No salvation outside the Church

St_Barnabus said:

The bull you referenced cannot be held as paramount to the teachings which the Holy Spirit called forth in later Councils. I trust you are aware that this preceded the Reformation by two centuries, and therefore does not apply to the children born in generations many years afterward it.

Your other argument from St. Thomas, who lived in the 12th century, has no bearing on this, since non-Catholics are not held to the same standard, since they don't even know about it. Why are you dismissing Vatican II's precepts? Truth be told, I remember you from awhile back here on OBOB, though you have changed your identity, but the same dogmatism prevails.

Click to expand...

Yes I have noticed you like to accuse a lot of people of being socks who disagree with you. But that is your own mental issue to deal with I guess.

Since Vatican II is not a dogmatic council it must be read in light of all of the Church's documents.

I find it interesting how easily you disregard ex-cathedra statements. You understand how a Bull works don't you?. Church documents don't supersede older documents either. If 2 documents don't seem to agree they must be read in the light of each other to help seek a deeper understanding, rather than just ignoring the older document. Also an apostolic constitution/papal bull has higher authority than an encyclical too.

Would be kinda a waste to kick away the other 1950 years of our Church tradition, don't ya think?

StThomasMore said:

Yes I have noticed you like to accuse a lot of people of being socks who disagree with you. But that is your own mental issue to deal with I guess.

Click to expand...

You KNOW this is true interiorly, though exteriorly you deny it. At least I gave you the courtesy of not calling you a sock, but merely mentioned that you changed your identity. Virgil the Roman has done this legally, back and forth, and was never a sock. But let's move on to your allegations.

"Since Vatican II is not a dogmatic council it must be read in light of all of the Church's documents."
That is totally incorrect. Have you read the statements of Pope Benedict XVI?

"I find it interesting how easily you disregard ex-cathedra statements."
I'll bet you do. Actually, it is NOT ex-cathedra. There were only two in all of church history.

"You understand how a Bull works don't you? A bull has much higher authority than an encyclical too."
Not a Council.

"Church documents don't supersede older documents either."
You are completely wrong. No Pope can bind another Pope in perpetuity, for it is the Holy Spirit who is the author of developing theology. Read Dei Verbum.

Honestly, I don't relish a debate with you, and perceive that it is going to be utterly fruitless.

Irenaeus said:

Doesn't get more simple than that, really.

The hidden question behind all this then is: is that Church visible in nature or is it only spiritual?

Click to expand...

I think I will rephrase the way I stated that to:

Those in Christ are the body of Christ, which is the Church.

Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church, the body of Christ.

There is a visible "church" which contains both wheat and tares.

But only those in Christ are the true church.

In the faith,
Clare

For the sake of those following this thread who may have been misled by StThomasMore's quote from Bl. John Paul II, this was one of those isolated comments taken out of context to the fullness of his true teaching.

StThomasMore said:

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus--"without the Church there is no salvation." Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation. - Pope John Paul II

Click to expand...

Here is the rest of the document:

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church.

The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council. In the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence, the axiom means that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation. [Note that the obligation is specific for those who are NOT ignorant]

For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.
　

Click to expand...

Clare73 said:

I think I will rephrase the way I stated that to:

Those in Christ are the body of Christ, which is the Church.

Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church, the body of Christ.

There is a visible "church" which contains both wheat and tares.

But only those in Christ are the true church.

In the faith,
Clare

Click to expand...

Nicely put Clare...which was precisely my contention in an earlier post.

Catholicism is not the Body of Messiah, neither is Protestantism...those that make up the Body are 'born again Believers in the L-rd'. That is the simple, truthful biblical definition. The One Church is the L-rds Church, no denomination has the monopoly whatever they may claim.
As such the unity we share with one another should not be based on whether we are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or any other denomination, but whether we are truly 'born again'.

As soon as you are 'born again'...you are placed into the Kingdom of G-d, and are now subject to His lordship.

Rhamiel said:

man man institutions are not needed

that is why I belong to the Catholic Church, it is a God made institution, created by Christ who is fully God and fully Man


as for you saying that I proved your pointe and missed it
I am interested lol
feel free to PM me, this is not really the place to debate Church teaching

Click to expand...

