No Salvation Outside

[dairygirl4u2c]

thought i'd rehash an old topic to see if anything new pops up.

my primary beef with the CC as many of you prob know is the "no salvation outside the CC" doctrine, possible contradiction. i recognize that Feeny may not be all that indicative of the catholic faith, but he believed what he did based on something, even if flawed. I fairly recently found Hays, who i thought was indicative of the rigorist view, but on closer inspection, he seemed to say whether the rigorist view was doctrine was up for interpretation, but he personally felt that way.
i know there were discoverers who around columbus' time had a nonrigorist view despite being after the hardcore declaratoins that are most disputed.
my faltering into possibloy relapsing into the CC was when i realized there were no rigorist views of the CC that i know of before feeny. i'd ask if anyone her had any, but i doubt i'd much ofa response from hrer even if ther were.
so, is there much evidence of lenient views around the 1000-1500 era? i think aquanis might have sort of been, but that was before the more hardcore stuff.
if i can't even find the lenient stuff, i tend to remain skeptical

i am not looking for hallow arguments about how the teaching was simply misunderstood etc. i know the arguments, and they might eb true. i am looking for evidence to make up the arguments. documents especially, or other information.

[goldenchild17]

I believe that Rome has most certainly changed its teaching in regards to non-Catholic religions and salvation outside the Church. But I think what you are most interested in is Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire. Correct me if I'm wrong as I find the error of the current (and recent past) Vatican administration(s) to be of quite another origin.

Regarding baptism and salvation outside the Church, we need to remember that Feeney wasn't fixing anything either. He was also in grave error in denying the doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire. As for your request of past belief regarding this doctrine, I would first ask if you know of, and understand, the understanding of the doctrines of baptism regarding Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire that I'm referring to. Both of these have been firmly supported by Catholic theologians for many centuries, and are a part of the Ordinary Magisterium and thus demand our assent. If this is the topic you are referring to then I would be happy to share some statements from past saints and Church authorities who affirm these doctrines. If you are referring to something else, then I'll leave it to others to help you out as I would likely be overstepping my boundaries. Let me know, peace.

Edited October 13, 2007 by goldenchild17

[dairygirl4u2c]

baptism by desire. this means that if you desire baptism then you can be saved. the thorny area is whether the man on hte island who's never heard can really desire baptism. he can desire God, but not explicitly baptism so does that count indirectly?

aquanis taught desire by baptism, but i think he wasn't clear on this point. he speculated that an angel would be shown to the man on the island who didnt know to inform him, so he could be saved. the fact he thought this doesn't say whether he thought ultimately you have to know about Jesus, or whether ultimately if you do't know hten you're condened.

but that's all before the more rigorous declarations of "no salvation outside the CC"

so if you can clarify what the baptism by desire is that you're talking about, and whether you think the man on the island can be saved if he wants to know God but doesn'tknow jesus, that would be good. also, clarify how you exactly differ from the CC, cause if you believe the man on hte island can be saved, i'm not sure how you're any different.
plus, primarily, evidence that backs up your statments, from history.

Edited October 13, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1401799' date='Oct 13 2007, 04:05 PM']baptism by desire. this means that if you desire baptism then you can be saved. the thorny area is whether the man on hte island who's never heard can really desire baptism. he can desire God, but not explicitly baptism so does that count indirectly?[/quote]

I think it's more so that if the person would desire baptism had he known God. If he could had heard of God and such, then he would desire Baptism.
It would, of course, also work as you said, that a person who is desiring baptism but dies before recieving it would have a 'Baptism of Desire'.
Though, how this works and such and who it applies too, I do not think we can truly know.

Without much knowledge in this area, I would wonder if there would be much writing on this before the Reformation. After the Reformation, I could see this being explicity covered and written about as part of the Counter Reformation. Was there much need for it beforehand though?

Edited October 13, 2007 by CatholicCid

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1401799' date='Oct 13 2007, 04:05 PM']baptism by desire. this means that if you desire baptism then you can be saved. the thorny area is whether the man on hte island who's never heard can really desire baptism. he can desire God, but not explicitly baptism so does that count indirectly?

aquanis taught desire by baptism, but i think he wasn't clear on this point. he speculated that an angel would be shown to the man on the island who didnt know to inform him, so he could be saved. the fact he thought this doesn't say whether he thought ultimately you have to know about Jesus, or whether ultimately if you do't know hten you're condened.

but that's all before the more rigorous declarations of "no salvation outside the CC"

so if you can clarify what the baptism by desire is that you're talking about, and whether you think the man on the island can be saved if he wants to know God but doesn'tknow jesus, that would be good. also, clarify how you exactly differ from the CC, cause if you believe the man on hte island can be saved, i'm not sure how you're any different.
plus, primarily, evidence that backs up your statments, from history.[/quote]


I don't pretend to know who baptism of desire applies to (baptism of blood is a little easier to determine), I don't believe anyone can really know who it applies to. This is why I don't believe any non-Catholic who dies should ever be canonized a saint. But I do believe it is possible for a non-Catholic to make it to heaven. I believe this possibility is probably very slim though. For example, if you remember who Rich Mullins is (the singer) when he died, it is believed that he was on an airplane on his way to meet his priest to be baptised a Catholic. This I believe warrants baptism of desire. How much further it goes I don't wish to speculate, but I do believe it is a very limited thing and not nearly many people get it as is commonly accepted by many people. It has been a part of Catholic teaching for quite awhile, though I don't believe anyone has ever defined the doctrine so much as to declare who this baptism of desire applies to.

