www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology No salvation outside the church

Dear Theist Gal,

Pope Boniface's VIII Unum Sanctum which states:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims: "One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her," and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God . In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism . There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed......... (more text then the end) Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic bull Cantate Domino:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

The Orthodox Church and her Saints have not subjected themselves to the bishop of Rome with hence had been and are still considered schismatics by many in union with the Bishop of Rome, it depends on who one speaks with and their understanding to the best of my knowledge.


In retrospect, my comment "The Roman Catholic Church has gone from there is no salvation outside of the Church predicated on union with the see of Peter to anybody and everybody can be saved no matter what they believe." would have been better expressed NOT to imply that a Roman Catholic can believe whatever they want, for that is clearly not the case. But I had Vatican II in mind.

Vatican Council 2 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience those too may achieve eternal salvation"

Dear Alex,

No, I have not been remiss in memory as you have expressed in your sometimes distant and not so distant observations and forgotten that Orthodoxy has its liberals too, have you?

Your post #873 is quite accurate, you wouldn't happen to be of any relationship to Alexander the Great would you?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew writes:

I beg to differ. It is simply not an historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church had, up until Vatican II, universally believed in this exclusivity and the damnation of all outside her communion.

Here are a few quotes. The first 3 quotes are from John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic Archbishop in America writing in the 1790's, only 3 long lifetimes after Trent:

"So far from our teaching the impossibility of salvation outside the communion of our Church, no divine, worthy to be called such, teaches it at all"

Speaking of communion and membership in the Church he states:

"They are in the communion of Profession of her faith and participation of her sacraments, through the ministry and government of her lawful pastors"

"The members of the Catholic Church are all those who with a sincere heart seek the true religion and are in unfeigned disposition to embrace the truth wherever they find it. It never whas our doctrinbe that salvation can be obtained only by the former (baptized and communicant members)."

And further, he says:

"The distinction between being a member of the Church, and of the communion of the church, is no modern distinction but a doctrine uniformly taught by ancient as well as later divines."

Quoting Bellarmine:

"What is said of none being saved outside the church, must be understood of those who belong to it neither in fact or in desire"

And lastly, quoting Bergier:

"It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. With respect to heretics we are persuaded that all those who with sincerity remain in ther errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation...are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine."

It seems to me that all this hubub about something 'new' being taught at Vatican II, in light of the aforequoted passages is simply bunk. Whether ALL Catholic divines, theologians priests, bishops or cardinals, or even the popes believed this way,I cannot prove. Never the less, finding these quotes spoken loudly and published widely (they were printed in an article by Carrol which is considered to be the first piece of Catholic journalism in the Americas)we find NO censor or any trace of rebuttal or even a negative word about his position; which can only mean that either all the rest of the Church turned a blind eye or that such was a common teaching in the 18th century church.

Jason B

Regarding Unam Sanctam, see:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

I am not a theologian and I have no clue about the qualifications of the author of the quoted website. Nevertheless, it seems to explain the origins of Unam Sanctam and place it in the context of other Papal Encyclicals. The Church is the Way to salvation, but that does not mean that all those outside it are necessarily sent to eternal damnation.


Sorry for all the quotes in this long post.

In my studies of the Church of Rome and her communion, I must also agree that invincible ignorance is nothing new to her. Her fraternal statements towards other Christians and even to non-Christians comes from a long Tradition - and not only in the West, but also in the East! In fact, Scripture supports the very notion of invincible ignorance. In one place (I do not recall the chapter and verse), Jesus even says to the Pharisees that it is BECAUSE they say "we see" that they are thereby condemned. Jesus did not condemn those who were ignorant, qualified by the term "invincible."

