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

It’s hardly a personal opinion: these people seem to think that Popes just spend their time spouting their own prejudices . . .

Here we go again: a new Pope says something that all his predecessors have said because it is what the Church has always taught, and some Protestant accuses him of personally adopting (I quote a Prebyterian minister writing in the National Catholic Reporter (aka fishwrap) a “dicey position”, as though he had a choice in the matter. According to the Reverend Bill Tammeus, when Pope Francis recently quoted Pope Paul saying “It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”, he is “intentionally (my emphasis) offering a poke in the eye to people outside [his] faith tradition”.

“Is Francis ”, asks this reverend person, “(through Paul) saying that I, as a Presbyterian, cannot follow Jesus outside of Catholicism? That’s what he appears to be claiming”. Well, IS it it? It might have occurred to this chap that Pope Paul of all people was hardly an enemy of ecumenism; this is the Pope, after all, who called Anglicanism “our sister Church”.

The doctrine is deceptively simple: that “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”: outside the Church there is no salvation. 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? So what does the doctrine mean?

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

According to this, we enter the Church by baptism. Salvation is what God gives to those who “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”. The Orthodox Bishop and Oxford theologian, Kallistos Ware, puts it in this way:

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” …. Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.”

While we are about it, are the Orthodox, is Bishop Kallistos, according to the Catholic Church “extra ecclesiam”? Hardly: the Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed. It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it.

Even Pio Nono, who of course insisted [Allocution Singulari Quadem ] that “it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood” nevertheless goes on to say that “on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labour in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ (1 John 3.2), we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but as long as we are on earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4.5).

To say that unless you are in FULL COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church you cannot know Jesus is to place limits on Our Lord’s capacity to make himself known outside it, a manifest absurdity. This is NOT a form of universalism; nor is it to deny that only within the Roman Catholic Church is the fullness of faith to be found. Back to the CCC:

“851 It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigour of her missionary dynamism, ‘for the love of Christ urges us on.’ Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’; that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth.”

So, Reverend Tammeus, NO, Pope Francis is NOT offering you a “poke in the eye”, as I’m quite sure you are perfectly well aware. But he does undoubtedly think that you would be further along the road to salvation as a Catholic. Are you really absolutely certain he’s wrong?

© 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]

“The culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation of his culpability for unbelief. Ultimately we must trust that even he is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally.”

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

Salvation even for atheists is in God’s gift.

[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.

Source: http://catholicism.org/pope-francis-it-is-not-possible-to-find-jesus-outside-the-church.html

From Pope Francis’ sermon today, the feast of Saint George (Jorge Bergoglio’s own patron): “But the Christian identity is not an identity card: Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these belonged to the Church, the Mother Church. Because it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: ‘Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy.’”

The Holy Father also spoke of the apostolic fervor of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the founder the Society of Jesus, and how that fervor was intimately connected to the hierarchical Catholic Church.

© Copyright Original Source

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

[robrecht]

Try not to misunderstand:

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

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

[One Bad Pig]

Source: http://catholicism.org/pope-francis-it-is-not-possible-to-find-jesus-outside-the-church.html

From Pope Francis’ sermon today, the feast of Saint George (Jorge Bergoglio’s own patron): “But the Christian identity is not an identity card: Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these belonged to the Church, the Mother Church. Because it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: ‘Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy.’”

The Holy Father also spoke of the apostolic fervor of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the founder the Society of Jesus, and how that fervor was intimately connected to the hierarchical Catholic Church.

© Copyright Original Source

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/

... According to the Reverend Bill Tammeus, when Pope Francis recently quoted Pope Paul saying “It’s an absurd dichotomy to think one can live with Jesus, but without the Church, to follow Jesus outside the Church, to love Jesus and not the Church”, he is “intentionally (my emphasis) offering a poke in the eye to people outside [his] faith tradition”.

“Is Francis ”, asks this reverend person, “(through Paul) saying that I, as a Presbyterian, cannot follow Jesus outside of Catholicism? That’s what he appears to be claiming”. Well, IS it it? It might have occurred to this chap that Pope Paul of all people was hardly an enemy of ecumenism; this is the Pope, after all, who called Anglicanism “our sister Church”.

The doctrine is deceptively simple: that “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”: outside the Church there is no salvation. 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? So what does the doctrine mean?

This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it:

“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

According to this, we enter the Church by baptism. Salvation is what God gives to those who “seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience”. The Orthodox Bishop and Oxford theologian, Kallistos Ware, puts it in this way:

“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” …. Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.”

While we are about it, are the Orthodox, is Bishop Kallistos, according to the Catholic Church “extra ecclesiam”? Hardly: the Catholic Church allows its clergy to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, if these spontaneously ask for the sacraments and are properly disposed. It also allows Catholics who cannot approach a Catholic minister to receive these three sacraments from clergy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it. ...

To say that unless you are in FULL COMMUNION with the Roman Catholic Church you cannot know Jesus is to place limits on Our Lord’s capacity to make himself known outside it, a manifest absurdity. This is NOT a form of universalism; nor is it to deny that only within the Roman Catholic Church is the fullness of faith to be found. ...

So, Reverend Tammeus, NO, Pope Francis is NOT offering you a “poke in the eye”, as I’m quite sure you are perfectly well aware. ...

© 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