No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church

[dairygirl4u2c]

I know we've been over this before, but I thought I'd rehash it, because we've never came to any conclusions. Also, it's one thing that keeps me certain that the Catholic Church is not what it claims.

The Catholic Church taught that outside of it, no one can be saved:
[quote]"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council finished 1215

Aquinas life: 1225 - 1274 Summa Theologica, 1266-1273. taught that those who expressly wanted to be baptized catholic but died before actual baptism could be saved.  (this is the most lenience i could find in the time of these quotes)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam published 1302

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino published  1441
[/quote]

Now, I've heard two main defenses on part of the Catholic Church, perhaps they each apply to different quotes. One was that the Catholic Church was talking to the French or someone who knew they should be Catholic but didn't think they needed to be ultimately, so the Catholic Church said yeah you do have to be. The other defense is that the understanding of that doctrine has been developed so that those who are not strictly Catholic really are Catholic even if they do not realize it if they are in good faith about not knowing the necessity, due to a mysterious unity.

The French bit sounds possible, but not spanning all the times these were declared. Also, I can't find much info on this claim to make it relevant. The mysterious unity bit sounds like backwards development. People say development must occur broad to specific and such, which this has not. I've not heard one explanation for general development even that I agreed sounded legitimate that could be applied to this salvation outside the Catholic Church development. I've tried to get an explanation here but no one ever really has given one.

Now, I know people like phatcatholic and catholic.com have thought to make the argument that the early church taught that it was possible for nons to be saved and the church now teaches that.
[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp[/url]
But they don't explain what the Church during the time of these above quotations really taught. To say that the Church taught it way early and now, so they must have taught it in the time of those quotes assumes the Catholic Church is true to begin with. Maybe you can use that argument with a Catholic, but surely not for a non. So yes, if anyone knows how to look into deciding how the Catholic Church really understood no salvation through writings of bishops and such, let me know. I think ultimatley they would sound and think just like the above quotes make them out to sound, and the development bit is what will need to finally be explained.
spanx


Edit: on closer inspection and rememberance, Al had mentioned how the Church in those days might have taught that you could be saved outside the Catholic Church. I still don't buy it considering the strong wording, and the only hint at any mercy being that those who explicitly wanted to be baptized Catholic could be saved were noted as possible. So ultimately what we need is a clarification as to what the Catholic Church's argument really is. Is it development or it was taught possible to be saved in the time of the above quotes? (or that french thing...)

Edited August 1, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Laudate_Dominum]

hahaha, I think this is your favourite topic. LOL

I think I've seen this thread before, like 9 times.

[popestpiusx]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. (properly understood, of course).

[White Knight]

This is a subject, one has to be very careful about, especially how you read it, otherwise you might not get the right answer.


I'm reading that Catechism, and I came across this subject. I had to read it once or twice to get the full meaning of it. Ya can't misread this issue otherwise you get the wrong impression.


The Term Catholic means Universal.

Ulitmately there is one Church and such.

In a sense, from how I see it, as long as you keep the basics, and mandontory doctrine of the faith. your in a Catholic, but not really a Catholic.

Gotta believe in the Holy Blessed Trinity, God The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit, Sacred Scripture is the Only and Holy Word of God, and the Actions and the Condictions of Our Lord Jesus Chirst.

As long as you keep these parts of the faith, your considered a Catholic. but not Fully Catholic.

[Didacus]

THe question that tends to come to my mind is "Can someone be in communion with God without being in communion with the catholic Church?"

I would tend to reply: yes.

Thus 'extra ecclesiam, nulla salus' would seem to be false. However, when I began reading into the principle more, I do not believe it intends to indicate someone who has, by not fault of his/her own, not known the specific teachings of the church, but rather, it is intended to applied to those people who, having come to know the truth in the scriptures, and with intentionned ignorance, reject the churches' teachings.

Now if someone lives to the life of adulthood, on a desert island an does not know the churche's teachings, is not held accountable for his unintentional ignorance of the churche's teachings.


From the CCC:
[quote]1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.[/quote]

Notice, that when coupled with 'unintensional ignorance', one 'may' be relieved of the 'grave offense' of not being part of the church.

________________________________________

Thus, technically, there is salvation outside the church (or there can be), [b]if you view the church as the pope and his followers under Christ.[/b]

But the man/woman on the desert island, not knowing the embodyment of the church's teachings, may still lead good lives in accordance with them, and thus can be admittedly part of the Catholic church, if this church is regarded as a universal entity, ordained by God Himself,[i] to include all those who are just and good. [/i] Much so seems to be the view of the WhiteKnight (correct me if i should be in error).
___________________________________

Thus in reply to your concerns, dairygirl4u2c;

The 'french explanation' seems quite plausible, in the sense that those who understand the church's teachings, and in an intentionally ignorant way decide to leave the church, leave behind their salvation. Now consider this however, I do not beleive the intent is to 'physically' denote a departure, but a theological or spiritual one, which at times is personified in someone actively leaving the church (ie; converting to a protestant denomination). I believe, and have witnessed scores of 'Cahtolics' who have left the church, even though they go to Sunday mass every week; why? Because they do not accept fundamental church teachings and regards the Eucharist, for exampole, as a symbol rather than the real precense of Christ. In this respect, by personally and knowingly ignoraing this aspect of church teachings, they dwell outside the church (even if on paper they have received every sacrament). A case for the opposite can obviously be made.