Hi Rhamiel....we will have to differ on this very basic issue of what the makes the Church the Church...all I will add is that 'living stones' are non-denominational.

I won't try and debate teaching, simply state (what I believe is) a biblical perspective and leave it at that.

As for my slightly intriguing comments...just bear them in mind for now, I am sure the answer will emerge over time.

Kind regards. Zazal

Clare73 said:

I think I will rephrase the way I stated that to:

Those in Christ are the body of Christ, which is the Church.

Therefore, there is no salvation outside the Church, the body of Christ.

There is a visible "church" which contains both wheat and tares.

But only those in Christ are the true church.

In the faith,
Clare

Click to expand...

saying that those in Christ are the "true Church" sounds like it is downplaying the importance of the institutional Church

I would almost flip that around

The Catholic Church is the True Church
founded by Jesus Christ, sustained by the Holy Spirit
all those who are saved are joined to this true Church

now it is possible, to be outside of visible unity with the Church, but still be saved, because Christ judges the heart and He knows His flock.
but I would say that to be separate from the Sacraments of the Church is to put your soul in grave danger
In Luke chapter 10 verse 16 our Lord says
The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

so to fail to listen to the ministers who Christ established is a serious sin, it is a form of rebellion against God Himself

Rhamiel said:

saying that those in Christ are the "true Church" sounds like it is downplaying the importance of the institutional Church

I would almost flip that around

The Catholic Church is the True Church
founded by Jesus Christ, sustained by the Holy Spirit
all those who are saved are joined to this true Church

now it is possible, to be outside of visible unity with the Church, but still be saved, because Christ judges the heart and He knows His flock. but I would say that to be separate from the Sacraments of the Church is to put your soul in grave danger

In Luke chapter 10 verse 16 our Lord says
The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.

So to fail to listen to the ministers who Christ established is a serious sin, it is a form of rebellion against God Himself.

Click to expand...

Rhamiel, this is very difficult for non-Catholics to accept, let alone believe. They are taught these things from their cradles, and believe their truth very sincerely.

What we can recognize and share together is the fact that all who are baptized in the Trinitarian formula belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, as the Church solemnly teaches. Their baptism is so valid that we do not rebaptize them when they enter the RCC. By baptism, they truly receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But their mystical union with us is an imperfect union, wherein these people are devoid of sacramental helps toward salvation and have not the fullness of truth. The Church calls us to continue the work of evangelization to bring all into the one true fold.

As we undertake this mission, it is not prudent to begin by charging them with serious sin and rebellion, for it truly is not a culpable matter. We tread a delicate walk as we strive to bring the truth, without causing such offense as to drive them further away. I don't know how else to say it.

StThomasMore said:

Those are not factors because they are factors that are in the the persons power to change and reflect on. Not being able to break from your mold is willfull ignorance because there is a interior refusal to look beyond their own mold.

Click to expand...

IF one knows... then it is willful.

The only one from your list that might be involved might be culture. In the case where a person grows up in a small pagan tribe in the middle of nowhere and he stays within his cultural circle his whole life without never hearing the gospel. This can be a case for invisible ignorance.

Click to expand...

Invincible Ignorance isnt that narrow.
Certainly children raised to know some things - never question but have strong faith in the Lord - is part of their salvation since they believe.

But a person who has a Catholic Church down the road. And has a sound mind and resources to reflect on and study, but simply does not want to because he just cannot "adjust" to it is not invisible ignorance since he himself is putting up the barriers towards that grace.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true.

If that person down from the Church is clueless - and are not driven to go - they are intact.

Those who are not Catholic do not have the graces through the sacraments. But God knows their hearts - so long as they are faithful like a child.
And moreover; other church members do go to Heaven - but they do not receive the higher rewards.

St_Barnabus said:

For the sake of those following this thread who may have been misled by StThomasMore's quote from Bl. John Paul II, this was one of those isolated comments taken out of context to the fullness of his true teaching.



Here is the rest of the document:

Click to expand...

That is usually what must be done - found that to be true before.

