A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[sparow]

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.​

I do not agree with it, but if it were true it would only be true if the church was not false.

 

[Strong in Him]

Luke 1:48 KJV For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

So why didn't they?
Why did Anna, Simeon, Jesus, Peter and John never call her the blessed one?
There are so many Mary's in the Gospels, why did the writers never write "the women .... and the blessed one?" It's quicker to write "the blessed one" than to write, "Mary, the mother of Jesus", yet no one ever did.
Anna was 84 when Jesus was born, John was an old man when he wrote his Gospel; that must have been at least 2 generations who failed to call her blessed.

The word is an adjective, not a title.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Why did Anna, Simeon, Jesus, Peter and John never call her the blessed one?

Brother Sister, you've mistaken a written silence for an aural absence.

 

[trophy33]

Brother, you've mistaken a written silence for an aural absence.

We do not have silence. We have several early texts about Mary, so we know they did not use the title.

You, on the other hand, are claiming something there is no evidence for (and what contradicts the evidence we have).

 

[Strong in Him]

Brother, you've mistaken a written silence for an aural absence.

a) I'm female.
b) It's rather irritating when you tell me that if something isn't in Scripture, you don't need to bother considering it. Yet when I point out to you that something isn't in Scripture, that's ok because we have good old oral tradition to fall back on.
Some might say it's more than just irritating.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

a) I'm female.
b) It's rather irritating when you tell me that if something isn't in Scripture, you don't need to bother considering it. Yet when I point out to you that something isn't in Scripture, that's ok because we have good old oral tradition to fall back on.
Some might say it's more than just irritating.

It's endearing

By the way, it's the other thread that is about the Blessed Virgin Mary and calling her Blessed as the scriptures teach us to do. This one is about Catholics calling Protestants brethren, separated as it is now, by history and doctrine, but brethren nonetheless.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's endearing

It's hypocritical

By the way, it's the other thread that is about the Blessed Virgin Mary and calling her Blessed as the scriptures teach us to do. This one is about Catholics calling Protestants brethren, separated as it is now, by history and doctrine, but brethren nonetheless.

I know.
But I didn't start it - see posts #375, 381, 385.

Getting back to the OP: a person becomes a Christian, is saved and has eternal life - long before they even get to a church. They may even die before they can get to a church.
Church does not complete, nor add to, a person's salvation.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's hypocritical

Don't be so harsh; my line of argument is consistent. Sacred Tradition need not be written, and calling Mary Blessed is encouraged in the scriptures in Luke 1:28 and Luke 1:48. You ought not take offence when I use both sacred scripture and unwritten sacred tradition in what I say. After all, I have gone more than half the distance between us by reminding you of what the scriptures say. And it is but a short step to the place where the testimony of liturgy and prayer carries us to acknowledge Blessed Mary as the mother of the Lord, Jesus Christ, our God.

But as I said in my last post, this thread is not about titles for Mary or anyone else. It is about Catholics calling our Protestant companions brethren albeit separated from us into their own denominations.

Getting back to the OP: a person becomes a Christian, is saved and has eternal life - long before they even get to a church. They may even die before they can get to a church.
Church does not complete, nor add to, a person's salvation.

You are mistaken, I would not have access to the holy scriptures were it not that the Church preserved them for me up to this day. And I would not have a framework in which to understand them but for the Church as the body of Christ leading me and teaching me how to read them as well as how to worship and pray and enter fellowship with the body of Christ. The Church has given us much, nurtured us, and cared for us as a mother does her children; as in fact Israel once did for the people of God in ages past.

 

[Strong in Him]

Don't be so harsh;

I'm not being harsh.
The argument was; "you have said ....... with no Scripture to back it up, so I'm not listening." When I told you that something you were writing was not Scriptural, suddenly that's ok - because Jesus told Peter, who told Paul, who told somebody else. We can't verify the statement because it wasn't written down - the assumption is that it was in the things which Jesus said which never got recorded.
Either way, you insist on Scripture, whereas I just have to take your word for it.

And you claim that that's endearing.
Not to me, it isn't.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The argument was; "you have said ....... with no Scripture to back it up, so I'm not listening." When I told you that something you were writing was not Scriptural, suddenly that's ok - because Jesus told Peter, who told Paul, who told somebody else. We can't verify the statement because it wasn't written down - the assumption is that it was in the things which Jesus said which never got recorded.
Either way, you insist on Scripture, whereas I just have to take your word for it.

Since Sacred Scripture is a proper subset of Sacred Tradition it follows that what is unsaid in sacred Scripture is completed and filled up with what is said in sacred Tradition. Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition for reliable revelation, you cannot verify it because you do not believe it. That is the root of the dispute you have with me.

 

[Strong in Him]

Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition for reliable revelation, you cannot verify it because you do not believe it.

Whereas some of us rely on God's word.

You're asking me to believe that, though some of your doctrines aren't Scriptural, they're fine because Jesus passed them on to the 12, who taught others, who taught others.
But you can't point to a Scripture to prove it. Oh, did the Holy Spirit forget to inspire that bit? Did he decide that the wider world didn't need to know, only a select few.

And if you ARE saying that it's ok if a teaching isn't Scriptural, don't them have a go at me because I write something that isn't in the Bible.

End of discussion.
Enjoy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

End of discussion.
Enjoy.

I do, but thank you for the good wishes.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Whereas some of us rely on God's word.