And the second argument, where those who are Catholic but don't know it though they are not Catholic? That is a confusing sentence to say the least. I believe the reference of these 'Catholics - not Catholics' are made towards those who, in unintentional ignorance of the church and its teachings, nonetheless live in their daily lives and practices, the values and devotion to life and God that teaches the church. Though keep in mind, I am not the one who presented these arguments to you prior to this post, and I am repying entirely upon your original post of this thread. Other logic may have been cited to you or differently such that what I am saying might not reply adequately to your questions.


God bless,

didace


PS: I laugh at this principal every now and again. If the meaning of Extra Ecllesiam Nulla Salus was to be taken as the 'physical' church on earth, as in those who give their every obediance to the Pontif, St.Peter would be very busy turning people around at the gate; actually, 'Extra Ecclesiam Nula Salus' would probably be his most popular words!

___________________________
[i]edited for formating purposes.[/i]

Edited August 1, 2005 by Didacus

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

You have to understand the context of those papal statements and to whom they were addressed. Salvation for the non-sacramentally baptized has been discussed by Catholic theologians since the beginning of the Church. Salvation for the unevengelized was not a really big topic until the Age of Exploration. Many of the papal statements are misunderstood, proof of which is that some of those same popes taught in favor of baptism of desire. Catholic teaching on the topic is layed out quite nicely in the Catechism:
[quote][b]"Outside the Church there is no salvation"[/b]

[b]846[/b] How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

[b]847[/b] This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

[b]848[/b] "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.[/quote]
For a more comprehensive treatment of the topic, try this link:
[url="http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html"]http://www.catholicfiles.com/againstfeeneyism.html[/url]

[thessalonian]

If any are/were saved who were not formally members of the Catholic Church, they were not saved because of what separated them from the Church but because of the truths on their heart and in their conscience that united them to the Church informally. Therefore they were not "saved outside the Church" by false doctrines but by the true doctrines that are within and consistent with the Church. Only truth saves.

Now if they held error knowingly against the truths of the Catholic faith then they were separated from her by their open and stubborn rejection.

God bless

[dairygirl4u2c]

You all are not answering what I am looking for. But I didn't make myself clear in this thread, I apologize. I think that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself. Perhaps in the past several people taught that both nons and regulars could be saved; perhaps that's what it taught now. But if you look at the wording of those quotations, you wouldn't think that is what they taught then. Now, I realize that it's possible that those quotes are not necessarily in conflict with a looser interpretation, ie that nons can ultimately be saved through a mysterious unity or sorts. But I have not seen any lenient writing from those times other than the Aquanis thing, but have seen many of the sedevacants? and traditionalists who say that no nons cant be saved. so remember, i'm looking for you to prove that it was not a contradiction then. not just that there's a possibility that there wasn't a contradiction, but proof, any proof.

or if the argument is development of doctrine, please explain that theory and then explain how it applies to this situation so that i can give you some more ?s.

if the argument is you have to look at who they addressed it to, could you provide any signs of lenience? or is it more like, they were addressing those who heard of the Catholic Church and were wondering if it was truly necessary to be part of it, but the issue of nons wasn't really addressed until later? (is this what you are referring to with the age of exploration bit? when was the age of exploration, i know at least by 1492/Columbus, but how far earlier?) and if this is truly the argument, can we say development of the doctrine is not the issue, at least not linear as in, what they said applied to those who heard etc and what the lenience is for is non heard? so the doctrine developed only insofar as a new mutually exclusive sector was added. (and no "buts" or "ors" or copouts are added) this is the best argument, but i still find it questionable given the strength of language and the view of most? traditionalists. plus ya know now that i think about it, that use of the word "pagans" by eugene denotes arguably that he thought even the ignorant were damned. perhaps he meant those who practice pagan relgions or something, and i should research that word...

[quote]Many of the papal statements are misunderstood, proof of which is that some of those same popes taught in favor of baptism of desire.[/quote]
can you back this statement up? popes or influential bishops etc ordinary magisterium, esp those in the above quotes or in those times, who you'd think taught no salvation at all who taught a form of baptism of desire?

