Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[ebia]

It seems rather bizarre to say that one must visibly be in union of the church to be saved when that very statement is in contradiction to said church and a strain on it's unity.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

I am coming more and more to believe that visible union with the Church is absolutely necessary (I'm border-line Feeneyite I guess).

May I ask what your theological reasons for this are? I don't mean your authority, because you've said that you think this is the doctrine of the Fathers and the Magisterium - but rather, what, in your view, is the theology behind their teaching?

 

[Davidnic]

For those who believe that visible union is necessary how would you define that and if that includes baptism then what is the ramification for unbaptized babies who die before baptism, the stillborn, the miscarried and the aborted.

Because that is theologically connected to the hope of salvation by God's own action. So what constitutes visible union and also where does the extra-sacramental action of God enter into the picture?

 

[Colin]

For those who believe that visible union is necessary how would you define that and if that includes baptism then what is the ramification for unbaptized babies who die before baptism, the stillborn, the miscarried and the aborted.

Also for Baptism of desire .

 

[Davidnic]

Also for Baptism of desire .

Indeed, if a visible union is necessary then people need to discuss how baptism of desire works.

Now, none of this removes both the normative manner of salvation through Christ and His Church and the Sacraments. And, of course, we as Catholics should constantly be proclaiming the faith. But I think any discussion of the outside the Church issue needs to look at the normally excepted issues (Baptism of desire and the like) where we have hope of God working in a different manner and really get into what is a visible union and what is an invisible union.

And there is also the issue of people who have some impediment to visible union but are invisibly although imperfectly united.

 

[benedictaoo]

The truth will set us free.


I am curious about those who use the word "Church" in sense that it is an entity or institution. Is not the "Church" the body of Christ, meaning those who follow Christ ?

Yes and no, East Coast.

Let it be known that one who knows the Catholic Church is true, they can not opt out and pick a non Catholic Church just beceause we all are joined toghther as one loose body.

The Church is BOTH human and Divine, both visible as well as mystical. There isn't any dichotomy, its both.

Yeah the human side of the institution has its problems but that does not discredit the fact that it is the one and only visible Church God gave to us and it still teaches the truth 100% even though its teachers doesn't follow it themselves... a lot of their students doesn't either.

Other congregations and so called apostolic churches (except the EO) are self created self appointed churches becuase they could not assent.

So you don't want to find yourself in that boat as hard as it may be to accept the human side of the divine institution becuase we do not have that option if we KNOW the Church is true. We just have to put up with the human's side faults.

 

[benedictaoo]

I would assume this applies to the many Catholics who left the "'Institutional" church because they felt it to be corrupted, i.e., Sex abuse scandals and continued cover-up, parish closings and pension scandals. The reason I mention this, is that I know many who still practice their faith in Christ, but decided to do that apart from the edifice of the brick and mortar church and corporate structure.

I know their faith to be as real as the next person's and that they believe this to be right and proper before Christ.

But its not an institutional church and it never was. Its the TRUE Divine institution who is run by men (who else is going to run it while Jesus is with God?) who did bad things and this has been since day one.

No one says other ppl can't practice a true faith outside the Catholic Church and love the Lord becuase they can... but if you were born a Catholic and you know this is the Church historically and objectively, that is Christ's own then you can't walk away with out answering for it. And you surly will answer for leading others away from it. (that is not to imply you are doing that).

However, and this is the crucial critical part so read carefully everyone, for some ppl who were/are hurt that deeply and its legitimate and vaild and real and they were seriously wronged by the men of the Church, they may have developed a bias they may not be able to over come which then might not be their fault and again, only God knows if their bias can't be over come. We just can not judge.

So as usual, it boils down to your heart and the things in life that has shaped its decisions and circumstances. and we can't even judge ourselves let alone someone else.

But going around and saying all these other faiths are just as good and we have an option to choose and it doesn't matter, blah, blah, blah is not correct. We really don't have the option to choose. It may be something that can't be helped for a individual but its not something all of us or anyone of us can choose.

 

[benedictaoo]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does exactly what it says on the tin. There is absolutely no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Church from day one. It is found in the Scriptures, the writings of the Saints, the Popes and the documents from various councils.

Once, I accepted a rather broad interpretation of this. By that I mean visible unity with the Church is not always absolutely necessary (by virtue of baptism, everyone becomes a member of the Church and subject to the Roman Pontiff) and that through ignorance and through no fault of their own having not come into visible communion then they may find salvation. Today I am not so sure. I am coming more and more to believe that visible union with the Church is absolutely necessary (I'm border-line Feeneyite I guess).