[PapaHilarious]

DairyGirl,

I found this article on [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp"]Catholic Answers[/url] by Fr. Ray Ryland (PhD and former Episcopal priest). I found it very helpful, and I think it addresses many of issues you brought up (including Feeney). I especially like the John 10:16 reference under "Not of this Fold."

[size=3][quote][b]No Salvation Outside the Church[/b]

Why does the Catholic Church teach that there is "no salvation outside the Church"? Doesn’t this contradict Scripture? God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). Peter proclaimed to the Sanhedrin, "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is "an infallible statement." But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

[u]Work Out Your Salvation[/u]

There are two distinct dimensions of Jesus Christ’s redemption. Objective redemption is what Jesus Christ has accomplished once for all in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension: the redemption of the whole universe. Yet the benefits of that redemption have to be applied unceasingly to Christ’s members throughout their lives. This is subjective redemption. If the benefits of Christ’s redemption are not applied to individuals, they have no share in his objective redemption. Redemption in an individual is an ongoing process. "Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling; for God is at work in you" (Phil. 2:12–13).

How does Jesus Christ work out his redemption in individuals? Through his mystical body. When I was a Protestant, I (like Protestants in general) believed that the phrase "mystical body of Christ" was essentially a metaphor. For Catholics, the phrase is literal truth.

Here’s why: To fulfill his Messianic mission, Jesus Christ took on a human body from his Mother. He lived a natural life in that body. He redeemed the world through that body and no other means. Since his Ascension and until the end of history, Jesus lives on earth in his supernatural body, the body of his members, his mystical body. Having used his physical body to redeem the world, Christ now uses his mystical body to dispense "the divine fruits of the Redemption" (Mystici Corporis 31).

[u]The Church: His Body[/u]

What is this mystical body? The true Church of Jesus Christ, not some invisible reality composed of true believers, as the Reformers insisted. In the first public proclamation of the gospel by Peter at Pentecost, he did not invite his listeners to simply align themselves spiritually with other true believers. He summoned them into a society, the Church, which Christ had established. Only by answering that call could they be rescued from the "crooked generation" (Acts 2:40) to which they belonged and be saved.

Paul, at the time of his conversion, had never seen Jesus. Yet recall how Jesus identified himself with his Church when he spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus: "Why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4, emphasis added) and "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting" (Acts 9:5). Years later, writing to Timothy, Paul ruefully admitted that he had persecuted Jesus by persecuting his Church. He expressed gratitude for Christ appointing him an apostle, "though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him" (1 Tim. 1:13).

The Second Vatican Council says that the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church and the mystical body of Christ "form one complex reality that comes together from a human and a divine element" (Lumen Gentium 8). The Church is "the fullness of him [Christ] who fills all in all" (Eph. 1:23). Now that Jesus has accomplished objective redemption, the "plan of mystery hidden for ages in God" is "that through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:9–10).

According to John Paul II, in order to properly understand the Church’s teaching about its role in Christ’s scheme of salvation, two truths must be held together: "the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all humanity" and "the necessity of the Church for salvation" (Redemptoris Missio 18). John Paul taught us that the Church is "the seed, sign, and instrument" of God’s kingdom and referred several times to Vatican II’s designation of the Catholic Church as the "universal sacrament of salvation":
[list]
[*]"The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).
[*]"Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. . . . He carries out his mission through her" (RM 9).
[*]In an address to the plenary assembly of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (January 28, 2000), John Paul stated, "The Lord Jesus . . . established his Church as a saving reality: as his body, through which he himself accomplishes salvation in history." He then quoted Vatican II’s teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation.
[/list]
In 2000 the CDF issued Dominus Iesus, a response to widespread attempts to dilute the Church’s teaching about our Lord and about itself. The English subtitle is itself significant: "On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church." It simply means that Jesus Christ and his Church are indivisible. He is universal Savior who always works through his Church:

[b]The only Savior . . . constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: He himself is in the Church and the Church is in him. . . . Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord (DI 18).[/b]

Indeed, Christ and the Church "constitute a single ‘whole Christ’" (DI 16). In Christ, God has made known his will that "the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity" (DI 22). The Catholic Church, therefore, "has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being" (DI 20).

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries. Recall John Paul’s words about the Church quoted above: "Her activity is not limited only to those who accept its message."

[u]Not of this Fold[/u]

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus does not mean that only faithful Roman Catholics can be saved. The Church has never taught that. So where does that leave non-Catholics and non-Christians?

Jesus told his followers, "I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). After his Resurrection, Jesus gave the threefold command to Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Tend my sheep. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:15–17). The word translated as "tend" (poimaine) means "to direct" or "to superintend"—in other words, "to govern." So although there are sheep that are not of Christ’s fold, it is through the Church that they are able to receive his salvation.

