Invincible Iggy
The Roman definition substitutes for the ancient motto of Tertullian, outside of Christ there is no salvation, and Cyprian’s motto, outside of the church there is no salvation, the motto, “outside the Roman church there is no salvation.” –extra ecclesiam romanum nulla salus. This was meant by the Fourth Lateran council, 1215, when it declared “the universal church of the faithful” to be the body outside of which no one at all is saved—extra quam nemo omnino salvatur. Eugene IV in 1441, affirmed that “the Holy Roman church fully believes that all who are outside of it, Pagans and likewise also Jews, heretics and schismatics cannot become—fieri non posse—partakers of eternal life but will go to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Pius V, opened his fulmination against Elizabeth by declaring that “outside the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church,” over which God has placed the Roman pontiff, “there is no salvation.” In the nineteenth century Gregory XVI added to the statement that men “are saved only in the Catholic religion” the declaration that “those who die in heresy cannot attain to eternal life.” His successor, Pius IX, in his allocutions, December 9th, 1854, and August 10th 1865, announced it to be “a most assured dogma and a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman church it is not possible for anyone to be saved and that those who resist its authority and are obstinately separated from its unity and from St. Peter’s successor cannot obtain eternal life.” The Romanist who ventures to look upon intelligent Protestants as included in the number of the saved defies such utterances (emphasis mine -jro). If the pope is infallible on any matter, he ought to be infallible when he defines the terms of salvation.
from Our Fathers Faith and Ours, by David Schaff
(It is important to note that Schaff deliberately uses the word intelligent before Protestant in contrast to those of us who are "invincibly ignorant".... Oh, to be invincible!)
The Roman definition substitutes for the ancient motto of Tertullian, outside of Christ there is no salvation, and Cyprian’s motto, outside of the church there is no salvation, the motto, “outside the Roman church there is no salvation.” –extra ecclesiam romanum nulla salus. This was meant by the Fourth Lateran council, 1215, when it declared “the universal church of the faithful” to be the body outside of which no one at all is saved—extra quam nemo omnino salvatur. Eugene IV in 1441, affirmed that “the Holy Roman church fully believes that all who are outside of it, Pagans and likewise also Jews, heretics and schismatics cannot become—fieri non posse—partakers of eternal life but will go to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Pius V, opened his fulmination against Elizabeth by declaring that “outside the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church,” over which God has placed the Roman pontiff, “there is no salvation.” In the nineteenth century Gregory XVI added to the statement that men “are saved only in the Catholic religion” the declaration that “those who die in heresy cannot attain to eternal life.” His successor, Pius IX, in his allocutions, December 9th, 1854, and August 10th 1865, announced it to be “a most assured dogma and a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman church it is not possible for anyone to be saved and that those who resist its authority and are obstinately separated from its unity and from St. Peter’s successor cannot obtain eternal life.” The Romanist who ventures to look upon intelligent Protestants as included in the number of the saved defies such utterances (emphasis mine -jro). If the pope is infallible on any matter, he ought to be infallible when he defines the terms of salvation.
from Our Fathers Faith and Ours, by David Schaff
(It is important to note that Schaff deliberately uses the word intelligent before Protestant in contrast to those of us who are "invincibly ignorant".... Oh, to be invincible!)
posted by trawlerman at 7:26 AM
14 Comments:
John, you knew you would suck me in with this one.
Fortunately, both the "Catholic" Feeneyites and David Schaff are being good Protestants in their use of private judgement.
In the case of Schaff, he is being consistant, though coming to the same erronious conclusion as the followers of Fr. Feeney. In the case of the Feeneyites they deserve a scolding as they claim the name "Catholic" yet practice private judgement better than most Protestants in using their individual interpretations of Magesterial spoof texts (often out of context and ignoring other texts with a much less rigid view) to overrule the living Magesterium. This is a good article I read awhile back which provides a good summery of EENS.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=963
Intelligence on the minutiae of Christian theology and/or history is not the litmus test as to whether one is "invincibly ignorant" (any more than it is an indication of whether one has the virtue of Faith). There is no litmus test. Secondly, invincible ignorance is not salvivic, so if one happens to be invincibly ignorant it is no positive indication that one is among the elect.
There is tension and complexity here, and I side neither with the Feeneyites nor with the universalists, but with the Holy Catholic Church.
God is not bound by the Sacraments, nor by the Church He founded to dispense His Grace as the NORMATIVE means of Salvation until He comes again. The Catholic Church is the servant, not the Master.
What you call "tension and complexity," I cannot help but call conflicting, "infallible" Magisterial statements.
Compare:
"...outside the Apostolic Roman church it is not possible for anyone to be saved"
"Those who ... do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church ... - those too may achieve eternal salvation"
Anyhow, I couldn't find anything in the article that you linked to that contradicted Schaff's position.