Zazal said:

Hi Rhamiel....we will have to differ on this very basic issue of what the makes the Church the Church...all I will add is that 'living stones' are non-denominational.

I won't try and debate teaching, simply state (what I believe is) a biblical perspective and leave it at that.

As for my slightly intriguing comments...just bear them in mind for now, I am sure the answer will emerge over time.

Kind regards. Zazal

Click to expand...

You are not here to answer anything.

You may ask questions regarding our theology and fellowship - which means something like 'Hey great pizza, how did you make that' in a foodie post or some such.

I hope you understand that not all members will find your 'answers' within the bounds of the rules. In other words - ask questions - dont be giving answers against our faith.

StThomasMore said:

Yes I have noticed you like to accuse a lot of people of being socks who disagree with you. But that is your own mental issue to deal with I guess.

Since Vatican II is not a dogmatic council it must be read in light of all of the Church's documents.

I find it interesting how easily you disregard ex-cathedra statements. You understand how a Bull works don't you?. Church documents don't supersede older documents either. If 2 documents don't seem to agree they must be read in the light of each other to help seek a deeper understanding, rather than just ignoring the older document. Also an apostolic constitution/papal bull has higher authority than an encyclical too.

Would be kinda a waste to kick away the other 1950 years of our Church tradition, don't ya think?

Click to expand...

Thank you for a really lucid post. Far too many Catholics I know seem to think that everything predating Vatican II has been relegated to some dustbin at the Vatican.

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you for a really lucid post. Far too many Catholics I know seem to think that everything predating Vatican II has been relegated to some dustbin at the Vatican.

Click to expand...

That is not true. Since you are not Catholic, I don't expect you to understand that the Church alone is the interpreter of her documents. If one understands them in a different light, then most probably that person's understanding is flawed.

The Church does not err, but those who have the audacity to pronounce against her teachings based on personal private interpretation of them, have much to answer for in scandalizing others.

St_Barnabus said:

That is not true. Since you are not Catholic, I don't expect you to understand that the Church alone is the interpreter of her documents. If one understands them in a different light, then most probably that person's understanding is flawed.

The Church does not err, but those who have the audacity to pronounce against her teachings based on personal private interpretation of them, have much to answer for in scandalizing others.

Click to expand...

I am sorry to have offended you. I merely stated my personal observation based on my interactions with various Catholics, none of whom hold any position of authority within the Catholic Church. If there is flawed understanding, it is probably on their part. I have not yet met any individual with perfect understanding and certainly do not claim that prerogative for myself.

it is a very complicated subject
both sides tend to over simply it

I hope I did not make it seem too "cut and dry" i think that is the term...

WarriorAngel said:

That is usually what must be done - found that to be true before.


You are not here to answer anything.

You may ask questions regarding our theology and fellowship - which means something like 'Hey great pizza, how did you make that' in a foodie post or some such.

I hope you understand that not all members will find your 'answers' within the bounds of the rules. In other words - ask questions - dont be giving answers against our faith.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the friendly warning.

You also misunderstand....when I referred to the 'answer', I was not implying it was going to come from me...I understand religious the paranonia that abounds in some quarters and strive to operate within the confines of each section of these Forums.

St_Barnabus said:

Rhamiel, this is very difficult for non-Catholics to accept, let alone believe. They are taught these things from their cradles, and believe their truth very sincerely.

What we can recognize and share together is the fact that all who are baptized in the Trinitarian formula belong to the Mystical Body of Christ, as the Church solemnly teaches. Their baptism is so valid that we do not rebaptize them when they enter the RCC. By baptism, they truly receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. But their mystical union with us is an imperfect union, wherein these people are devoid of sacramental helps toward salvation and have not the fullness of truth. The Church calls us to continue the work of evangelization to bring all into the one true fold.

As we undertake this mission, it is not prudent to begin by charging them with serious sin and rebellion, for it truly is not a culpable matter. We tread a delicate walk as we strive to bring the truth, without causing such offense as to drive them further away. I don't know how else to say it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for putting your belief into perspective....I still disagree with the fundamental premise which I see as severely flawed, but I recognise something of your understanding and compassion for individuals be they Catholics or Christians of other flavours.