Matthew, I hate it when the Orthodox Church is misrepresented, and I want to follow the Golden Rule, thus do I defend the Catholic Church and say that they have not wavered in their position at all. You wrote that the Catholic Church has strayed from Orthodoxy and Patristic reliance, yet I can offer you many patristic (East and West)and biblical quotes that support invincible ignorance. Even Unam Sanctam is mitigated by invincible ignorance, once you realize that the decree was very heavingly influenced by Thomas Aquinas who himself espoused invincible ignorance, and written by the most eminent canon lawyer of the time. Is it possible that a man with such a qualification could write Unam Sanctam WITHOUT invincible ignorance in mind? I would err on the side of mercy and love
(if I do err in my conclusion) and say, "no."

I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church to say she was strictly "no salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" at one point, and then did a 180 degree at Vatican II.

Matthew, I also think your quote from Lumen Gentium should be understood properly. Catholics are not universalists, nor are they Pelagians. The quote you gave certainly makes it appear that the Catholic Church espouses a principle that anyone can be saved no matter what they believe. Reading Lumen Gentium in context, however, notice that Vatican II (as well as Dominus Iesus) gives several qualifications to the quote you gave: 1) these non-Christians must be invincibly ignorant; 2) God's grace is the source of any salvation even for these men; 3) those few elements of beliefs that have salvific quality MUST be aligned with the Catholic faith; in other words, it is not simply sincerity in one's faith by which one can gain entrance into heaven. No matter how sincere, a man who practices a religion that allows for human sacrifice, for instance, will NOT be saved; 4) the fact that Christ died for ALL men, not just those who explicitly believe in Him.

Well, that is my two cents.

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Humbly,
Marduk

Well said Marduk! I agree with every word.

Jason

Dear Jason, Latin visitor & Marduk,

I write with some reluctance and I don�t want to be guilty of any gross misrepresentations and am familiar with invincible ignorance and it wide potential application, so let me try to be a bit more clear from my perspective.

When the writings of the early Orthodox Fathers Eastern and Western are commingled with some of the newer developments and understandings of more a modern era in the Roman Catholic Church some misunderstandings might happen. Suffice it to say, in the early Church Rome was considered Orthodox via her Orthodoxy.

The subject matter is quite vast, and I haven't read everything in the multiple languages in which it is written and the nuances of the development of language in the context of history, so my understanding may be limited.

Having said that and wishing no ill will or damnation towards anyone and sharing in your goodwill towards all men, I would simply like to mention that the aforementioned;

Papal Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV, was indeed stated to be infallible in the setting of Roman Catholic Council. As I understand it, a historical fact of the 17th Council of Florence issued the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church as infallible. Infallible statements are to be taken quite seriously by Roman Catholics and sometimes out of concern among the Orthodox Churches irrespective of the historical settings in which the are made, for they would supercede such limitations.

As such I call to your attention and question Jason�s quote "I beg to differ. It is simply not an historical fact that the Roman Catholic Church had, up until Vatican II, universally believed in this exclusivity and the damnation of all outside her communion."

Furthermore Marduk�s quote �I think it is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church to say she was strictly "no salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" at one point, and then did a 180 degree at Vatican II.� is addressed with regard to the no salvation outside the visible boundraries of the Catholic Church via the point in time when Pope Eugene IV Papal Bull Cantate Domino and proclaimed infallible in Council. If it is a gross misrepresentation on my part to conclude that a statement proclaimed infallible by a Pope and backed by a Council is to be universally accepted by Roman Catholics then why proclaim it? Hence, I would be among the ignorant, and I should remain silent. For as I think Mark Twain said if my memory serves me correctly, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

Vatican 2 clarified the doctrine of infallibility with the following words "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ�s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter�s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

I know that there are many Orthodox theologians that have studied these matters with dismay for there are some contradictions.

If anyone can put forth some sort of a notice of nullification from the Vatican of the proclaimed infallible in Council Papal Bull Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene IV, I would be grateful.

I have asked this before and reiterate, can an infallible statement made by a Pope or by council be rendered wrong or retracted?

