Posted on 06/28/2008 3:25:43 PM PDT by NYer
Issue: What does the Catholic Church mean by the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)?
ResponsE: All salvation comes through Jesus Christ, the one Savior of the world (cf. Acts 4:12). His Holy Spirit dispenses those graces through His body, the Church. "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk. 10:16).
Quoting from various documents of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 776) explains:
As sacrament, the Church is Christ’s instrument. She is taken up by Him also as the instrument for the salvation of all, the universal sacrament of salvation, by which Christ is at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God’s love for men. The Church is the visible plan of God’s love for humanity, because God desires that the whole human race may become one People of God, form one Body of Christ, and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit. (see also nos. 846-848)
Discussion: There are two principal errors when it comes to the Church’s teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Some reject this teaching as both incorrect and arrogant. Others interpret this statement to condemn all those who are not visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church. To come to the proper understanding of this teaching, we must examine it within the context of divine Revelation and Church history. This examination will reveal that the phrase was not formulated to express who would go to heaven and who would go to hell, for only God will judge that. Rather, the phrase expresses an understanding of the Church in relation to her role in the salvation of the world.
Translation or Interpretation?
Many people translate the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus as "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This translation does not seem entirely faithful to the Latin meaning, and contributes to the misunderstanding of the phrase.
The Latin word "extra" is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as "beyond" or "outside of"(e.g., beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated "without" (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, "Without the Church there is no salvation." This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.
Scriptural Foundations
In the Gospel of Mark, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to the Eleven and gave them the commission, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk. 16:15-16).
In order to accept or reject the Gospel, each person must have it preached to him. If acceptance or rejection of the truth were based on private revelations given to each man, woman, and child, there would be no need for Christ to commission the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Jesus desired to reveal Himself through His body, the Church. While this passage condemns those who reject the truth, it does not condemn those who have not had the truth offered to them as Christ intends.
The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation is a gift offered by God in various ways to all men. Adam, Abel, and Enoch lived between the first sin and the covenant of Noah. They were bound by original sin. All are considered to be in heaven. Enoch did not even die, but was taken to God before death (Heb. 11:4-5). These men were neither baptized nor circumcised, but nonetheless saved.
When the gentile centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum and asked for the healing of his servant, Our Lord agreed to go to his home, but the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed" (Mt. 8:8). Jesus replied:
Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from East and West and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth (Mt. 8:10-13).
Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted of the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His Body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. As St. Paul explains:
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rom. 2:14-16).
Sacred Tradition
Many people who claim that God restricts salvation to baptized Catholics cite the Fathers of the Church to prove their assertions. While space does not allow an exhaustive analysis of the Fathers, there are several necessary points to keep in mind. First, the Fathers must be understood in the context of their writings, not in the context of the one quoting them. The majority of the Fathers who wrote on this topic were concerned about those who had once believed or had heard the truth, but now rejected it. Many of them believed the entire world had heard the Gospel. Their words were not directed at those who, by no fault of their own, did not know the Gospel of Christ.
The Fathers do affirm the inherent danger in deliberately rejecting the Church. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote at the turn of the second century, "Be not deceived, my brethren; if anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3). In the third century, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1). In the fourth century, St. Jerome wrote, "Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation" (Commentary on Titus 3:10-11).
On the other hand, many of the Fathers did write about those who were invincibly ignorant of the Gospel. Of these, the Fathers accepted that salvation was open to them, even if in a mysterious way. The Fathers recognized that the natural law of justice and virtue is written on the hearts of all men. Those who respect this law respect the Lawgiver, though they do not know Him. As St. Justin Martyr wrote in the second century:
We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared Him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes (Jn. 1:9). Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them . . . those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason, whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid (First Apology 46).
In the third century, St. Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the Law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5). Origen wrote, "[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; He was always concerned about that. Indeed, He always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the Wisdom of God descended into those souls which He found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7). In the fifth century, St. Augustine wrote: "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within the heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).
