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.
My apologies for jumping the gun.
SD
- I dont hear you disputing the whole Latin mass, Vicar of Christ, Mother Mary / co-redeemer thing.
Would you at least acknowledge some doctrinal insufficiencies in Catholicism?
I think thats what agitates Protestants the most, there are some glaring deficiencies, yet the whole thing is still held up as 100% perfection - sorry, but Hillary didnt stand in our pulpit like she did in a Catholic pulpit here in Rochester.
No slight meant.
There is a very sad and pathetic side to AmChurch which revolves around what Fr. Tom ate at the five-star restaurant during the conference in Philadelphia or what kinds of golf clubs the bishop has, which layman won the golf outing tournament, how many Tootsie Rolls the KofCs sold during their drive,why Notre Dame selected this guy as their football coach, and which priest got to lead the vacation group to Cape May or on the Caribbean Cruise. The dysfunctional nature of much of AmChurch Catholicism really ought to be an unacceptable outrage for everyone. Liberal dissenting Catholics can be very annoying, but among the self-claimed ultra-orthodox conservatives, there are plenty of kooks - people who can't stop talking about their disgust with sex, etc. Just because someone claims to be Catholic, to support the pope, and shows up in the proper uniform does not necessarily mean that they are a great spiritual Christian. We have a lot of work to do in this country in the way of ecclesiastical reform. There was a priest I heard speak at a conference once who couldn't stop talking about masturbation. This was a guy who was clearly too unbalanced to be hearing confessions regularly. There are BIG problems in AmChurch. The Catholic college nearby is run like a zoo and our bishop does nothing about it. None of these goofy, ridiculous, absurd sociological phenomena have anything to do with the Holy Spirit!!!
Then you have these nutty self-righteous converts who appear out of nowhere, from the fundamentalist underworld, and start trying to boss everyone around with their own pay-as-you-go/buy-my-book NFP conferences & seminars, the absolutely loony Pre-Cana Marriage Prep programs, Enneagrams still buzzing around among the wacky liberal set, the NewAgey "charismatics" lifting their arms up in the middle of Mass like they are about to establish contact with the Mother Ship, adding revivalist "clapping" etc., etc.!BIG problems. There is a Laurel and Hardy, Three Stooges, or Marx Brothers aspect to AmChurch which is quite...disturbing. At the English-language V II-approved Novus Ordo Mass I most recently attended there was a 300-pound woman with a speech impediment hovering around in the sanctuary who served as "lector." I wasn't sure whether this was Mass or a Shriners' circus.
I thought I'd start with the spelling/respect thing, but that was a mistake. Are you sure you want to do this?
Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so. But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so. Education is and was always done in the vernacular.
What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?
Mary is not worshipped. We worship God the Father when we offer the only perfect sacrifice of Christ to Him. Singing and teaching about a saint does not mean we worship her.
And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.
Would you at least acknowledge some doctrinal insufficiencies in Catholicism? I think thats what agitates Protestants the most, there are some glaring deficiencies, yet the whole thing is still held up as 100% perfection
Nope, sorry. There are no "doctrinal" deficiencies. Why would I follow a faith that didn't have the answers?
- sorry, but Hillary didnt stand in our pulpit like she did in a Catholic pulpit here in Rochester. No slight meant.
If no slight was meant, why even bring it up? You will find man, many more examples of liberal politicians using Protestant pulpits than Catholic ones. Not that any of it is proper, but I fail to see what other than a slight could have been intended by mentioning this fact.
SD
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
Most of the world has heard the gospel so this is moot..
ROFLOL...Good Heavens, God's Word isn't this complicated. This speaks volume's about the catholic church. How about just giving Book, Chapter, and Verse, it would be alot more reliable:)
Becky
Becky
On the chapters and verses, they were added, I believe, by the Catholic biblical scholar St. Jerome (A.D. 340-420).
C'mon Dave - Galileo might have argued the point. I guess we have little to share then.
Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so
Yeah I got the Baptist part - duh - I disagree though as to the latin masses - they can still be found today - How does that enrich the poor Christ sought?
But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so.
Say wha ? - I'd be more inclined to agree with my congregation by understanding the language, lest the chance of heretical teachings is reduced. ...like bumps on a pickle
Education is and was always done in the vernacular.
