Tema: No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church

Iniciado por Tradycja

How many of you have seen these dogmatic statements about there being NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

Extraordinary Magisterium:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)





“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.”
(Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 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 almsgivings, 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, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)





If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven,” let him be anathema. (Council of Trent: Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism)





"If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. John 3:5): let him be anathema." (Council of Trent: Canon 5 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism)






“If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent: Canon 2 of the Canons on Baptism, 7th Session, Sacrament of Baptism)






The faith which God has revealed has not been proposed like a theory of philosophy, to be elaborated upon by human understanding, but as a divine deposit to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared. Therefore, that sense of sacred dogmas is to be kept forever which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and it must never be deviated from on the specious pretext of a more profound understanding. Let intelligence, and science, and wisdom increase, but only according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same meaning. If anyone shall have said that there may ever be attributed to the doctrines proposed by the Church a sense which is different from the sense which the Church has once understood and now understands: let him be anathema.(I Vatican Council)

I don't know if the Hispanic-world gets what your point is because most don't even know anyone that is not Catholic.

While there are many who have become Protestant especially in Brazil. I don't think most Catholics consider them "outside" the Church because they are still "christian".

Iniciado por Udir

I don't know if the Hispanic-world gets what your point is because most don't even know anyone that is not Catholic.

I think as a Spaniard that what you are saying is pretty much untrue.

I hardly know any Spaniard under 35 who has not been just travelling but even living in non Catholic countries, such as England. The "London" experience is almost a "must" among Spanish youngsters.

Furthermore millions of Non Catholic Europeans come year after year to Spain on holidays, many hundreds of thousands of them set in Spain their permanent residence.

So my question is: are you talking about Spain or Bolivia?

Hmm, maybe Udir is talking about Mexicans being that he lists himself as being in the "EEUU" (United States). I have talked to Mexicans who said they never really knew there were non-Catholics or at least never thought about it. I guess if you grew up in a small town in Mexico it is possible.

Anyway, DON Cosme, have you ever heard of Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, Archbishop George Hay, and Fr. Leonard Feeney? I actually read a lot of Spanish traditionalist materials such as the magazine "Siempre Pa'lante". They talk a lot about the "confesionalidad del estado" which I agree with 100 percent, but they hardly ever talk about the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church". The denial of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is the root of the problem why people do not see a need for "confesionalidad del estado".

By the way, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. was one of the few people in the USA to support Generalismo Franco publically.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Hmm, maybe Udir is talking about Mexicans being that he lists himself as being in the "EEUU" (United States). I have talked to Mexicans who said they never really knew there were non-Catholics or at least never thought about it. I guess if you grew up in a small town in Mexico it is possible.

It is a common Northangloamerican mistake.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Anyway, DON Cosme, have you ever heard of Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, Archbishop George Hay, and Fr. Leonard Feeney? I actually read a lot of Spanish traditionalist materials such as the magazine "Siempre Pa'lante". They talk a lot about the "confesionalidad del estado" which I agree with 100 percent, but they hardly ever talk about the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church". The denial of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is the root of the problem why people do not see a need for "confesionalidad del estado".

I am very sorry to say I do not. To be totally honest with you I must say that I do not have a strong theological background. For these kind of matters I think you should request Hyeronimus help as he is fluent in English and has the proper background.

If you have some knowledge of the Spanish language Cristián Yáñez Durán is in my humble opinion the person who could really help you.

Iniciado por Tradycja

By the way, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. was one of the few people in the USA to support Generalismo Franco publically.

Regarding Franco please take into account that he was not really a Traditionalist, furthermore he betrayed the Traditionalists, but, considering present Spanish grey political circumstances and the horror of the Second Republic, Franco cannot be judged in a negative way.

Iniciado por DON COSME

Regarding Franco please take into account that he was not really a Traditionalist, furthermore he betrayed the Traditionalists, but, considering present Spanish grey political circumstances and the horror of the Second Republic, Franco cannot be judged in a negative way.

Yes I understand that, but what I am saying is do you know how much courage it would take a Catholic priest in the UNITED STATES in the 1940's to support Franco? I mean that was the time when the Catholic Church in the States was compromising and trying to be "amiguitos" with the Protestants.

Anyway back to the subject of "No Salvation Outside the Church" (I actually don't like to talk about politics because I like to spend my time converting people to the Catholic Church) I am actually planning to translate "Bread of Life" by Fr. Leonard Feeney into Spanish. Until then you can download the whole book for free in English at this address

Bread of Life by Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J.

It explains his position on "No Salvation Outside the Church". It is a very good book. I suggest every serious Catholic read it.



In the Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, USA there are three religious houses whose members believe and actively defend Father Feeney’s strict defense of “no salvation outside the Church.” Additionally, they all defend Father Feeney’s good name. Those three houses are St. Benedict’s Abbey, St. Ann’s House (the good sisters have no web site), and Saint Benedict Center. The Abbot of the Benedictine Abbey recently wrote a book defending Father Feeney, Harvard to Harvard. He remains a Benedictine Abbot — a prelate of the Catholic Church — in good standing.