I would gently suggest that biblical baptism and being supernaturally 'birthed from above' by the Holy Spirit, automatically brings a person into the One Body...the bible talks about being 'translated' out of the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of Light..or once we were lost, condemned and without hope, now we are saved and members of the one Body.

Zazal said:

I would gently suggest that biblical baptism and being supernaturally 'birthed from above' by the Holy Spirit, automatically brings a person into the One Body...the bible talks about being 'translated' out of the Kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of Light..or once we were lost, condemned and without hope, now we are saved and members of the one Body.

Click to expand...

I believe I mentioned that water baptism with the bestowing of the Holy Spirit brings a person into the Mystical Body of Christ, although the union is imperfect. Are you speaking about a baptism other than by water? The Church does recognize a "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood (martyrdom)". However, this is not the norm or the ideal, since Jesus does call all to be baptized in the Church.

The desire for baptism was present in Cornelius in Acts 10, and he received the Holy Spirit prior to his subsequent baptism with water. But God had intended him to become a member of the Church, so this was incomplete. We read that St. Peter then baptized him.

Zazal said:

Thank you for putting your belief into perspective....I still disagree with the fundamental premise which I see as severely flawed ...

Click to expand...

Whatever it is you are viewing as flawed, it is nevertheless our Catholic teaching. Most likely, those of other faith denominations will not fully understand or agree with Catholicism, but as Warrior Angel reminded non-C's earlier, presentation of your beliefs is not permitted here in OBOB, other than perhaps to inquire.

St_Barnabus said:

Whatever it is you are viewing as flawed, it is nevertheless our Catholic teaching. Most likely, those of other faith denominations will not fully understand or agree with Catholicism, but as Warrior Angel reminded non-C's earlier, presentation of your beliefs is not permitted here in OBOB, other than perhaps to inquire.

Click to expand...

I think this deserves another Qed.

I have not attempted to promote any other belief merely to say that what was being said IMHO appeared severely flawed.

Let me pose a question just to stay within the boundaries.

Do you believe all Catholic teaching is flawless?

If so on what premise?

Thanks.

St_Barnabus said:

I believe I mentioned that water baptism with the bestowing of the Holy Spirit brings a person into the Mystical Body of Christ, although the union is imperfect. Are you speaking about a baptism other than by water? The Church does recognize a "baptism of desire" or "baptism of blood (martyrdom)". However, this is not the norm or the ideal, since Jesus does call all to be baptized in the Church.

The desire for baptism was present in Cornelius in Acts 10, and he received the Holy Spirit prior to his subsequent baptism with water. But God had intended him to become a member of the Church, so this was incomplete. We read that St. Peter then baptized him.

Click to expand...

What I am trying to say in very simple biblical language is that scripture makes it abundantly clear that 'new birth' automatically places you in the Church....eg The Body of Messiah/Christ. There is only the one Body, and the only means of entry is to have your sins washed away/forgiven through Jesus, and to be born again of incorruptible seed eg The Holy Spirit.

There is no indication whatsoever of denominational necessity...but if I am reading you and others correctly (and I think I am)...you are saying that one is born again into the one Church which is the Roman Catholic Church...which comes down to 'authority' and 'authenticity'.

Obviously as a non-Catholic I have never submitted to Catholic teaching per se ...not because of having been indoctrinated from birth which some try to claim (I was saved in my 20's) but because many things do not make sense to me when lined up against Scripture...and the Bereans always checked things against Scripture which was actually a credit to them...never were they accused of a smorgasbord theology that picked and chose whatever fitted their understanding best.

I am sure there is a great feeling of unity and security in Catholics all reading from the same hymn-sheet so to speak...but it carries with it dangers of its own and the possibility of mistakes and mis-understandings being perpetuated for centuries as the mechanism for recognising faults is not really in place...and that would include doctrinal ones.

The title of this thread is 'No salvation outside the Church'....all I have been trying to say is that surely we all know the Church consists every Believer...ergo sum...all Believers are part of the Church...not the Roman Catholic institution, because that is something else.