I don't understand why with some ppl it has to be one extreme or the other?

No, these other congregations are not true churches and they are not vaild churches. Its their baptism that is true and vaild and its the ppl who are true and vaild and what ever they teach that is true is what is true and vaild but the over all teachings and practices of these congregations and so call apostolic churches (except the EO) are not legitimate churches. These ppl will be saved in spite of them following error not becuase of it. They will be saved because God loves them and becuase they love God and did the best they could in all sincerity with what they had.

So, the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary in the respect that she is the Church that all these other faiths and denominations all took their truth from. That she is the faith in which all others broke from. With out this the Catholic Church, there'd be no other "church". No one would be saved, no one would have any truth. They know the truth becuase it was the Catholic Church who preached it to all nations making believers out of all nations.

 

[Basil the Great]

I have yet to verify what was told to me by one Catholic poster on another message board during an EENS discussion, despite numerous Google searches. He told me that some Catholic theologians have theorized that Protestants will go to Limbo, instead of Heaven, since they are not members of the visible Catholic Church. I would assume that such theologians existed prior to the Vatican II teaching on salvation for non-Catholics, but he did not expand on his statement, so I do not know the time period of these theologians.

As for Limbo, while the doctrine is no longer being non-infallibly taught by the Church, neither has the Church outright rejected the doctrine. It is still quite possible that there is in reality a place referred to by Church Fathers and saints as Limbo or "the outer edge of Hell". For those non-Catholics who visit this thread, Limbo is the place that it was formerly non-infallibly taught that unbaptized babies would spend eternity. Personally, while I am not a Catholic, I tend to believe that some sort of Limbo state probably does exist.

 

[St_Barnabus]

He told me that some Catholic theologians have theorized that Protestants will go to Limbo, instead of Heaven, since they are not members of the visible Catholic Church.

This cannot be true simply because Protestants are baptized, and therefore the Church recognizes them as part of the Mystical Body of the Church, though not in full communion. That would not preclude them from going to heaven. What will keep all of us - Catholics, Jews, Protestants, et al - from going to heaven is personal unrepented serious sin. None are excepted, regardless of being baptized.

You are likely to read many personal opinions on the internet, many of which are just peoples' own ideas when they haven't done the research. There used to be a theory that unbaptized babies went to "Limbo" [an undefined place of happiness, but not heaven itself] since the old concept of EENS would debar them from heaven. That is no longer being taught or understood by theologians, in light of deeper insights - many of which are clearly defined in documents from V-II. In fact, many centuries ago, Thomas Aquinas gave us the beautiful teaching on baptism of desire that also provided exceptions to EENS.

 

[benedictaoo]

I have yet to verify what was told to me by one Catholic poster on another message board during an EENS discussion, despite numerous Google searches. He told me that some Catholic theologians have theorized that Protestants will go to Limbo, instead of Heaven, since they are not members of the visible Catholic Church. I would assume that such theologians existed prior to the Vatican II teaching on salvation for non-Catholics, but he did not expand on his statement, so I do not know the time period of these theologians.

As for Limbo, while the doctrine is no longer being non-infallibly taught by the Church, neither has the Church outright rejected the doctrine. It is still quite possible that there is in reality a place referred to by Church Fathers and saints as Limbo or "the outer edge of Hell". For those non-Catholics who visit this thread, Limbo is the place that it was formerly non-infallibly taught that unbaptized babies would spend eternity. Personally, while I am not a Catholic, I tend to believe that some sort of Limbo state probably does exist.

As I understand it, Limbo isn't in limbo anymore. Benedict said some stuff about it. It never was dogmatic but speculation, if I'm right.

We can believe in it or not (if I'm correct) but no, baptized persons do not go there. Babies and others may go there who wasn't baptized and who was not capable of choosing anything, evil or good. God or not.

Protestants and the EO might have to go through purgatory until they can fully accept the Catholic Church as being the true Church. I don't really know.

all i do know is love covers a multitude of sin, if we die with love of God and a true sorrow for ever hurting and offending him we are all (anyone) forgiven of everything and purified of everything.

 

[Basil the Great]

As I understand it, Limbo isn't in limbo anymore. Benedict said some stuff about it. It never was dogmatic but speculation, if I'm right.

We can believe in it or not (if I'm correct) but no, baptized persons do not go there. Babies and others may go there who wasn't baptized and who was not capable of choosing anything, evil or good. God or not.