Magisterial Pronouncements
Throughout the history of the Church, the Magisterium has accepted and synthesized these teachings. Recognizing that God will judge our hearts according to the gifts we have received, invincible ignorance—that is, ignorance which cannot be overcome by ordinary means—tempers divine justice. Those who have knowledge of the truth are expected to accept it. Those who have not been given this gift will be judged according to the law written on their hearts. Two noteworthy examples of this position are found in Pope Boniface VIII’s bull Unam Sanctam (1302) and Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863).
Boniface VIII wrote concerning the nature of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. He did not write concerning the damnation of those who have never heard the Gospel. After expressing the truth that there is only one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one Church, he explained that supreme authority of the Pope is both temporal and spiritual. He then ended by declaring: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This is not a statement demanding that everyone know the supremacy of the Pope to be saved, but rather is a truthful claim that the Pope authority from God as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, to whom Our Lord entrusted the keys of the kingdom.
Pius IX clearly expressed the full teaching a century ago. His writing distinguishes between those who are invincibly ignorant and those who have willfully separated themselves from the Catholic Church:
There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior (no. 7).
Sacrament of Salvation
In an expression of the authentic Magisterium, the college of bishops further explained this doctrine in the context of Christocentric sacramental theology at Vatican II. Echoing the words of St. Paul, the Council described the Church as the Spouse and Body of Christ (Lumen Gentium, nos. 6-7). Jesus is one with His Spouse, the Church (cf. Eph. 5:32). The two form the one Body of Christ visible on earth. Christ is the Head, and He ministers through His body as the sacrament of salvation (Lumen Gentium, no. 9). To whom does He minister? Both His body and those apart from the body, that he might draw all men to Himself (ibid., no. 13). In this way, the Church dispenses to all men the graces of salvation won by Christ. Those who knowingly reject these graces are lost. Those who accept them are saved. Those who do not have the opportunity to accept the grace can be saved because of the presence of the Church in the world (cf. 1 Cor. 7:12-16). If they are saved, they are saved through the Church without their knowledge of that grace.
Vatican II declares:
[Many] of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. . . . It follows that these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church (Decree on Ecumenism, no. 3).
Come Aboard!
This teaching of Christ and His Church is not meant to allow indifferentism or exclusivism. Baptism and unity with the Catholic Church provide the only assurance of salvation, but not the only means. "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism, no. 1257, original emphasis).
The will of God is for "all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). To fulfill His will, Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel and baptize those who would embrace it (Mk. 16:16). He gave us the Sacrament of Baptism and unity with the Church as the ordinary means of salvation. By Baptism we are made sharers in the life of Christ. When we participate in the fullness of life within the Church, we remain obedient children of God with the Church as our Mother. To provide assurance for the salvation of all men, we must fulfill the command of Christ to evangelize the world and bring all into His Body, the Church.
Because God is not bound by the sacraments, He makes the grace of salvation available to all in ways unknown to us. This is the basis for the Church’s teaching on "Baptism of desire" (cf. Catechism, nos. 1258-60, 1281). This occurs, for example, when one seeks Baptism but dies first, or when one dies without explicit knowledge of Christ, but would have embraced the truth had it been presented. Only God can judge their souls.
The Church is the ark through which men are saved. Noah and his family were the only men saved on the ark, but even animals who had no understanding of the matter were saved with them. As the ark saved all on it, even those who had no knowledge, so does the Church, as the universal sacrament of salvation, dispense the graces won by Christ and applies them to all men of every place and condition. In a way mysterious to us, this salvation is offered to all, and God, who judges the hearts of all, will determine their destiny.
God says the Holy Spirit...You don't believe that???
LOL, I suppose that is a serious question?
Here are some facts:
- The Christian faith existed and grew years before the first book of the New Testament was written.
- The New Testament was written decades after Christ ascended into heaven. It took centuries for the Church to establish the Cannon of the New Testament. The early Church existed without a Bible.
- Christ never told anyone to write a Bible. The Apostles never told anyone that Christianity would be based on a book.
Your lack of knowledge of history is staggering. You seem to imply that the early Christians sat around reading their Bibles on rockers in front of the fireplace.
The Church established by Christ was based on teaching the Truth.
