www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Because he does not follow us" in the Book of Mark

This recent Sunday, the 26th Sunday in Ordinary time, we in the Roman rite heard the wisdom of the Gospel of Mark (Mk 9:38-43, 45, 47-48). I was wondering how the following passages relate to the practice of apologetics and the hopes to bring back Protestants and convert other non-believers into the holy Catholic Christian faith.

--------------
At that time, John said to Jesus,
"Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name,
and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us."
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him.
There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name
who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink
because you belong to Christ,
amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.
--------------

Does this mean that it is not necessary for salvation for "those who do not follow us" (aka, those outside of the Catholic Church) to convert, as long as they sincerely preach in Christ's name?

Good question. Rome gets itself into trouble when it says that you need to belong to the canonical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for salvation, but also recognises that grace operates outside the canonical bounds of the Roman Church by recognising the baptism of Anglicans, etc. Both of these statements can't be true at the same time.

According to the Council of Arles, baptism by heretics is valid (indeed baptism by pagans is valid). By Rome's own principle of ex opere operanto the Holy Spirit operates outside of the canonical bounds of the Roman Church. The only way to reconcile this with the statement that there is no salvation outside the Church is by having the latter statement refer to the mystical Church, and acknowledging that it is not synonymous with the Roman Church. On this basis, it is apparent that belonging to a a particular jurisdiction (Roman, Greek, whatever) cannot be an obligatory condition of salvation.

For a fuller discussion see Florovsky:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm

I think we need to remember the idea that the Holy Spirit "blows where He wills." It doesn't necessarily mean that He is restricted to the visible communion that any one of us enjoys. For us, in fact, it must be a humbling moment when we realize that relationships with Christ may exist where we cannot see them or where they are not in the same community we live. I believe that's the basis for the growing realization among many of the separated Churches that "we know where the Church is, but we do not know where else she might be." The Catholic Church made that part of her teaching during the Second Vatican Council when she stated that there are many ways to be part of the Church--that many who are not in visible communion might still be part of what it means to be related to the Church and therefore Christ.

And I don't think anyone seriously speaks at this date of bringing back Protestants or others not now in visible communion. As Father Robert Taft, S.J., has stated "all we may be able to hope for is communion." That means that the idea of anyone being "under the Pope" may never come to pass as many in the Catholic Church have been taught to understand it. It's one thing for those of the Latin Church to be within the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as our patriarch, but to think that others not now in that relationship would have to submit to it is quite another that does not fly now and never will.

Bob

I recall the statement about salvation being through the Catholic Church being clarified a few years ago. This is how I understood it.

Those outside the membership of the Catholic Church still benefit from the Apostolic Church and the graces which flow through it from Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I think the correct reference is Lumen Gentium #48 which is quoted here:

Christ, having been lifted up from the earth has drawn all to Himself.(239) Rising from the dead(240) He sent His life-giving Spirit upon His disciples and through Him has established His Body which is the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation. Sitting at the right hand of the Father, He is continually active in the world that He might lead men to the Church and through it join them to Himself and that He might make them partakers of His glorious life by nourishing them with His own Body and Blood. Therefore the promised restoration which we are awaiting has already begun in Christ, is carried forward in the mission of the Holy Spirit and through Him continues in the Church in which we learn the meaning of our terrestrial life through our faith, while we perform with hope in the future the work committed to us in this world by the Father, and thus work out our salvation.

Should someone have a better reference, please quote it.

Here's an even better "clarification" from Lumen Gentium.

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) (emphases mine)

And here's not necessarily a better reference, but another. And as I note above, it is hard to reconcile the above quote with this one, which as far as I know, has never been disavowed.


Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Unam Sanctum. Papal Bull of His Holiness Pope Boniface VIII, promulgated November 18, 1302

Quite problematic when one denomination issues documents that say almost exactly opposite things without repealing either.

I think, in context, Unam Sanctam was written over disputes about papal authority. As in "the Papacy is necessary in the scheme of salvation" --- it's not necessarily meant to speak about what Lumen Gentium addresses, which is what happens to those who honestly had no clue about that. Unless we want to see contradictions in the Church considering baptism necessary for salvation, yet not in the case of the deaths of catechumens and martyrs? Not to mention, as I said, context. We can't expect every Church declaration to go off at a word in run on sentences every three words explaining everything in extremely anal detail.

