A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[Iuxta Crucem Lacrimosa]

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.

Precisely, and this is where a distinction between heretics and separated brethren has to be made. Heretics grew up in the church and knew her theology, but decided to follow their own ideas and fragile mind into a willful rejection of the Holy Spirit. Hubris took the place of the Holy Spirit in their mind.

Misguided and separated brethren don’t share in on the heretics knowledge, disobedience nor hubris. They are Protestants through “no fault of their own”.

 

[ozso]

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.

That's the whole point of being a Christian.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's the whole point of being a Christian.

Errors can be forgiven, patient instruction can correct error. But constant wilful disobedience to the teaching of Christ is sin that is not repented of, and this may lead to destruction even when the one doing it says, "I am a Christian".

 

[ozso]

Errors can be forgiven, patient instruction can correct error. But constant wilful disobedience to the teaching of Christ is sin that is not repented of, and this may lead to destruction even when the one doing it says, "I am a Christian".

Agreed. I actually hold pretty much the same view of that as Catholics I've read in the Soteriology section. To me the point of my being a Christian is earnestly striving towards holiness. What the Orthodox call Theosis. I don't know if that or a similar term is used in Catholicism.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Agreed. I actually hold pretty much the same view of that as Catholics I've read in the Soteriology section. To me the point of my being a Christian is earnestly striving towards holiness. What the Orthodox call Theosis. I don't know if that or a similar term is used in Catholicism.

Theosis is used in Catholic circles.

 

[Valletta]

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.

That judgment is left to Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"‘A man cannot have God as his Father if he does not have the Church as his Mother’ (On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 6). So wrote Saint Cyprian; and to him this seemed an evident truth, because he could not think of God and the Church apart from one another. God is salvation, and God’s saving power is mediated to man in His Body, the Church. ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church’ (G. Florovsky, ‘Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church,’ in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: ‘How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!’ (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a ‘visible’ and an ‘invisible Church,’ yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say" - Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church

I do not consider St. Cyprian's statement troubling or problematic. Since the Church is the sacred vehicle of God's salvation, then it seems self-evidently true that salvation does not exist outside of the Church. This does not mean, as Met. Kallistos Ware of blessed memory says, that salvation is impossible for someone who is not visibly a member of the Church; nor does it mean that mere visible membership of the Church is saved.

While Met. Ware is advocating for the Orthodox view of the Church, and is rejecting what is commonly viewed as a Protestant distinction between a visible and invisible church; I actually don't find what he says here to be problematic or contrary to my own Lutheran convictions.

The key difference, as I see it as a Lutheran, is how we define the Church. As a Lutheran the chief article on the Church is that the Church is to be understood as the Christian people--and they are marked as the Christian people because of Word and Sacrament. The Church does not derive her identity in her bishops (rather her bishops serve under the Church, rather than over her, their authority coming from Christ through His Church), but in her faith, and her confession of God's Word. Where the Gospel is preached, where the Sacraments are administered, where Christ reigns as Lord, King, and Head--this is His Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

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. ​

Christ is present in me through his Holy Spirit.
He promised the disciples that he would not leave them as orphans, he would send his Spirit, John 14:18. He told the crowds at the festival that whoever came to him, streams of living water would flow from them, John 7:38 - by which he meant the Spirit, John 7:39. The Spirit was poured out on all at Pentecost. The Spirit, not the church, is Christ in us.

Are you, or the CC, saying that Jesus can only be present with, and save, us through the Church?

 

[fhansen]

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.​

Christ established only one church, through and in which the truths He revealed are preserved and passed down. We wouldn’t even have the bible without that church and Christianity would be a minor footnote in history at best without it. Christians are all part of it, and of its legacy, whether we acknowledge this or not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Christ established only one church, through and in which the truths He revealed are preserved and passed down. We wouldn’t even have the bible without that church and Christianity would be a minor footnote in history at best without it. Christians are all part of it, and of its legacy, whether we acknowledge this or not.

Saint Paul said that there is

One body [the Church which is Christ's body]and
one Spirit:
as you are called in one hope of your calling.
One Lord,
one faith,
one baptism.
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.​

Ephesians 4:4-6 DRB

It is a truth from apostolic times; those who deny it may as well deny the inspiration of the holy scriptures.

 

[Strong in Him]

Christ established only one church, through and in which the truths He revealed are preserved and passed down.

He didn't establish a church, he said "I will build my church".
That started with the 11 disciples who were told to go and make disciples and to be his witnesses. They were empowered to do that on the day of Pentecost and the church in Jerusalem grew. When the Apostles were scattered through persecution, they took the Gospel with them - to Greece, Egypt, Rome etc. Tradition says that Thomas went to India.
All these local and overseas congregations were all part of one church.

