Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[Alonso_Castillo]

Umm, I see it differently. We agree that the Church is where its at- we agree that no one knows where its not...

we have the means and we know the means but we don't know what the means can be to someone who lacks the means so we don't go around getting all up in the non Catholics grill telling them that they are all going to burn in hell.

Thats the only thing thats changed, we don't get up in their face anymore telling them to convert or burn.

I am sorry but it is clear where is not the church, and the church is not amog those who refuse to enter or remain in her:

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

From Lumen Gentium 8

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

 

[Nick T]

Sorry to but into the debate here but I would like to ask one question regarding this matter:

How exactly does this relate to the idea of valid but illicit sacraments? I have read that Catholics apparently consider Orthodox sacraments to be "valid but illicit" however doesn't this contradict the idea of no salvation outside the Church? I mean how can one have valid sacraments and yet not be saved? Aren't sacraments directly related to salvation?

Please note that I am not criticising the Catholic viewpoint at all; I am merely trying to discern the relationship between these two Catholic beliefs.

 

[St_Barnabus]

Excuse me, but I think you didn't explain how can anyone know that the catholic Church is the Gate to Salvation without mision. and how to make mission without calling to people to know the truth.

From Lumen Gentium:

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

So from your prospective, Do we have to leave in ignorance to those who do not know that the catholic church is the only way known for salvation so they can be saved by their ignorance and not damned by their posible rejection to enter the Church?

Not at all. Did you read CCC's #848 that I just posted.... it clearly stated that obligation. I perceive that your take on this is just to say the truth to whomever, and if they don't accept it immediately when they first hear it, they are doomed.

In the life of St. Elizabeth Seton, and many others who converted, this takes time and a lot of prayerful searching. She had a problem believing in the real presence. Her friend was patient and gradually guided her into truth. We cannot be "in your face" with God's truth, Alonso. Is this how you view yourself? You are giving Catholics a bad rap, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not entering the Church after reading your perspective.

 

[benedictaoo]

where did I say that? We are talking about peoples, individuals not about false religions.

We know they are not true and you can't find heaven with any of them. But the person, God deals with him directly and its between them and he and on what he gives them.

 

[benedictaoo]

Sorry to but into the debate here but I would like to ask one question regarding this matter:

How exactly does this relate to the idea of valid but illicit sacraments? I have read that Catholics apparently consider Orthodox sacraments to be "valid but illicit" however doesn't this contradict the idea of no salvation outside the Church? I mean how can one have valid sacraments and yet not be saved? Aren't sacraments directly related to salvation?

Please note that I am not criticising the Catholic viewpoint at all; I am merely trying to discern the relationship between these two Catholic beliefs.

Illegal means that the one performing them is doing it with out expressed permission.

I don't believ the EO are seen as illicit since they are valid and licit bishoprics who are under valid and licit patriarchies.

Its illicit for us to receive in a EO church while they remain in schism unless its a true emergency and the EO is all that we have.

 

[Nick T]

Illegal means that the one performing them is doing it with out expressed permission.

I don't believ the EO are seen as illicit since they are valid and licit bishoprics who are under valid and licit patriarchies.

Its illicit for us to receive in a EO church while they remain in schism unless its a true emergency and the EO is all that we have.

But if we are valid and licit then doesn't that mean we have salvation yet are outside the Church (from a RC perspective ofc).

In the Catholic understanding does schism have any effect on the validity of our sacraments?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Not at all. Did you read CCC's #848 that I just posted.... it clearly stated that obligation. I perceive that your take on this is just to say the truth to whomever, and if they don't accept it immediately when they first hear it, they are doomed.

In the life of St. Elizabeth Seton, and many others who converted, this takes time and a lot of prayerful searching. She had a problem believing in the real presence. Her friend was patient and gradually guided her into truth. We cannot be "in your face" with God's truth, Alonso. Is this how you view yourself? You are giving Catholics a bad rap, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not entering the Church after reading your perspective.

Ok, I am not saying this position to Protestants, or to EOs, I am saying this things as blunt as they are here between catholics, because who need the streghten their faith are not protestants or EOs, but catholics. If catholics where sure in their faith we would never have heard of EOs or Protestants, They began with catholics who didn't have this things clear. Or that desagree with them.

It is not correct to think that with blunt truths one can get the conversion of others, conversion is always a process either in coming home or in getting out of it. We have to know the truth in order to avoid to fall away from the Catholic Church by knowing what it means to braek with the Church. But it is different to believe that it doesn't matter what "church" is anyone as if they all were the same. Because they are not the same, it is against the truth to say or think so.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

But if we are valid and licit then doesn't that mean we have salvation yet are outside the Church (from a RC perspective ofc).

In the Catholic understanding does schism have any effect on the validity of our sacraments?

Sorry, but We catholics can even be excomunicated if taking your sacraments.

 

[benedictaoo]

But if we are valid and licit then doesn't that mean we have salvation yet are outside the Church (from a RC perspective ofc).

In the Catholic understanding does schism have any effect on the validity of our sacraments?

if they are not true churches, the EO's are so salvation outside of them is more tricky. They have the sacraments, so they have the way to salvation.
Now do they have to be under the pope? if they do not know as a fact the pope is the pope? then its up to God to decide.

