Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[SolomonVII]

I ask because in all honesty I have only seen most Catholics kinda dodge the question. Plus it seems like a fun convo to watch and read. *shrugs*

I think at the beginning of the Reformation era, this statement on salvation was quite literally directed at anyone who did not receive the sacraments from the authoritative Church.

The understanding over the years has become more nuanced.

Sacraments are a parachute that are available for Catholics to survive the Fall. They provide us with assurance. As we see others involved in the fall, often whizzing past us, but others seemingly to be floating down more gently too, the revelation has become that even as we know where salvation is, we are not so fully aware of where it is not.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is more infinite that he was assumed to be by Catholic authorities in years gone by.

But yea, not having a valid priesthood administering valid sacraments such as Reconciliation and Communion to the individual was and is still a very big deal for Catholicism. There is a great deal of assurance in these acts of grace. It is often hard for Catholics to imagine salvation without them, even now.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

However, if the CF Administrative staff accept my thesis, then that might be a third reason for them to kill the thread, as the rumor has it that most of the CF Administrative staff are Protestants. If this would be the real reason to kill the thread though, it would be a very sad day indeed.

I would be very discouraged by this to be perfectly honest about it, I mean this is Catholic doctrine/teaching that is being discussed within our own subforum. This is our place here on CF, why can we not have the freedom to discuss such things? If such a thing were to occur then logically, Protestant couldn't discuss such things either because it may make Catholics think this and that and want to convert. The reverse could be true and the forum should strive to be fair. Protestants don't have to come here or read our threads. Or, if they do and disagree then they can copy quotes from this thread, make their own thread in their own denomination's subforum and discuss it there and confirm their own base beliefs or post it in GT and let the bloodbath begin. There is multiple options and since we are discussing salvation here and the Catholic doctrine/teachings thereof, I think this is very important and we should have the freedom to do so.

I know where you probably stand, it's just, if the admins do read this, I hope they will consider this and not act rashly.

 

[ebia]

This is from? Can you cite the source of this quote?

Vat II

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Quite frankly, while many here might be hesitant to see a thorough discussion of the EENS salvation doctrine, based upon my voluminous research into the subject, I think that a very detailed discussion of EENS would get a few CF Protestant posters seriously thinking about the possibility that their salvation might depend upon converting and becoming a member of either the RCC or the EO Church.

EO Church is not place to find salvation, not even tradition.

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. Is quite valid this days, it is in the CCC quoted from Lumen Gentium from 2ndVC.

Heretics and schismatics who knowing that The Church of Christs is the catholic church in comunion with Rome, refuse to enter it, can not be saved. And Catholics who even being baptized inside of the catholic church, if ever they refuse to remain in the catholic Church can't be saved. Salvation is by obedience not by following one self concience or believes. You can get it or refuse it, that is your problem, not mine, you are playing with your salvation not with mine.

 

[Colin]

Heretics and schismatics who knowing that The Church of Christs is the catholic church in comunion with Rome, refuse to enter it, can not be saved.

That does not say that outide the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation .

Because it is so open to misunderstanding I would never use the term that outside the church there is no salvation .

There is a danger in such phrases of bringing misguided Roman Catholics to focus their interest and love on the church as an institution rather than on the person Of Jesus Christ . We do not live for the church but for Christ . The church is not the chief thing we live for , devote our lives to . That position is occupied by Christ . We are disciples of a Master more than members of an institution .

I would prefer to say that apart from Christ there is no salvation . But here again I would have to qualify the phrase so many times that it is perhaps better to speak another way .

There is salvation outside of a visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church .

There is salvation for those who have never come to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ .

The last two come about through Jesus Christ , and through Him alone .

 

[QuantaCura]

Actually, it was during the Reformation era when more explicit explanations concerning non-Catholics being saved were developed, since so many simple individuals were led astray, Calvin was denying the universal salvific will of God, and the New World was being discovered. This is when St. Robert Bellarmine first developed the distinction--or at least the terminology--between belonging to the Church "in re" (in actuality) and belonging "in voto." (by desire). St. Peter Canisius and Cardinal Cajetan also made great strides in this era. Most importantly, it was in this era that the possibility of receiving saving grave without receiving actual baptism was solemnly defined, both by the Council of Trent itself and by St. Pius V in Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, his solemn condemnations of the errors of Baius.

But these things were affirmed before Trent as well by Fathers such St. Justin Martyr, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, etc., etc. It was taught in the medieval era by Popes Innocent II and Innocent III, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bridget, St. Albert, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.

The three main definitions of the dogma at issue, from the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence, and Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctam have always been understood this way by the Church. We can't interpret dogmas differently than they have always been--to do so is Modernism.

As an aside, just to show those definitions are still valid, here is what Pope John Paul II said in an allocution:

"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 (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351)."
All Salvation Comes through Christ

The error is limiting ourselves to only these definitions, as Bl. Pius IX explained:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." (Tuas libenter, Dz 1683).

