Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[Abu]

XBaptist
I understand what the Church is saying today. I just don’t understand how this teaching could have changed so drastically from the Pre-Vatican II teaching.
EDWARDJL
If this is a Dogma, given ex cathedra, that would mean that this teaching is infallible and binding on all Catholics. The pre Vatican II and Post Vatican II position seem to contradict one another. If this is true, how can both positions be infallible?
RedBert
and Catholics claim that is just a clarification?

Time to face REALITY and TRUTH
It seems astounding how little attention is paid to facts – people often make their own confusion.
They have been assisted by those who seek to discredit Christ and His Church. Referring to post #49:

1. **Pope St Clement is very clear: Non-Catholics can be saved, and this in about 95 A.D. **
2. Christ’s Church has always taught: All salvation comes through His Church, whether this is known or not known.
3. Some people have wished to understand this saying as: that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. **The Church has condemned such an interpretation **(cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

The “strong” language, historically, refers to those Catholics who chose to neglect or reject the Church’s teaching – assuming that the Gospel had been preached to all.

In trying to interpret papal documents of an earlier age, a common error is to fail to appreciate the different historical facts which were being addressed – thus leading to false conclusions of contradictions between them and later teaching. This is the case with Quanta Cura of Pius IX (1864) and similar documents which some have used to try to distort the unity of the teaching of Christ’s Church.

In Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface was not addressing the world; nor was he even addressing the subject of non-Christians or non-Catholics. He was addressing Europeans–all Catholics. “Every creature” means a bunch of Catholics in Europe. And it is necessary for salvation for Catholics to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Otherwise, they have knowingly and deliberately exited the Catholic Church. Doing so is a mortal sin.

The Council of Florence: Decree for the Jacobites , 1442:
“….we can see from the vehemence of Patristic attacks on heretics, e.g., St. Cyprian “Ad Demetrianum,” that the Fathers have in mind those who are in bad faith, who culpably reject the Church. They do not seem to think of those who in-culpably fail to find the Church.[27] So from this point on, it becomes largely a question not of doctrine but of objective fact: how many are culpable? Further, this statement was made in 1442, before the 1492 discovery that there was a whole other world. The writers thought that the Gospel had actually reached every creature – it had not – and supposed, as we said, bad faith on the part of those who rejected it.” [Fr William Most].

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

There is no contradiction of dogma or doctrine., and never is.

 

[Janet1983]

There is no salvation is any church, only in Jesus.

My humble suggestion is read the Bible, have a Hebrew-Greek concordance handy and pray to God.

Church regulations and membership will not save you, only belief in Jesus as the only Son of God, crucified for the sins of man and risen.

I totally agree with you.

 

[BarrenCross]

I’ve never really understood the authority of any protestant denomination or any catholic church to decide that only it’s members were truly saved. It’s my understanding that Jesus does the saving not the clergy or man-made creed. I don’t recall anywhere in the scriptures any stipulation that in order to be saved you must belong to this church or that church.

 

[Abu]

Informed and Janet1983
There is no salvation is any church, only in Jesus….read the Bible

The only problem is that this is a denial of Jesus the Christ.
Jesus wrote nothing and you wouldn’t have a Bible without the members of Christ’s Church writing the New Testament, and without His Church declaring which writings actually form the canon for the whole Bible as the inspired word of God.

You further deny Jesus of Nazareth:
Jesus founded His Church on Peter –
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

 

[BarrenCross]

Time to face REALITY and TRUTH
It seems astounding how little attention is paid to facts – people often make their own confusion.
They have been assisted by those who seek to discredit Christ and His Church. Referring to post #49:

1. **Pope St Clement is very clear: Non-Catholics can be saved, and this in about 95 A.D. **
2. Christ’s Church has always taught: All salvation comes through His Church, whether this is known or not known.
3. Some people have wished to understand this saying as: that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. **The Church has condemned such an interpretation **(cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

I have a crazy idea… Why not read the holy scriptures and see who qualifies to be saved by the grace of God, and how this salvation is obtained, instead of going by the traditions of man?

 

[Abu]

BarrenCross
Having redeemed us (opened heaven to us) through His Crucifixion, Jesus did not leave us orphans but gave us His Church (as you have now seen) to show us how to be saved (enter heaven) – through following His teaching infallibly given to us by His Church with the primacy and infallibility of Peter and his successors.

 

[BarrenCross]

Okay, this is my last reply to this thread.

Something for EVERYONE to think about. All throughout this thread may quotes are related, most are the words of men. Why is it that we are so concerned about man’s words when it’s God’s words we should be concerned about.

I think we should all be very careful.

Mathew 15:7-9
Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[Tomb54]

That is correct.

Not true, although the doctrine has developed somewhat over time.

Dogma cannot change, although we can develop a more thorough understanding of it.

When we say that there is “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”, it does NOT mean that non-Catholics cannot be saved! It means that they might be saved in SPITE of a lack of knowledge. They will be doing the will of God, as passed down through the Bible and proclaimed most fully through the Catholic Church, without even realizing it. It’s akin to this. Imagine the Catholic Church as a 16 year old who goes out and buys a brand new car. They read the entire instruction manual, sign up and take driving lessons, and successfully make it to school. Now, imagine other groups are 16 year olds who go out and buy used cars. They have only partial instruction manuals, or perhaps no instruction manual at all. Some get lessons, but some do not. Now, they may eventually make it safely to school as well, but if school represents the Kingdom of Heaven, which route is the safer choice? If they DO make it to school, it will be by unintentionally following the rules that were in the book they never read and the lessons they never signed up for. (In other words, they were still saved THROUGH the Catholic Church).

Here’s how some of this confusion comes about. If someone knows that the Catholic Church is the true church, or they grow up Catholic and abandon the faith (assuming they have full knowledge of the faith), then they have committed a mortal sin and lose hope of salvation. Most Protestants in the period of the Reformation fell into this category, and so that’s why there are so many harsh condemnations. However, today, many Protestants don’t know the first thing about Catholic doctrine, and so they might fall into the “invincibly ignorant” category. If you are “invincibly ignorant”, then you still have a chance at salvation based on what you know, and it’s always been that way, as the story of the Thief on the Cross attests to. Non-Christian groups may fall into this “invincibly ignorant” category as well, especially if they had no way of knowing about Christianity in the first place. Many documents were written in the 1500s about the chance of salvation for Native Americans when they were first discovered (try reading the papal document Sublimus Dei from that time period about how Indians should be regarded). Many asked, “How could God create two entire continents of people, just for them all to have no chance at salvation and go to hell?” Well, the answer was that they would be judged on their actions based upon the limits of their knowledge and understanding of God.

I would like to add one part to this thinking – Most other religions are Bible only believer and while they do not have the whole truth present in the CC you must remember that through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the CC gave the Bible to the world so while they deny the CC they use the book the CC compiled and authenticated.

 

[RedBert]

You guys will stoop to the very lowest level to denigrate the Catholic Church and then you call yourself christians! YOU LIE!!! You added “ex cathedra”. WHY? Did you think that “ex cathedra” means infallible? Well, it doesn’t.

.

Talk about NOT knowing you own doctrine:

"Did you think that “ex cathedra” means infallible? Well, it doesn’t.

From oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility
where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

B. The Pope
(1) The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and moral

Infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; nor does his ex cathedra teaching, in order to be infallible, require to be ratified by the Church’s consent. The pope teaching ex cathedra is an independent organ of infallibility. In the third place, infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching;

From wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Ex_cathedra

In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the chair”, refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33452
The term commonly applied to the special and explicit exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)

The source I reference listed those quotes as " ex cathedra" : i will now double check at other sources

 

[PJM]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

***Hi, I’ll try to help but space limitations made it difficult to provide sufficient info. I find often that priest underestimate the capacity for understanding and are are fealrful of getting to “theological.” He’s not wrong, just incomplete.

First Dogma’s which start as Traditions, proceed to defined Doctrines and then become Dogma’s cannot never change.* Having shared that, we can and at times do gain a broader and fuller understanding over time; and Salvation Through thee CC is an excellent example of this.

First, I would point out that the Code of Canon Laws #747 to 751 make it clear, that all are to give assent of mind and will to all three catagories. So we are to know and accept Tradition, Doctrine and Dogma’s.

Read Mt. 16:15-19, John c14 and John c17. They form the basis for this understanding and 2000 year old Teaching Position of the CC.

In summury:

1. Jesus Founded only One new Faith and One New Church; historically proveable to be today’s CC

2. Jesus Himself set the Hierarchy structure, which is still in used, BUT greatly expanded by growth necessity today.

Eph.2 Verses 19 to 22"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,SINGULAR] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ***Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, *** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple [SINGULAR]in the Lord;" in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Because of these historically proveable FACTS, logic dictates that salvation must naturally flow throgh the only and the precise means of salvation, of Christ Church. READ Mt. 28:19-20; all 4 gospels on the Real Presence, and forgivness of sins in John 20:19-23.

