Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[shunyadragon]

This a serious focused thread on the topic of Extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the Roman Church. A previous thread "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" was relegated to the 'Lonney Bin room with buttons on the walls for possible numerous reasons as not focused on the specific to topic. Please stay on subject and avoid Trollish post and other meaningless air-balls

Source: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comm...why-hes-wrong/

Many view Pope Francis as moderate liberal Pope endorsing a broader more embracing universal view that includes other churches as a part of the universal fold of Christianity. But . . . all popes are obligated to give their Extra ecclesiam nulla salus address to the faithful and Pope Francis give his, and the Protestants booed as usual. All popes are first and foremost endorse the basic fundamental doctrines and dogmas of Roman Church regardless of their personal views, and the Roman Church does not change.

[firstfloor]

Pope John Paul II

"Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation" (Redemptoris Missio).

[One Bad Pig]

Many view Pope Francis as moderate liberal Pope endorsing a broader more embracing universal view that includes other churches as a part of the universal fold of Christianity. But . . . all popes are obligated to give their Extra ecclesiam nulla salus address to the faithful and Pope Francis give his, and the Protestants booed as usual.

It might be helpful to see what Pope Francis actually said. In principle, Protestants agree with Extra ecclesiam nulla salus; they merely differ on the boundaries. Depending on what Pope Francis actually said, his words could be construed to be a more embracing view.

All popes are first and foremost endorse the basic fundamental doctrines and dogmas of Roman Church regardless of their personal views, and the Roman Church does not change.

Sort of, depending on your definition of the "basic fundamental doctrines and dogmas." Limbo, for example, is no longer Roman dogma. The reason Rome is no longer part of Orthodoxy is because Rome changed, and Rome continued to change (papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.).

[psstein]

Limbo has never been an official doctrine. Purgatory, on the other hand, is and remains to be.

[shunyadragon]

It might be helpful to see what Pope Francis actually said. In principle, Protestants agree with Extra ecclesiam nulla salus; they merely differ on the boundaries. Depending on what Pope Francis actually said, his words could be construed to be a more embracing view.

I believe the boundaries of the Roman Church are clear. There is not salvation outside the church. Need some citation to support your assertions. I will cite some more specific documents of the Roman Church on this in later posts

Sort of, depending on your definition of the "basic fundamental doctrines and dogmas." Limbo, for example, is no longer Roman dogma. The reason Rome is no longer part of Orthodoxy is because Rome changed, and Rome continued to change (papal infallibility, Immaculate Conception, etc.).

Actually the concept of change is actually a bait and switch slight of hand shell game in the Roman Church. For example; First, the concept of limbo is not an official doctrine nor dogma of the Church. It was never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Second, it is considered still a belief and a possibility. Depending on who cites and interprets which part of the document to determine what he said. Basically it was described as a condition of the soul and not a place by Pope Benedict XVI. It is best to read the original documents and not third hand popular media. Pope Benedict stated there is "no explicit answer" from tradition and scripture.

I do not believe the concept of papal infallibility and Immaculate Conception have been significantly changed. I will work on actual citations from the Church documents.

[One Bad Pig]

I believe the boundaries of the Roman Church are clear. There is not salvation outside the church. Need some citation to support your assertions. I will cite some more specific documents of the Roman Church on this in later posts

You need a citation for the Protestant concept of the invisible church? And my request is for what Pope Francis actually said, in context. I am generally aware of Rome's teachings in general.

Actually the concept of change is actually a bait and switch slight of hand shell game in the Roman Church. For example; First, the concept of limbo is not an official doctrine nor dogma of the Church. It was never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Second, it is considered still a belief and a possibility. Depending on who cites and interprets which part of the document to determine what he said. Basically it was described as a condition of the soul and not a place by Pope Benedict XVI. It is best to read the original documents and not third hand popular media. Pope Benedict stated there is "no explicit answer" from tradition and scripture.

In other words, it is not, in your opinion, a "basic fundamental doctrine [or] dogma"?

I do not believe the concept of papal infallibility and Immaculate Conception have been significantly changed. I will work on actual citations from the Church documents.

The concepts have not been significantly changed; they ARE significant changes.

