A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[Xeno.of.athens]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

What does it mean? Does it mean that non-Catholic Christians are doomed?

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.​

CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 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 conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.​

 

[Philip_B]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

Outside the Church, there is no Salvation!

1. One way this has been understood is with a view that unless you are part of the Church there is no possibility of Salvation. In the West, this has often meant specifically part of that part of the Church in Communion with the see of Rome. This has come to take on a very exclusivist sense of meaning. This is a narrow understanding of the principle.
   
   
2. Another way this has been understood is that participation in salvation accords one membership of the Church. This is a view that sees faithful Israel as part of the Church. This view sees the penitent thief as part of the Church. This view sees many members of many denominations as part of the Church. This is a generous and wider understanding of the principle.

Now I have certainly heard Catholic Theologians move to understand the CCC in a more generous and wider concept, and I have certainly known here is CF and much more exclusvist and narrow understanding of the principle.

The idea comes from the post-apostolic and pre-conciliar period of Church History and as such the institutional fragmentation we live with was not the experience of Christians.

Gregory of Nazianzus took a rather broad view in his understanding of membership in the body of Christ. In the funeral oration for his father's death in 374, Gregory stated: "He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life". In other words, by their charity of life, they are united to Christians in Christ, even before they explicitly believe in Christ. Fulgentius of Ruspe took a much stricter view: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".​

​

Jerome wrote: "This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails". Bede continues this theme: "And according to this sense the ark is manifestly the Church, Noah the Lord who builds the Church".​

​

Augustine of Hippo made numerous remarks in response to adversaries, often on opposite sides of this issue, once saying: "Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father". He could also pick up on the sayings of the Fathers, and be completely inclusive in his assessment: "All together we are members of Christ and are his body [...] throughout the world [...] from Abel the just until the end of time [...] whoever among the just made his passage throughout this life, whether now [...] or in the generations to come, all the just are this one body of Christ, and individually his members"​

​

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In the West, this has often meant specifically part of that part of the Church in Communion with the see of Rome. This has come to take on a very exclusivist sense of meaning.

I think this is a Protestant reading of its meaning; an erroneous one.

 

[concretecamper]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

Considering the following Dogmas of the Church

For children before the age of reason the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation

The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation


I would tend to believe the meaning is more narrow than popularly believed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Considering the following Dogmas of the Church

For children before the age of reason the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation

Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation

The Sacramental confession of sins is ordained by God and is necessary for salvation


I would tend to believe the meaning is more narrow than popularly believed.

It is quite narrow for those who are Catholics and who have been blessed with knowledge of the things you mention. But for the separated brethren in the protestant denominations who have been taught otherwise it is wider insofar as they neglect those necessary things through no fault of their own.

 

[Philip_B]

I think this is a Protestant reading of its meaning; an erroneous one.

I agree with you, clearly preferring a more generous reading. I can't say that I regard it as a Protestant reading, as I have largely heard it from RCC members, not specifically theologians from that tradition.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can't say that I regard it as a Protestant reading, as I have largely heard it from RCC members, not specifically theologians from that tradition.

The main question I've been asked by cradle Catholics is "Why do Baptists hate us?" which, I think, says something about their experience with relatives, friends, and an occasional stranger from some kind of Baptist like background.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

What does it mean? Does it mean that non-Catholic Christians are doomed?

CCC 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.​

CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: 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 conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.​

Is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by John Paul II on October 11, 1992?

 

[Ceallaigh]

The main question I've been asked by cradle Catholics is "Why do Baptists hate us?" which, I think, says something about their experience with relatives, friends, and an occasional stranger from some kind of Baptist like background.

I think it's more like Baptists hate all of the extrabiblical dogma of the RCC. And like what you posted from the CCC, it seems I often hear something along the lines of, 'that's what it sounds like, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It is quite narrow for those who are Catholics and who have been blessed with knowledge of the things you mention. But for the separated brethren in the protestant denominations who have been taught otherwise it is wider insofar as they neglect those necessary things through no fault of their own.

What about Eastern Orthodox?

Also "through no fault of their own" sounds rather ambiguous. It seems to me that would pertain to the proverbial person living in some remote part of the world who has no access whatsoever to the information needed.

Whereas those who do have access to the information ie those living in the modern world of libraries, the internet, and RCC churchs but don't access that readily available info are guilty of wilful ignorance.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Is this from the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by John Paul II on October 11, 1992?