Wherein I am appointed a preacher and an apostle and teacher of the Gentiles. For which cause, I also suffer these things: but I am not ashamed. For I know whom I have believed and I am certain that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him, against that day. Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me: in faith and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who dwelleth in us. 2Tim 1:11-14
And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men who shall be fit to teach others also. 2Tim 2:2
But continue thou in those things which thou hast learnedand which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them. And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. 2Tim 3:14-17
Remember here that with the Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy were the Old Testament alone - the New Testament wasn’t yet written.
You have a made up faith in the real Christ.
A few questions:
1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2. Other than the specific command to John to write the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
You don't need the word of God...
Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
WE guys WROTE the scripture, as God inspired us. (Us in this case means such Catholic Church members as Saints Peter Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and their fellow early Church leaders. WE guys also determined that the writings of such early Protestants as the Gnostics and the Arians (ancestors of Islam), were, in fact, NOT Scripture. What WE guys determined was Scriptural IS Scriptural, what WE guys determined was NOT Scriptural is NOT Scriptural. In this latter case WE guys are the early Catholic Church Fathers who determined the Canon of Scripture. After this time WE guys consisted of all Christians who ever lived up until the 14th century. Now WE guys include over 50% of the Christians on earth, 75% if you include our separated Orthodox brethren, nearly identical to us theologically and administratively.
The New Testament is loaded with prophecy...Just as in the OT, there has to be a God inspired, written NT to bear the record for the prophecy that is to take place...
The Catholic church has a pretty shady past when it comes to telling the truth about it's historical documents...And it's private interpretation of the written words of God...
Heaven forbid that there would be no scripture and the rest of the World had to rely on you guys for the Truth of God...
Joh 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
John places a massive amount of weight on his written testimony...Because he wrote it, we can be 100% sure that it is truth...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
God was far smarter than you think He is...He knew, and the Apostles knew that a 'church' couldn't be trusted to preserve His words thru word of mouth...
Besides, the WRITTEN word confirms that we have eternal security...Right now...
2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
The ink wasn't even dry on Pauls epistles when he complained about some religious group who apparently didn't put much stock in God's written words to corrupt those words from the get-go...Wonder what group that would've been!!!
Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Without the written record, you people could have deceived the World...We may never have known The OT Psalms (partially) have been fulfilled with the resurrection of Jesus Christ...
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Eph 6:13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Eph 6:14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; Eph 6:15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
Eph 6:16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Holy pickled bananas, Batman, with the written word of God, we wouldn't even know about the spiritual wickedness in hgh places, nor, have the means to fight them off...
We wouldn't have the truth, nor the breastplate of righteousness...We wouldn't have the shield of faith (alone) to quench the fiery darts of the wicked...
And we certainly wouldn't have the helmet of salvation, but most of all, we wouldn't have the sword of the Spirt which of course is the WRITTEN, PRESERVED word of God...
Sheesh...If we didn't have the written word of God, Mary would be the 4th part of the Trinity...Or there may be no Trinity and Mary would be our Goddess...
Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
It would be idiodic to suggest the Apostles went from city to city passing on the words of God verbally...Who would remember it???
Why did your church fathers write things down??? Didn't the Holy Spirit commit everything to memory for them??? If your church if the one, true church, led by the Holy Spirit, why do you guys need bibles??? Why did Jerome make new translations and write them down??? Couldn't he just remember and pass it on to your spirit filled popes to remember???
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
So why did the Apostles bother to write this stuff down??? Obviously THEY thought they needed to...
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Paul COUNTED on the written word of God as his religion...
Now here's a good one...
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Rom 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Rom 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
As I understand it, your church doesn't believe the Righteousness of God was IMPUTED to us Christians...You guys believe you work for and earn righteousness...So without the Old Testament and New Testament in WRITING, if we had to count on your church, we wouldn't even know about this very important truth...
Rom 15:15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God,
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Ha...How often do we year from you guys that Paul was not commissioned to primarily preach to and teach Gentiles while Peter was sent to the Jews??? Do you really think we could count on you guys to pass this information on to anyone if the knowledge was just in your possession???
I'll stop here...I have no doubt that your religion would thrive without any scripture from God...But we thank God for the scripture that He preserved for us...Without scripture, there is no God...There are only gods...