Protestants and the EO might have to go through purgatory until they can fully accept the Catholic Church as being the true Church. I don't really know.

all i do know is love covers a multitude of sin, if we die with love of God and a true sorrow for ever hurting and offending him we are all (anyone) forgiven of everything and purified of everything.

benedictaoo - Your last statement above is probably the most beautiful and most profound at the same time, of any statement I have every read on Christian Forums and it does make a lot of sense. It may truly come down to the love of God in the end.

Meanwhile, "Limbo isn't in limbo anymore" certainly is worth a hearty laugh and that is good they say.

 

[St_Barnabus]

Many of us probably remember the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, but for those who haven't read it, there are some important points to consider.

Jesus had earlier given the mission to the apostles to go to the lost sheep of Israel, although we know after His resurrection, He sent them to evangelize all men. Peter apparently still had difficulty with this, so God had to send him a vision - not once, but three times due to its importance. Peter had responded during these visions that he could not partake of anything common or unclean. But God spoke to him, "What God has cleansed, do not thou call common."

Cornelius was simply a gentile centurion, but in his heart, he lived the natural law in such perfection that he found favor with God. Nevertheless, he would be deemed 'common and unclean' for the jewish Peter.

As God often does with His perfect timing, when Peter was pondering the meaning of the visions, a knock came at his door. The Spirit told him to go with the men, for God had sent them to Peter. While Peter was giving his discourse after he arrived at Cornelius' home, the Holy Spirit fell upon the whole household of this centurion.

This was the signal to Peter to bestow water baptism, for without a doubt, he knew God had bestowed His Spirt on them - WITHOUT having been baptized yet. The importance of this passage is significant! "God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him." Acts 10:35

We see in this example that the natural law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15) is absolutely effective for salvation, for when God's Spirit indwells a person, no matter how the Spirit is bestowed, whether by the Church, or by God, who are any of us to deny the truth?

 

[benedictaoo]

Benedict XVI on Limbo - The words of Cardinal Ratzinger on Limbo

Basil, Here is something for you to look at.

IMO what the pope (Ratzinger then) is saying is if you want to not believe it, you don't have to. Don't feel like you have to believe it. but you can as long as no one says its a matter of faith that we have to believe in. Its not, its pure speculation. If you want to believe in it. That's you're prerogative.

The important thing to know is that baptism is what saves and we should never think anyone can forgo it.

Limbo is the theory that for the unbaptized who never had a chance or was unable to accept or reject Christ, who never rejected original sin being removed from them, went to a place of bliss, not in God's face to face presence but a 'happy' place non the less.

Its a theory, Benedict personally doesn't believe in it- some do. I can accept that as a possibility, personally. It does give us a possible explanation for what happens to the unbaptized innocents.

What is unacceptable is the non Catholics who believe a baby doesn't need it Because they go to heaven anyway- that is blatant error thus limbo is a theory offered becuase we know you have to be baptized, you can't not- not be baptized. Its the way we come to the Father through Christ. So instead of saying they go to heaven anyway because a baby does not need baptism, we say they go to limbo. Instead of saying they go to hell because they weren't baptized and babies needs it, we say they go to limbo.


Now there is a truth, not a theory but a truth that there is a baptism of desire in which if you never received baptism through fault of yours but you would have, you are saved by that desire. That requires cognitive ability through... or does it? we do not know.

However, can this apply to infants and others who have not developed rational or cognitive abilities? We don't know. Ergo- Limbo.

The real truth be told, Christ and is apostles was silent on the matter and so is the Church. What they were not silent on is their (babies) need for baptism and the sacraments being for children also but they were silent on what happens to the unbaptized innocents who can not choose or reject.

Its even possible to think they go to hell as another speculative belief but I don't know any Christian in their right mind who'd believe that seeing how they are not guilty of any committed evil. Is being born with original sin enough to send you to hell or does God intervene when it comes to innocent beings who have no way to choose evil or the truth?

St Augustine said, God is just, he can save a person with out any good works, he is merciful, he can not condemn a person wit any committed evil.

But there isn't an official belief about this so just believe what you wish but believe and do not disbelieve in the importance of infant baptism.

 

[benedictaoo]

Many of us probably remember the story of Cornelius in Acts 10, but for those who haven't read it, there are some important points to consider.

Jesus had earlier given the mission to the apostles to go to the lost sheep of Israel, although we know after His resurrection, He sent them to evangelize all men. Peter apparently still had difficulty with this, so God had to send him a vision - not once, but three times due to its importance. Peter had responded during these visions that he could not partake of anything common or unclean. But God spoke to him, "What God has cleansed, do not thou call common."