It is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church drawing from the documents of the second Vatican Council which ended in 1965. Specifically from this section:

7. In the human nature united to Himself the Son of God, by overcoming death through His own death and resurrection, redeemed man and re-moulded him into a new creation.(50) By communicating His Spirit, Christ made His brothers, called together from all nations, mystically the components of His own Body.​

​

In that Body the life of Christ is poured into the believers who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified.(6*) Through Baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body".(51) In this sacred rite a oneness with Christ's death and resurrection is both symbolized and brought about: "For we were buried with Him by means of Baptism into death"; and if "we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, we shall be so in the likeness of His resurrection also".(52) Really partaking of the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with Him and with one another. "Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread".(53) In this way all of us are made members of His Body,(54) "but severally members one of another".(55)​

​

As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also are the faithful in Christ.(56) Also, in the building up of Christ's Body various members and functions have their part to play. There is only one Spirit who, according to His own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives His different gifts for the welfare of the Church.(57) What has a special place among these gifts is the grace of the apostles to whose authority the Spirit Himself subjected even those who were endowed with charisms.(58) Giving the body unity through Himself and through His power and inner joining of the members, this same Spirit produces and urges love among the believers. From all this it follows that if one member endures anything, all the members co-endure it, and if one member is honoured, all the members together rejoice.(59)​

​

The Head of this Body is Christ. He is the image of the invisible God and in Him all things came into being. He is before all creatures and in Him all things hold together. He is the head of the Body which is the Church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the first place.(60) By the greatness of His power He rules the things in heaven and the things on earth, and with His all-surpassing perfection and way of acting He fills the whole body with the riches of His glory.​

​

All the members ought to be moulded in the likeness of Him, until Christ be formed in them.(62) For this reason we, who have been made to conform with Him, who have died with Him and risen with Him, are taken up into the mysteries of His life, until we will reign together with Him.(63) On earth, still as pilgrims in a strange land, tracing in trial and in oppression the paths He trod, we are made one with His sufferings like the body is one with the Head, suffering with Him, that with Him we may be glorified.(64)​

​

From Him "the whole body, supplied and built up by joints and ligaments, attains a growth that is of God".(65) He continually distributes in His body, that is, in the Church, gifts of ministries in which, by His own power, we serve each other unto salvation so that, carrying out the truth in love, we might through all things grow unto Him who is our Head.(66)​

​

In order that we might be unceasingly renewed in Him,(67) He has shared with us His Spirit who, existing as one and the same being in the Head and in the members, gives life to, unifies and moves through the whole body. This He does in such a way that His work could be compared by the holy Fathers with the function which the principle of life, that is, the soul, fulfils in the human body.(8*)​

​

Christ loves the Church as His bride, having become the model of a man loving his wife as his body;(68) the Church, indeed, is subject to its Head.(69) "Because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily",(70) He fills the Church, which is His body and His fullness, with His divine gifts (71) so that it may expand and reach all the fullness of God.(72)​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I think it's more like Baptists hate all of the extrabiblical dogma of the RCC.

It never helps when one interlocutor in a conversation is unjustifiably convinced of the evil intent of the other.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What about Eastern Orthodox?

Let the Orthodox worry about the Orthodox, their deposit of faith is far richer and deeper and much closer to the Catholic faith than is common among Independent Protestants and many Protestant denominations where the ancient faith is largely eschewed as "human traditions".

 

[Ceallaigh]

It never helps when one interlocutor in a conversation is unjustifiably convinced of the evil intent of the other.

I'm explaining what I think their view is, rather than giving my personal view. Or trying to attack.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Let the Orthodox worry about the Orthodox, their deposit of faith is far richer and deeper and much closer to the Catholic faith than is common among Independent Protestants and many Protestant denominations where the ancient faith is largely eschewed as "human traditions".

I'm sorry I asked that. Because I'm more curious about the other matter I brought up. Please take note that I'm not trying to attack. I'm seeking a clearer perspective.

"Through no fault of their own" sounds rather ambiguous. It seems to me that would pertain to the proverbial person living in some remote part of the world who has no access whatsoever to the information needed.

Whereas those who do have access to the information ie those living in the modern world of libraries, the internet, and RCC churchs but don't access that readily available info are guilty of wilful ignorance.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

"Through no fault of their own" sounds rather ambiguous.

Anyone brought up in a faith tradition that bases itself on the teachings of one or another of the "reformers" is unlikely to know the meaning of the sacramental life and so it is no fault on their part when they, through the teaching that they have received, embrace doctrines that the Catholic Church rejects as error.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Anyone brought up in a faith tradition that bases itself on the teachings of one or another of the "reformers" is unlikely to know the meaning of the sacramental life and so it is no fault on their part when they, through the teaching that they have received, embrace doctrines that the Catholic Church rejects as error.

So they aren't obligated to learn how to become a Roman Catholic?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So they aren't obligated to learn how to become a Roman Catholic?

Obligated? No, I do not think so, but they are called to pursue holiness, and that implies learning to know God in as deep a way as possible.

 

[concretecamper]

But for the separated brethren in the protestant denominations who have been taught otherwise it is wider insofar as they neglect those necessary things through no fault of their own.

Invincible ignorance is a pretty high bar.

 

[concretecamper]

Anyone brought up in a faith tradition that bases itself on the teachings of one or another of the "reformers" is unlikely to know the meaning of the sacramental life and so it is no fault on their part when they, through the teaching that they have received, embrace doctrines that the Catholic Church rejects as error.

This example you give is not invincible ignorance.