You're asking me to believe that, though some of your doctrines aren't Scriptural, they're fine because Jesus passed them on to the 12, who taught others, who taught others.
But you can't point to a Scripture to prove it. Oh, did the Holy Spirit forget to inspire that bit? Did he decide that the wider world didn't need to know, only a select few.

And if you ARE saying that it's ok if a teaching isn't Scriptural, don't them have a go at me because I write something that isn't in the Bible.

End of discussion.
Enjoy.

Many true things are not written in the bible. For example, the formal statement of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is true and it is not written in the bible. As another example, the formal statement of the doctrine of the incarnation is true and it is not written in the bible. One more example, prayers for the dead is true and it is not written in protestant bibles, however it is in Catholic bibles.

 

[Strong in Him]

Many true things are not written in the bible. For example, the formal statement of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is true and it is not written in the bible.

There is no verse which says "this is the Trinity"; true.
But the teaching that there is one God, yet the Father, the Son and the Spirit are all God, is certainly Scriptural.
In the beginning God said .... "let US make men in OUR image", Genesis 1:26. At the tower of Babel he said, "let US go down and confuse their language", Genesis 11:7. And Isaiah heard him say "who will go for US?" Isaiah 6:8. In addition, the Father , the Son and the Spirit were present at creation. The Holy Spirit has always been called the Spirit of the Lord. The Son is the eternal Word; one with God at the beginning, and Jesus was crucified because the Jews knew that he was claiming to be God.
It is definitely a Scriptural doctrine.

As another example, the formal statement of the doctrine of the incarnation is true and it is not written in the bible.

It's very clear from Luke that Mary would be overshadowed by the power of God and her child would be called "Son of the Most High". And John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh and lived among us."
Again, the word "incarnation" is not used, but the doctrine that God came to earth in Jesus is definitely there.

One more example, prayers for the dead is true and it is not written in protestant bibles, however it is in Catholic bibles.

That's not doctrine and it's debateable.
Peter says that the Gospel was preached to the dead (apparently by Jesus while he was in the tomb), 1 Peter 4:6. And Paul says that people were baptised for the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:29.

I'm not sure what you mean by "prayers for the dead", nor what Catholic practice is. Christians who have died don't need our prayers and the Bible does not teach that they pray for us. Though I suspect this will be another teaching that is covered by John 21:25, and you will say that Jesus told his disciples, who passed it on.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's not doctrine and it's debateable.

It is doctrine.

Christians who have died don't need our prayers

I disagree.

Though I suspect this will be another teaching that is covered by John 21:25

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain, some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection. (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
(2 Maccabees 12:39-46 DRB)

John 21:25 is useful when discussing a doctrine with protestants who, generally speaking, think they hold the trump cards when they say "it isn't in the bible!"

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's endearing

By the way, it's the other thread that is about the Blessed Virgin Mary and calling her Blessed as the scriptures teach us to do. This one is about Catholics calling Protestants brethren, separated as it is now, by history and doctrine, but brethren nonetheless.

What does it actually mean when a Catholic refers to another church as an "ecclesial community" but not a church (because there is only one Church, the Catholic Church)? What does it mean for a Catholic to refer to others as brethren? Does it mean that these folks will be entering heaven apart from the Catholic Church? Will they have to undergo a special form of punishment in Purgatory or do they skip Purgatory altogether? Will they have to stand in the rear of heaven while the Catholics get all the best seats?

 

[Strong in Him]

John 21:25 is useful when discussing a doctrine with protestants who, generally speaking, think they hold the trump cards when they say "it isn't in the bible!"

John 21:25 is a cop out and allows for all kinds of teachings that people want (have been told) to hold when there is no Scriptural support for them.

I am fairly sure that if I said something that you didn't like, I'd be asked "where is that in Scripture?" In fact, I know I would, since you once said to me that if it wasn't in Scripture, you didn't need to waste time on it.
Yet you can claim almost anything and expect us to believe that Jesus did say it, and your bishops have inside knowledge. That's Gnosticism - a spiritual "we know something you don't know".

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

John 21:25 is a cop out and allows for all kinds of teachings that people want (have been told) to hold when there is no Scriptural support for them.

I am fairly sure that if I said something that you didn't like, I'd be asked "where is that in Scripture?" In fact, I know I would, since you once said to me that if it wasn't in Scripture, you didn't need to waste time on it.
Yet you can claim almost anything and expect us to believe that Jesus did say it, and your bishops have inside knowledge. That's Gnosticism - a spiritual "we know something you don't know".

well, sir, you do believe in sola scriptura so can you blame me for holding you to your own standards?

 

[Strong in Him]

well, sir, you do believe in sola scriptura so can you blame me for holding you to your own standards?

Firstly, I am not a "sir".
Secondly, Scripture is the authority on doctrine and revelation of God. But if someone were to say "tradition says that John wrote the 4th Gospel", for example; that's fine.
Thirdly, I am saying that if a teaching is not in Scripture I don't believe it/hold to it. You are saying "it might not be in Scripture directly, but it comes under John 21:25" - for any doctrine that your church holds. You have a get out clause for anyone who says that something isn't Scriptural.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Firstly, I am not a "sir".
Secondly, Scripture is the authority on doctrine and revelation of God. But if someone were to say "tradition says that John wrote the 4th Gospel", for example; that's fine.
Thirdly, I am saying that if a teaching is not in Scripture I don't believe it/hold to it. You are saying "it might not be in Scripture directly, but it comes under John 21:25" - for any doctrine that your church holds. You have a get out clause for anyone who says that something isn't Scriptural.

just take 'sir' as inclusive, but sorry for using it.