Vatican II affirmed the same thing. When speaking of the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics it cites the following letter from the Holy Office (now CDF) under Pius XII which I think explains this matter well:

APPENDIX E: The First “Ottaviani Intervention”

 

[ebia]

Catechism references 818 - 848

 

[QuantaCura]

I just wanted to add that being wrong does not necessarily make one the kind of heretic who is completely cut off from the life of the Church, and therefore cannot be saved. St. Augustine explained:

1. The Apostle Paul has said: A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 43 (St. Augustine)

 

[St_Barnabus]

Admittedly, I am no scholar but, as previously stated, I am inclined to believe this.

Edit: I am ready to dive head first into this and again, I am unaware of VCII possibly disagreeing with the doctrine.

That's why this is a hot-button topic, Andrew. Your entire post is pre-Vatican II. Many ultra-conservative traditionalists refuse to accept the Council's teaching and have separated themselves into schismatic chapels, or else they remain in the Body of Christ, but cling steadfastly to the narrow interpretation as written in your post.

QuantaCura provided the understanding from which Vatican Council II promulgated its teaching on this matter, since Feeneyism [as it came to be called] was the serious error that was brought to the Vatican's attention a few years before the Council. I quote from Q.C."s link:

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.

 

[St_Barnabus]

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. Is quite valid this days, it is in the CCC quoted from Lumen Gentium from 2ndVC.

The danger is taking a true statement out of context to make it agree with one's perception. You stopped short with the CCC paragraph but failed to included these very important CCC paragraphs, also taken from Vatican II: Ad Gentes (848) and Unitatis Redintegratio (818).

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

There is yet another CCC paragraph taken from Lumen Gentium that is also important to review during this discussion:

870 "The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines"(LG 8).

 

[St_Barnabus]

This is from? Can you cite the source of this quote?

Ebia mentioned that the quote was from Vatican II, but the specific reference is from Unitatis Redintegratio, Ch. 1, Section 3, Paragraph 4.

 

[benedictaoo]

I don't understand why this would even be a topic. No salvation outside the Church means in very simple terms, if any one is saved (when they die, not before) its becuase of Christ.

Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, man on the moon, if he makes it to heaven, it was solely becuase of Christ and no other.

Now the question is, how did he make it to the point where Christ's merits were applied to him?

Some Catholics will say, you have to be a Catholic, others will say you have to accept Jesus formally by asking Him to come into your heart to live before you die.

IMO, neither statement is really true. The Catholic faith is the faith that saves, but its how we understand what that means.

Catholics have the straight path where we know exactly "how" to be saved and one would have to be a moron to not know how they can be saved if they are Catholic. We are unique in the sense, we have what it takes to be great Saints and reach a high degree of holiness, spend less time in purgatory and have the greater amount of glory in heaven.

and Catholics, becuase they have been given the deposit of faith, they will be expected to follow that faith. It's harder for us.

Christians are next, they will be given more slack then us becuase they do not have the full teaching that leads them but they have enough and they will be held to it.

Non Christian, much less will be expected of them becuase they don't know.

In ways only known to God (none of us) He can apply Christ merits to them based on them following what ever light He afforded them.

Jews have a differnt set up all together... but salvation for them is through Christ as well.

People just do not understand, its that final, etched in stone rejection of God's goodness and mercy and what ever grace He gave to you, that was made possible by Christ, is what seals a perosn's fate.

Christ died and rose and opened up heaven in a general sense not just a individual sense. He died for the world. Salvation is by Him and for the world. Not just special people.

So becuase its for the world, God can, if He so desires, He can give anyone, no matter who it is, enough grace that they can ultimately be saved by.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

That does not say that outide the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation .

Because it is so open to misunderstanding I would never use the term that outside the church there is no salvation .

There is a danger in such phrases of bringing misguided Roman Catholics to focus their interest and love on the church as an institution rather than on the person Of Jesus Christ . We do not live for the church but for Christ . The church is not the chief thing we live for , devote our lives to . That position is occupied by Christ . We are disciples of a Master more than members of an institution .

I would prefer to say that apart from Christ there is no salvation . But here again I would have to qualify the phrase so many times that it is perhaps better to speak another way .

There is salvation outside of a visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church .

There is salvation for those who have never come to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ .

The last two come about through Jesus Christ , and through Him alone .

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, do you get it or not?, You can´t love the Catholic Church without Christ, that is pointless, as pointless is to love Christ and hate the Catholic Church, because everybody knows of Christ because the Catholic Church has anounced him everywhere in all times, from the begining with the Apostles preach. We, the Catholic Church, have compiled the Bible from the books we recived from the hands of the very apostles and evangelists who spread our Chuch in the erlier times.