Cornelius was simply a gentile centurion, but in his heart, he lived the natural law in such perfection that he found favor with God. Nevertheless, he would be deemed 'common and unclean' for the jewish Peter.

As God often does with His perfect timing, when Peter was pondering the meaning of the visions, a knock came at his door. The Spirit told him to go with the men, for God had sent them to Peter. While Peter was giving his discourse after he arrived at Cornelius' home, the Holy Spirit fell upon the whole household of this centurion.

This was the signal to Peter to bestow water baptism, for without a doubt, he knew God had bestowed His Spirt on them - WITHOUT having been baptized yet. The importance of this passage is significant! "God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him." Acts 10:35

We see in this example that the natural law written on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15) is absolutely effective for salvation, for when God's Spirit indwells a person, no matter how the Spirit is bestowed, whether by the Church, or by God, who are any of us to deny the truth?

Good point to make.

Here is how I am able to rationalize the teacings that seem to contradict each other.

God can do what he wants... lol.

In the early Church no one was baptizing babies and raising them Catholics. So God had to pour his Spirit on certain ppl to get the ball rolling. Jews and non Jews alike.

Once the ball was rolling, then ppl baptized their kids and raised them as believers and the graces flowed from the sacraments.

What is wrong are te non Catholics who will read the bible and say "Ha!" being born again comes first and you baptized as just a way to show what God had already done by you accepting it.

mmm, no. it means that God had to wake up some ppl in order to get the ball rolling.

So can God do it now? Sure. But in no way we are to assume He will when you have every means at your disposal to follow the Church and baptize.

It just needs to be understood that we are not to assume we can ignore the Church just becuase we know God can save us with out it.

Catholics can not either assume they are forgiven all their sins outside of confession. Just because God can forgiven them outside of confession and does for non Catholics, don't mean He will for us and we shouldn't think we can bank on Him to do it anyway.

We all will be judged based on what we know.

 

[St_Barnabus]

This story was on a non-catholic religious program last week and it made me think about God's mercy for these infants who were not baptized.

A young boy had died for a short time before being resuscitated. He told his mother that he saw his little sister in heaven. Due to his young age, he had no way of knowing about his mother's previous miscarriage, yet he was sharing his knowledge of it with his mother after he came back to life. He told her that he knew she was in mommy's tummy but did not live.

Whether or not we can fully trust these after death stories is debatable. But when I consider the words of St. Faustina about some souls at the point of death being given the opportunity to accept God, I won't say it cannot happen that way. Nor does it bother me that there was not sufficient mental development at the time of death. That pertains only to the body, not the soul.

When we are resurrected with our new bodies, who knows what they will be? Will we resurrect at the age of an undeveloped fetus? Or will we keep the body of a 90-year old if that's when we died? All we know is that whenever God breathes forth a soul (at conception), that body, however imperfect in formation, will be resurrected along with its soul in the age to come. I seriously doubt that God will confine them to a separate place (Limbo) for all eternity, apart from the parents and family to which God intended for them to live. As Bene said, we just don't know - God has not committed that to us in Revelation.

Profound thoughts for so early in the morning, huh?

 

[benedictaoo]

I had "heard" that we all will be around 33. ?? don't know if that true or not.

Its one of these "eyes has not seen" things. We have no way of knowing.

If the blind sees in heaven and the cripple walk and the deaf mute speaks, then why can't the cognitive limited person or baby be able to think?

I assume babies grow in the knowledge of God...

 

[St_Barnabus]

It just needs to be understood that we are not to assume we can ignore the Church just becuase we know God can save us with out it.

Absolutely! That's what we call "presumption" which is forbidden along with its opposite "despair." I'm sure you've heard of Catholics and non-catholics who say, "I can worship God at home - I don't need the Church."

 

[St_Barnabus]

What is wrong are the non Catholics who will read the bible and say "Ha!" being born again comes first and you baptized as just a way to show what God had already done by you accepting it.

I almost missed this in your post, Bene. With Cornelius and his family, there was no such thing as being born again first, for he had not accepted "being born again" at the moment when Peter was speaking. Yet the Spirit came upon them ... anyway! My guess is that God saw their hearts which were probably filled with desire (another form of baptism) for the faith Peter was preaching, and He poured out His Spirit upon them without their asking for it. This was helpful for Peter, who realized finally the true meaning of the vision.

We'll have to remember this whenever a non-catholic attempts to say that "born again" comes first. God has so many ways of trumping our finite minds. Praise and glory to Him!

 

[ebia]

God has so many ways of trumping our finite minds. Praise and glory to Him!

QFT