (Matthew 18:17-18 and elsewhere).

Ordinary means of salvation are what we are aiming for because that’s what Jesus and His Church tell us. But if someone (through no fault of his own, etc.) comes to judgment without utilizing these ordinary means of salvation (again through no fault of his own, etc.), God may act outside of these ordinary means. This is often called “extraordinary means”.

Ordinary means of salvation = Baptism, etc.
Extraordinary means of salvation = God acting outside of these ordinary means in a group of people who through no fault of their own do not have the ordinary means applied to them.

Doctrinally you must be careful how you balance out this teaching. Catholic Answers states the balance of this doctrine well when they state (here):

. . . Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. 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. . . . .

Q: Cathoholic, how do you answer people calling themselves Catholic who try to confine Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus to ordinary means ONLY?

A: I have pointed out that it reminds me of Protestantism (as these people usually have a pretty good vision in seeing classic Protestant errors).

Q: How does a truncated definition of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus mirror Protestantism?

A: Well . . . as an example, Protestants will try to teach Justification by faith alone showing you verses that say we are justified by faith.

Protestants ignore verses that ALSO talk about hope (Romans 8:24), or charity (1st Corinthians 13:13) or more explicitly “works” in the spirit of grace (Romans 2:6). They ignore many other verses too that do not fit into the Protestant salvation paradigm.

Protestants (correctly) push “works of law” such as “circumcision” as not saving you . . . which Catholics already affirm too! Yet they (at least some Protestants) incorrectly often keep insisting that we as Catholics believe “works of the law” such as “circumcision” now save you when we do not teach that (straw man attack).

So we see:

Protestants:
Affirmation of truth (Justification by faith)
Denial of truth (Denying justification by things other than faith ALSO)
Straw man attack (you Catholics think you earn your salvation with works)
Incomplete understanding of the doctrine (Protestants often think of justification in terms of a moment ONLY whereas Catholics affirm justification as a moment followed by a lifelong process)

Likewise with the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine we see some people calling themselves Catholics try to misrepresent other Catholics who affirm all aspects of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. But instead of using Scripture alone to do this, they will use Sctripture, Tradition, and the Fathers but only in a truncated manner.

They often call Catholics who affirm ALL aspects of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus “novus ordo Catholics” in a pejorative manner. They refer to us this way, regardless of if we attend the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Pauline Mass), or one of many Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgies (I’ve been to all of these Catholic Liturgies and love them all).

For discussion, I will call these people, Deniers of Extra-Ordinar**y Means of Salvation (DEOMs).

DEOMs:
Affirmation of truth (Affirming ordinary means of salvation–the Sacraments)
**Denial of truth **(Denying extra-ordinary means for those “who no fault of their own . . .”: They deny Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D., Pope Pius X from Catechism of St. Pius X on the Ninth Article of the Creed, etc. documents Abu pointed out earlier)
Straw man attack (“You novus ordo Catholics deny Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Unam Sanctam, 1302 (this thread title), Pope Pius XII Syllabus of Errors, St. Irenaeus, St. Augustine and others”)
Incomplete understanding of the doctrine (They don’t understand that the Church can be more explicit in its teachings of doctrine over time. Sometimes these DEOMs will even flat out deny the indefectibility of the Church such as Sedevacantists)

This is how DEOMs mirror Protestantism. A less-than-full definition of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is a Protestant motiff (private interpretation).

 

[Cathoholic]

One last very brief point worth mentioning to defend real Traditionalist Catholics.

Unfortunately some of these deniers of the full doctrine of *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus *wrongly label themselves as “traditional Catholics”.

Unfortunately for them, there is nothing “traditional” about “private interpretation”.

It is also worth noting many faithful Catholics who are attached to the Tridentine Rite DO have a full understanding of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is WHY I avoided the use of the word “traditional” in my definition of deniers of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus opting instead to refer to them descriptively as DEOMs (see prior post).

These Tridentine-loving Catholics are sometimes disparagingly referred to as “trads”.

I want to repeat, not all and not even most Catholics who exclusively attend the Tridentine Liturgy (not all “trads”) have a truncated view of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The Tridentine people for the most part, are among the best catechized Catholics you will ever meet.

Many of these folks are exemplary Catholics and have served as an inspiration to the world, just as many of the “novus ordo Catholics” have (and Eastern Rite Catholics).

 

[JoeT777]

If we understand the word extra to simply mean “without” then are all Christian faiths and Churches equally valid, one and the same? If you simply apply the word ‘Christian’ to your church then it can be said that each Church holds equally valid doctrines of faith and are salvific and ‘once saved always saved’ becomes the new Catholic catchword?

Then what is the point of the Catholic Church? Is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Baptist Church the same as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church? Catholics are taught that the bread and wine (Body and Blood) are everlasting life, is any ol’ bread and cheap wine a cheap substitute?

I don’t think so. I don’t see any ambiguity in Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi:

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. “Christ,” says the Apostle, “is the Head of the Body of the Church.” If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: “Though many we are one body in Christ.” But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond.

