Tema: No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

Iniciado por CeciliaMarie

Why does it matter if other encyclicals and/or works of the Church Fathers are not so definitive since we already have the definitive understanding as pronounced in earlier Papal declarations? The teaching doesn't change.

Why are they not "so definitive"? Definitive, dogmatic teachings are pronounced "de cathedra" only. Apart from that there are different positions that are taken in different time-frames and that are open to several different understandings.

We have a lot of things in "earlier Papal declarations" that are not deemed as correct today, especially when viewed in absolute terms and withouth taking into account the context of the times. This isn't to say that there was a "change" to the opposite, merely that the views on the same issue, while being reflected many times in the same formulation, changed by expanding on the interpretation of the specific formulation.

As such there is nothing "definitive" per se in the previous Papal declarations used to support Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which isn't to say that it isn't "right". Better yet: what several theologists consider to fall within that teaching is different, given that it depends on how one defines the Universal Church. This is something that goes back to at least Saint Justin.

In short, while there are merits in reaffirming the teaching, especially considering Modernism and relativism, I do not agree that in strictly theological terms the issue is so clear-cut.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

Why are they not "so definitive"? Definitive, dogmatic teachings are pronounced "de cathedra" only. Apart from that there are different positions that are taken in different time-frames and that are open to several different understandings.

How does one know when a pope is exercising his unfailing Faith to infallibly teach from the Chair of St. Peter? The answer is that we know from the language that the pope uses or the manner in which the pope teaches. Vatican I defined two requirements which must be fulfilled: 1) when the pope is carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; 2) when he explains a doctrine on faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ. A pope can fulfill both of these requirements in just one line, by anathematizing a false opinion (such as many dogmatic councils) or by saying “By our apostolic authority we declare…” or by saying “We believe, profess, and teach” or by using words of similar importance and meaning, which indicate that the pope is teaching the whole Church on Faith in a definitive and binding fashion.
The language of this passage is the language of a DEFINITION. This is EX CATHEDRA. Additionally it is part of a CREED in the Council of Florence:


Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman 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 Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this 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 blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Again here he have the language of an ex cathedra DEFINITION:



Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

merely that the views on the same issue, while being reflected many times in the same formulation, changed by expanding on the interpretation of the specific formulation.

You cannot interpret dogmas. It is a teaching of the Church that they must ALWAYS retain their same meaning

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.” Denzinger 1800

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

that it depends on how one defines the Universal Church.

There is only ONE way to define who is a member of the Church:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

the issue is so clear-cut.

The issue IS very clear cut.


Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “THERE IS INDEED ONE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF THE FAITHFUL, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

In the philosophical science called Logic, this proposition is known as a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE; it permits no exceptions at all!

On the other hand, by rewording it into a positive "all salvation comes from Christ ... through the Church ..." as many will do today, the door is opened to every exception imaginable, and that includes Rahner's "universal salvation." Let us demonstrate our point:

Universal (Positive) Affirmative: "All men have rational souls" This proposition does not rule out the possibility of creatures, other than men, also having rational souls.

Universal Negative: "Outside of men, there are no rational souls"
This proposition permits no exceptions; only men have rational souls. (Note: Angels are intellectual spirits, not rational souls, which give life to material bodies.)

Do you see how the positive statement opens up the possibility of exceptions? Do you see how the definition of Fourth Lateran has NO EXCEPTIONS? If you are not a member of the Catholic Church you cannot be saved.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Do you see how the positive statement opens up the possibility of exceptions? Do you see how the definition of Fourth Lateran has NO EXCEPTIONS? If you are not a member of the Catholic Church you cannot be saved.

Before even replying to your other comments, one question: given that the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" (1964) speaks of Salvation in in a different way, what exactly is your position on the Catholic Church?

I ask this because if you firmly believe that absolutely no other view on what was said in the Fourth Lateran Council is admissible (in particular that there isn't room for any kind of expansion on the subject), then you are likely a Sedevacantist, given that the Universal Church can't proclaim two opposite things to be true if it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

I ask this because if you firmly believe that absolutely no other view on what was said in the Fourth Lateran Council is admissible (in particular that there isn't room for any kind of expansion on the subject), then you are likely a Sedevacantist, given that the Universal Church can't proclaim two opposite things to be true if it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Hmm, to accuse someone (or even hint arount towards it) of being a Sedevacantist is a serious thing. If you read my previous post you will see in the Diocese of Worcester Massachusetts, USA there are three religious orders that hold "Fr. Feeney's position" on No Salvation Outside the Church. One of them is a Benedictine Abbey that celebrates the Novus Ordo Mass. Hardly sedevacantists.

You are right to explain that the Church cannot proclaim two opposite things, but your arguments lead one to conclude that the Church did exactly that. This is not the case. To say there is room for "expansion" on the subject is modernism as I have shown above.

I am disturbed by your assumption that the Second Vatican Council in any way contradicted or even "expanded" the previous dogmatic statements. Did not Pope Benedict say that the Vatican II Council needs to be seen as a continuity with tradition and not a "rupture"?


The following is a very good paper on the subject:

Vatican II and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

I suggest you download it. It is written by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, MICM who was also a defender of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. (He is deceased now but someone still maintains his website http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/)

Lumen Gentium #16 does not contradict "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" nor does it "expand it".

"Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."

The Second Vatican Council does NOT teach that persons ignorant of the Gospel can be saved in their ignorance. This paragraph is about fostering the MISSIONS because those open and ready hearts of the ignorant are PREPARED for the Gospel, and God in His Divine Providence will NOT "deny the helps necessary for salvation" for them to arrive at an "explicit knowledge of God".

Nowhere here does it say that non-Catholics can be saved WHERE THEY ARE.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

what exactly is your position on the Catholic Church?

My position is that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, the Vatican Council II is an Ecumenical Council, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass.

Iniciado por Tradycja

My position is that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, the Vatican Council II is an Ecumenical Council, and that the Novus Ordo Mass is a valid Mass.

Ok, thanks for the answer. Just to clarify, the question wasn't a "trap" of any sort. You are surely aware of Sedevacantism and the implications that it would bring to this debate (and I'm not even debating if Sedevacantism is "right" or "wrong" here), hence the need for clarification.

Also, my position is similar, and albeit my comments here could be perceived in a different way I am actually mostly Traditionalist. I think the Novus Ordo is valid, but I prefer the Tridentine Mass.


Given your position, let me quote some parts of Lumen Gentium, merely to substantiate why I said that I don't consider the issue to be completely clear-cut:

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(...)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.

So, here everything is "as it should".

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."

This is not pertinent to our debate, but I quote it to clearly show readers the difference between "Extra Ecclesiam..." and Protestant "salvation by faith alone". I find this important to stress since sometimes the concepts get mixed up.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (..)They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.(...)Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power(...)

Here there are differences. While no explicit reference to salvation appears, it would seem to at least leave the door open.

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(...)Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Again, in here it is mentioned how some people, outside of the Church, can indeed be saved. Not that they will be saved, merely that they can be saved.

My take on this is that the Church (or at least part of it, in temporal terms) is more definitive in saying those who are saved, and not completely explicit concerning those who aren't saved. These are different concepts after all. This position, right or wrong, is close to the one used in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

Before even replying to your other comments, one question: given that the Dogmatic Constitution "Lumen Gentium" (1964) speaks of Salvation in in a different way, what exactly is your position on the Catholic Church?

I ask this because if you firmly believe that absolutely no other view on what was said in the Fourth Lateran Council is admissible (in particular that there isn't room for any kind of expansion on the subject), then you are likely a Sedevacantist, given that the Universal Church can't proclaim two opposite things to be true if it is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Well... there are other posibilities... many people try to justify the errors of the Council (Vatican II) saying that it was pastoral and not dogmatic. Not me though.

Political traditionalism tries to uphold the teaching of the Catholic Church about confessional states but going around the fact that the modernists changed the doctrine about other religions as instruments of salvation and salvation outside of the Catholic Church, without which confessional states are not only superfluous but in fact evil.

I believe one has to face the fact that the teachings are indeed contradictory and either follow the modernists in their rejection of confessional states or brake with them and uphold the Catholic teaching.

Iniciado por Garza

I believe one has to face the fact that the teachings are indeed contradictory and either follow the modernists in their rejection of confessional states or brake with them and uphold the Catholic teaching.

Now I must admit that I have not studied the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty in depth. But I do know that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the previous dogmatic statements about No Salvation Outside the Church, it is just worded very ambiguously.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Now I must admit that I have not studied the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty in depth. But I do know that Lumen Gentium does not contradict the previous dogmatic statements about No Salvation Outside the Church, it is just worded very ambiguously.

Of course, ambiguity is all over the documents of the Council. That's why one can make the argument that in some particular interpretation of the text it does not necessarily contradict Catholic teaching. It was thanks to this ambiguity that the modernists got the documents accepted by the Council in the fist place.

But I think if we look at the fruits of the Council it is impossible to think that the official interpretation of the texts is in accordance with the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

However, traditional Catholic teaching in fact teaches that a man can be part of the Church and thus be saved even when he is not externally recognized as one of Her members.

Baptism of desire is a traditional teaching that states one can be part of the Church with explicit OR IMPLICIT desire of baptism.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire".

But that has nothing to do with modernist errors about other religions as instruments of salvation, and their followers being in some sort of communion (although "imperfect") with the Catholic Church.

Iniciado por Garza

However, traditional Catholic teaching in fact teaches that a man can be part of the Church and thus be saved even when he is not externally recognized as one of Her members.

Baptism of desire is a traditional teaching that states one can be part of the Church with explicit OR IMPLICIT desire of baptism.

Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire".

But that has nothing to do with modernist errors about other religions as instruments of salvation, and their followers being in some sort of communion (although "imperfect") with the Catholic Church.

I replied at the same time. Yes, I agree. That was my main point actually: that while I do think that "Extra Ecclesiam..." can be understood in more than one way (that is to say, that it is still possible to adhere to it while maintaining that it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone outside of the physical body of the Church is damned), I also think that the modernist interpretations are filled with relativism and erroneous conclusions.

Iniciado por Garza

I believe one has to face the fact that the teachings are indeed contradictory and either follow the modernists in their rejection of confessional states or brake with them and uphold the Catholic teaching.

My own position (and it is just that, after all that's why we are here debating, this isn't a contest ) is that the teachings are not contradictory in themselves, given the proper context and especially the interpretation one gives to them. I maintain that they are Catholic teachings which expand on what was previously said, and not exactly oppose them. The wikipedia article as some interesting information regarding this:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One Who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:36; 6:40; et al.). "Since 'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life `but he who endures to the end,'" (Vatican I, Dei Fillius 3; cf. Matthew 10:22; 24:13 and Hebrews 11:6; Council of Trent Decree on Justification, 8)

The Popes quoted above as stating that outside of the Church there is no salvation did not see this statement as contradicting their other statements that salvation is possible for those who, while not knowing the Church as necessary for salvation and thus not explicitly entering the Church, nevertheless accept whatever grace Christ gives them and thus receive what the Council of Trent called Baptism of Desire.

One of the main points concerns the issue of the "visible Church", as in the "physical Church".

I am aware however that this issue can give origin to several equally "logic" conclusions.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

My own position (and it is just that, after all that's why we are here debating, this isn't a contest

I know... this times are just too confusing...

is that the teachings are not contradictory in themselves, given the proper context and especially the interpretation one gives to them.

You are probably right speaking strictly about the text. Problem is we are not the ones that should interpret them, but the Church. Why is this a problem? Because the facts say that the official interpretation of the texts in the Vatican is even worst than the texts themselves.

I maintain that they are Catholic teachings which expand on what was previously said, and not exactly oppose them.

Again, I think if we had nothing but the texts this might be true, but is what the hierarchy does that show us how the texts are to be interpreted. And that's very clearly not the Catholic interpretation.

Well... this is "my own position"...

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

My own position (and it is just that, after all that's why we are here debating, this isn't a contest ) is that the teachings are not contradictory in themselves, given the proper context and especially the interpretation one gives to them. I maintain that they are Catholic teachings which expand on what was previously said, and not exactly oppose them. The wikipedia article as some interesting information regarding this:



One of the main points concerns the issue of the "visible Church", as in the "physical Church".

I am aware however that this issue can give origin to several equally "logic" conclusions.

Actually the invisible Church theory has been condemned.
Catechisms are not infallible documents. They are normative teaching - a mixture of infallible and non-infallible theology. There may be theological tendencies of the age that can influence a catechism. For example Limbo of Infants was a common teaching in most catechisms around the whole world for many centuries but in the 20th century many theologians turned against this teaching (We think unwisely)



Some catechisms have even contain heresies like the nicknamed "Catechism of St. Pius X". (Pius X did not write it) It said in question under section "The Ninth Article of the Creed-
The Church in Particular"
#29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

See the division of belonging to the Church's body or soul.This division is repeated in section "Those Outside the Communion of Saints" #10,#22, that people can belong to the "soul" of the Church but without being part of the body and not be Catholic, i.e. without Sacramental Baptism.

This theory was condemned by Leo XIII in the encyclical "Satis Cognitum".

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”

again

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”

This heresy continues even up to today by many defending Baptism of Desire. They will quote #29 the Catechism of St. Pius X as if it is an infallible document.

Support for the fact that catechisms are not infallible, even one printed for the entire Church universal, is well explained in the introduction to the Catechism of the Council of Trent by Fathers John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. They wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome, about the Catechism’s authority.

Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI:
“Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine, and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”

Pius XII taught this:
Pope Pius XII MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI--"On the Mystical Body of Christ," 1943, #14:
"Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond. "

So Pope Pius XII is teaching here is is a matter of divine faith (that is infallible) that those who although Christian are not members of the Catholic Church because they do not profess the True Faith, that is the Catholic Faith.

Who are members of the Catholic Faith/Church? Only those who are baptised and profess the Catholic Faith:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943; # 22:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration ( i.e. Sacrament of Baptism) and profess the true faith.”

And the Council of Trent agrees that only the Baptized are members:
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, on the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Sess. 14, Chap.II, Ex Cathedra:"The Church exercises judgment on no one who has not previously entered it by the gate of baptism. For what have I to do with those who are without (1 Cor. 5:12), says the Apostle. It is otherwise with those of the household of the faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of baptism has once made ‘members of his own body’ "