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
And of course, your 'first pope' knew that what Paul and obviously the other Apostles wrote was SCRIPTURE...
1Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
This writing is scripture as well...John obviously WROTE to us to warn us about you people that claim we have no need for John writing to us...And John writes to us that we are taught by the annointing that resides in us, contray to your magisterium and your church...
Yada, Yada, Yada...
“Statistically speaking I’ll compare your specific denomination to Catholics the world over any time in total numbers”
Total numbers do not establish authenticity, as “broad is the way.”
“It wasn’t meant to be easy.”
Catholicism would be extremely easy for me, as in reality what she effectually promotes (not simply officially states) is a gospel that does not truly require diligent faithfulness even to her doctrines, but one that fosters assurance of eternal life by faith in the powers of Rome as well as one’s own merits, along with Jesus. Abortion and homosexual politicians and laity (the majority in the West) alike need fear no real expulsion, and the former (such as our own Ted Kennedy) will realize grand funerals lauding them, and in which acceptance with God is fostered in lieu of their Catholic baptism. If Rome actually excommunicated such then at least you could disallow all such as Catholics, but in reality they realize no such thing. As long as you die in the arms of Rome then there is hope; but if you convert and become a conservative evangelical (as i did), then there is cause for alarm!
“Your “evidence” consists of public opinion polling, mostly self-identification questions.”
And you doubt that is is generally accurate? Every study i have ever seen attests to a similar anemic condition, and some of your own publications use such to sound an alarm. Meanwhile voting records consistently show that where Catholicism reigns so does liberalism, and that they are overall far less conservative than their evangelical counterparts.
To that i can add my own personal experience, as a former devout Catholic, who stayed within Rome for 6 years, seeking to serve God there after i became born again thru true repentance and faith in Christ (1977), and thus realized radical changes in heart and life. And i live in an overwhelming Catholic area, in which i have personally witnessed to thousands of Catholics, and can well attest to the vast difference between institutionalized religion and the Biblical reality of the life giving gospel of Christ.
“the general view among Protestants of “being saved” by accepting Christ.... does allow many to believe that they are regenerated by this and this alone. It’s a little more complex than that.”
Or deeper. “Easy believism” is just as unScriptural as believing that one’s merits and those of one’s church will help one be deemed worthy of eternal life. God’s word states that He is “nigh unto them who are of broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit” (Ps. 34:18), as is seen in N.T. Conversions (Acts 2, 10, 13, etc.) and their trust in the mercy of God to save them, and which mercy is Christ. And to such God imputeth righteousness by faith (Gn. 15:6; Rm. 4). But such faith, if it is saving Biblical faith, will be a confessional faith (Rm. 10:10), and one that overall follows the Lord Jesus, and to such is assurance of eternal life given (Jn. 10:27; 1 Jn all).
“Who led the Church prior to Scripture being written? ?”
Well, there was a man named Moses and a few other writers of Holy Writ who provided the codified authority upon which the Lord and His apostles and others further preached the (as in the oral tradition) word of God: Acts 17:2, 1 Ths. 2:13), and which words and inspired records would be written (after the Biblical manner) and included in whole of Scripture, which is the only class of revelation that is explicitly declared to be wholly inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16).
“You have not accepted the Fullness of his Word.”
No, we i believe that the cannon of Scripture is closed (with the plenary inspiration of the 66 books being manifest by their enduring power), and to make any other class of revelation of equal authority to it is essentially adding to the canon.
This does not mean God cannot speak to us today on a personal level in addition to the Scriptures, if entirely consistent with it, and evangelicals do believe God can (especially during the offering). But the canon being closed, such revelation must be subject to the Scriptures and not of equal authority to it. .Of course, Rome claims that her nebulous church tradition is both, and then must go to great lengths to justify such doctrines as a marriage which never was consummated (contrary to it’s definition), and a perpetual virgin, whose children (Ps. 69:8) are simply all relatives. Etc.
“It is far easier to PERCEIVE that your faith (whatever that is, you have failed to mention it) has far more “regeneration” than the The Church that Christ set up here on earth.”