People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God’s mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms:

[b]"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 consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).

Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery" (Gaudium et Spes 22).[/b]

[i]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i] teaches:

[b]"Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity" (CCC 1260).[/b]

Obviously, it is not their ignorance that enables them to be saved. Ignorance excuses only lack of knowledge. That which opens the salvation of Christ to them is their conscious effort, under grace, to serve God as well as they can on the basis of the best information they have about him.

The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church. Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church (address to the CDF).

On the other hand, the Church has long made it clear that if a person rejects the Church with full knowledge and consent, he puts his soul in danger:

[b]"They cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or remain in it" (cf. LG 14).[/b]

The Catholic Church is "the single and exclusive channel by which the truth and grace of Christ enter our world of space and time" (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, "though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat." And when they eat of it, "without knowing it or willing it" they are "incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church."

Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.[/quote][/size]

[dairygirl4u2c]

golden, you said that the CC has changed its posoition. how so? do you think they're including too many people? in practice maybe but not sure about theologically.

do you have evidence as per the initial post of the thread?

we're getting too much into empty gestures of what people think, and theories of what the CC meant when it proclaimed "no salvation...." a few hundred years ago, but without any evidence to back it up.

that's the purpose of this hread, after all.

Edited October 13, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicCid]

I know this is earlier then the time period you requested DairyGirl, but here is the quick link reference to quotes of Early Church Fathers (including Augustine) considering this topic from CA: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_..._the_Church.asp[/url]

Since Aquanis is the easiest to find as well, here is a little from the Summa on the matter:
[quote]Question 66
Article 11. Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Ephesians 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.

Objection 3. Further, Damascene (De Fide Orth. iv) distinguishes several other kinds of Baptism. Therefore we should admit more than three Baptisms.

On the contrary, on Hebrews 6:2, "Of the doctrine of Baptisms," the gloss says: "He uses the plural, because there is Baptism of Water, of Repentance, and of Blood."

I answer that, As stated above (62, 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." [b]In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Isaiah 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."[/b]

Reply to Objection 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.

Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. Damascene enumerates certain figurative Baptisms. For instance, "the Deluge" was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of the salvation of the faithful in the Church; since then "a few . . . souls were saved in the ark [Vulgate: 'by water'," according to 1 Peter 3:20. He also mentions "the crossing of the Red Sea": which was a figure of our Baptism, in respect of our delivery from the bondage of sin; hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 10:2) that "all . . . were baptized in the cloud and in the sea." And again he mentions "the various washings which were customary under the Old Law," which were figures of our Baptism, as to the cleansing from sins: also "the Baptism of John," which prepared the way for our Baptism.[/quote]
Emphasis mine.

Edited October 13, 2007 by CatholicCid

[mortify]

What exactly is the contradiction between today's teaching and the past's? It seems to me one set of statements is directed to those who are aware of the Catholic Church and have separated from her or continue and foster separation from her, and the other set of statements are geared to those who are ignorant of the Church or are brought up with a false understanding of what she stands for.

Edited October 14, 2007 by mortify

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not claiming the following as definitive proof, but here
[url="http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Outside_the_Catholic_Church_There_is_Abslutely_No_Salvation.html#BOD"]http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Out...vation.html#BOD[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

to be fair though, i think i remember reading what appeared to be strict declarations in the early church, but that had actually lenient understandings.
i'm not sure if the leniency was from the same person who wrote the strict appearig quotes or not. i should look into this i guess.
if anyone else has any idea on this specific matter, that'd be helpful too.

[mortify]

The irony is that many protestants are against Ecumenism precisely because they feel the Church *hasn't* changed her teaching, but simply changed the appearance of things to help others embrace her. Here's a glance:

[url="http://www.spiritwatch.org/fireecumen1.htm"]http://www.spiritwatch.org/fireecumen1.htm[/url]

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1401974' date='Oct 13 2007, 08:26 PM']to be fair though, i think i remember reading what appeared to be strict declarations in the early church, but that had actually lenient understandings.
i'm not sure if the leniency was from the same person who wrote the strict appearig quotes or not. i should look into this i guess.
if anyone else has any idea on this specific matter, that'd be helpful too.[/quote]

These questions are so difficult without a divinely instituted magesterium to lean on.

[friendofJPII]

I don't think the Church has changed her teaching, rather it has been further defined through divine revelation...just as the [i]unitive[/i] and [i]procreative[/i] meaning of the marriage vocation was not fully understood until the 20th century; at one time it was seen as default vocation, a remedy for concupiscence. St. Jerome is quoted as saying, "The only good thing about marriage is that it brings forth more virgins...."

Edited October 14, 2007 by friendofJPII

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='mortify' post='1401990' date='Oct 13 2007, 08:38 PM']These questions are so difficult without a divinely instituted magesterium to lean on.[/quote]

when trying to discern whether the magesterium is divinely insittuted to begin with, this assumption won't help much. and given that i maintain there's no clear evidence as per the validity of the CC authority aside from this issue of "no salvation...".