You know from our past conversations that this subject is one that I'm stuck on and I am completely unsatisfied with Romanist wiggling.
Do you look upon intelligent Protestants as included in the number of the saved? Am I your brother in Christ or am I an heretic and a schismatic, resisting the authority of the Apostolic Roman church and obstinately separated from its unity and from St. Peter's successor?
I honestly believe that if the Romish claims that Schaff lists are true, then I am reckoned among the damned.
I don't believe that they are true.
Your statement:
"God is not bound by the Sacraments, nor by the Church He founded to dispense His Grace as the NORMATIVE means of Salvation until He comes again. The Catholic Church is the servant, not the Master."
... is much more Protestant sounding to me than Romanist.
From the Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XVII...
Outside the Church of God There Is No Salvation. But we esteem fellowship with the true Church of Christ so highly that we deny that those can live before God who do not stand in fellowship with the true Church of God, but separate themselves from it. For as there was no salvation outside Noah's ark when the world perished in the flood; so we believe that there is no certain salvation outside Christ, who offers himself to be enjoyed by the elect in the Church; and hence we teach that those who wish to live ought not to be separated from the true Church of Christ.
The Church Is Not Bound to Its Signs. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found. For we know that God had some friends in the world outside the commonwealth of Israel. We know what befell the people of God in the captivity of Babylon, where they were deprived of their sacrifices for seventy years. We know what happened to St. Peter, who denied his Master, and what is wont to happen daily to God's elect and faithful people who go astray and are weak. We know, moreover, what kind of churches the churches in Galatia and Corinth were in the apostles' time, in which the apostle found fault with many serious offenses; yet he calls them holy churches of Christ (I Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:2).
------------------------
My problem isn't with "EENS" but with the Romish claim that it alone is the Church.
I side with the Second Helvetic here as well:
"Nor do we approve of the Roman clergy who have recently passed off only the Roman Church as catholic."
But...
After the part I quoted, Schaff continues...
"On the other hand, it has been the Protestant principle from the earliest time to recognize the Roman communion as a part of the Christian church."
Here's another good article with more Patristic texts and a little
Daniélou mixed in.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=964
Hi John, I bookmarked this when I read it this morning so I could leave a proper comment.
The Orthodox Church (from which Rome departed before the 1200's) holds, has always held, that it alone is the true church, but rejects the idea that salvation is only available to those in the church.
Until God starts behaving deterministically and we fully understand his reasoning and behavior, how could we pretend to know who will be saved and who won't?
But the church isn't infinite, and it's not so hard to see who has remained in the church of the apostles and who hasn't (until the definition of the church is changed!). Sadly, there have been an exploding number of schisms since that first schism, but just because there are more schisms doesn't dilute the fact that there's an original, true church from which all these schisms have separated part of God's people. And that fact doesn't dilute the fact that God created us to unite with him, and those who seek him will find him. It's just that the true church has incredibly rich services, traditions, and spiritual tools that aren't available outside it, and help Christians inside it to allow the Gospel to deeply penetrate their lives -- for their salvation.
The statement that God isn't bound by the sacraments, Roman Catholic or not, is certainly Orthodox.
Pete,
I apologize if I have not been clear enough.
My problem is not with the fact that the RC position is "broad" and "narrow" at the same time. I accept that the position is as how you describe it and I've seen the relevant quotations. That's fine. I just think that it's being completely false to pretend that this was indeed the official position down through all of Rome's history.
I reject much that is in the two articles that you link to(and I hope that you wouldn't begrudge me that since the articles don't hold "Magisterial" authority).
I have significant problems with any kind of "invincible" ignorance.
Romans 1:20 settles it for me.
I find the arguments that the Church existed before Christ to be superfluous to the current argument.
I find it strange that the articles focus so heavily on the fathers, but can provide no real magisterial support prior to the mid-19th century.
I would have no problem with the current position if there were a magisterial disclaimer such as "We know that it has been infallibly defined that outside the Apostolic Roman church it is not possible for anyone to be saved, but we meant that salvation really is possible for certain people, under certain conditions outside the Apostolic Roman church."
But you intelligent protestants are still damned.
Goodnight.
Ryan,
I'm heading for bed and just now saw your comment. I'm going on vacation and probably won't respond to any of this for a while, so don't be alarmed if I don't respond. I am glad for your comment.
>>>What you call "tension and complexity," I cannot help but call conflicting, "infallible" Magisterial statements.
The skeptic would use the same argument against Sacred Scripture's many "conflicting" inspired statements, and not for dissimilar reasons. How would you convince someone using hyper-literalistic interpretations of the Scriptures who is skeptical of the authority of the Scriptures and viewing them from the "outside" with little grounding in even basic Scriptural exegesis? T'would not be an easy task, likely impossible aside from Divine Grace, no matter all the tortuous "wiggling" you could conjure up.