Where do we get this type of ‘unity’ of an invisible bond with the Southern Baptist Church or Tony Alamo’s Christian Ministries?

JoeT

 

[FathersKnowBest]

St. Bishop Cyprus and Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) have affirmed Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Boniface VIII later reaffirmed this through his papal bull Unam Sanctam.

PaulfromIowa. You stated:
PaulfromIowa;11226505:

I have never heard of this doctrine. What is your source?

The doctrine is called “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”. This is just Latin for “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.”

You both misunderstood him. He specifically quoted the text I highlighted in his question:

Oh, I see.

Does all of this mean that all non-Catholics, who have willingly ignored or abandoned the Church, are consequently damned? How about the “salvation through works” doctrine? Does it not apply to atheists and the like?

So, he wasn’t asking about the Extra Ecclesiam doctrine, but the non-existant “salvation through works” doctrine.

 

[Abu]

JoeT777 #12
If we understand the word extra to simply mean “without” then are all Christian faiths and Churches equally valid, one and the same? If you simply apply the word ‘Christian’ to your church then it can be said that each Church holds equally valid doctrines of faith and are salvific and ‘once saved always saved’ becomes the new Catholic catchword?

No. What a travesty.

Then what is the point of the Catholic Church? Is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Baptist Church the same as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church? Catholics are taught that the bread and wine (Body and Blood) are everlasting life, is any ol’ bread and cheap wine a cheap substitute?
I don’t think so

There is no substitute for the Catholic Church. This does not mean that everyone who is not a faithful Catholic is damned.

When the teaching of the Church is adhered to faithfully there is no problem in understanding the Church’s teaching as the acknowledged St John Paul II has affirmed in Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10, post #7.

 

[JoeT777]

There is no substitute for the Catholic Church.

Then isn’t that the point of the saying “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”?

When the teaching of the Church is adhered to faithfully there is no problem in understanding the Church’s teaching as the acknowledged St John Paul II has affirmed in Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10, post #7.

The Popes words in Redemptoris Missio are our guide, and we’re obliged to follow. However, look closer and we see that Pope John Paul II isn’t suggesting the Catholic Church is just ‘another Church’:

First he says, “The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.” Notice he said, ‘have entered the Church’. Then the Pope goes on to say that the graces of the Holy Spirit are given to all mankind which is joyfully acknowledge. And, it is the strength obtained through these graces that gives “accessible” to Salvation - an accessibility we should facilitate.We need to acknowledge however reality; when such gifts are from the Holy Spirit there is a corresponding movement toward the gates of His Kingdom not further into the wilderness.

We know that Salvation exists in His Kingdom. Pope Pius XII cites St. Augustine [Cf. De pecc. orig., XXV, 29: Migne, P.L., XLIV, 400] discussing what subsists in Body of Christ says,

"For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force for the building up of the Body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces. . .

. . . In a natural body the principle of unity unites the parts in such a manner that each lacks in its own individual subsistence; on the contrary, in the Mystical Body the mutual union, though intrinsic, links the members by a bond which leaves to each the complete enjoyment of his own personality.

JoeT

 

[Cathoholic]

Originally Posted by Bob Schiffer

How about the “salvation through works” doctrine?

This was condemned as Pelagianism over a thousand years before Protestantism was invented Bob.

Who (concerning this thread) teaches this “salvation through works” doctrine Bob? Outside of a few Protestant offshoots like the Jehovah’s witnesses who use a sola Scriptura methodology, I cannot think of anyone teaching this today.

So WHO teaches this “salvation through works” doctrine today that you are referring to?

 

[Bob_Schiffer]

I meant to say, “faith and good works”, in contrast to the Protestant belief of sola fide (faith alone).

Sorry, I am aware of the condemnation made by the Council of Carthage.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I meant to say, “faith and good works”, in contrast to the Protestant belief of sola fide (faith alone).

Sorry, I am aware of the condemnation made by the Council of Carthage.

Ummm, would you accept St. James as an authoritative source?

Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Hmmm … Martin Luther or St. James? Who to believe?

Luther even knew that St. James proved him wrong. His solution? Remove the book of James from scripture.

His OPINION took precidence over sacred scripture. Sola Scriptura indeed!

 

[Abu]

It is vital to understand JoeT777’s query that doesn’t “without the Church there is no salvation” make “all Christian faiths and Churches equally valid, one and the same?” misunderstands the doctrine and dogma.

The definitions of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 and the Council of Florence (1442) were associated with combating defections from Catholic unity and refuting heresies. The Council of Trent (16th century) solemnly defined the dogma of baptism by desire, recognizing “that actual membership of Christ’s Church is not required to reach one’s eternal destiny.” (Fr John A Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, 1975, p235).

Vatican II which defined in The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church #8 (Vatican II) that “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth His holy Church…(T)his is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” Fr John Hardon, S.J., describes as “unequivocal” (= clearly defined), “for the first time in conciliar history — the Church is not one of many branches.” [See *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 213]

Vatican II reaffirmed in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (*Lumen Gentium *#16) that non-Catholics may obtain salvation: “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.”