 

[Strong in Him]

Saint Paul said that there is

One body [the Church which is Christ's body]and ​

one Spirit: ​

as you are called in one hope of your calling. ​

One Lord, ​

one faith, ​

one baptism. ​

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.​

Ephesians 4:4-6 DRB

Yes, there is one church - THE church is all believers.
Christians who have received Jesus, confess him as Lord and Saviour, love him and serve him are THE church, which is the bride of Christ.

 

[fhansen]

He didn't establish a church, he said "I will build my church".
That started with the 11 disciples who were told to go and make disciples and to be his witnesses. They were empowered to do that on the day of Pentecost and the church in Jerusalem grew. When the Apostles were scattered through persecution, they took the Gospel with them - to Greece, Egypt, Rome etc. Tradition says that Thomas went to India.
All these local and overseas congregations were all part of one church.

I'd read more of church/Christian history: the ECFs especially-and Eusebius- to get a true idea about what they thought of church, about the teachings of the church, the church that would go on to decide on the canon of Scripture. There were something like 28 gospels extant at the time. Have you ever wondered why your bible has four? Or why the canon of the new testament in general is what it is? The same church combatted heresies including Arianism, hammering out the Nicene creed and the basic tenets of the Trinity and the nature of Christ that most Christians hold to today. And yet Arianism was arguably the most popular position for centuries-and continued to be even after the council that condemned it was held. But the truth was maintained and the church would not compromise-and it persisted, a group of imperfect, weak vessels, bishops of the churches spread throughout the east and west who were guided by the Holy Spirit and the faith they'd received from the beginning that was passed down to them.

The alternative is a free-for-all, as we have now to a great extent with many disagreeing with each other based on Scripture alone, rather than hearing from the church and its legacy as well. We're all birthed by that church, whether we bite the hand that's fed us or not. One faith, one baptism, not a variety of beliefs, with some not even recognizing the regenerative purpose of baptism even though this matter was never even controversial in the historic church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, there is one church - THE church is all believers.

Saint Paul had a much more definite idea of what the church was, he wrote letters to the church.

Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Like the churches in the Roman Province of Galatia.

CCC 422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.' This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God': God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.

CCC 484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time", the time of the fulfilment of God's promises and preparations. Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily". The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?", was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."

CCC 488 "God sent forth his Son", but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, "a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary": The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'd read more of church/Christian history: the ECFs especially-and Eusebius- to get a true idea about what they thought of church, about the teachings of the church, the church that would go on to decide on the canon of Scripture. There were something like 28 gospels extant at the time. Have you ever wondered why your bible has four?

What's that got to do with the fact that Jesus said "I will build my church", and that THE church is all believers?

 

[Strong in Him]

Saint Paul had a much more definite idea of what the church was, he wrote letters to the church.

Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

Like the churches in the Roman Province of Galatia.

CCC 422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.' This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God': God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.

Jesus was born of Mary and it is through Jesus we are saved; yes.
THE church is all believers - all those who have accepted salvation and eternal life through Jesus, who is the only way to the Father.

 

[fhansen]

What's that got to do with the fact that Jesus said "I will build my church", and that THE church is all believers?

Believers are more or less perfectly joined to Christ and His church based on their beliefs. Arian had faith but it was corrupted away from the truth to one degree or another. The church is central to the survival of Christianity-as God created it to be. What would Christianity be without the new Testament, for example?? Or does it matter whether or not Jesus is fully God? Why didn't Arianism win out? Many, many Christians, including leaders of those times, followed Arian. Athanasius of Alexandria, one of the most revered of Christian saints, was a chief, stalwart opponent of Arianism, but he was banned from his own diocese five times due to his position which was considered heretical by the presiding bishop. It was as if he was fighting the whole world in his defense of the true faith, which finally won out- in the church, which sat at council many times to decide on and then continue confirming true doctrine..

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

THE church is all believers

So you say, but saint Paul has a much more definite definition of what the church is. He is not one to use vague phrases like "all believers". He is far more specific.

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.​

1 Timothy 3:14-16 DRB

What a protestant means by church - you say "all believers" - and what a Catholic means is significantly different; the Catholic position is the one that saint Paul uses in his letters.

The sweeping difference between the two meanings of the word church is, well, alarming, especially in light of Christ’s priestly prayer for unity in which he prayed “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). The fact is that, no matter what one’s definition of “the Church” is, we all know that it is not “one” as Christ prayed. For most Catholics, I suspect, hearing such a dialogue is bittersweet; conversion to Christ is indeed cause for “Amen,” but until we all agree on what constitutes “the Church,” we have much to discuss and pray for.​

​

The question of unity is not the concern of the Catholic Church alone; it is one that has occupied the minds of many good Protestant thinkers as well. In 1907 a gathering was held in Shanghai of all the Protestant denominations under the banner “Unum in Christo.” The meeting was to establish a union of all Protestant missionaries, for they understood then that the native Chinese would not accept a religion that professed so many different creeds. They were correct: China, for the most part, did not accept Christianity, and the reason expressed most was that a religion that is divided is “not a good religion.” This, the Protestant leaders in Shanghai agreed, was a good reason for unity.​

[From Catholic Answers]
...