So your afirmation that We most focus only in Christ Despite any Church is against tradition and constitutes the schismatic spirit and the origin of all heresies.

 

[Rhamiel]

can you love Christ but hate the Church?
the Church is the body of Christ

it is possible if someone never heard about the Church, or if they have been warped in such a way that their mind will not even let them think about joining the Church

but how can we say that the average non-catholic is saved?
I do not say this lightly, I am not making any judgments...
I just feel that people take this too lightly

 

[Colin]

The Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is more infinite that he was assumed to be by Catholic authorities in years gone by.

That is an important point .

The discovery of new lands outside of the Old World has played a part in this .

Also scientific discoveries of the universe have influenced our concepts of Christ . The immensity of the universe is mind-blowing . The boundlessness of the One who is the source of this fantastic wonder is beyond words which can do Him justice .

 

[St_Barnabus]

but how can we say that the average non-catholic is saved?

Who makes that claim, Rhamiel? The Church Herself does not claim that the average Catholic will be saved, either. There is the issue of free will and sin for every human person. What the Church teaches is that a baptized non-catholic is part of the mystical Body of Christ, although imperfectly and not in full communion. Baptism confers the Holy Spirit, and therefore, it is possible for them to be saved if they follow their conscience to the best of their ability.

Today's gospel was a beautiful reminder that Jesus wants to embrace all men in one body united to Him. The woman He met at the well was a Samaritan, known as apostates from Judaism, and despised by Jews. Not only that, but she was a sinner. That did not prevent Jesus from reaching out to her, and we must follow in His footsteps as prudently as possible with the Spirit's help and grace.
The end of the story is encouraging, for the Samaritan apostates to whom she told her story returned to listen to Jesus and were converted.

Also from today's gospel,
"For here the saying is verified that ‘One sows and another reaps.’
I sent you to reap what you have not worked for;
others have done the work, and you are sharing the fruits of their work.”

 

[Basil the Great]

Being most careful to narrowly restrict my remarks, it seems to me that there is a world of difference in discussing the EENS doctrine, in regards to two different issues. One issue deals with those in mostly non-Christian nations who have no real knowledge of the Gospel or the Catholic Church. Many Hindus, Buddhists, and some Muslims, depending upon the nation, would fall into this category. The other issue deals with Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Jews who certainly have knowledge of the Gospel, as well as the Catholic Church. During my research, I found that some Ultra-Traditionalists discerned a difference between the two issues and that some of them felt that God might spare a few of those that have never heard of the Gospel or the Catholic Church's claim to be the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind. Myself, I also noticed a difference between the two issues, as I was sifting through the teachings of saints and Church Fathers. Having said that, there is still some evidence to the contrary, since the third and most specific of the three infallible Papal Bulls excludes pagans from salvation. Nevertheless, the bulk of the writings from saints and Church Fathers deals with schismatics (Eastern Orthodox), heretics (Protestants) and Jews.

 

[StThomasMore]

I am unaware of this topic being "disallowed," or being a "hot button," topic but I am inclined to say yes, I do believe in this.

"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" (Matthew 25:41), 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.

"It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."-Pope Boniface I.

"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."-St. Gregory the Great.

"I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."-Pope Sylvester II.

Admittedly, I am no scholar but, as previously stated, I am inclined to believe this.

Edit: I am ready to dive head first into this and again, I am unaware of VCII possibly disagreeing with the doctrine.

great quote by Pope Boniface I. Give that for the EO to chew on, lol

 

[Basil the Great]

As evidence that the Ultra-Traditional interpretation of EENS still exists, even though it is probably fairly rare since Vatican II, I refer you back to the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado. I happened across an Ultra-Traditional Catholic message board while doing my EENS research and they were discussing whether or not a Protestant girl who professed her faith in Christ as she was shot to death would have a chance of going to Heaven. The group consensus was, based upon the wording of the third of the three infallible Papal Bulls that deal with salvation, that unless she prayed to God to make her a Catholic as she was dying, that she would go to Hell. Now I am sure that this attitude in these days of Modernism is quite rare, but it does still exist.

 

[St_Barnabus]

During my research, I found that some Ultra-Traditionalists discerned a difference between the two issues and that some of them felt that God might spare a few of those that have never heard of the Gospel or the Catholic Church's claim to be the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind.

Do you agree with 'some of them' Basil? Or do you have questions about what the Church truly teaches in our present day, notwithstanding the three papal bulls you mentioned. I am wondering if you have difficulty accepting anything beyond these Bulls, saints, and Church Fathers. It almost appears that you are not open to further teachings from Vatican II. Yet Thomas Aquinas was rather clear about this, as well. Have you read him yet?

Myself, I also noticed a difference between the two issues, as I was sifting through the teachings of saints and Church Fathers. Having said that, there is still some evidence to the contrary, since the third and most specific of the three infallible Papal Bulls excludes pagans from salvation.