[firstfloor]

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...-saved-just-by

[shunyadragon]

You need a citation for the Protestant concept of the invisible church? And my request is for what Pope Francis actually said, in context. I am generally aware of Rome's teachings in general.

http://catholicism.org/pope-francis-...he-church.html

[robrecht]

Try not to misunderstand:

http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2...ace/en1-694445

[One Bad Pig]

http://catholicism.org/pope-francis-...he-church.html

Yeah, that's not really enough context. It's snippets reported by a third-party source, which you disdained above.

[robrecht]

Yeah, that's not really enough context. It's snippets reported by a third-party source, which you disdained above.

Here's the context, from a homily in 2013, about a month before the homily I just quoted from above. Note that he is not merely referring to the Roman Catholic Church, but also the ancient sees of Jerusalem and Antioch, not to mention the initial evangelization of Phoenicia and Cyprus, a missionary quest that was initially only understood by the Jews. The church is the body of Christ; everyone united to Christ is part of his body. It is not about salvation only being available in the Roman Catholic Church.

http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2...ay_/en3-685659

[Adrift]

I will work on actual citations from the Church documents.

Why do you constantly make this sort of statement? Most of the time you don't deliver on your promise. If you have a point to make, research it, and make it, or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

[robrecht]

From Shuny's original article:

Source: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2013/06/03/pope-francis-is-under-attack-for-saying-that-outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation-its-a-poke-in-the-eye-says-one-presbyterian-why-hes-wrong/

Does that mean in fact that unless you are in communio sacris with the Roman Catholic Church you will be damned, that Christ will not save you however, you live your life? Does that sound at all likely?The Orthodox Bishop and Oxford theologian, Kallistos Ware, puts it in this way:
tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, a manifest absurdity.

© Copyright Original Source

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comm...why-hes-wrong/

[Adrift]

So sounds to me that the Catholic Church is aware that there are those outside of the RCC who will inherit eternal salvation, but that salvation ultimately comes through sincere desire to know God (though they may not know the Gospel). I can see how that could be a sticking point with some Christians, since Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So really, the question may come down to evangelism. It could be read that the RCC seems to be saying that the more ignorant one is, the more likely they are to receive eternal life as long as they seek God in whatever fashion God may take. That's (hopefully) a misunderstanding of what's being implied. At the same time, if one were to believe in a just God, it seems to only make sense that those who've never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel still are capable of redemption, though they may miss out on what the new birth has to offer in the here and now.

Does that sound about right?

[robrecht]

So sounds to me that the Catholic Church is aware that there are those outside of the RCC who will inherit eternal salvation, but that salvation ultimately comes through sincere desire to know God (though they may not know the Gospel). I can see how that could be a sticking point with some Christians, since Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So really, the question may come down to evangelism. It could be read that the RCC seems to be saying that the more ignorant one is, the more likely they are to receive eternal life as long as they seek God in whatever fashion God may take. That's (hopefully) a misunderstanding of what's being implied. At the same time, if one were to believe in a just God, it seems to only make sense that those who've never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel still are capable of redemption, though they may miss out on what the new birth has to offer in the here and now.

Does that sound about right?

Yes, many conservative evangelicals or fundamentalists accuse the Catholic church of being much, much too universalistic. They are certainly not promoting ignorance as a more likely path to eternal life, and they do, of course, encourage evangelization, but they also recognize the limitations and ineffectiveness of evangelistic efforts that fall short of the true message of the gospel and they ultimately trust in the judgment of God. Of course, they desire that all might share in Christian communion and brotherhood in the church, and they typically think the fullness of the church is found in communion with Rome and the successor of Peter, but they no longer teach, as Boniface VIII did in the 14th century, that 'it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff'. The Vatican international theological commission teaches that the Vatican II restored the original more universal meaning to the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus, namely, that of exhorting the members of the Church to be faithful, and not as referring to those who were never part of the church. Similar to what you are saying above, they do see the church as the privileged place of the gifts and activity of the Spirit. But they are more universalistic than your statement above and do not limit redemption to those who believe in a just God, but rather speak even of those who without fault have not yet reached an express knowledge of God but who nonetheless try to lead a good life as somehow related to the People of God, ie, the church.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...igioni_en.html