It seems that the newest reasoning is that many of us are in communion with Rome and the see of Peter in a way unknown to us. I have seen notion that raise a few eyebrows.

I might add that I have spoken to several Orthodox Hierarchs on this matter. An Orthodox Chancellor had assured me just a few weeks ago that he would mention it to the local Cardinal with concern and convey his commentary.

I sincerely pray that the Grace of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and his boundless love for mankind saves us all. Suffice it to say the love and mercy of God is greater than our collective ignorance and misunderstandings.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew,

I don't understand your preoccupation with the infallibility of Unam Sanctam or the decree of the councel of Florence. The mere fact of infallibility demonstrates your interpretation of the documents not at all.

It seems that you are taking for granted that the documents in question most certainly teach the exclusion from salvation of all not in communion with the Roman Church. And, rather than addressing the real issue you simply are insisting that the documents do mean what you say they mean and that it is up to the rest of us to demonstrate when the document has been officially modified or rescended. None of us are making such a claim.

Since the notion of invincible ignorance was generally accepted and approved by some of the most notable saints and doctors, from whom the very langage of Unam Sanctam is drawn, the burdern of proof lies on your sholders to demonstrate why invincible ignorance is NOT presumed in these documents. Until it can be proven otherwise, it seems to me that we must assume that they DO presume invincible ignorance and interpret them accordingly.

Jason

Dear francis...

Most people are not familiar at all with the Church�s doctrine of Providence and conscience or they marginalize it. But then again - most Christians are not saints - so what the majority believes is not nessesarily well or correct.

For the most part the church assumes that we already know these basis items. Without a good understanding of Providence (what it is and what it does) it is like watching a play and leaving for the lobby any time the main character comes on stage. All doctrines of the Church assume the context of Providence (the Will of God) and conscience.

Although the Catholic catechism has sections on Providence and conscience - these sections are not comprehensive - they are not meant to teach fully about Providence or about conscience. I will quote only a few lines from the �In Brief� items.

[1779] �Conscience is man�s most secret core, and his sanctuary [where he meets and worships God]. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in its depths.�

[1800] �A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.�

And�

[321] �Divine providence consists of the dispositions by which God guides all his creatures with [his] wisdom and love - to their ultimate end.�

[323] �Divine providence also works through the action of creatures. To human beings God grants the ability to cooperate freely with his plans.�

Comments�.

The primary way in which we know the Will of God is through conscience. It is the private sanctuary (the place where we meet God and listen to him). All other formas are secondary. All humans have the ability of conscience - no matter race, creed, etc� �I will write my words within their hearts with my own finger.� meaning that for the Christian the written Law is superceded by the law revealed to us within our conscience - by God himself. It is a comparison between the written law and God speaking within our conscience.

It seems unequivocal �A humans must always obey the certain judgments of conscience.� We have free will of course so we can chose not to obey the judgments of conscience - but the guidance of the Church is that we MUST always obey the certain judgments of conscience. There it is - TOP priority and superceding all else.

In a world believed to run by the laws of science which are the logical extension of Darwin�s and Newton�s theories (a mechanical world where scientific law is equal to or surpasses God) - it would be nuts to say �all humans must obey what their conscience presents to them as certain truth� because if conscience were wrong about something - that something can set into action and inevitable chain of events of mighty destruction. But that is a world devoid of Providence.

So how is it that the world DOES run� the answer is... Providence.

Generally - we see providence as isolated events within the mechanical world - but that is only partly what Providence is. These moments are only when WE recognized that Providence has done something. The fact is that Providence is always acting, every where, at all times.

Providence is the Will of God in action within the world. At every moment it is the primary cause of all things and all events. Daily. It is that about which Jesus said �Thy Will be done� and Mary said �Be it done to me according to the word-will.�

Anyone who does not understand the church teachings on Providence and the primacy of conscience - will miss the target and wander around within the maze of church documents and such either constructing their own interpretations or joining one or more of the several factions of interpretations.