Why? Because that was the precise reason for His Church and THEE new Faith and The New Covenent. And today’s CC was the only Christian Church for [many hundreds of years] before any other Christian churches came on the scene.

So either Salvation had to FLOW through through the CC or there was no salvation at all! To assume that salvation did not happen until the Protestant Revolutation is unsupportable in logic or theology.

1. So from the beganing just as Christ planned and Willed; all salvation has Flowed THROUGH the CC.

For a VERY long time, theologians understood that to mean one “must be a member of the CC in order to be saved.” [In GREAT part bcause there were no compeiting Christian churches until nearly 1600 AD.]

Today, however the CC understands that while it remains true that all salvation continues to flow though the CC, ONE NEED NOT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE, HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CC. Because of a common Baptism and a common Belief in the Triune Godhead, there is factually a common bond that does ties all Christian Churches with a Belief in the Trine Godhead, and Baptism as required in Matt. 28:19, to the CC. While the forgiveness of sins is still an uncertain issue for non-Catholics, assuming God’s Mercy, they may still be saved.

Hope this very brief explaination is of some help?

Love and payers,
Pat**

 

[RedBert]

You guys will stoop to the very lowest level to denigrate the Catholic Church and then you call yourself christians! YOU LIE!!! You added “ex cathedra”. WHY? Did you think that “ex cathedra” means infallible? Well, it doesn’t.

Now, I realize those are strong words. But Pope Pius IV’ bull entitled Iniunctum nobis is not an infallible statement because it lacks the requirements to be infallible. Iniunctum nobis was a profession of faith of Pope Pius IV.

.

From oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Infallibility
where it is defined that the Roman pontiff when he teaches ex cathedra “enjoys, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals”.

B. The Pope
(1) The Vatican Council has defined as “a divinely revealed dogma” that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and moral

Infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; nor does his ex cathedra teaching, in order to be infallible, require to be ratified by the Church’s consent. The pope teaching ex cathedra is an independent organ of infallibility. In the third place, infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching;

From wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_i…ty#Ex_cathedra

In Catholic theology, the Latin phrase ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the chair”, refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility.

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33452
The term commonly applied to the special and explicit exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)

---

From mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/sess_7_can_4.html
states Pope Pius IV, “Iniunctum nobis,” The Council of Trent, Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “

from www.TheCatholicFaith.info
thecatholicfaith.info/Extra_Ecclesiam_Nulla_Salus.htm
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum Nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved … I now profess and truly hold …”

From sgroi.com/catholic/truth_a.html

Pope Pius IV in the Bull “Iniunctum Nobis”, November 13, 1565, declared ex-cathedra:

I have now backed up my statements as FACTS

 

[Tomb54]

I think I heard Father Corpi state once someting along this line (cant remember exact quote) If people are Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit this is the Christain Baptism into the Church of Christ which is the Catholic Church. This is my opinion here now So while Protestants do not wish to follow the CC they Baptize their people into it and follow the Bible the CC compiled through the Holy Spirits guidance but then they follow their own desires and not Jesus desire of Unity. I know alot of Catholic that do this too unforunately.

 

[Alethiaphile]

From one who has spent years studying (prayerfully) this problem, the answer is this: the basic dogma “There is no slavation outisde the church” has not changed. However, in the western (Roman) church it became very narrowly defined from approximately 1000 AD up to somehwat before Vatican II. Rome in the Middle Ages defined that membership in the Roman church (subjection to the Pope) was necessary for salvation. This was defined “infallibly” in the bull Unam Sanctam by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. It was reiterated by the Council of Florence, the “Decree on the Jacobites” in 1453, which elbaorated further that “heretics” (meaning proto-Protestants such as the Wycliffites and the Hussites), “pagans” (Jews and Moslems) and “schismatics” (Orthodox Christians) could not be saved unless they joined the church under Rome before they died. “Joining the Church” including catachumens who, if they died before being baptised, could be saved by “Baptism by Desire”, but even the latter required an explicit faith and explicit desire to join the (Roman) Catholic Church. That is the way the teaching remained for centuries. In the 1800s, Pope Pius IX mentioned “invincible ignorance” as a way for non-Catholics to be saved, but it was a very narrow exception. In the decades before Vatican II, Catholic theologians began expanding the ideas of “baptism by desire” and “invincible ignorance” to the point where it included well-meaning people who, under other circumstances would become Catholics, but do not. This idea gained currency when Pope Pius XII condemned the “Feeneyites” (followers of Father Feeney) who still held that explicit membership was required for salvation. The idea of “implicit faith” or “implicit membership” in the Catholic Church came into currency . It was dogmatized in the Vatican II document “Lumen Gentium”. It was idea that was unheard of the church of the middle ages up to the 20th century, and some fringe Roman Catholic groups, sometimes referred to as “Feeneyites”, still oppose it.