It's all academic, because Unam Sanctam was not accepted by the vast majority of the Roman Church even at the time it was written. It is not, and has never been, a magisterial document. It was rejected by almost all the bishops, by the universities in Paris and Oxford, and by just about every king and prince in Europe. The only person who believed in the authority of Unam Sanctam was Boniface VIII. And we know what happened to him (at least if you read Dante).

As St. Ambrose has shown, we fast based on where we are. Obsession on Canon Law leads to nothing. If you are a practicing Ukrainian Catholic, then by all intents and purposes follow their practice. The spiritual wealth given to us by fasting is gained by doing the fast right, not following the letter of the law. I've seen people and been one myself who fast because we have to, without even knowing why or if the fast is done right.

There is nothing wrong to follow the UGCC way of fasting if you are spiritually living the UGCC praxis. Do you think God will judge you baed on Canon Law? If the UGCC praxis makes you a better person, who cares where you are canonically ascribed to? As long as you are honest with your spirituality then there is nothing wrong.

Otsheylnik,

Thank you for the quote from Lumen Gentium. There's a statement in it that's really amazing to anyone who's aware of the attitude that was previously held--nearly unanimously--among Christians (including Catholics and Orthodox, as well as Protestants) towards the Jews:
This 180-degree change was made quietly, and represents a declaration that would have been absolutely unthinkable in almost every previous age.

My point, though, is that if the Church can rectify a pervasive wrong that was ongoing for nearly 2000 years, she is certainly capable of rectifying other such wrongs--such as the Schism.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

I didn't know that Rome argued that acceptance was required to make an ex cathedra pronouncement dogma? Unam Sanctam "we declare, define, etc." sounds ex cathedra to me. Unless you can only make ex cathedra statements after Vatican I. Anyway, here we go again in this usual post-hoc Latin game of clutching at straws (Unam Sanctam isn't ex cathedra, or isn't dogma, or it was understood as dogma at the time but isn't now, etc etc) to try and justify later statements that were made without reference to prior ones.

Otsheylnik

Were Athanasius of Alexandria (Athanasian creed) and saint Cyprian of Carthage ("extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" - "outside the church there is no salvation")- both from East, wrong, or the "problem" is more complex?

Firstly, the Church does not and never has claimed infallibility for its saints so if Saints err it is not an issue. Secondly, some of Cyprian's views on sacramental validity were condemned by the Council of Arles, so there is evidence that he did in fact err.

Unlike Saints, who can err, the Roman Church claims that the Pope cannot err in an ex cathedra pronouncement. When the Roman Church therefore contradicts something that looks like an ex cathedra pronuncment, the contradiction matters. It's not the same case as two saints or Church Fathers disagreeing, which occurs often and is not a dogmatic issue.

The examples are not commensurate if one accepts Rome's teaching on infallibility. If one doesn't accept Rome's teachings on infallibility, then the examples ARE commensurate, and in that case, the contradiction in the dogmas of the Roman Church doesn't matter because the Pope can err.

Otshylnik,

I don`t know what is your religious background and affinity, but I am a Catholic of Roman rite (who likes very much eastern Catholic spirituality). I am not Roman Catholic and name of the Church I belong is not Roman (Catholic) Church. You can call her whatever you want, but I strongly reject such naming, and especially, don`t let God, to be member of an national, in my case, Croatian "church".
Interpretation of ˙previous pope`s teachings belongs only to (living) Magisterium (not me, nor you).
Both Athanasius and St. Cyprian were *correct*, they didn`t err, but we have to know what is the meaning of four (in Latin) words maxim.
In any case, we must think about the salvation of our souls personally, and by our personal sanctification, indirectly about the salvation of souls of people around us, and have no doubt that you believe that Church is necessary for salvation (but for Catholic interpretation see also "Dominus Iesus").

I am a "subject to the Roman Pontiff", and hope and pray that will be to the last breath. You answer for yourself.

Bartol, you belong to the Church of Rome, ergo you are indeed a Roman Catholic. Get over it. As far as being subject to the Roman Pontiff, that just makes you a papist. Get over that, too.

StuartK,

Church established by Christ is One, Holy, Catholic (Universal)and Apostolic, like you it or not.

Maybe it is Orthodox Church (-es) for you.

Be what ever you want. But don`t "philosophize".

I don`t hate Orthodox faith and religion, and don`t spend my time in hate speech. If "they" taught you about "evil" Roman Catholics and "Papists", take it for yourself. You find wrong person to argue about it.