Posted on 01/02/2002 1:15:38 PM PST by Theresa
There is considerable confusion about the Catholic teaching of salvation. I found this on the internet. It was written by a former Presbyterian who became Catholic as an adult. It should be easy to understand he explains the docterine very well. .........
The phrase (in Latin, "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" or "Outside the Church there is no salvation") is a very ancient one, going back to the very early days of Christianity. It was originally meant to affirm the necessity of baptism and Christian faith at a time when
(a) A number of Christians were being tempted under torture to renounce their faith and deny Christ. (He's talking about the Roman Empire and Nero's persecution of Christians, throwing them to lions and such.) (b) Large groups of Christians were being led into "pseudo-Christian" cult-type groups, which were actually just a front for pagan philosophy and religion. (Such as the cult of Mithras which I think was practiced around the time after Jesus died.)
In response, bishops repeated that, if a person were to be aware of the meaning of Christ and then freely deny him or reject him, they had essentially turned away from God and the salvation he offers.
As Christians, we believe that we are saved only through Jesus. As St. Peter reminds his audience in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved." In most cases, this means that we believe baptism in water, in the name of the Trinity, is the fundamental requirement for salvation.
However, even from the beginning, the great Christian writer and teacher St. Augustine said that the salvation imparted through baptism can also be imparted through other means: specifically, through the "baptism of blood" (a non-Christian who dies defending Christian beliefs or holy places) and "the baptism of desire" (a non-Christian who has expressed a firm desire to become a Christian, and who shows all the signs of living a Christian life, but who dies before baptism). In both of those cases, the Church has always recognized that the Holy Spirit leads people to God in ways which we cannot always explain or document.
God is able to save anyone he chooses. We trust that he often does this is ways that are not obvious to us, within the hearts of individuals who are sincerely seeking the truth. Otherwise, it would imply that all of humanity was excluded from salvation before Christ came, and that much of humanity (which has not had the opportunity to hear the Christian message until recently) was doomed to be eternally separated from God. This would imply a very cruel and elitist God. Our belief as Christians and Catholics is that God desires the salvation of all people … even those who are not Christian. How he achieves that, however, is a mystery. But we know that our God is a loving God who would not allow people to suffer on account of an ignorance that they were not responsible for.
The Church teaches that baptism, faith, and a life lived in Christ are necessary for salvation. However, Vatican II also taught that, within every human heart, God places the law of conscience. Everybody has a deep sense of right and wrong which ultimately comes from God, and which will lead people to God if they attempt to follow their conscience faithfully. Because Jesus is God, those who move in the direction of God (even non-Christians) are ultimately moving in the direction of Jesus. And if they are moving in the direction of Jesus and His truth, ultimately they are expressing a desire for the salvation that God gives. The Church teaches that, while it is certainly easier to receive salvation as a Christian, it is not impossible to receive salvation in other religions.
This is a challenging situation: on one hand, we must be respectful of the good things to be found in other faiths, and encourage people to live their faiths with sincerity and love.
On the other hand, this does not mean that all religions are the same. We believe that Christ is the ultimate revealing of God to the world, and that the more we know about his message, the greater the chance that we will accept his offer and be saved. We must therefore continue to preach the message of the Gospel, and encourage interested non-Catholics to examine the claims of our faith, without in any way coercing or intimidating them.
Father Feeney was an American priest who, back in the 1940s, taught that if a person was not a Roman Catholic, they were condemned to hell. This has never been the accepted teaching of Catholicism, and Father Feeney was reprimanded by the Vatican for his mistaken understanding.
Nevertheless, there are groups which continue to hold to this strict interpretation, even after the Pope and bishops have specifically rejected it.
The phrase "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" teaches us that salvation is only through Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. But God is able to save whomever he pleases, whether they are baptized in the Roman Catholic Church or not.
It is important to remember that "the Church" in this phrase does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Salvation is a great gift, and God is a loving Father who wants all of his children to receive it. How he works this out, however, we will only understand in heaven. That is why, whenever we quote "Outside the Church, there is no salvation", we should also remember that "God is in no way bound by the sacraments."
Until then, we continue to proclaim Jesus as Lord (evangelization) and engage in respectful dialogue with followers of other religions, to discover the truths that God had revealed to them to guide them toward salvation, and to share with them the truth as we have discovered it in Christ.
Okay, how bout....."You are the rock and upon this rock I will build by church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "
Catholic means UNIVERSAL. The Catholic Church is generic Christianity. It's Christianity without additions or subtractions.
Right!! But did you read the article? No where in it does it say that anyone is saved except by Jesus. Nowhere!!!! How could anyone be saved unless Jesus was doing the saving? Some are exposed to the gospel who are able to accept it but they reject it knowing or suspecting it is true, simply because they just don't want to give up their sins or even admit they sin. That's different. That is not what we are talking about.
If Buddah is in heaven he's a Christian. If Lao Tsu is in heaven he's a Christian. If Ghandi is in heaven he's a Christian. WE are not saying that Buddah is in heaven sitting on the clouds preaching Buddism. We do not say that he saved himself by his works. That would be utterly impossible. IMPOSSIBLE.
We are not saying that everyone who rejects the gospel is laboring under ignorance. We just believe that God is fair and that he will take into consideration obstacles that prevent some, through no fault of their own, from hearing or understanding the good news. We are saying whoever gets to heaven would not get there unless they finally in the end, (though we don't see him going up to the altar for an altar call or being baptized, or at Sunday service) is shown the truth of Christ by some supernatural means, maybe at the hour of death or just after death.
At that time those obstacles are removed. And the person makes his choice. I would not think that they will so awed by the experience that it would amount to not having to take a leap of faith. They will still be operating with a free will to accept or reject.