In a nutshell, Catholic theology holds that the multiplicity of separated churches must be absorbed by the one existing Catholic Church. As Fr. Ratzinger states, the Catholic Church “recognizes a plurality of churches. It has, however, a different meaning from the plurality of Professor Schlink” (Theological Highlights, 71). “Plurality” is quite different from the idea of “pluralism.” It is possible to refer to several “churches” while maintaining a correct understanding of “the Church.” First, we can talk about local churches. In the post-apostolic age, the Church Fathers refer to the church in Athens, in Rome, in Corinth, and so forth. Likewise, today we refer to the American church, the German church, the Chinese church, or the Latin American church. Indeed, wherever a local community with a bishop is gathered around the altar of the Lord, this, too, may be called a “church.” St. Ignatius of Antioch said, “Where the bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church.”​

[From Catholic Answers]

 

[Strong in Him]

Believers are more or less perfectly joined to Christ and His church based on their beliefs.

Believers are joined to Christ if they believe:
that he died for their sins - i.e they can't get to heaven through anything that they do, only through Jesus.
that Jesus gives eternal life.
that he lay down his life so that they could be forgiven and reconciled to God.
People are drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit who gives new life - i.e. they are born again.

Arian had faith

The devil has faith that there is one God. But he will never repent and accept Jesus.

The church is central to the survival of Christianity-as God created it to be.

No, Jesus is central.
A person cannot become a believer without Jesus - not possible.
A person could become a believer and seldom, or never, go to church. They would miss out on a lot of teaching and fellowship, but would still be saved and belong to Christ.

What would Christianity be without the new Testament, for example?? Or does it matter whether or not Jesus is fully God?

Of course the NT, and in fact the Bible, is important. The OT prophesied Jesus' coming, ministry and death, the Gospels tell us that it happened and the epistles tell us how to work out, live and apply our faith in Christ.

 

[Strong in Him]

So you say, but saint Paul has a much more definite definition of what the church is. He is not one to use vague phrases like "all believers". He is far more specific.

Paul wrote letters to various churches.
He addresses the Roman Christians as "all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people".
He writes to the church in Corinth, "to the church of God in Corinth; those sanctified by Christ Jesus," 1 Corinthians 1:2 and "to the church of God in Corinth, together with all God's holy people", 2 Corinthians 1:1.
He writes to, "God's holy people in Ephesus; the faithful in Christ Jesus.", Ephesians 1:1.
To the Philippians, "to all God's holy people in Christ Jesus in Philippi".
Colossians, "to God's holy people in Colossae".
And to the Thessalonians, "to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ", 1 Thessalonians 1:1.

Who are church members? Those who are loved by God, belong to God, are holy, faithful and who are in Christ Jesus.

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed in the world, is taken up in glory.​

1 Timothy 3:14-16 DRB

Yes - and?
He was writing that to Timothy, to an individual, not to a church.

What a protestant means by church - you say "all believers" - and what a Catholic means is significantly different; the Catholic position is the one that saint Paul uses in his letters.

You mean the ones where he addresses church members as being holy, faithful, loved by God?
In his letter to the Corinthians Paul also says that believers are God's temple, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19. And Peter says that we are living stones being built into s spiritual house, 1 Peter 2:5.

The sweeping difference between the two meanings of the word church is, well, alarming, especially in light of Christ’s priestly prayer for unity in which he prayed “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). The fact is that, no matter what one’s definition of “the Church” is, we all know that it is not “one” as Christ prayed. ​

We are one in our faith in God - one God, one Saviour, one Spirit, one Gospel.
Jesus, who was both God and man, died for our sins, was raised again, ascended to his Father and sent his Spirit at Pentecost. Salvation is through Jesus alone - Acts 4:12.
Protestants do not believe a different Gospel; that someone else saves or that we have to be good enough or do good works to earn God's love.

I have said it a number of times before: if someone was standing over us with a gun, asked "are you a Christian?" the only options would be "yes" or "no". They wouldn't be interested in "ah, well, we need to know how you define Christian", or "well we accept the Council of ...... but that group over there don't".
It's the same in the NT; if you're not for Jesus, you're against him. If you're not of the Spirit, you're of the flesh; if you're not walking in the light, you're in the darkness.

You might not like the idea that Protestants believe in the same God and the same Gospel as Catholics, but that's how it is.