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

It does get more nuanced from here, Joe. Talk of formal and material heresy and the like. It fact it was the good Cardinal Bellarmine who proposed such solutions to the question of whether or not the pope can be understood to be a formal heretic. Those little details sometimes get lost.

I find that it is better to walk along by the horse at his head rather than trying to shove from the rear.

Meaning that it gets less confusing if we stick to the teachings of the Church and try to find out how they are true, rather than arriving at our own seemingly logical truths and trying to use them to prove that the Church is mistaken.

The details of Church history are not a mystery to those who define doctrine. So I find that if I go along, long enough, with an open mind, the truth is not nearly as murky as it has gotten in this little moment here.

The Church says that the pope many not be rightly deposed without his willing consent.

I accepted that years ago and spent a long time studying how that is true.

Sometimes the only way out of a snarl is to let go of one of the ends of the rope.

Mary

It means it is absolutely necessary to belong to the Holy Catholic Church.

Those who are invincibly ignorant are united to the soul of the Church if they are of good will.

Dear Trent (and others),

Can you please provide more recent explanations of the earlier teachings? For example, your quotes need to be understand within the context of the Catholic Catechism:

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation." (LG 13)

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'" (LG 14)

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist." (LG 15, UR 3 and Paul VI, Discourse, Dec 14, 1974; cf. UR 13-18)

Your posts tend to be very selective excerpts of Catholic Teachings presented in a very exclusionary way, a way that the Church does not use. It is always best if you actually present Catholic Teaching as it is taught by the Catholic Church rather than as you wish it to be.

Admin

Dear Administrator,
Good response. I guess that is why you have the job. Keep up the good work. We need you for our sanity and a balanced discussion.

Thank you. This clarification is important. It does bring up some interpretive questions. These are questions that would apply to any historical text. One question I would have is this: Would Pope Boniface or anyone who understood the intent of Unum Sanctum at the time regard the current teaching as in continuity with what was stated? And, if not, would it matter? How important are the original intentions of the Pope when expressing a doctrine? Is the Church tied to the actual intent of Pope Boniface or is it only how the Church understands and interprets what was said in the actual text that matters? You can see that these questions can apply to anything, not just papal statements. For example, how important is the mind of the biblical author when interpreting a biblical passage? How important are the personal intentions of the council fathers when interpreting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council? Can the Church ever legitimately interpret Scripture, Council, or Papal teaching in a way that was different from what was originally intended? I don't know the answer to these questions. But it seems that these kinds of questions are important when trying to understand such teachings as "outside the Church there is no salvation." Another way of looking at it would be this: Would the fathers of the Council of Trent and the mind of the Church at that time recognize what was taught at Vatican II as being an authentic expression of the Catholic faith? Perhaps, this is what is at the heart of the divide between anti-VII traditionalists and pro-VII traditional Catholics? The former want to suggest that VII is a contradiction to the mind of the Church, whereas pro-VII Catholics see it as being in continuity and as expressing the same essential faith. Would this be a fair assessment?

Joe

Joe

Joe,

I think it is a definite must to interpret the Bible, the Councils, and the Papal statements in light of their intentions of writing what they wrote and codified.

Dr. Eric, if that is the case, then it does seem important to take into account what Pope Boniface meant or what the fathers of Trent meant and whether they would have considered their teaching to be compatible with VII development of teaching.

Joe

Joe,

As usual, your post is thoughtful and well put. I don't have any easy answers either. I will make three comments, though.

I know where the Church is; I don't know where it is not. There must be a new ecumenical council to settle this.

[1] I know where the Church is. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, is baptized and is trying to keep the commandments, the person is (in my opinion) a Christian and thus a member of the Church: which is the mystical body of Christ. The issues of doctrinal allegiance, in my opinion, have little bearing in the lives of most people. Perhaps for theologians and others interested in theology ;-) but for most people no. And even then, I am chastened by the parable of the good Samaritan. Both the priest and the minister, both of whom were presumably right believing and right practicing, walked past the wounded man; but the Samaritan --who was a heretic-- showed mercy and was the example Jesus Himself pointed to.