As a born again evangelical Christian, I “perceive” Jesus established that those who belong to Him make such perceptibly manifest: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Mat 7:20). As for your premise that the church of Rome is today that which Jesus established, that it is your “perception,” but consistent with the reasoning of Rome (which misinterprets 2 Pt. 1:21 to disallow the Berean method of interpretation that might contradict her), that is only a fallible conclusion.
“Protestants in general have 10,000 differing viewpoints..”
And Protestantism is conveniently defined as all who are outside Rome, from the Hare Krishna’s to the Mormons (who are actually more similar to Catholics). But if i must defend Protestantism, then it should be restricted to those who hold to it’s original primary doctrines.
In reality, those who demonstrably hold to sola Scriptura, versus sola ecclesia, do enjoy doctrinal unity among essential doctrines, which includes what the Nicene creed states (catholic being universal). Those who disagree with these and other clearly Biblically established essentials (such as salvation by grace) are universally called heretics, as such doctrines are well substantiated in Scripture, which is why we agree with them. And which essentials can be said to correspond (as far as being essentials) to infallible teachings of Rome (though this is no infallible list of such), and Divinely revealed truths, and which require a response of faith, with the opposite being heresy. And even within them there are some varying viewpoints and possibility of “tweaking.”
While sola Scriptura does bring about some disagreements on things, but it limits their scope, and these can typically be considered to correspond to the vast amount of areas of Scriptures that Rome has either not taught definitely on (or at all), or can modify, and which allow for a limited amount of dissent (Ordinary Magisterium). Or which may include the possibility of significant error (General Magisterium). And there is much diversity of viewpoints among both Catholic clergy and laity alike, and which Rome allows, while whatever certainly they can attest to must be based upon implicit trust in Rome. While sola Scriptura does realize disagreements, the unity that results is of a higher quality than that of implicit trust in man, but it is clear from the way the very apostles (and men like Apollos) preached (Acts 17:2; 18:28; 20:23; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2) that this is not what they the LORD wanted to be the basis for unity, as they appealed to Scripture, as well as to powerful supernatural attestation (Rm. 15:18, 19; 2 Cor. 12:13), out of a pious holy life and proven character (2 Cor. 6:1-10).
“you can give me Scripture citations and I could match each of yours to the contrary, but that has been done over and over on FR.”
Indeed, and rather than do much more here, and as i am gratefully busy, i would direct you to my recent posts on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2015875/posts
The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and he lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ’s own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as “the lasting source of all life for the Church” (Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium” 20; also Catechism #860).
The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ’s continuing presence in his Church — “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20).
The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: “On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18).
The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).
Scripture does not owe it’s acceptance to ecclesiastical decree, which essentially ratified a “best sellers” list, but to the life changing and enduring power of the 66 books, while the rest remain in obscurity.
But even if we allow your copyright contention, your position of sola ecclesia is a grave error, not only that the Jews and N.T. writers were Mary praying Roman Catholics, but that those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed. The Jewish magisterium were demonstrably not infallible (and God raised up rejected prophets to reprove them, as Rome must be also), but according to your logic we must submit to their interpretation now.
And if you will contend that Rome has taken the place of the seat of Moses, then you must be able to furnish the same Scriptural substantiation that attests that the Jews were entrusted with the Scriptures, and thus Scripture must attest that thru Rome alone belongs “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises” (Rm. 9:4).
But the Catholic doctrine of a perpetuated Petrine papacy critically fails to possess the explicit and implicit substantiation that the Holy Spirit is faithful to provide for other major doctrines of like critical nature, though even just one clear command from Paul in just one of his many church epistles to submit to Peter as it’s infallible singular head would do, along with a clear provision to the ordination of a succesor. Or one sentence from Peter referring to himself as the chief shepherd. Or perhaps a doctrinal statement that affirms Rome’s interpretation that Peter was the rock upon which the church is built, rather than “this rock” referring to his essential confession of who Christ is, and thus Christ Himself, and who Peter and Paul both explicitly affirm is the foundational stone of the temple of God (1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). And to this i am sure others have also added their thoughts already.