 

[benedictaoo]

Sorry, but We catholics can even be excomunicated if taking your sacraments.

EO? not if it was an emergency.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Lord Jesus Christ son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. Father forgive me for causing brother to fight brother, and sister to fight sister.

 

[Nick T]

Sorry, but We catholics can even be excomunicated if taking your sacraments.

That what I thought... its same with us and your sacraments.

Which brings me back to my original question; what exactly does "valid but illicit" (does it apply to the Orthodox?) mean and doesn't it contradict "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus"?

 

[benedictaoo]

sigh.... it means the priest is a vaild priest and a bishop is a vaild bishop but they have left the pope and they have no permission or authority to consecrate and set up shop.

The EO are not seen in this way becuase they are real true churches. The others are self appointed churches who set up shop themselves. They have no said authority or permission to so their sacraments would be vaild if the priest was validly ordained but it would be illicit for them to perform or for us to receive if you are a Catholic.

I have no idea how it would tie into the EO and that document.

 

[St_Barnabus]

Which brings me back to my original question; what exactly does "valid but illicit" (does it apply to the Orthodox?) mean and doesn't it contradict "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus"?

I don't believe it contradicts in light of this teaching from our Catechism. The break occured hundreds of year earliler, and those born into EO are considered brothers, particularly due to your baptism. Baptisms are valid for all denominations and the Holy Spirit is truly bestowed when the trinitarian forumula is performed. As with Protestants who enter our faith and do not require rebaptism, neither would EO converts, if that should occur.

My understanding of your faith is very limited, so beyond that, I cannot comment. Be at peace, brother in Christ!

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."

 

[Nick T]

sigh.... it means the priest is a vaild priest and a bishop is a vaild bishop but they have left the pope and they have no permission or authority to consecrate and set up shop.

The EO are not seen in this way becuase they are real true churches. The others are self appointed churches who set up shop themselves. They have no said authority or permission to so their sacraments would be vaild if the priest was validly ordained but it would be illicit for them to perform or for us to receive if you are a Catholic.

I have no idea how it would tie into the EO and that document.

I don't believe it contradicts in light of this teaching from our Catechism. The break occured hundreds of year earliler, and those born into EO are considered brothers, particularly due to your baptism. Baptisms are valid for all denominations and the Holy Spirit is truly bestowed when the trinitarian forumula is performed. As with Protestants who enter our faith and do not require rebaptism, neither would EO converts, if that should occur.

My understanding of your faith is very limited, so beyond that, I cannot comment. Be at peace, brother in Christ!

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."

Thanks for the info

So to clarify does this mean that it is possible for there to be salvation outside the Catholic Church? If our sacraments are valid then doesn't that make them efficacious?

Its just that I've heard many Catholics say "There is no salvation outside the Church" *full stop* (except for "invincible ignorance" and stuff like that) which is why I was confused by this concept of valid sacraments outside the Church.

 

[benedictaoo]

Have ya read the thread? Do we really need to repeat it?

Does the EO think there is salvation for those who are not EO?

There is your answer... its the same answer.

 

[Nick T]

Have ya read the thread? Do we really need to repeat it?

Does the EO think there is salvation for those who are not EO?

There is your answer... its the same answer.

Thanks

 

[St_Barnabus]

Its just that I've heard many Catholics say "There is no salvation outside the Church" *full stop* (except for "invincible ignorance" and stuff like that) which is why I was confused by this concept of valid sacraments outside the Church.

These Catholics are misinformed for the most part. It is my deepest regret that this thread is continuing with the same type of errors that are a hindrance to understanding and unity among us. The Vatican is working tirelessly in efforts to reconcile our separated churches, the very heart of Christ Himself.

Don't believe everything you hear, but go to the source of truth, the Church's teachings, if you want to learn and not be misled. Our gospel Sunday was from John 4:21 where Jesus said that "one sows, another reaps." We build on the labors of others who worked and taught before us, but the beauty of Jesus's ending words are, "BOTH shall rejoice together at the harvest." May that become a reality some day!

N.B. Without hierarchical communion the ontologico-sacramental function [munus], which is to be distinguished from the juridico-canonical aspect, cannot be exercised. However, the Commission has decided that it should not enter into question of liceity and validity. These questions are left to theologians to discuss—specifically the question of the power exercised de facto among the separated Eastern Churches, about which there are various explanations."
Source Lumen Gentium

The jury is out, Nick.... If the Church has not answered it, neither can we. But your baptism is certainly valid!

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

EO? not if it was an emergency.

that is why I said the we "can even be excomunicated", I didn't used "will be excomunicated", It depends on each case. but in any case we have to confes it. I am must unlikely to take them in any case they are out of comunion and that is a grave state that I don't want to share.

 

[benedictaoo]

The Church welcomes them though but tells them to obey their own rule and discipline which says they can't.

Its not as serious as you make it sound. The reason we can not take them with out a good reason is becuase it would suggest and denote a unity that is not really there...

but from our end, there isn't much wrong with them and the Excommunication was lifted long ago and they are free to come back to us. Free to wine and dine in our churches but becuase its against their rules, they can't.