[2] I don't know where the Church is not. Where does the Church end ? I don't know; and I find that to be a mystery in the profoundest sense. By His life, death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed the world; and He taught that "whatsoever you did to the least of My brothers, that you did unto Me." Hence, in a certain limited but real sense, the Church is also all of the cosmos and every human being. Yet, how to reconcile that with the facts of sin and willful disbelief (let alone ignorance)? I don't know. The infinite Mercy of God is the only solution I can see: intellectually and holistically. And even that is limited by God's respect for human free will: i.e., God will respect a person's choice if he or she chooses (by their sins) to go to hell or (by grace) to go to heaven.

As for the difficulties of how to interpret Scripture, Councils, Tradition and, yes, even papal statements: This is why I trust in the apostolic succession with the pope of Rome as the first among equals. I think that is how Christ set up Church government and how the Holy Spirit has kept it going. I also think that the first millennium of the Church bears reasonably good witness to how the system could and did work: not perfectly, but well enough. (Perhaps the real problem is for us to stop expecting logical perfection from human beings, even those in Church government; and to allow people to be people --mistakes and sins and all-- and to allow Christ to be Christ with His divine, guiding, corrective, loving Mercy.) Hence, I think that the Dictatus Papae, Vatican I, etc. cannot be rightly understood without the proper context to limit and check their statements: i.e., the entirety of the apostolic succession, with the successor to Peter as first among equals, but the Christ as the head and the Spirit as the guide. (And when people get away from the entire system that Christ set up, there are problems . . . such as we have seen since 1054.) Personally, I think Vatican II tends to get back to the apostolic standard of Church government within a Roman understanding of ecclesiology. Hence, I think what remains to be done is a new ecumenical council, of East and West, to restore things overall. [3]

That's just my three cents; your mileage may vary. :-)

-- John

Dear John,

I've been thinking about this thread and the overall response to Trent all morning.

Clearly your presentation of the current language of the teaching and its expanded explanatory power is both useful and necessary.

It seems to me that what Trent has done, by drawing our attention to the older formulas, is also necessary.

One of the worst things that takes hold, not only from outside of the Catholic Church but also from within, is the idea that the Church has "changed" her mind "over and over again," as I have heard it said on occasion.

We cannot risk fostering that false assertion by squelching those who present the older formulas for consideration, or so it seems to me, as long as they do not deny the explanatory power and truth in contemporary formulas. It must always be emphasized that they continue to be the same teaching, expressing the same core truth.

Mary

Mary,

Or at least, bringing all of these different Church statements out into the open together allows us to ask the hermeneutical questions that are necessary in order to determine the truth of the matter. Whether the Latin Church has changed its teachings on a number of issues is debatable and it is not my purpose to get into that debate here. But it is important to see whether all of the statements on such a topic as "outside the Church there is no salvation," are really compatible. I'm not saying they are not. I'm just throwing out the question.

Joe

Mary,

You bring up an interesting point (as always) and I like the way you have positioned it - old and new formulas.

Clearly there needs to be an integrity and transparency to the process of unity that acknowledges and reconciles old and new. I think that, to John's point, by Trent focusing on the old formulas (which would include references to Orthodox Christians as "dissident Easterners", BTW) it risks undermining the efforts made in the past 45 years or so to cultivate a new posture, a new spirit and a new approach to achieving unity in truth and charity. Even presumably infallible, irreformable statements made by the pontiffs of the past do not always represent the best ways to express things at the best time (even by the best people) for all times, especially in light of the developments of recent history.

So I guess I agree with your broader point while acknowledging that something fundamentaly new is afoot.

Just my two cents...

In ICXC,

Gordo

I can say whole-heartedly that there is no salvation outside of the Church, understood properly.