 

[RedBert]

For a VERY long time, theologians understood that to mean one “must be a member of the CC in order to be saved.” [In GREAT part bcause there were no compeiting Christian churches until nearly 1600 AD.]

Today, however the CC understands that while it remains true that all salvation continues to flow though the CC, ONE NEED NOT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE, HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CC. Because of a common Baptism and a common Belief in the Triune Godhead, there is factually a common bond that does ties all Christian Churches with a Belief in the Trine Godhead, and Baptism as required in Matt. 28:19, to the CC. While the forgiveness of sins is still an uncertain issue for non-Catholics, assuming God’s Mercy, they may still be saved.

But that is not what was stated

BTW:Orthodox Churches were around prior were around prior to 1600.

and note these dates

*Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified ex cathedra by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)

Pope Gregory XVI (AD 1831 – 1846) “Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care”. (Mirari Vos).

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): “It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.” (Denzinger 1647)

Pope Leo XII: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members … By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)

Pope Leo XIII (A.D. 1878 - 1903): “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.” (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus)

“He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.” (Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae)

Pope Saint Pius X (A.D. 1903 - 1914): “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.” (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. …Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.” (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)
*

and BTW the first and the headquarters of the Christian Church was in Jerusalem…until Rome destroyed it

 

[Abu]

Alethiaphile
Rome in the Middle Ages defined that membership in the Roman church (subjection to the Pope) was necessary for salvation.
(Implicit faith) It was idea that was unheard of the church of the middle ages up to the 20th century……

Facing reality
This misconception omits the fact that the Popes taught from the first century that non-Catholics could be saved. Naturally those who freely left Christ’s Church would be objectively wrong and subject to the consequences. Over time, their descendants would not have the same objective guilt.

As we’ve seen, without Christ’s Church there is no salvation. Thanks to those who have been able to establish these two truths.

The claim by Alethiaphile that the idea of “implicit faith” is something new is erroneous as St Augustine wrote in favour of implicit faith. Those interested can get the facts at:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-fathers-on-justification_21.html

Further, it is clear that for St. Augustine, there is no contradiction in saying that a man can hold a heresy, but still have charity at the same time. The text for this is in the same post. St. Augustine says that a man can hold a doctrine that is “false and perverse,” and nevertheless such a man is not necessarily a heretic.

A thorough examination of the fact of implicit faith may also be studied at:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search/label/Implicit%20Faith

 

[Alethiaphile]

Facing reality
The claim by Alethiaphile that the idea of “implicit faith” is something new is erroneous as St Augustine wrote in favour of implicit faith. Those interested can get the facts at:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/testimony-of-fathers-on-justification_21.html
Further, it is clear that for St. Augustine, there is no contradiction in saying that a man can hold a heresy, but still have charity at the same time. The text for this is in the same post. St. Augustine says that a man can hold a doctrine that is “false and perverse,” and nevertheless such a man is not necessarily a heretic.
A thorough examination of the fact of implicit faith may also be studied at:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search/label/Implicit%20Faith

Please read posts carefully before you respond to them. I said the idea of “implicit faith” was unheard of in the Middle Ages. I didn’t say it was entirely new. You may be able to find it in St. Augustine. What is clear is that it was not held in the western church after Unam Sanctam in 1302. Unam Sanctam says that one must belong to the Church united with Rome in order to be saved.

 

[Bookcat]

Please read posts carefully before you respond to them. I said the idea of “implicit faith” was unheard of in the Middle Ages. I didn’t say it was entirely new. You may be able to find it in St. Augustine. What is clear is that it was not held in the western church after Unam Sanctam in 1302. Unam Sanctam says that one must belong to the Church united with Rome in order to be saved.

well…of course it is the Church who says what Unam Sanctam and no salvation outside the Church means…

and the Church says clearly what it means…(see Catechism) and it does not mean that …a Baptist cannot go to heaven…

or an member of an Eastern Orthodox Church…

one must not take one verse of Scripture and stand it against the rest nor one sentence of Church teaching and do the same…

all is to be understood in the analogy of Faith…and as the Catholic Church understands it…

just adding a clarification.

 

[bluelake]

I was a Baptist, but have been attending a Catholic Church for the past 3 years. I really felt like the Catholic Church might be the true Church, but I am hopelessly hung up on the “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” dogma, and haven’t been able to figure it out.

As I understand it, “No Salvation Outside CC” is a dogma. That means that once it is set in place, it can’t be changed, right? As I read old “classic” Catholic literature (Alphonsus Ligouri, Theresa of Avila, Augustine, etc), I see a literal “no nonsense” understanding of “No Salvation Outside CC”. I have many pages of quotes and Church writings that say so. This teaching began (as far as I can tell) even before the year 100, and had been taught consistently up until about the last 50 years or so.

Okay, here’s the confusing part. In the modern Catholic Church, this isn’t taught anymore. In fact, the opposite it now taught. I talked to “my priest” and asked him about it, and he said that the CC realized that had been too harsh, and had changed it’s mind - they are more “merciful” since Vatican II. I didn’t think that dogma could be changed like that, can it?

I’m very confused about the whole dogma thing. Can dogma change? Can ex-cathedra dogma be wrong? Is my priest wrong? Is this just something that I’m not supposed to understand?

Also, am I the only Catholic that is hopelessly confused about this topic? I’ve looked for information about this, and all I can find is sedevacantist stuff, which has it’s own set of big problems. It seems everyone else I talk to (several other priests included) is satisfied with the explanation that 1900 years of beliefs have changed in the last 50 years. Am I the only one who is frustrated with this?

I can post some of the saints’ and Popes’ quotes if requested, but I didn’t want to make this post go unnecessarily long.

Can anyone help me, please?

Do you really believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for Catholics only?
“God so loved ‘the world’ he gave his Only begotton Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have etrnal life.” I know you are familiar with this famous passage.

A few years ago I attended a church which I will not name here, it was a great church until someone said to me, "you will not be saved if you do not join our church. “We have the truth.”
They were judging my salvation. God the Father is my judge, me and you and the Catholic Church.
A Command given by Jesus, please read Mt.22:37-38 Love one another.
God does not show favoritism, Rom.2:11

God bless,
bluelake

Dogma, does it check out with the word of God? the Bible?

 

[Abu]

Quite true.

Facing Reality

Alethiaphile
What is clear is that it [implicit faith] was not held in the western church after Unam Sanctam in 1302. Unam Sanctam says that one must belong to the Church united with Rome in order to be saved.

This implication is misleading. First, the Church, centuries before Vatican II, regarded Orthodox sacraments as valid, which is hard to do if you don’t think Christ can be found anywhere but in the Catholic Church. Similarly, She has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ. Still more recently and most plainly (but still well before Vatican II), Fr Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for insisting that only people in visible communion with the Catholic Church could be saved. That is why this simplistic “We’re in, you’re out” reading of *Unam Sanctam *(and the corollary that Lumen Gentium “cancelled” it) doesn’t hold water.

In Romans 2:14-16, St Paul explains that those who do have and follow the Spirit of Christ do belong to Christ. From this we know that the good pagans really belong to the Body of Christ, His Church in some way, as Pope St Clement affirmed. The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 defined that “The universal Church of the faithful is one, outside of which no one is saved.” So those who follow the Logos, the Spirit of Christ can be saved because they belong to His Church in some way.

The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, pictured by some dissenters as triumphant and absolutist, **defined the dogma of baptism by desire **thus on to what Vatican II taught: “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.”

The clear conscientious pagan link to Christ’s Church has been seen to be operative from the beginning to the present, and there is no contradiction.

 

[Bookcat]

Do you really believe Jesus Christ died on the cross for Catholics only?
“God so loved ‘the world’ he gave his Only begotton Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have etrnal life.” I know you are familiar with this famous passage.

A few years ago I attended a church which I will not name here, it was a great church until someone said to me, "you will not be saved if you do not join our church. “We have the truth.”
They were judging my salvation. God the Father is my judge, me and you and the Catholic Church.
A Command given by Jesus, please read Mt.22:37-38 Love one another.
God does not show favoritism, Rom.2:11

Of course the Catholic Church does not believe that Jesus died on the cross for only Catholics!! Or that only Catholics can be saved…not at all.

And yes we believe the Bible! We love it

These are great scripture quotes…we love them!
I am constantly reading the Bible…