Most of the time the common Christian recognize Providence in two limited ways a) special moments when God interrupts the normal course of events b) a hidden plan in action within human history which we know a little something about. These two definitions are somewhat right in a certain context - but they do not comprise the total and proper definition of Providence as that "Will of God" that Jesus himself accomplished daily and that he direct us to also accomplish daily.

The Church does not take the place of the Will of God - it aids us to accomplish it daily. All doctrines of the church and her sacraments are aides to help us accomplish that daily will (our daily bread) and are not meant to do it for us or replace our own responsibilities.

Here are two excellent books�
http://www.thegenesisletters.com/Providence.htm
And there are certainly more.
Conformity to the Will of God.
Divine Abandonment.
Etc�

And for most of the Doctors of the Church it is their main subject.

-ray

Dear RayK,

Thank you for your tremendously thoughtful response to my post!

I've been in awe of your posts before, especially on the scriptures.

But this one was like looking into your soul of souls and discovering the amazing individual you truly are.

I sincerely hope your friends and family know how lucky they are to have you amongst themselves.

I sincerely do, Friend . . .

And so are we here.

Alex

Dear Matthew,

As for Alexander the Great, I'm only related in an allegorical way . . .

There is but one ingredient missing from your analysis of RC teachings - something that you cannot help but miss as your are Orthodox - and that is the "development of doctrine" that is sometimes held in disdain by some Orthodox.

It is a difficult concept to understand, but it is important nevertheless.

It is not a question of whether Unam Sanctam has been nullified or not.

The fact is that "development of doctrine" doesn't stop with Unam Sanctam.

That may seem to be "relativistic" to Orthodox (I believe it was our old friend and great poster, Brendan the Theologian, as I (rightly) named him, who first used this term in conjunction with Catholic teaching), but I don't believe it is.

So pointing to this or that text in history to show how it contradicts what is said now and then coming to the conclusion that RC's don't know which foot to stand on - that is one way of looking at it.

But it doesn't do justice to the rather ingenious system of thought that is Roman Catholic theology.

We may disagree with it, but to say it doesn't have an inner logic of its own is simply not the case.

And I know you aren't anti-Catholic in the least!

Alex

Doesn't the issue of who is in and who is out create something of a dillemma for both the Catholic and Orthodox?

The offical Catholic position is that the Orthodox are not in perfect union with Rome, and this imperfect union leaves them lacking. In all other respects, She recocognizes the Orthodox apostolic succession, sacrements, and legitamacy. Such admission recognized the Orthodox as true sui generis churches.

If the Orthodox are lacking because they are not in union with Rome, then isn't Rome lacking because if the breach with the East? In other words, how can Rome be whole without union with churches recognized to have all of the other marks of a true sui generis church?

Both sides must accept as absolute truth that the Church of Christ (whether you see such church as Catholic or Orthodox)cannot fail. If both churches cannot be truly whole without the presence of the other, doesn't that demand the conclusion that there is no valid separation? Is its possible that what we have is an apparent separation that exists only in the arrogance of both sides, but without actual reality in the Heart of Christ?

Just a thought.

Dear Makar,

You are indeed correct!

But both sides are truly serious about the other being "in lack of."

The RC Church understands this as an "imperfect" incorporation into the Church of Christ.

The Orthodox see it as as "communion" and outside of the communion of the Orthodox Churches, there is no true Church.

Even though EC's here tend to equate the "True Church" as the RC and Orthodox Churches, (the former is 100% and the latter is 'almost 100%) this is, to use the Administrator's terminology, rejected by Orthodoxy.

And even if RCism were to agree with Orthodoxy on every single point separating them from each other, until "Communion" is reestablished by a sacramental/ecclesial act of reconciliation - there is no unity.

This is also why the Orthodox regard us as "relativists."