In addition, if you seek to persuade us that Rome is the ultimately infallible one true church by reasoning from the Scriptures, which is a Biblical method (Act 17:2), the best you can hope for is a fallible decision, as such relies upon private human reasoning (Rome’s misappropiates of 2 Pet. 1:20 to disallow such itself shows she is not an infallible interpreter).
In reality, your contention for for sola ecclesia is that according to Rome’s interpretation, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
I am afraid that I find your writing style very confusing, and am unsure exactly what you are saying. For that reason I must reluctantly decline to respond to your post.
Seventy-three.
But even if we allow your copyright contention, your position of sola ecclesia is a grave error...
What "copyright contention?" Who claimed sola ecclesia?
...not only that the Jews and N.T. writers were Mary praying Roman Catholics...
I didn't see that claimed anywhere either. Not Roman Catholics, just Catholics. The New Testament writers (Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, et al.) were Catholic.
...but that those to whom Scripture is entrusted are infallible, and must be obeyed.
Christ promised this.
I fully agree with your first 3 statements, as the Bible materially provides for such, and see them being fulfilled in the world today by the church universal that (at the least) preaches the apostolic gospel that convicts souls of their utter inability to escape Hell or gain Heaven by the merit of their works, but who repent of such and their old life of sin to trust in the Biblical Christ and His sinless shed blood for salvation (Acts 20:21; 26:20; Rm. 3:9-5-1; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9). And upon which they are spiritually added to the church (1 Cor. 12:13).
As for 4 and 5, this is an unwarranted extrapolation out of Mt. 16:18, in ascribing infallibility to an autocratic church that essentially holds that according to her interpretation, implicit trust is warranted, and you need not do as the Bereans did (Acts 17:11), and must not allow that she can be wrong in her interpretation of what she deems essential doctrine (which itself is an essential doctrine). Meanwhile, very little of the Bible has been infallibly defined (as well as an infallible list of infallible teachings, which allows much uncertainty.
I do believe God will ensure that the Biblical substantiated gospel and it essentials will be preached by His true churches, and that God will preserved by His church, which is always a relative remnant, even if it’s leaders err in essentials. In such a case, like as in Israel of old, God raises up prophet type persons who can reprove error, and call them to repentance. Men such as Huss, Tyndale, Luther, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Wesley, were some of them, and by such the declension and aberrations of Christian faith was much arrested and revival brought, to the salvation of billions since. We now are in the age of increasing declension, with the contrast being increasingly clear as to who bow to Baal versus Christ.
“I fully agree with your first 3 statements, as the Bible materially provides for such, and see them being fulfilled in the world today by the church universal that (at the least) preaches the apostolic gospel that convicts souls of their utter inability to escape Hell or gain Heaven by the merit of their works, but who repent of such and their old life of sin to trust in the Biblical Christ and His sinless shed blood for salvation (Acts 20:21; 26:20; Rm. 3:9-5-1; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9). And upon which they are spiritually added to the church (1 Cor. 12:13).”
Well good, we do have some agreement. I think probably more than you think. When you speak of “born again”, I know exactly to what you speak of, being a former Protestant.
The conversion of one’s heart is something that only that person and Christ truely know. It has to be an inward, pure and true conversion. The Catholic take on that is that we don’t claim to know we are officially “saved”. This is not out of ignoring the inward conversion but out of humility to God. We bow before God in hope that we are saved and defer to him for this final judgement. It is he who knows all of our heart, be it for good or malice.
To expand on that aspect, the “works” paradigm that many Protestants refer to is due to lack of knowing the true Catholic faith. If a person wants to truely know what the Catholic faith says regarding that - the Catechism, with all of the Biblical links is the place to go to truely understand it. Not to be condescending, but I haven’t seen a non Catholic get it right yet. I don’t think that is out of malice but out of lack of knowledge. The Cathechism is where you go for the official take on that, if you will.
In my laymen’s words, what Catholics believe is that beyond the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our personal savior, we are called to another level of Christianity. We are called to attempt to live by Christ’s fullness. Can we achieve this? No. We are humans with imperfections and weak sinners, all of us. But we are called as Catholics to strive to achieve it and attempt to emulate Christ and His Laws in Fullness.
