Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

St_Barnabus · Mar 28, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
St_Barnabus said:

No, Rhamiel. None of these quotes came from a pope or a council.

Click to expand...

I believe both I and StThomasMoore posted quotes from various Popes, ex cathedra in the case of Pope Eugene IV, so why do you say this?

I responded to Qoheleth's post here wherein he asked whether or not those specific quotes in his post were from popes or councils. They were not. I answered him correctly.

Your last post quoted popes from 1215-1441. I assume you failed to understand that these were issued prior to the Reformation when there was only one faith, Catholic, or none at all.

I am puzzled why you were able to do the research to pull these quotes, but are handicapped with regard to researching the many articles that have explained the reason they do not apply to our present world. It occurs to me that you may have confined your research to radical traditionalist websites that are heretical and eager to tear down the Church, and I won't even name them here.

Possibly, too, you entered conversations on other forums and are merely repeating the quotes which are full of sophistry and lack of true application because these posters prefer to cling to their wrong understanding rather than submit to the Church's teaching in the second Vatican Council.

I saw no evidence of questions from you that gave a hint of your trying to learn; on the contrary, it seems that you were attempting to dissuade the reader when documents posted from V-II became evident. No questions from you about these, either. QuantaCura posted a most excellent explanation to which you may have learned some truth - again, nothing but your own rebuttal from pre-Reformation popes. In brief,

QuantaCura said:
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”

Should I say a third time that we must understand these documents regarding EENS as the Church understands them?

Continue if you will, but the forum rules are specific. If you do not agree with them and wish others to believe EENS in its rigoristic application, then you oppose none of us, but the Church Herself. And, yes, that is reportable. Since this website is not exclusively Catholic and the likelihood of other visitors from the many faiths who post here are liable to obtain false information about the Catholic position, we are under a more strict obligation to post the truth and avoid scandalizing them, particularly with regard to this doctrine.

benedictaoo · Mar 28, 2011

Basil the Great said:
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.

Wasn't the document written before there was even a such thing as a Protestant?

I think Vatican ll and the 1994 Catechism cleared everything up.

benedictaoo · Mar 28, 2011

Basil the Great said:
I have seen a wide difference of opinoin among Catholics when it comes to describing "invincible ignorance", as it applies to Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. Some seem to apply it in a narrow manner and others in a broad manner.

and the sad thing is, its really only God who can judge and ppl act like they can.. its something we can't speculate.

Theres also the Divine Mercy devotion which is only a devotion but still... its one that s worthy of belief.

Theres a speculation that everyone will be afforded the grace needed to accept God just prior their death.

This is what I do not understand, we know what the sin that can not be forgiven is and that is willful rejection.

At the end of the day, for us all, no matter who we are, its only through willful rejection of te truth, non repentance for sin is what condemns.

So we have no idea what God gives to a person and what a person accepts or rejects just prior to death.

Its why we leave them to the mercy of God.

benedictaoo · Mar 28, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
I believe both I and StThomasMoore posted quotes from various Popes, ex cathedra in the case of Pope Eugene IV, so why do you say this?

Edit:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."-Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."-Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.

"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, 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, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.

Vatican ll and the 94 CCC puts it all into context given this ever changing world.

You can not apply these bulls in this world today, there weren't even Protestants then.

JohntheTheologian · Mar 28, 2011

Qoheleth85 said:
But Christ made the Church
if someone has full use of their falculties and decides NOT to be part of Christs Church
if someone has the ability to be part of the Church and decide not to
then how can we say anything but "this person wants hell and damnation"

If someone knows that a Church is the true Church, then yes, they can wilfully reject it with the consequences you describe. But this doesn't solve the problem, as any non-Catholics don't recognise the Roman communion as the True Church. There is a difference between knowing that Rome claims to be the True Church, and knowing that Rome is the True Church.

I can see that if one knew that Rome was the True Church, and refused to join her, that there would be consequences. But what about those who are never convinced that this is so?

benedictaoo · Mar 28, 2011

JohntheTheologian said:
If someone knows that a Church is the true Church, then yes, they can wilfully reject it with the consequences you describe. But this doesn't solve the problem, as any non-Catholics don't recognise the Roman communion as the True Church. There is a difference between knowing that Rome claims to be the True Church, and knowing that Rome is the True Church.

I can see that if one knew that Rome was the True Church, and refused to join her, that there would be consequences. But what about those who are never convinced that this is so?

Exactly and that is an apostate, to apostatize KNOWING 100% in full with out a doubt that the Catholic Church is the true Church and you leave the Church knowing what you are leaving.

I would dare say, that the devil is behind that- that they more so willfully are following Satan with the knowledge that they are.

Because what Christan would leave it knowing it's Christ's Church? Who would hate her is one who has given themselves to the devil.

But on the other hand, maybe not something so sinister as that, maybe an attachment to sin is so strong they can not assent to Catholicism even though they know its true. They rather the sin over God.

