www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church? Yes and no.

Dear Lanceg,

I have not followed this thread and only read the last posts, so excuse me if I'm repeating something, or stating something out of context.

I personally do believe that many professed Christians fall way outside the fold. As for the Dalai Lama and Ghandi, they have reached the height of what one is able to reach outside of having a knowledge of our redemptive Saviour, and the repentance that comes with it. Without the acceptance of oneself as a sinner, I don't see how one can fully obtain the Grace required for unity with God.

Baptism, and the Christian love that encompasses it, is the rite given us and the Church so that the Holy Spirit will open a persons heart to God's Grace. Whether they do so or not later on in life, is up to them. But the potential has been given them.

In conformity to my personal opinion, I will quote something said by Bishop Kallistos Ware, (who I believe is a living saint), while referring to the Anglicans. He said that we must pray for the many 'orthodox' within the Anglican communion, and the problems that they are faced with.

So taking all that into context, I can only say that 'orthodox' exist within all Christian faiths regardless of whether they have the fullness, and unorthodox exist in both the Catholic and Orthodox Church. That a Church contains the fullness, only means that one can obtain the full revalation of Christ in their life, if of course they have fully prepared themselves for it through everything the Church offers.

God Bless,

Zenovia

Joe,

There is of course a third category of "Catholic": pro-VII spirituals...those who claim allegiance to the so-called "spirit" of the conciliar teachings while completely ignoring (and even blatantly CONTRADICTING) both the text and the context of the ACTUAL teachings. It is the group that fundamentally opposes the actual Liturgy of the Vatican II Latin Church (The Liturgy of Pope St. Pius V - aka "Tridentine") because it is too emotionally and socially constricting and flawed ecumenically. I think that it was pertaining to this group that Mary's concern was addressed. They see Vatican II as the anti-VII traditionalists see it: a rupture with tradition. The only difference is that they see such a rupture as progress, and the anti-VII traditionalists see it as an aberration! Pope Benedict has also addressed his concern about seeing VII as a dividing line in ecclesiatical history, often signified by using such terminology as "pre-conciliar" and "post-conciliar" in reference to the Church. (See "The Ratzinger Report" for his very insightful critique of these terms.)

John's response to Mary has me looking back at Trent's (the poster not the council, although that may be helpful as well!) to read again how he characterizes the teachings of the Church on this topic. I do not fault anyone for having a favorite "council" (and actually Trent was far more forward thinking at the time than some would imagine...it even called for the restoration of the permanent diaconate for married men, but this call went unheeded within the Latin Church until the 20th century) or conciliar period, but we have to discern and respect how the Holy Spirit is leading the Church today while avoiding too artificial a "pre/post conciliar" framework - as if all the stuff that was old was good and the stuff that is new is bad (or vice versa). Reconciling the old and the new is no easy task! I believe that Mary's post did make this clear when she highlighted the importance of a fuller understanding of the older formulas through the new.

To John's point, if Trent is ignoring wholesale the magisterium of the Church and how its teachings have developed (vis-a-vis a fuller understanding of membership in the Catholic communion) in favor of earlier formulas, he is not fully representing Catholic Teaching on this matter any more than those who reject Chalcedon as a fuller explanation/clarification of the work of previous councils.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Actually I am far more prone to advocate viewing the newer formularies through the lens of the meaning of the old.

Another thing that Catholics are often accused of, particularly by Orthodox faithful, is reading back into the past from the present.

No. The much more difficult task is to take the old texts and see what they are in terms of their meaning, in context, and then comparing them with what the contemporary formulas are in the fullness of their expression.

Any "reading" of the patristic consensus, of Tradition, has to be done ever mindful of the fact that there were no doctrinal definitions codified in conciliar documents or papal documents for three-hundred years or more. Yet the truths of revelation were "held" fully by the Chuch, the Body of Christ.

That really is the most appropriate starting place.

Mary

Point taken. Perhaps in the interest of "reconciling" viewpoints, we could approach any effort to interpret Church teachings as a double-movement: reading the old in the light of the new and the new through the lens of the old?

I'm curious about the methodology of those within the ressourcement movement of the 50's and 60's leading up to VII. link [crossroadsinitiative.com] Very clearly they had to wrestle with these issues...

Gordo, who sees Henri deLubac, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs vonBalthasaar, Jean Danielou, Louis Bouyer, John Henry Newman and Sayedneh Joseph Raya as modern Church fathers (small "f").

Yes. These are the ones to whom I turn for exemplars on how to do such things as we speak of here.

To that list I would add the secular Carmelite, Karol Wojtyla for his work on the body, person and being, and also the Carmelite nun, Edith Stein aka St. Benedicta de la Cruce. In the same spirit then one would have to add Father Alexander Golitzin, Father Dimitru Staniloae, Father Lossky and Father Florovsky. I add Father Georges at the end here because he was the steady hub or pole, around which contemporary Russian Orthodox theologians danced. To this list I would also add the work of Metropolitan John Zizioulas and Professor Aristotle Papanikolaou.