Here is my understanding, from a Catholic view point, of the One True Church:

Vatican II and the document, Dominus Iesus assert that the Catholic Church is the one true church. The Church of Christ, the True Church, the Body of Christ, subsists in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church, too, is really a communion of Churches. We have 21 churches, only the largest of which is the Roman Catholic Church. We also have the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Maronite Church, the Melkite Church, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, Malankara Church, my church, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church, and several others. The Orthodox Church, too, is a communion of Church bodies, that are true churches- for example, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, etc.

All of these churches I mention above, whether Catholic or Orthodox, have true bishops in Apostolic succession, true and valid Sacraments. The Catholics and Orthodox are in schism primarily over the understanding of the Petrine Ministry. There are other issues too, I do not mean to dismiss lightly; but the Petrine Ministry is the big wedge issue. In my view, the Catholics and Orthodox have substantially the same faith when it comes to the Trinity, Mary, the Sacraments, the understanding of the nature of the Body of Christ, and means of salvation. We, the Catholic and the Orthodox, are sister churches, and part of the true church.

Our Protestant brothers and sisters are united to the Catholic Church in an imperfect way through Trinitarian baptism. They too, have means of salvation available to them, and can by grace live holy lives and find salvation. But the Protestant understanding of Church is inadequate. They possess some, but not all, of the means of grace available for salvation and sanctification. Many of my Protestant friends live very Christ like lives, and can put me to shame. Some people milk the most out of the means of grace available to them, while others, who have ample means of grace, do not take full advantage.

People who are not Christians at all, can as Vatican II says, find salvation, being moved by grace. These too, are mystically united to the Catholic Church, even though they may die before entering into the Church, or finding out about it. People like Ghandi and the current Dalai Lama seem to me to exemplify Christ more powerfully then some professed Christians. That is not to deny that Christ is the way, the truth and the life, or that Jesus is the only name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. We are still, as the Vatican council says, ever-bound to proclaim Christ.

I seek a lot of fellowship with my Orthodox brethren, and feel that I am living out my vocation to be a Byzantine Catholic most faithfully when I am as committed to Eastern Orthodox theology and worship as I am to the Catholic Church.

I have friends among Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. I do not seek to convert Orthodox or Protestants to the Catholic Church, unless they are interested in the Catholic Church.

Mary, please re-read my post. I suspect that if you do you will find that your conclusions about what I wrote are in error.

Trent has not merely drawn our attention to the older formulas. He has come very close to rejecting the fullness of Catholic Teaching on these issues by ignoring the current formulas. Every teaching of the Church must be understood within both the historical context in which it was taught as well as in the overall completeness of Catholic Teaching. In this discussion the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church cannot be properly discussed and understood except when the discussion also includes the question �Who belongs to the Catholic Church?�

Trent's posts here (and even his chosen name) seem to indicate that he believes that Catholic Teaching reached its zenith and end point at the Council of Trent.

Dear Joe and Gordo,

I was in the process of considering my response to you but I see lance's good post so I will let that one percolate a while and will see where that takes us. We are essentially in accord.

Mary

Dear John,

I will wait to hear from him before drawing any personal conclusions, but I'll leave the rest to you with respect to your Forum.

Addition: I want to add, so that others will not be confused, I don't negate your reading of Trent's posts as plausible at all. His notes are quite terse and so give only those clues available at first glance, as you note them.

I simply would rather wait till he offers more of his perspective before judging too harshly. In fact I don't see your note as harsh at all, which is why I mentioned the general or overall response to Trent which includes others who were quite harsh with him...unnecessarily so, I think, given what we know of Trent superficially, and given that what he presents are still the core teaching of the Church.

For example, rather than the phrase 'invincible ignorance' there are documets which refer to our protestant brothers and sisters, Lutherans, in the document that I am remembering from my dim stores of memory, that explain that other Christians are not formal heretics because they don't see themselves as either schismatics or heretics, because they are merely living the faith of their ancestors and their sincere attachment to those beliefs.

Again we go back to Cardinal Bellarmine's discussion of material and formal heresy that I mentioned in this or some other thread recently.

As to my primary point in writing a response, I think we need to be cautious and address all texts over time.

Mary