The following are their websites:


Abbey Homepage
Saint Benedict Center
Sisters of St. Benedict Center


They are listed on the religious order page of the Worcester Diocese:


http://www.worcesterdiocese.org/vicar/ReligiousCommunities/tabid/478/Default.aspx


Welcome to the Diocese of Worcester




Ecclesia Dei Commission on “Feeneyites:


“The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”


Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary, Ecclesia Dei Commission
Excerpted from: Status of SSPX

Iniciado por Tradycja

Yes I understand that, but what I am saying is do you know how much courage it would take a Catholic priest in the UNITED STATES in the 1940's to support Franco? I mean that was the time when the Catholic Church in the States was compromising and trying to be buddy buddy with the Protestants.

I understand the hypocrisy of the historical moment and the courage he must of had.

Iniciado por DON COSME

It is a common Northangloamerican mistake.



I am very sorry to say I do not. To be totally honest with you I must say that I do not have a strong theological background. For these kind of matters I think you should request Hyeronimus help as he is fluent in English and has the proper background.

If you have some knowledge of the Spanish language Cristián Yáñez Durán is in my humble opinion the person who could really help you.

To claim to be ignorant of the dogmas of the Church and to be knowledgeable a dictator is pathetic! don't you think you should atleast study your own faith?

Iniciado por Udir

To claim to be ignorant of the dogmas of the Church and to be knowledgeable a dictator is pathetic! don't you think you should atleast study your own faith?

That is a very personal view of what I wrote. As personal and as inexact as your first statement.

A bit more accuracy is needed to be part of this Forum.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Yes I understand that, but what I am saying is do you know how much courage it would take a Catholic priest in the UNITED STATES in the 1940's to support Franco? I mean that was the time when the Catholic Church in the States was compromising and trying to be "amiguitos" with the Protestants.

Please, be indulgent with my English.
In 1940 Franco was probably seen as a priest savior in the US by catholics and protestants. All the Christian world had knowledge of the atrocities in Spain under the Republic rule.

In the course of the Red Terror, 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy, 20% percent of the nation's clergy, were killed. The figures break down the as follows: Some 283 women religious were killed. Some of them were badly tortured. 13 bishops were killed from the dioceses of Siguenza Lleida, Cuenca, Barbastro, Segorbe, Jaen, Ciudad Real, Almeria, Guadix, Barcelona, Teruel and the auxiliary of Tarragona. Aware of the dangers, they all decided to remain in their cities. I cannot go, only here is my responsibility, whatever may happen, so said the Bishop of Cuenca. In addition 4,172 diocesan priests, 2,364 monks and friars, among them 259 Claretians, 226 Franciscans, 204 Piarists, 176 Brothers of Mary, 165 Christian Brothers, 155 Augustinians, 132 Dominicans, and 114 Jesuits were killed.In some dioceses, the number of secular priests killed are overwhelming:

• In Barbastro 123 of 140 priests were killed, about 88 percent of the secular clergy were murdered, 66 percent
• In Lleida, 270 of 410 priests were killed. about 62 percent
• In Tortosa, 44 percent of the secular priests were killed.
• In Toledo 286 of 600 priests were killed.
• In the dioceses of Malaga, Menorca and Segorbe, about half of the priests were killed"

Red Terror (Spain) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I can not understand is a catholic or protestant not supporting Franco during our Civil War.
Do not forget that some big US companies supported Franco without problems with the US government.

Iniciado por Tradycja

Hmm, maybe Udir is talking about Mexicans being that he lists himself as being in the "EEUU" (United States). I have talked to Mexicans who said they never really knew there were non-Catholics or at least never thought about it. I guess if you grew up in a small town in Mexico it is possible.

Anyway, DON Cosme, have you ever heard of Orestes Brownson, Fr. Michael Mueller, CSSR, Archbishop George Hay, and Fr. Leonard Feeney? I actually read a lot of Spanish traditionalist materials such as the magazine "Siempre Pa'lante". They talk a lot about the "confesionalidad del estado" which I agree with 100 percent, but they hardly ever talk about the dogma "No Salvation Outside the Church". The denial of the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is the root of the problem why people do not see a need for "confesionalidad del estado".

I am Mexican and I can tell you that it would be very difficult to find someone in Mexico who does'nt know a protestant. May have been so some 60 years ago, but today they are all over the big cities and specially in small towns, so I think that any Mexican that claims that he only knows "catholics" is not really watching carefully or has lived in some really closed and special community.

Or maybe as a modernist he just thinks that everyone is catholic by default.

Iniciado por Garza

Or maybe as a modernist he just thinks that everyone is catholic by default.

So you would agree then that there is absolutely no salvation AT ALL, outside of the Catholic Church?

Iniciado por Tradycja

So you would agree then that there is absolutely no salvation AT ALL, outside of the Catholic Church?

I agree with Catholic dogma that "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus", which means there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Actually, it is not really an opinion with which I agree, but a fact I accept.

I agree with you that rejection of this dogma is the root of the problem when dealing with confessional states.

Without going into details on Traditionalism vs. "Modernism" in the Church, let me just add that several Papal encyclicals, and also some works of the Church Fathers, are not so definitive in terms of who achieves salvation.

So, and while it can be considered the position of a good part of Catholics, and even the right one, it is not the "official" one.

Iniciado por Possessio Maris

Without going into details on Traditionalism vs. "Modernism" in the Church, let me just add that several Papal encyclicals, and also some works of the Church Fathers, are not so definitive in terms of who achieves salvation.

So, and while it can be considered the position of a good part of Catholics, and even the right one, it is not the "official" one.

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.

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.