Edited August 2, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Apotheoun]

It is important when dealing with this doctrine to remember the Church's teaching on mortal sin, because for a mortal sin to be imputable to the moral agent (including the sin of not entering into full communion with the Catholic Church), it must be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. In other words, if a man – through no fault of his own – is invincibly ignorant of the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church, and as a consequence fails to enter into communion with the Church, this sin may not be imputable to him. Moreover, if he follows the light of grace and keeps the natural moral law he may yet be saved, even though he will be lacking all of the many graces and spiritual helps that are found only within the Catholic Church, and which are meant to bring him to salvation. But if such a man is saved, he is still saved through the grace of God that flows to him from the Catholic Church, even though he is invincibly ignorant of this truth. That being said, any man who knows that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, but either fails to enter into communion with the Church, or if already a member of the Church, fails to remain in communion with her, such a man stands self-condemned and will not achieve eternal salvation.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Age of Exploration is when the New World was discovered. Up to that time, theologians did not deal a great amount with salvation for the unevangelized, because to their knowledge, none such existed. The American Natives, however, had never heard the Gospel.

I gave you the link with everything else. Pretty much every quote pertaining to this topic in Church history (including St. Thomas Aquinas' [i]support[/i] for baptism of desire). I will back up the claim that the papal statements are not understood correctly:

[b]1. Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302)[/b]
Usually quoted as thus:
[color=red]“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[/color]
However, the sentence before that:
[color=red]"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven" etc., [Mt 16:19]. [b]Therefore whoever resists this power[/b] thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1].”[/color]
It is obvious that this is directed at those who have "resisted" the Gospel, not those who've never heard it.

[b]2. Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino (1441)[/b]
Usually quoted as thus:
[color=red]“It [the Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, [b]unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives[/b]; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”[/color]
It would be impossible for an unevangelized person to physically join to the Church. The second half of the statement clearly indicates that it is addressed to evangelized persons.

[b]3. The Fourth Lateran Council (During the Pontificate of Innocent III [1198-1216])[/b]
Usually quoted as thus:
[color=red]"There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”[/color]
Pope Innocent III would not have approved this statement if it had contradicted his own views:
[u]Apostolicam Sedem[/u]
[color=red]To your inquiry we respond thus: We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that [b]the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland[/b]. Read (brother) in the eighth book of Augustine’s City of God where among other things it is written, “[b]Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes[/b].” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned (Denzinger 388).[/color]

[u]Debitum pastoralis officii[/u]
[color=red]You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” (cf. Matt. 28:19), the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes another... [b]If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay[/b] because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).[/color]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 2 2005, 01:19 PM']You all are not answering what I am looking for. But I didn't make myself clear in this thread, I apologize. I think that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself.
[right][snapback]668837[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is nothing contradictory in the teaching of the Church on this subject. That being said, many non-Catholics fail to take into account the holistic nature of Catholic doctrine. In other words, a doctrinal pronouncement of a Pope or an ecumenical council does not stand in isolation from the living stream of the Church's Tradition, and so it must be read as a component element of a greater whole.

[dairygirl4u2c]

thank you ape.. i'm not sure if you're trying to convince me of anything or...
for a Catholic, that explanation would suffice, but not for me. you have to presume that they wrote that with the mortal sins criteria or its basic idea in mind. i think the way they wrote it indicates that they did not have that in mind. i dunno, sounds like a cop out that argument..
anyway, whatever your purpose for stating that, it is good food for thought.

is that link thedude gave us stopping at st. gregory of nazi round late 300's for everyone else, or is it just me?

Edited August 2, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Your explanation of Boniface has convinced me as far as Boniface goes.
As far as that particular writing by him, I cannot use that quote anymore in good faith to my original point.

As for the next quote, the fact that one cannot be physically joined to the Church if they have never heard does not mean that the Catholic Church must have taught that they could be saved because they had no possibiity to attach. It could just as well mean that if you cannot be attached, then that's that, and you're damned.

And the next quote. He's referring to those earlier gentlemen. Those men taught that if you want to be interally want to be baptized in the Catholic Church then you can still be saved since you were going to anyway. This does not necessarily leave room open for those who would want to be baptized if they knew better. Is this the point that is being developed?

i think during this time they were questioning strongly whether infants can be saved. this would indicate that they only taught at best baptism by desire, and the children had no desire so some thought they'd be damned. others didn't want to say that and said they were in limbo. which means that the Catholic Church didn't necessarily grant to the ignorant salvation. though keep in mind i suppose that the Catholic Church didn't automatically condemn them to hell. hmmm? i think i need to research this infant thing a bit more as for its repercussions.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+delay+is+not+attended+with+the+same+danger+as+in+the+case+of+infants%22"]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Th...e+of+infants%22[/url]

Here's some general sites. I think the first says a lot of things that I said regarding the salvation of the catechumens who die before baptism.


Edit: also thanks thedude for that last post showing more from the popes and such. you're on the right track of what i am looking for and not just showing what the Catholic Church taught in the earliest times and recently, and i appreciate that.

Edited August 3, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote]This does not necessarily leave room open for those who would want to be baptized if they knew better.[/quote]
That's because this topic was not widely discussed in Catholic theology before the Age of Exploration and the discovery of indiginous peoples who'd never heard of Christ. The Second Vatican Council is to my knowledge the first Church council to discuss the unevangelized. Prior to it, you will find little discussion of the topic.

Any the link I gave you is a work in progress... In fact, I intend to have quotes from more recent (700s-1800s) theologians by tommorow.