“Thus the Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man’s salvation…as a divinely instituted means, provided a person knows that he must use this means to be saved.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, SJ, 1974, p 236). Thus, just as without Christ there is no salvation, so without the Church there is no salvation. [CCC # 846 – # 848].

 

[Cathoholic]

Good question Bob.

I meant to say, “faith and good works”, in contrast to the Protestant belief of sola fide (faith alone).

Bob have you been dialoguing with a Protestant on these issues? The reason I ask is that your questions sound very “Protestantesque”. If you have, you’ve come to the right place to get answers about your Catholic faith as there are many very good defenders of the faith here (at least I can say I have learned a lot from being here).

All of these characterizations of Protestantism that I am about to lay out, will eventually be challenged by a Protestant that would say: Cathoholic is mis-representing Protestantism. They would say that because there are as many “brands of Protestantisms” as there are Protestant people because they all follow private interpretation.

In Protestantism salvation is merely a “moment”. In Catholicism salvation is a moment, but it is followed by a lifelong process.

Protestants do not affirm you MUST take up your cross DAILY and follow Jesus (c.f. Luke 9:23). Protestants affirm “you have been saved (past tense) such as Ephesians 2:8-9. We as Catholics believe this too. But we ALSO affirm the verses about being saved (present tense) and he who perseveres to the end WILL be saved (future tense). In other words we believe ALL the verses.

Protestants and Catholics both correctly deny strict merit. Only Jesus earns strict merit. Yet Catholics do affirm the verses that include merit in an associated sense (associated with Jesus). Protestants deny these verses.

As you keep looking at it, you will see Protestantism is a sophisticated form of denial of Scripture verses (of various degrees depending upon which Protestant you are talking with at the moment).

They often affirm the verses that people are covered by Christ’s righteousness (imputed righteousness). Then they will deny the verses that shows Christ actually lives in you and transforms you (infused righteousness).

They will correctly affirm God’s grace is Divine favor, but incorrectly DENY grace is also God’s own Divine life IN YOU.

They will state there is no final authority on for example, interpreting Scripture. Then they will act as their own final authority falsely reminding you the Pope has no charism of God-given protection (while assuming infallibility for themselves or for their preacher).

This “faith and good works”, in contrast to the Protestant belief of sola fide issue can be confusing because there is a NATURAL belief (a natural faith), a NATURAL desire (a natural hope), and NATURAL charity (a natural love or good works).

These are good things . . . BUT they are not good enough.

So in Baptism we have these virtues elevated. We have infused into us SUPERNATURAL Faith, Hope, and Charity.

These gifts are no less than God’s special gifts that we are utterly undeserving of.

Protestants affirm the verses that talk about the necessity of faith. Catholics affirm these verses too.

Protestants affirm the verses about how “works of law” (works of torah) such as “Circumcision” cannot save you. Why? Because these are NATURAL works not supernatural. Catholics affirm these verses as well.

Protestants are silent about “hope” saving a person (they have to be, as “hope” does not fit into a paradigm of justification by faith ALONE (now it at least becomes faith PLUS Hope—unacceptable to them because it does not fit their tradition of men of “faith ALONE”).

I once asked a minister friend of mine if he was saved by hope? He said “no.”

I showed him . . .

**ROMANS 8:24a **24 For in this hope we were saved.

This caught him off guard (he thought I was going to go right to the verses that talk about “works”—I did that only later).

He didn’t know what to say. So he re-defined “hope”. He said: “Well ‘hope’ here really means ‘faith’. I said to him: “Mike, we both know hope means hope don’t we?”

“If you are going to abide by sola fide, “works” need to be re-defined as “faith”, hope needs to be re-defined as “faith”, repentance needs to be re-defined as “faith”, obedience needs to be re-defined as “faith”, Baptism needs to be re-defined as “faith”, and on and on.”

Catholics ALSO affirm the verses that have to do with repentance. “Repent AND be Baptized, every one of you. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”

Some Protestants affirm this (but then you remind them this is not SOLA fide—then this causes discomfort too because it does not fit into their SOLA fide tradition of men). At this point I’ve even had some Protestants tell me they don’t affirm sola fide either!

Catholics likewise affirm the verses that have to do with WORKS in the sense of GRACE WORKS or God working in and through you. These are necessary (remember our salvation is a moment followed by a PROCESS). During our lifetimes we are called to good works done in the spirit of God. Steve Wood calls these “Grace works”. Steve likes to say: Grace works are necessary. Our works (on our own) are good and necessary, but they are NOT good enough!”

When God crowns our good works in Heaven some day, He will be doing no less than crowning His own good works that He did in us and through us. This is what the CCC means when it says (quoting St. Augustine from back in the 400’s A.D. just prior to CCC 2006) . . .

**

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.-- Catechism of the Catholic Church

**
Catholics affirm ALL the verses and add the word “alone” to none of them when it is not there.

. . . continued . . . .