I really think that the “works” argument is not as bad as most Protestants and Catholics believe. My personal belief is that each side is hardened in their belief but fails to see the cross over that each has. I can only say that the some of the aforementioned Reformers don’t have it right in their reductio absurdum arguments. If you read the Bible and read the Catechism you will better understand what Catholics believe. Hopefully, you want to do that for good hearted reasons so you can understand that which you disagree with. If not, which I’m not claiming, one would better be able to refute a rival if you will.
“What “copyright contention?” Who claimed sola ecclesia?”
>the Jews and N.T. writers were Mary praying Roman Catholics...<
I didn’t see that claimed anywhere either. Not Roman Catholics, just Catholics.
Lucius - “WE guys WROTE the scripture, as God inspired us. (Us in this case means such Catholic Church members”).
The WE is Roman Catholic, in contrast to “us,” and thus it is asserted that the writers were RC’s.
“Not to be condescending, but I haven’t seen a non Catholic get it [RC doctrine] right yet.”
And you have seen lay Catholics do so? I dare say it is my experience that i am more knowledgeable of RC doctrine that most i have conversed with. And even within apologetical ranks there are problems.
The WE is Roman Catholic, in contrast to “us,” and thus it is asserted that the writers were RC’s.
No, the WE is Catholics, and he's right. He did not say Roman Catholic or RCs.
How do you know how they prayed?
Sorry; i did not answer the 1st 2 questions.
“What “copyright contention?”
By claiming to write the Bible.
Who claimed sola ecclesia?”
By claiming authority to both infallibly define what is Scripture (though it took 1500+ years, and disagreed with Carthage and Hippo about the Jewish canon), and what Scripture means, as well as the extent of church tradition and it’s meaning, then Rome in essence is claiming the same things as sola Scripture, that Rome is the ultimate earthly authority, as she logically cannot be subservient to that which she claims singular authority to defines and interprets.
And if this is what the Bible teaches, then it is should be just as manifest as we see it establishing the Scriptures as the final arbiter, rather than such things as Jesus reproving the Magisterium of His day for assuming authority for claiming Divine authority to teach for doctrines Scripturally unwarranted traditions of men (Mk. 7:7).
Of course, there is neither an infallible list of all Rome’s infallible teachings, nor is (to my knowledge) Tradition infallibly defined, let alone much of Scripture.
“And you have seen lay Catholics do so? I dare say it is my experience that i am more knowledgeable of RC doctrine that most i have conversed with. And even within apologetical ranks there are problems.”
Have you seen a physical copy of the Cathechism, lol?
It’s huge. There is a lifetime of learning in the Catholic faith. It’s a huge vessel of knowledge passed down through the ages. There are people in all denominations and faiths that are luke warm and not trying to immerse themselves in their faith. But with the likes of Spurgeon etc., you are not even making a dent.
I’ve been a high school football coach. I’ve never gone to a rival coach of an upcoming opponent and said, “so tell me all you know”. First, he wouldn’t be objective because as rivals he doesn’t like the team. Even if he had altruistic motivations, I wouldn’t trust a second hand interpretation or analysis to beat my opponent. I have the team filmed several times and we set down and break down that film on every facet of the game -over and over again. Not a perfect analogy but you get the idea. Through haters like Spurgeon etc. you don’t know your “opponent”.
“That’s not “copyright.”
To claim authorship is, at least in America, unless you formally declare it “public domain.”
The context is Rome’s claim to Scripture and authority, versus Iscool’s contention “You guys don’t even believe the scripture....” and rendering “WE” to simply mean universal without an implied linkage to Rome renders the arguments void.
Sola ecclesia is not a term used BY the Catholic Church (that I'm aware), and seems to be some kind of invention designed to deprecate. Catholicism, if you've ever read my tagline, rejects the error of sola scriptura because Tradition must be accepted and honored equally.
The terms sola scriptura and sola fide describe protestant belief because those are the terms THEY use. Sola ecclesia, in contrast, strikes me as an epithet.
Educate me! Is sola ecclesia a Catholic term?
If anything, the Catholic Church is solus Deus.
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.