Maybe its the "rules" one can not abide by and the Protestant sects are more easier to follow so they follow that instead thinking its just as good because its still a part of the universal Church.

Who the heck knows why a person chooses what they do? Which is why talking about this is pointless, we can't read hearts, minds, or a soul. Only God can.

We can not judge and should not speculate. Just know God's mercy is more then we can ever know in this life and one just never knows the power of His mercy and love and so when a person dies, we leave them to God.

What I find more problematic than Catholic teaching on this is some of the Protestant teachings.

*If* you don't get on the knees and say the sinners prayer and accept in a formal manner, giving your life to Christ, you will automatically burn in hell.

That is what I think is messed up. and its not really that differnt from the ancient papal bulls.

St_Barnabus · Mar 28, 2011

Andrew Ryan,

If as you say, you are trying to learn rather than teach, I have an assignment to help you. So far, everything you have quoted from the popes is right out of the Feeneyite propaganda used to substantiate their error. You didn't miss a single one of them, leading me to believe that's where you got your false reasoning.

Let me just note that the material from St. Fulgentius of Ruspe whom you quoted is dated 523-526 A.D. The assignment is to read the rebuttals to these quotes all in one lengthly treatise here. It will save me a lot of time typing answers for all of your errors. A couple examples are pertinent excerpts below.

In responding to the passage attributed to St. Fulgentius, Fr. William A. Most, theology professor at the Notre Dame Apostolic Catechetical Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, draws attention to two separate items. First of all, he claims, there are at least three conditions that need to be filled before one can claim something in the Patristic writings is authoritative. First, the Fathers must be nearly unanimous on the subject in question at least one time in history. Second, they must admit to be relating something they themselves have received from the beginning; that is, from Christ and the Apostles. Finally, the Church must check the proposed finding against the entire deposit of faith, of which she is the custodian and judge. (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15, 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14).

Cardinal Ratzinger said:
We must remember that this expression was formulated by St. Cyprian in the third century in a quite concrete situation. There were those who thought they were better Christians who were unhappy with the Church of bishops and separated themselves from her. In answer to that, Cyprian says: separation from the Church community separates one from salvation. But he did not mean to lay down a theory on the eternal fate of all baptized and non-baptized persons (quoted in "Ratzinger Speaks," <The Catholic World Report>, January 1994, p. 23).

Finally, regarding your quote:

"Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism."-St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise on Rebaptism.

Did you fail to realize that the Holy Spirit is truly bestowed in baptisms of non-catholics? Therefore, this quote made prior to the Reformation is totally irrelevant. The Church today recognizes the baptisms of other faiths as valid, which is why we do not rebaptize converts when they enter the Church.

benedictaoo · Mar 28, 2011

Context, context, context... the Church is not black and white but many shades of grey.

Davidnic · Mar 28, 2011

Andrew, It is important to note that pre-reformation theology on some issues (Such as the Holy Spirit and Sacraments) does not take into account that there would be a different Christian group that did not have valid apostolic succession and would deny the Sacraments in many ways. So the references in those times to those outside the Church refer to non-Christians.

In fact, a look at how the Sacraments function does show the Holy Spirit can be present "outside the Church" as God wills. It is not the normative and valid way of things but some of what you quote can not be applied to other Christians as if they were non-Christians. And it also can not be applied to modern day Protestants, due to what the Church requires for formal heresy and schism and the fact that the Church states such a judgement can not be applied to modern day Protestants wholesale.

St_Barnabus · Mar 28, 2011

Andrew Ryan,

One more assignment if you are still willing to learn. This link shows the development of this doctrine and the Church's understanding all the way through the ages up to now.

It is only in harmony with the Magisterium of today that magisterial texts of yesterday may be rightly understood.

Be assured, these are not the only links I can offer you. There are many more, should you still have questions.

Gwendolyn · Mar 28, 2011

Vatican II saw the Church move from an exclusivist model of salvation - no one except Catholics will be saved - to an inclusivist model - Catholics have the surest way to salvation, but God can also save whoever He wants, Catholic or not.

You really have to take into account the discussions surrounding Vatican II, because - like it or not - the teaching developed differently. Also read Karl Rahner concerning anonymous Christians. His theology contributed a lot.

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

St_Barnabus said:
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.

Yes, if the Tridentine formula for baptizing is used then that one who is baptized enters into the mystical body of Chtist. However, if the so baptized refuses to enter in full comunion with the Catholic Church that one is excluding himself from the Body and blood of the Lord without whch nobody can be saved.

St_Barnabus · Mar 28, 2011

Yes, if the Tridentine formula for baptizing is used then that one who is baptized enters into the mystical body of Chtist. However, if the so baptized refuses to enter in full comunion with the Catholic Church that one is excluding himself from the Body and blood of the Lord without whch nobody can be saved.

Alonzo, are you saying that a christian who is baptized, albeit in a tridentine formula, must still enter the Catholic Church? How could they, if they were raised to believe their faith is valid and do NOT know that the Catholic Church is the true faith?