Alex

Exactly true. Not only possible but it is a fact that has everything to do with Providence and nothing to do with human opinions.

If two brothers (born of the same parents) fight and one or both say "You are not my brother!" does that make it true? Of course not.

That which comprises the fabric of the church is still whole in both. Man's free will, while it may seem to have something to do with that - does not have any say about it. God guaranteed that to us. "Although the gates of hell... etc." which is the old way of saying "Yet hell itself war upon the church... The church shall not fall." What preserves the church is the Providence of God - and so it is just not possible within creation that the fabric of the church be rent - no more possible than it is for a cow to give birth to a human being.. The event is just not something that God is going to create into existence.

After 2000 years - it is still here and any division is of the fallible human kind.

The Orthodox church, while saying it does not agree with the see of Peter - has never ever violated the office of Peter. Such a violation would have to consist of claiming ecumenical statues of a council not sealed by Peter. I do not believe such a thing has very been done. Nor has the Orthodox church adopted or held anything not approved by the office of Peter. I am talking about �revealed faith� (that which we must believe) and not about the many human aspects of the church which an not infallible.

-ray

I would tend to think of that �in lack of� as a thing of fallible human nature - where free will is allowed and not over-ridden by acts of Providence. And therefore accidental (secondary) to the church and not essential (must exist).

I recognize a real and existing union of the Orthodox churches with the Office of the primacy of Peter - in two ways.

A) never having claimed an ecumenical council without - the office of Peter.
B) remaining true to what had been approved by the office of Peter (up to the last ecumenical Council that Orthodoxy adheres to) and by adopting nothing further (as infallible) outside of what had been approved by the Office of Peter at the time of these councils.

And so the Orthodox church remains true to the - revealed faith - as originally formed.

As you say - it does not recognized any further developments in the understanding of the revelation of faith. But I am not sure that is a requirement. The key thought here is that it accepts what had been defined - and what has been defined further is not anything new - just a new way to say it.

In other words the substance of the Church had been put to bed within the Councils that were approved by Peter - and accepted by the Orthodox Churches.

Even although some of the Orthodox churches or all of the Orthodox church has expressed the opinion that it does not agree with the way in which it understands the RC doctrines of the infallibility of Peter and the IC of Mary are stated by the RC� it has never declared in any infallible way that either RC item is - in error. The Orthodox church would (even in their own view) have to convene an ecumenical council to do that.

Without an ecumenical council - any opinion of the Orthodox church on the matters that s the opinion (not infallible) of the Orthodox members - and not a - fact.

Anyways - these are my random thoughts which I have not fully confirmed to myself. I am not stating a firm position.

-ray

Ray,

I have read both "Conformity to the Will of God" and "Divine Abandonment" and found them both very spiritually uplifting. I also have no intention of minimizing the importance of Divine Providence in the world and in each believer's life.

However (you knew there had to be a "however"), I think this concept has been mostly abused and misunderstood today. It seems to me that you set up a false dichotomy between divine providence and Church doctrines/sacraments. They are not against each other - one (doctrines/sacraments) helps us to follow the other (Providence), which you say, but seem to minimize in importance (at least it seems that way to me).

The danger of emphasizing Providence over and above doctrine is that one can just claim to follow Providence (and really believe it in their heart) and be completely off the path to holiness and salvation. By following a false religion (which I would say everything other than Catholicism and Orthodoxy are), one can be led farther and farther away from a true and healthy relationship with God.

The truth is that Divine Providence calls every person to a sacramental life in the Church. Due to our fallen state, many are not able to hear this call through no fault of their own. But as those who have been given the ability to hear this call (although we have done nothing to deserve it), we must proclaim the necessity of this sacramental life to every person on the face of the earth.

We know with certainty that Christ will save those in sacramental communion with the Church. We hope, but do not know with certainity, that He will save those outside her visible communion. I would rather err on the side of certain knowledge than a hope when the issue of salvation of a person is being considered.