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

If the Pope is the Universal Father, if he is who the later Councils (including Vatican II) says he is, then how could it not matter? Let me quote something which I posted in another thread.This is from a talk Pope Benedict XVI gave in 1991. The Pope here is speaking of conscience in the Platonic notion of anamnesis.



The beauty and truth of Cardinal Ratzinger's position is that it exempts no one--priest, Bishop, laymen or religious--card carrying Catholic or not. We are all bound by that obedience to conscience (which includes and is not in opposition to THE ANAMNESIS -- the Eucharist) which is one with the teaching of the Universal Father.

As you noted in another thread, however, there appears to be a tension for those who want to be radically Eastern and yet in union with the Holy Father. I count myself among them (yes even though I love St. Thomas Aquinas). For me, this means, that it must be the case that we, rather that I, can truly breath with both lungs. I don't think there can be one truth for the Eastern Churches and another for the Roman Church. They must be truly one in Christ and that is not in oppositioin to communion with the teaching of the Universal Father.

Unfortunately, I often cannot tell you, or even myself for that matter, what that means in the details. I can usually tell what it is not; but what it is, I can often only point to, like, Meno's slave in the Platonic dialogue.

Gordon


Not wrapped around, but built up from. Christ is the foundation of the church, and everything grows from there. So while various other things may add to the church in its total expression, there is nothing lacking in its fundamental core. I suppose then my view is bottom up and not top down. The fullness of faith is not found in its totality in the composite nature of the church made up of all bishops present in the temporal institution of the church. The fullness is built up from the base of Christ and we find participation in this truth through the church as institution (especially the sacraments); but as I think the Hesychasts showed us, direct access to the fullness of faith was also possible outside of what would be called the visible church (and the sacraments) through those who experience the beatific vision.


The body and blood of Christ.

Andrew,

I see now what you are saying and actually I think that I agree. Is your view that of Metropolitan Zizioulas'? This is the viewpoint expressed by some of the apostolic fathers, "where the eucharist is, there is the Church." In reality, wherever a true Eucharist is celebrated, the fullness of the Church exists there. In a sense then, it is potentially misleading to talk about the Church singularly as if the Church were a kind of super-entity composed of local Churches. Rather, each local Church is the Church in its fullness.

Joe

Would it better to speak of one true Tradition, or one true Faith, rather than one true Church?

Joe

Alex,

It's not the Catholic position that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are part of the One True Church, wholly and complete.

If I believed that, I would convert to Orthodoxy and so would every other logical Catholic who believed that. If we know that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitively part of the One True Church, but from the opposite side of things cannot knowingly say the same for the Catholic Communion of Churches, what fool would wish to imperil his soul by remaining in a Communion of Churches which neither that Communion nor the Orthodox Churches taught was the only One True Church?

That to me would be the height of madness and idiocy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. The way I see it, if (hypothetically)....

Catholic Church teaches: Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches are together the One True Church

Eastern Orthodox Churches teach: Eastern Orthodox Churches are together the One True Church

The common denominator is Eastern Orthodoxy. This hypothetical situation assures us that in either case, Eastern Orthodoxy is part of the One True Church, but does not assure us that Catholicism is. Therefore, what madman would stay Catholic if he were to believe this? I don't believe that, so I don't convert. But if I did believe it I certainly would switch.

Alexis

O.K. guys, NOW we're cookin' with gas!

One problem I have with contemporary Catholic theology is that it (or persons) can make sweeping generalizations that leaves people wondering, "Huh?"

I don't see HOW the Catholic Church can teach that the Orthodox Church is part of the True Church and not, by that statement, make relative the matter of papal primacy.

There was a thread here not long ago talking about the Filioque etc. and yet, if the Orthodox Church is the True Church, then the Filioque is not something that has affected the Orthodox Church (as it denies its validity).

Clearly, Orthodoxy, from the Catholic point of view, has always had valid Sacraments/Mysteries. So does, for that matter, the Polish National Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox.

So 1) what the Catholic Church teaches is confusing;

2) What the Orthodox Church teaches is not confusing;

Alex

I figured that eventually this discussion would wind up in this bear trap. Not a particularly elegant set-up either. Very large footprints in the sand.

Probably better to stick to discussing the specifics of particular teachings.

Mary

May I return to the original text with which I started this thread.


"Subsists in" are the important operative words. I can see that the Orthodox Church is a part of this Catholic Church but this Church founded by Christ, if I understand Dominus Jesus correctly, does not subsist in the Orthodox Church.


Here is Dominus Jesus (section 17) again quoting Vatican II:


For obvious reasons, the other side of the coin, of course, is that although the Church founded by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, being a card carrying Catholic (laymen, religious, priest or Bishop) cannot in itself be the only criteria--one must actually be what one's card says--this requires obedience to the Holy Father--even in his ordinary magisterial teachings.

Joe


Yes, I think what I agree with is essentially the Ignatian view.


I think all definitions of the "one true church" in its temporal and institutional manifestation tend in some way or another to come up short in some essential way. So I don't really participate in discussions of this is the "one true church" vs. some other church. Byzantine ecclesiology as we all know is fuzzy anyway, but its fuzzy in a way that makes sense to me.

Andrew,

I am quite comfortable with a certain degree of fuzziness as well. Indeed, it is one reason that I am Orthodox and not eastern Catholic.

Joe

We specialize in fuzzy.

No Mary,
That is not what is meant here."Extra" means outside. All who are saved are although maybe not visibly within the Ark of Salvation, nevertheless they are still a part of Christ's Church.
Again salvation through grace is mediated.
Ebed Melech, I do want to clarify something lest I give the wrong inpression about what I said. I do believe that the Orthodox are a part of the One Church of Christ but that there is an irregular standing. Fullness of Faith and Truth are found by being in communion with the Church of Rome. That is why the status of The Eastern Catholic Churches is important because they fully express this reality.
Stephanos I

Dear lm,

Thank you - as I see it, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not in communion with one another (and the Orthodox Church will emphasize this perhaps more than the Catholic, I agree).

They share much that is the same, including Apostolic continuity and orders and the like

How can the Orthodox Church be considered to be part of the Catholic Church when it would strenuously oppose that itself?

Isn't that like trying to canonize as a saint someone who doesn't believe in saints himself?

Where in Dominus Iesus or elsewhere is this view of Orthodoxy expounded?

How can Orthodoxy be said to be part of the Catholic Church when Orthodoxy itself affirms the Catholic Church of the West and her EC Churches in communion with it are outside the Church?

And IF the Catholic Church is serious about this affirmation, then does it not, if even silently, add the qualifier (as it used to) that Orthodoxy is "in rebellion" and so is, in some sense, "deficient" as such? What has changed here?

I'm trying hard to understand this because I'm confused and want clarity. I've no problem with Dominus Iesus.

I've a problem with Catholic fuzziness that seems to border on ecumenical PR work that is ever being "improved."

Just think that they've "improved it worse."

Contrary to what Mary may believe, (and I think she is the only woman here that doesn't really like me - FYI, some have proposed marriage to me as a result of reading that special post of mine . . .), I CAN be taught!

Alex

It's not you I dislike Alex. I dislike your tactics and this is one of them that I dislike the most.

This kind of attribution is rude, presumptive and unnecessarily inflammatory.

And now you know the rest of the story....

Mary

It was taught to me by a priest and teacher that it was intersting that in this case [no pun intended] the Latin "extra" could mean "without" as well as "outside" and by looking at it through that lens, the wholeness of the teaching becomes more apparent.

So you'll pardon me if I ignore your correction.

Even those outside the Church will not be saved without the Body of Christ.

Mary