To me it's like after Jesus died on the cross and before he rose, when he went to the netherworld and preached to the prophets like Moses and Abraham. He did that for them so they could chose, because they never really were preached the good news in it's fullness.
Whew!! Well I am going over to the Wet Canvas web site and talk about art. Bye guys!!
You Sir are blessed with a conservative diocese
More or less, yes.
Rochester is not so fortunate
I will say some extra prayers. Rochester is one of those that can barely even claim to be Catholic anymore.
However, this argument strikes me as strange. The liberal diocese would be the last place where I would expect the Pope's infallibility to be construed as impeccibility. This would seem to be more of a conservative conceit. It is the liberals who would wish to diminish the role of Pope to "figurehead" so they can go on destroying the Faith in their jurisdiction.
SD
Please tell me where the Bible says specifically that the Catholic church is the "only" Church? I have never seen God's Word yield such a statement.
You are correct that the Bible does not contain the word "catholic." It is apparent in the New Testament, however, that Jesus is setting up a singular Church with leaders (Apostles) who should be heeded. If the leaders of the Church were not to be figures of authority, then why did the Corinthians, for example, heed the letters from Paul?
The argument then becomes "what happened to this Church in history?" We have to take our noses out of the Bible and look at human history. There are two possible choices for authoritative Churches which have existed since the beginning. Either the Catholics or Orthodox can point to the other and claim that they "broke away" from them first. All other Churches in the West at some point in history broke away from the original Catholic/Orthodox Church.
SD
It wasnt so liberal 30 years from which I am drawing my experiences - The liberalism happened under Bishop Clark - to the point where he was tolerating same sex unions performed at Corpus Christi -until the Pope slapped him. They later split to form Spiritus Christi under Jim Callan and Mary Ramerman - who was just recently named a priest in this new church we affectionately call Corpus Callan here in Rochester. So yes - my experiences before my departure and afterwards are jaded by both a very conservative basis, then an extremely liberal one- hence my departure
LOL
Becky
OK, then. I find it hard to look down upon one who sould flee from Bishop Clark. Remember "the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops."
SD
Thanks for understanding and puttin up with my beefs - a worthy Christian you are.
OK. It is nice to end amicably every once in a while, rather than picking at scabs.
SD
For what it's worth, some historians suggest this actually intensified during the controversies of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Luther, for instance, was completely obsessed with damnation issues and had been constantly worried that he might be damned.
But talking about the idea of someone being damned, speculating that they might be, etc., is actually a temptation of pride. This is not the focus of Christianity (or Catholicism particularly). Forgiveness was supposed to be central to faith. Usually it is bitter, unhappy, and angry people who suggest in conversation that other people are damned. They are using Christian ideas as a form of hostile aggression against other people. What you end up having in denominational discussions on this issue is people spending an inordinate amount of time brooding on and deducing all sorts of things from the supposed teachings on Hell and damnation. "Well, if such and such a sin is mortal, etc., then someone guilty of such a sin, must be damned..." (IF they don't repent and are forgiven, etc.). That's a BIG assumption to leap to - that God would not forgive someone. Clearly, presumption is at work in all such leaps of judgment. The offender is trying to put limits on God's mercy, love, and forgiveness. Wild, loose, and uneducated discussions about Hell and damnation are a menace to a healthy life of faith. Or job is never to damn someone (for God).
The threat of damnation has always been a weird weapon in polemical religious controversies in Western culture and in the power struggles of denominational subcultures. But, of course, the uneducated and intemperate nonsense continues wherever someone perceives an apparent momentary advantage in suggesting someone else is damned. Weird. One could add that wild fantasies that Catholics are in league with the Devil and agents of the Antichrist are a similar pathology and a perverted expression of the ignorant and the sadistic.
The Council of Trent
Seventh Session: Decree Concerning the Sacraments
(says)
For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification...it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified.
It seems to me that you need top see what was determined at the Council of Trent, and stop asking me to explain your doctrine. It's right here. You can throw out your analogies, but it's real plain what they are saying.
It sounds to me like you need to teach what you say you believe to your leadership, as they are not saying what you are saying. You are providing terrible spin and it shows all around you.
Follow the money...
I've said that some Christians are catholic, but not all catholics are Christian.
Ex-catholic, now Christian.
"Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord."Having said that, my hope is that all Christians of whatever denomination remember to test what their fellows or leaders say against the divinely inspired Word of God.
There is a lot of wiggle room in this statement created by the word knowing. Certainly if one was never exposed to the RC teachings, one could not know. If were exposed (as might be the case for a Muslim) they may still not know in the sense that they do not believe.
Does this Vatican II fuzzy statement supercede the previous black and white statements?
Pick the weakest statement, and attack syntax and grammar. Which of the previous infallible statements most closely parallels this statement?
Can't tell from your argument whose side you're taking.
That's it. Those not formally part of the Catholic Church who are not culpable for this fact can be saved anyway. But this salvation is only possible because these people will be, in some mystical way, "inside" of the Church.
So, excatholics are going straight to hell, because we should know better? Or, am I misinterpreting your statements?
Might white of you...
So, all protestants who died before Vatican II went to hell, and those since you are more accepting of? i.e. Not, maybe going to hell?
The prior infallible popes were (gasp) wrong?
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).
.N.D. Kelly, writes in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :
"According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)
Augustine
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).
"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).
...
""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).
In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
Oh yeah!?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Ah, but is not the Church the body of Jesus Christ?
Elsewhere, the apostles teach that once one has accepted Christ, they are automatically added to the universal church of Jesus Christ
Where do you find this at?
(not a visible organization, but the invisible entity known as the Body of Christ). Hence, it is impossible to become saved, and not also become a member of the universal Body of Christ.
To me, the word BODY implies visible. If Christ wanted to imply an invisible Church, he would have used SPIRIT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.