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

Well without getting deep into it here, documents like Dominus Iesus must be read, as all Church documents must be, in the light of Tradition. And traditionally, the Catholic Church has understood itself to be the Church of Christ. What Catholicism teaches isn't confusing: Catholicism is the True Religion, outside of which there is no salvation. BUT, there are those who are not "officially" Catholics who are, in some way, united and part of her. That could very well apply to many Orthodox believers, but it doesn't negate what Catholicism teaches about itself. Additionally, there are many "official" Catholics who are no more inside Christ's Church, really, than any number of non-Catholics.

Alexis

I was not excluding your view of extra but implying that it means more than that.
Stephanos I

Alex,

You asked the following questions, and I am assuming in good will:

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

"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?"

In Russia and the Universal Church, Vladimir Soloviev enunciated this very view. Speaking specifically of the Russian Church he said: "First and foremost we must recognize ourselves for what we are in reality, an organic part of the great body of Christendom, and affirm our intimate solidarity with our Western brethren who possess the central organ which we lack. This moral act of justice and charity would be in itself an immense step forward on our part and the essential condition of all further advance."

Now, there are two assertions here: 1.) The Russian Church is "in reality, an organic part of the great body" and 2.) there is a "central organ which we lack" by which Soloviev meant the papacy.

So, if Soloviev is right, and I think he is, the Russian Church and all the particular Orthodox churches remain, objectively speaking, part of the Catholic Church, even though many members are in schism (with greater or lesser degrees of culpability) from the Universal Father, the Pope of Rome. Their state of subjective schism affects only themselves, not the Church as a whole.

Thus, according to this view, the Orthodox Church does not strenuously oppose this, only men who are placeholders therein.

It is instructive in this regard that on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, when the Synodicon is read, there is no condemnation of papal supremacy or those who (like me) profess adherence thereto.

By the way, your statement is a classic: "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.'" That's Vatican Newspeak you're reacting to, not perennial Catholic doctrine.

Please let me know if this helps.

Indeed, and the responses I'm reading are further affirmation for me.

The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church regarding "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus" is quite simple, and has sadly been thrown away because of the ecumenical craze of the post Vatican II era.

Here is what previous popes have taught regarding Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus


QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX

AUGUST 10, 1863:

(#8) Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside 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."


Mortalium Animos
Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
January 6,1928:

(#11.) Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, "the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful"? Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind."

So, here is my question. Did these two popes intend to say something that is different from what Vatican II says about Christians not in communion with Rome? Can the statements of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II era of the Roman Catholic Church be reconciled with these statements? It does seem to me that these Popes here don't leave too many loopholes. There is no nuance or subtlety. And these are encyclicals. When these popes wrote these things, were they intending to speak as Doctor of all Christians? It appears to me that this is their intent. But, I could be wrong.

Joe

I would say, of course, that there's no difference at all in pre- and post-Vatican II teaching in this regard.

It is necessary, of course, to be united to the Catholic Church, whose visible Head on Earth is the Bishop of Rome, for one's salvation. However, the difference lies in interpretation of this. It's always been understood that there are those who are not officially part of the Catholic Church who are nonetheless indeed united to the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome. The idea that ONLY official Catholics are subject to the Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church (Feeneyism) has been condemned by the Church unilaterally...and well BEFORE Vatican II.

However, to say that the Eastern (or Oriental) Orthodox Churches are part of the Church of Christ/Catholic Church, wholly and complete is not true, if one wishes to view it from a Catholic perspective. Individuals may be, but the Catholic Church is that visible Communion of Churches united under the Bishop of Rome and Sovereign Pontiff.

Alexis

Here is another part of ON PROMOTION OF FALSE DOCTRINES
QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX

AUGUST 10, 1863



This is consistent with Dominus Jesus and the documents of Vatican II.

Alexis:

While what you write is true, it is only partially the story. We had a discussion of the deeper truth that Vatican II was aiming at here in November 2002. The Administrator started a thread entitled "The Eucharist: The Source of Unity in the Church.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=67276&page=260&fpart=1

After we wrestled with this on the surface, I posted the following:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=67276&page=260&fpart=3

This is the basis on which the Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Church as being a sister Church and her members as being part of us, though, at present, incompletely.

And let me close with an appropraite quote from Dr. Alice von Hildebrand in the April 2007 edition of Homiletic & Pastorla Review. Dr. von Hildebrand is a highly regarded theologian, something few of us can claim. She writes:


Please take a look at the tone of some of the posts on this thread and temper them with Dr. von Hildebrand's advice.

In Christ,

BOB

Theophan,

Thank you for the wonderful quote by Dr. von Hildrebrand.


Here is an important document, NOTE ON THE EXPRESSION �SISTER CHURCHES�, issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II regarding the term "sister Churches".


The entire document is here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Theophan,

Thank you for Dr. von Hildebrand. I very much like her.

I know that you and I do not agree on what constitutes an arrogant or triumphalistic tone, and I suspect we shall never agree on it.

However, I do hear where you're coming from and will try, as I have already, to temper my posts with an appropriately humble tone.

Also, thanks for the links to the past threads. They are an interesting read!

Alexis

Alexis:

I didn't mean to single you out. Overall this subject area usually leads to some borderline tension that we just don't need.

Blessed John XXIII made a statement early in his pontificate when he said that the Counter Reformation was over. He also emphasized that we were entering a new era when it was important that all those who looked to Jesus Christ must work toward that unity that Christ prayed for in St. John's Gospel, Chapter 17--the High Priestly Prayer. Blessed John had worked in the Eastern Mediterranean and was familiar with the Orthodox Church there. He recognized our brothers there and dared to dream of the day when we could be what the Lord wanted us to be--one. His challenge still is in front of us. When he called the Vatican Council, many were shocked that he invited members of the Orthodox Churches and the Protestant communities to be observers. The days of the Catholic Church being a closed group--with our battlements built high--was over. We are now open to talking, praying, and living with those who believe differently but who see Jesus Christ as our common Lord. He called us to get out of our comfort zone and find new ways to speak the same truths we have received. He and his most recent successors have called us to the equally hard taks of LISTENING to others. And listening doesn't mean throwing up our own noise to block or distort the actual message being sent by the other.

We have striven here in this place to welcome and get to know people who are not like us. We have come here to get to know them and they us. We pray together; we discuss together; we share together. We aren't perfect, but we have a place where a ROCOR member can come to the defense of his Eastern Catholic brethren. We have a place where we can read the Paschal and nativity greetings of a good number of godly hierarchs who span the entire spectrum of the Apostolic Churches. And I, for one, recognize the same things that I have heard as a Latin Catholic for over half a century in my own parishes and from my own bishops. This is a place where EVERY MEMBER is respected and, yes, loved unconditionally. The only lack of tolerance we have here is the lack of charity.

And when it all comes down, as St. Paul tells us, "love never ends." (1 Cor 13:8) That's where our Administrator has pointed us and challenged us to go.

Whe it comes down to it, there are lots of places where one can hear triumphalism expressed. Every group has that sort of thing going on. It's the "us vs. them" thing going on. We beat our breasts and tell each other how great we are. Then we go out and do it in public where we make enemies of everyone who doesn't share our belief about ourselves.

Your brother who counts on your prayers,

BOB

Alexis,

Thank you. This is a very good explanation and a most coherent interpretation.

Joe

Im,

Yes indeed, thanks for posting this. This is the proof in the pudding. Why do people always selectively quote these passages?

Joe

Bob,

You put that very beautifully. Thank you for sharing such holy thoughts and feelings.

Joe