This whole issue of body, mind and soul, ens, essence and being has broken upon us in magnificent language and metaphor on both sides of the Catholic divide in the 20th century, and will carry us, for God knows how many centures more on its wings.

To me it is the theology of communion.

Mary

Agreed! (including the additions to your list)

Metropolitan John Zizoulas is also quite inspiring for me, although I have been told here that his writings are somewhat controversial among the Orthodox.

So are Father Staniloae's so they are in excellent mutual if not actual company. Some see Father Georges as an stogey old crank and witch hunter for his teaching in opposition to Sophianism. And everyone does there best to stick to the more anti-western of his ecumenical texts. There are other texts which hold out great hope for mutual orthodox understanding.

Also Father Staniloae's Orthodox Spirituality reads like the reformed Carmelite saints. That will be denied from ages to ages by some, but to me it is the primary point of spiritual convergence and resolution for our respective confessions.

M.

Zenovia,

I agree with nearly everything you say on your post, so I do not need to re-quote, but your response is very gracious, thorough and well stated.

I agree with you probably 98%; I do understand the church to teach in Vatican II, that non-Christians responding to the grace given them, might find salvation. St. Paul seems to suggest this too, in Romans 2:6-10, in which he says it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law that are justified.

But we must preach Christ. I know I can positively offer people the full means of salvation in the Church, faith and baptism in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think we must be careful too, that we are preaching the Cross, and not ethics, as the way of salvation. Many people who are "deep ecumenists" reduce salvation to something easily obtainable by all "good" people.

Blessings,

Lance

Dear Zenovia,

I would especially like to commend you for the last paragraph of your post above.

And as St Augustine once wrote, "There are those outside the Church who appear as if they are inside it - and those who are inside the Church who appear as if they are outside it."

Oh, all right, you've made me admit it - St Augustine is O.K. . . .

Alex

I could not agree more. I think it is important to note that this can be a failing of people on both the left and the right. The Gospel is a message of grace, of God's action in history to save men and women. Certainly, the indicative of God's grace supplies the imperative of our works. But we have to be careful not to confuse the imperative for the indicative!

A bishop I deeply respect once said to me, "Father, please, please, please make sure that you tell the people that God loves them. Too many homilies tell people what they should do and how they are failing without assuring them first (and last) of God's unconditional love."

Scripture, when interpreted by the Church, is always interpreted in the way which the original human author meant it to be interpreted. Tradition is somewhat different because much of it was unwritten from the time it was delivered from God to the Apostles until it was defined by a Pope or Oecumenical Council, so one cannot say that it is interpreted in the way the original human author meant it. But one can say that when Tradition is developed by a Pope or Oecumenical Council, the same belief is held by the Pope or Council which develops dogma the that was held by the Pope or Oecumenical Council that defined it, only it is more clearly defined to exclude all doubt as to what the Church teaches.
At Vatican II "invincible ignorance" was no new teaching. One cannot even truly say that Vatican II developed the concept or "invincible ignorance" since it was a pastoral rather than dogmatic Council. Vatican II merely restated what had been said about "invincible ignorance" by previous popes (one such quote discussing invincible ignorance from Pius X I have already posted).

With due respect, I don't think this is true.

Take for example, the story of the burning bush in the Old Testament. Regardless of who you think actually wrote the original story (Moses, a priestly redactor, etc.), the intent of the original author was to authenticate the call of Moses and to stress that he was appointed by God to proclaim His message.

But the Church has taken this passage and interpreted it as a prophecy concerning the Theotokos.

So in this case, the Church has not interpreted it as the original author intended it. Now, one can argue that this is a legitimate development and a legitimate interpretation in light of new revelation, etc., but even so, the Church has not interpreted the passage solely as the original author intended it.

I would contend that this is a false hermeneutic principle -- the Church has repeatedly re-interpreted texts in light of new revelation and developments (as Newman pointed out many, many years ago).

Father John,

Of course, the Fathers would probably argue that the levels of spiritual interpretation (allegorical, tropological, eschatalogical) were part of the Divine Author's intended meaning. Henri de Lubac event argues that the entire New Testament is the spiritual interpretation of the Old! One could say that the intended meaning of the human authors of the Old Testament were fulfilled and superceded through the spiritual interpretation of the New Testament revelation.

That being said, the foundation of spiritual interpretation (from which all theology springs) is always the literal/historical meaning of the text - which includes the inspired human author's intended meaning.

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

What you have said is true and illustrates my point. I had an old seminary professor who used to say that the human authors of the Bible often "spoke better than they knew." That is, they did not themselves understand the full implications of what had been revealed to them. Only in time, as the Spirit illumined the hearts and minds of the faithful, have these passages been understood in the multiple senses you have indicated.

I would assume that the same is true of the teaching of the Fathers in Council, so that therefore the Fathers at VII were not simply asking themselves what did previous Council Fathers say, but also what did they mean and what is the full implications of their meaning.

This is where I return to the teachings of Cardinal Newman and his understanding of the doctrine of development.

Amen.