Yeah - I got that part - Im ex Cath remember ?
What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?
I have problems with a system that venerates a mortal man to a point where he is termed "infallible". Read the books Dave - there were plenty o nasty Popes.
Mary is not worshipped. We worship God the Father when we offer the only perfect sacrifice of Christ to Him. Singing and teaching about a saint does not mean we worship her.
- we differ here
And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.
There is one redeemer - Christ
My objection is anything else is blasphemy & undermines the trinity (or "trilogy" as my college roomate called it).
Too often its the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and Mary.
And if thats the case, the divinity of Christ is being consciously undermined.
Why would I follow a faith that didn't have the answers?
- Uh -'cause you equate the ritualism to faithfulness?
as for the whole co-redeemer thing - Attend any Sunday and you will hear intercessory prayers to her -
why her and not Jesus?
Because theology is man thinking, which can be dangerous:) I am not saying you don't have to think and study, (2 Tim. 2:15), but theology is from man, the bible is from God. You don't need an 8 foot thick theology book to understnd God. 1 Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion as in all churches of the saints.
You could say this verse implies that Satan IS the author of confusion.
Becky
Becky
You don't need an 8 foot thick theology book to understnd God.
Becky,
If it was that simple, why are their millions of books explaining the bible. plus thousands of bible studies (many with different interpretation of scriptures), thousands of denominations etc.
P.S. I also do not think it is as complicated as some people make it
It IS that simple:)
why are their millions of books explaining the bible. plus thousands of bible studies (many with different interpretation of scriptures), thousands of denominations etc.
That's easy, as I said in the other post, SATAN. He likes to keep things muddled.
Becky
Becky
C'mon Dave - Galileo might have argued the point. I guess we have little to share then.
Most people have a very superficial understanding of the Galileo situation. He was not incarcerated because he disagreed with a Church dogma about the Sun. Astronomy is not an area covered by infallibility regardless.
Baptists don't have to have their services in Latin, nor do Catholics. We have been having Masses in the vernacular since 1970 or so
Yeah I got the Baptist part - duh - I disagree though as to the latin masses - they can still be found today - How does that enrich the poor Christ sought?
How does celebrating Mass in Latin de-rich the poor? For that matter how does a Baptist service in English enrich the poor?
But strictly speaking, the language used to praise God is not nearly as important as the desire to do so.
Say wha ? - I'd be more inclined to agree with my congregation by understanding the language, lest the chance of heretical teachings is reduced. ...like bumps on a pickle
So, it is the chance of heretical teaching that bothers you? You do realize that priests do not ad lib during the Mass? Do you also realize that the Mass is an offering to God, a time to worship? Those attending Mass are there to worship God, not necessarily to sit and listen to a preacher.
You act as if those attending Latin Mass have no idea of what is being said and sung. This is insulting. First of all, educated Catholics understand what the parts of the Mass are all about. Secondly, the Missal contains a side-by-side translation into English, so even the newecomer can follow along.
What is it that makes you believe that my singing "O come let us adore Him" is good but singing "Venite Adoremus" is bad?
Education is and was always done in the vernacular.
Yeah - I got that part - Im ex Cath remember ?
Then let it sink in. Your biggest objection to a Latin Mass is that heretical teaching may seep in, in a language you don't understand. Well, you just admitted that you understand that teaching is done in the vernacular. This includes the Scripture readings and the sermon during Mass, as well as outside instruction given to children and converts.
Honestly, some Protestants act like they think that schoolchildren were lectured to in Latin by a priest and they had no idea what was being said. I see that you know better, but many don't.
What is it about the Church having a leader who can "declare bound what is bound in Heaven" bothers you?
I have problems with a system that venerates a mortal man to a point where he is termed "infallible". Read the books Dave - there were plenty o nasty Popes.
Define "infallible." Contrast that with "impeccible." We do not teach that Popes are without sin. This is a common misconception and I would think you would know better.
And, before we even start, please identify what "co-redeemer" means and what your objection to it is.
There is one redeemer - Christ
I asked you to define "co-redeemer." You have failed. Shall I rail about some teaching of yours without even having the faintest idea of how to define it? Wouldn't that make me ignorant?
SD
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.