These can attain salvation according to the V-II teachings, and we still have a duty to try and bring them into the faith, but without coersion. See Mystici Corporus Christi for this concept.

104. Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.
Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the "faith without which it is impossible to please God" is an entirely free "submission of intellect and will."
Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

Basil the Great said:
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.

I do believe that EENS has different prospectives, we have to differenciate between Open Rejection and Ignorance. Those who are in Open Rejection have no chance for salvation, because they have set themselves apart from the Body and blood of the Lord. But, those who because of their ignorance are outside of the Catholic Church have an excuse and the judgement upon them may be less hard. Yet their situation is dangerous, because they lack of the Grace of the Sacraments by which we recive the forgiveness and the strenght to persevere in the Lord.

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

St_Barnabus said:
Alonzo, are you saying that a christian who is baptized, albeit in a tridentine formula, must still enter the Catholic Church? How could they, if they were raised to believe their faith is valid and do NOT know that the CATHOLIC Church is the true faith?

These can attain salvation according to the V-II teachings, and we still have a duty to try and bring them into the faith, but without coersion. See Mystici Corporus Christi for this concept.

Such ignorance constitutes the result and core of our Sin of omision, we catholics are failing in telling everyone outside the church that the only Church stablished by the Lord, where he left the sacraments necesary for salvation, is The Catholic Church. The very urgence of the missions is this, no one can be saved without comunion with the Lord in his Mystical Body. If we are not saying this to every one outside the Church we are in Sin, the sin of omision.

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act.

Sure, We cannot force any one to believe, We have to tell everybody that if they do not believe, they are in danger, they are risking their souls to be damned forever, one thing is phisycal, laboral, economical, educational, coercion and other thing is omision of the truth, we cannot use any way of coercion to make someone to do something in what such one doesn't believe, but we can't stop telling openly that the only way for salvation is the Lord , and that to obey the Lord we have to enter in communion with his mystical body, the Catholic Church.

QuantaCura · Mar 28, 2011

Gwendolyn said:
Vatican II saw the Church move from an exclusivist model of salvation - no one except Catholics will be saved - to an inclusivist model - Catholics have the surest way to salvation, but God can also save whoever He wants, Catholic or not.

I don't think this is true. Read the old dogmatic theology manuals from the centuries before the Council. They all affirm the same thing as Vatican II on the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics--same with the schema on the Church from Vatican I.

As I said in my previous post, the idea of belong "in voto" to the Church was developed by St. Robert Bellarmine, hundreds of years before Vatican II.

What changed is there has spread a presumption that everyone who believes religious error is in good faith. This is from Modernism--which affirmed that all religious beliefs welled up from a religious spirit and are evidence of an authentic response to God and certain Liberals/Naturalists who claimed the Catholic faith was not credible and who denied the supernatural aids to conversion: the grace of God which enlightens and draws men to the truth and conversion.

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

QuantaCura said:
...

My sign has more saints than yours

I agree with you.

St_Barnabus · Mar 28, 2011

Alonso Castillo said:
no one can be saved without comunion with the Lord in his Mystical Body. If we are not saying this to every one outside the Church we are in Sin, the sin of omision.

But a baptized person is already within the mystical body... even though imperfectly. While we may attempt to share the faith with others, it is certainly not a sin that puts us out of grace, if we fail to do so. Pretty broad brush stroke there, Alonso. Surely you have heard the famous words of St. Francis to preach the faith, using words if you "have to." The example of a good and virtuous life is powerful.

There are other means of salvation besides formal physical entry into the Mystical Body as a Catholic. This is what you are failing to hear. Do you not accept the teachings of V-II which specifically state those exceptions? They are posted in brief paragraphs from the Catechism elsewhere in this very thread. Kindly brush up and consider that you are doing harm by attributing these false teachings to the Church. Shall we talk about the sin of scandal?

Alonso_Castillo · Mar 28, 2011

St_Barnabus said:
But a baptized person is already in the mystical body... even though imperfectly. While we do not neglect to share the faith with others, it is certainly not a sin, per se, that puts us out of grace. Pretty broad brush stroke there, Alonso.

There are other means of salvation besides formal physical entry into the Mystical Body as a Catholic. This is what you are failing to hear. Do you not accept the teachings of V-II which specifically state those exceptions? They are posted in brief paragraphs from the Catechism elsewhere in this very thread. Kindly brush up and consider that you are doing harm by attributing these false teachings to the Church. Shall we talk about the sin of scandal?

John 6, 54

And so, Jesus said to them: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you will not have life in
you.

Vatican II, and the Catechism never said that there are other ways of salvation, they said that whether the Lord may save others outside of the church, they don't know.

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

Secular Carmelite OCDS

Legend

Legend

Legend

Newbie

Legend

Secular Carmelite OCDS

Legend

Well-Known Member

Secular Carmelite OCDS

back in black

Newbie

Secular Carmelite OCDS

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Rejoice always.

Newbie

Secular Carmelite OCDS

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency