No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is a topic about geocentricism right now. I have a few quotes from the Fathers basically saying don't concern yourselves with astronomy, ect. in discussing theology.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I see that you said that. And I might argue with it. It sort of sounds like you're pulling a, "let's get all the church fathers early in the church who taught salvation possible outta the church by desire and all the fathers in recent times that taught that, but let's neglect showing that the controversial quotes from middle ages taught desire" bit to me.

but anyway, back to the thread at hand. doesn't anyone else experience these constant walls where there shouldn't be any, honestly?

i assume you use google like everyone else.
but where'd you find what you did from the controversial popes the dude? and can you find anymore by them?

Edited August 8, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

you mean you can't find it with google? shocking.

The more ancient stuff was destroyed by so many barbarian attacks on Rome.

but we have nothing to hide, what can't you find?

perhaps the Fordham Univserity Medieval and Moder Sourcebooks could help you find what you are looking for?

I mean, it is futile to think that you can find every writing from history. It's not like I'm using barbarian attacks conveiniently, everyone knows there were barbarian sacks on Rome in which much was destroyed.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 8 2005, 04:42 PM']I see that you said that. And I might argue with it. It sort of sounds like you're pulling a, "let's get all the church fathers early in the church who taught salvation possible outta the church by desire and all the fathers in recent times that taught that, but let's neglect showing that the controversial quotes from middle ages taught desire" bit to me.

but anyway, back to the thread at hand. doesn't anyone else experience these constant walls where there shouldn't be any, honestly?

i assume you use google like everyone else.
but where'd you find what you did from the controversial popes the dude? and can you find anymore by them?
[right][snapback]677353[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
St. Thomas Aquinas, the poster-boy of Western medieval theology, wrote extensively in support of baptism of desire.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Pope Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino (1441)
[quote]“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, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; 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.”[/quote]

This statement clearly refers at those who know of the Gospel and the Catholic Church’s necessity but do not convert. It states that these person’s good works and even martyrdom will not save them unless they join themselves to the Catholic Church before death. This statement does not address the unevangelized.[/quote]

How do you get that it "clearly" says this? All it says is no amount of the works it specifies will save. Anything else is reading into it. I agree it doesn't mention the unevangelized, but I'd ague it said that no one can be saved at all outside before I'd take your interpretation.
If it's so easy to find writings from pope, can anyone find this one? This is not ancient writing and was after the barbarians..

[quote][quote]The Fourth Lateran Council (During the Pontificate of Innocent III [1198-1216])
“There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees that all salvation is accomplished through the Church (CCC 846), not outside of it.  Furthermore, all men are somehow tied to the Catholic Church, although some imperfectly, whether they know it or not (CCC 836-838).  Furthermore, Pope Innocent III himself wrote in favor of baptism by desire (see above).[/quote]
hese objections do not contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Pope Innocent III
Debitum pastoralis officii
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... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed off to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith (Denzinger 413).[/quote]

Now as for this guy. He's teaching baptism of desire for catecumens. They want the water. Now, he may be simply telling of the simple fact that catechumens are saved and not negating the possibility that even non catecumens can be saved. But to leave it at this interpretation when reading "no one at all" business is shady. Again, I'd like more writing on this post ancient, barbarian pope.
I do concede it's somewhat convincing to see Aquanis elaborate on more than I thought he did, relatively shortly after Innocent. But then along comes Eugene so..
writings... i need writings..

[Aloysius]

which writing can't youfind?

[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/[/url]

pretty complete for writings of popes down to the 13th century

[dairygirl4u2c]

You fell right into my trap.. tho I didn't really anticipate it working.
At that link is the most notable irony: the writings begin the year after Innocent III... and Eugene IV who is well into the timeframe of the posted writings isn't even mentioned...

I'd like to give the Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt that the writings are in their archive and wouldn't disclose anything that's not already on the web.. but I don't even know what to think..

Edited August 9, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

Just for you, Here is the Bull Cantate Domino, also known as the Bulla unionis Coptorum or Bull of Union with the Copts

Eugenius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Sing praises to the Lord for he has done gloriously; let this be known in all the earth. Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the holy one of Israel (Isaiah 12. 5-6) To sing and to exult in the Lord certainly befits the church of God for his great magnificence and the glory of his name, which the most merciful God has deigned to bring about on this very day. It is right, indeed, to praise and bless with all our hearts our Saviour, who daily builds up his holy church with new additions. His benefactions to his christian peoiple are at all times many and great and manifest more clearly than the light of day his immense love for us. Yet if we look more closely at the benefactions which the divine mercy has deigned to effect in most recent times, we shall assuredly be able to judge that in these days of ours the gifts of his love have been more in number and greater in kind than in many past ages.
For in less than three years our lord Jesus Christ by his indefatigable kindness, to the common and lasting joy of the whole of Christianity, has generously effected in this holy ecumenical synod the most sulatary union of three great nations. Hence it has come about that nearly the whole of the east that adores the glorious name of Christ and no small part of the north, after prolonged discord with the holy Roman church, have come together in the same bond of faith and love. For first the Greeks and those subject to the four patriarchal sees, which cover many races and nations and tongues, then the Armenians, who are a race of many peoples, and today indeed the Jacobites, who are a gdly all of us ought to sing for joy and to exult in the Lord; we whom the divine clemency has made worthy to see in our days such great splendour of the christian faith. With the greatest readiness we therefore announce these marvellous facts to the whole christian worldd, so that just as we are filled with unspeakable joy for the glory of God and the exaltation of the church, we may make others participate in this great happiness. Thus all of us with one voice may magnify and glorify God and may return abundant and daily thanks, as is fitting, to his majesty for so many and so great marvellous benefits bestowed on his holy church in this age.
He who dilegently does the work of God not only awaits merit and reward in heaven but also deserves generous glory and praise among people. Therefore we consider that our venerable brother John, patriarch of the Jacobites, whose zeal for this holy union is immense, should deservedly be praised and extolled by us and the whole church and deserves, together with his whole race, the general approval of all Christians. Moved by us, through our envoy and our letter, to send an embassy to us and this sacred synod and to unite himself and his people in the same faith with the Roman church, he sent to us and this synod the beloved son Andrew, an Egyptian, endowed in no mean degree with faith and morals and abbot of the monastery of St. Anthony in Egypt, in which St. Anthony himself is said to have lived and died. THe patriarch, fired with great zeal, ordered and commissioned him reverently to accept, in the name of the patriarch and his Jacobites, the doctrine of the faith that the Roman church holds and preaches, and afterwards to bring this doctrine to the patriarch and the Jacobites so that they might acknowledge and formally approve it and preach it in their lands.
We, therefore, to whom the Lord gave the task of feeding Christ's sheep, had abbot Andrew caimself and is principle without principle. WHatever the Son is or has, he has from the Father and is principle without principle. Whatever the holy Spirit is or has, he has from the Father together with the SOn. But the Father and the SOn are not two principles of the holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the SOn and the holy Spirit are not three principles of creation but one principle. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes, and decalres to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that the Father is true God and place the Son and holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.
Most firmly it believes, professes and preaches that the one true God, Father, Son and holy SPirit, is the creator of all things that are, visible and invisible, who, when he willed it, made from his own goodness all creatures, both spriiual and corporeal, good indeed because they are made by the supreme good, but mutable because they are made from nothing; and ti asserts that there is no nature of evil because very nature, in so far as it is a nature, is good.
It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and new Testamen -- that is, the law and the prophets, and the gosp[el --- since the saints of both testaments spoke under the insiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and vereats their books, whose titles are as follows:
[--pick up a Catholic Bible and turn to the table of contents and you'll find this part--]
Hence it anathematizes the madness of the manichees who posited two first principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, an our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and man, who was conceived wihtout sin, was born and died. He alone by his death overthrew the enemy of the human race, cancelling our sins, and unlocking the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, which the first man by his sin had locked against himself and all his posterity. All the holy sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies of the old Testament had prefigured that he would come at some time.
It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, palces his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits hmself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath, and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eteral salvaiton, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefroe it strictly orders all who glory int he name of CHristina, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
With regard sto children, since the dagner of death effect has ceased. It condemns then no kind of food that human society accepts and nobody at all, neither man nor woman, should make a distinction between animals, no matter how they died; although for the health of body, for the practice of virtue or for the sake of regualr and ecclesiastical discipline many things that are not proscribed can and should be omitted as the apostle says all things are lawful, but not all are helpful.
It firmly believes professes and preacehs 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 angesl, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of teh ecclesiastical body is of such improtance 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.
It embraces, approves and accepts the holy synod of 318 father sat Nicaea, which was convened in the time of our predecessor most blessed Silvester and the great and most pious emperor Constantine. In it th eimpious Arian heresy and its author was condemned and there was defined thatt he SOn of God is consubstantial and coeteranl with the Father.
It also embraces, approves and accepts [the next synods after that]...
It also embraces, approves and accepts all other universal synods which were legitimately summoned, celebrated and confirmed by the authority of a Roman pontiff, and especially this holy synod of Florence, in which, among other thinto widowhood, so chaste widowhood is preferable to marriage.
After all these explanations the aforesaid abbot Andrew, in the name of hte aforesaid patriarch and of himself and of all the Jacobites, receives and accepts iwth all devotion and reverence this most sulatary synodal decree with all its chapters, declartions, definitions, traditoions, precepts and statutes and all the doctrine contained therein, and also whatever the holy apostolic see and the Roman church holds and teaches. He also reverently accepts those doctros and holy fathers whom the Roman church approves, and he holds as rejected and condemned whatever persons and things the Roman church rjects and conemns, promising as a son of true obeience, in the name of hte above persons, faithuflly and always to obey the reuglations and commands of the said apostolic see.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Aug 9 2005, 03:52 PM']How do you get that it "clearly" says this? All it says is no amount of the works it specifies will save. Anything else is reading into it. I agree it doesn't mention the unevangelized, but I'd ague it said that no one can be saved at all outside before I'd take your interpretation.
If it's so easy to find writings from pope, can anyone find this one? This is not ancient writing and was after the barbarians..
[right][snapback]678669[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What is the point of writing to people who cannot hear you? He lists the people his condemnation is directed at. An uneveangelized person cannot physically join themselves to a Church they've never heard of. He doesn't address these people because, as far as Pope Eugene IV was concerned, the whole world had heard the Gospel and commenting on it was uneccesary.
The bottom line is, pretty much nobody talked about the unevangelized until the discovery of the New World and it was clear that there were unevangelized people. Before Colombus, St. Gregory of Nanzianzus is the only theologian who I can find making any sort of vague reference to the uneveangelized. After that, we have to wait until Pope Bl. Pius IX and Pope Pius XII. The only Church council to address the uneveangelized was Vatican II, and it spoke quite clearly in favor of the possibility of their salvation.

I guess I just don't see what the problem is. Any Church statement ever written on the topic has spoken in favor of salvation for those ignorant of the Gospel. There are no Church statements contradictory to this belief, and the Catechism shows how they are in fact harmoneous.

[Winchester]

So only the Roman Rite says this?

[Winchester]

In light of the recent abuse of the idea perpretrated more than once by a newbie, I resurrect this thread.

There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church is a true statement. What it means to be outside the Catholic Church is perhaps a little harder to grasp.

[Resurrexi]

"This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, [i]Lumen Gentium[/i], 14)

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='02 August 2005 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1123015030' post='668853']
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.
[/quote]


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='02 August 2005 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1123019669' post='668919']
[b]thank you[size="5"][i] [u]ape[/u][/i][/size]..[/b] 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?
[/quote]
Did anyone else notice this? I think it's funny.

Edited October 1, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[N/A Gone]

I always understood this statement as the fact that our salvation is through the Catholic Church. It is the gifts/teachings of her that she has preserved that have been brought into protestant communities that are able to provide salvation. It is the charity she offers and the example she is. Not a membership situation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i coulda swore once i read cyprian saying 'no salvation outside' in a strict sounding sense, and then later saying that the ingorant etc could be saved. but i can't find that lenient passage, maybe im wrong.
point being, cyprian was from early on, 200s'ish, it wouldn't make sense for him to be trying to cop out, and indicates how later generations could have sounded like a contradiction, but really weren't.