>>>Do you look upon intelligent Protestants as included in the number of the saved? ...heretic and a schismatic... obstinately separated ...
As I stated above, intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with it. Being learned regarding the Scriptures, Church history, theology etc., does not magically place one inside or outside the bounds of Grace. I think you're a material heretic, but that shouldn't be too offensive because I think you would claim all individual Christians and/or denominations are material heretics on various (unnamed) doctrinal or moral positions anyway. Unless you allow for yourself or your denomination what you would deny the Catholic Church.
>>>I honestly believe that if the Romish claims that Schaff lists are true, then I am reckoned among the damned.
The only "Romish" (lovely term BTW) claims that Schaff lists are those that line up quite nicely with the most Protestant-minded Catholics I have come in contact with, the schismatic Feeneyites.
Neither will even allow that the narrower statements be balanced by the broader, or that the two are at all reconcilable.
Your statement:
"God is not bound by the Sacraments, nor by the Church He founded to dispense His Grace as the NORMATIVE means of Salvation until He comes again. The Catholic Church is the servant, not the Master."
I agree with Ryan. This statement is both orthodox, Orthodox, catholic, and Catholic.
>>>My problem isn't with "EENS" but with the Romish claim that it alone is the Church.
Of course.
>>>"Nor do we approve of the Roman clergy who have recently passed off only the Roman Church as catholic."
It's those damn Romanist clergy again.
>>>"On the other hand, it has been the Protestant principle from the earliest time to recognize the Roman communion as a part of the Christian church"
Nice lip service. The same Roman communion that unabashadly proclaims:
1) Transubstantiation
2) The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
3) Purgatory
4) Outright denies Sola Scriptura
and Sola Fide
5) Proclaims the Immaculate
Conception, Perpetual Virginity,
and Assumption of the BVM.
6) Promotes the veneration of
relics, the "cult" of the
Saints, images, etc.
7) Holds the office of the Papacy
to be at least a bit more than
the "first among equals".
8) Allows for merit from our good
works (preceded and enabled by
grace of course)
9) The absolution of sin through
the Sacrament of Confession
... ... ... ...
This same Roman communion has been recognized from the earliest times following the reformations as a part of the "catholic" Christian Church? No doubt Schaff knows the history of the reformations better than I, but in my limited reading
I would have never guessed that this was the case.
Ryan, I have tomorrow off so I'm just goint to fire away. I caffeinated as well, so I'm unable
to keep my responses to a bare minimum.
>>>The Orthodox Church (from which Rome departed before the 1200's)
The East-West Schism, in 1054 is the most memorable, although the East and West were seperated and reunited not a few times both before and after that date. Of course the Catholics would claim that they didn't do the departing in those instances.
>>>has always held, that it alone is the true church, but rejects the idea that salvation is only available to those in the church.
Agreed, as far as I know.
>>>But the church isn't infinite, and it's not so hard to see who has remained in the church of the apostles and who hasn't (until the definition of the church is changed!).
I strongly disagree here, especially in the U.S. in the 21st century. I would find it very difficult to fault someone entering Orthodoxy because of the profound unity that still exists between the Ancient Churches of East and West. I can see how some Anglo-Catholic Anglicans, some Lutherans, and some Reformed would feel compelled to remain where they are as well.
Much of it does hinge on how the Church is defined, doesn't it.
>>>It's just that the true church has incredibly rich services, traditions, and spiritual tools that aren't available outside it, and help Christians inside it to allow the Gospel to deeply penetrate their lives -- for their salvation.
Are you Orthodox!?
>>>I apologize if I have not been clear enough.
No, you probably probably have. I just like to jump all over this stuff, probably misunderstanding you along the way.
>>>I just think that it's being completely false to pretend that this was indeed the official position down through all of Rome's history.
Well, I think it was the position (no shock there). EENS in the Catholic expression has never been a statement of utter damnation upon all those outside Her visible boundries. EENS is a negative statement. Formulated positively it could be expressed "all salvation is through the Catholic Church" which may or may not be just as offensive. (I think the CCC says something like that).
>>>I have significant problems with any kind of "invincible" ignorance. Romans 1:20 settles it for me.
Romans 1:20 only settles it as far as all men being able to know that there is a God. Not that thereby they automatically recognize the existence of Jesus, or the Church, or Scriptures etc. As you have already stated, it is the definition of the Church that you have a problem with, not really EENS or invincible ignorance.
>>>I find the arguments that the Church existed before Christ to be superfluous to the current argument.
Why? It clearly shows that EENS does not mean "all those outside of the visible boundries of the Catholic Church are thereby damned". That there were a People of God under the Old Covenant prior to the founding of the visible Catholic Church, and that there are subsequently a People of God under the New Covenant outside of the visible Catholic Church I don't think is totally superfluous.
>>>I find it strange that the articles focus so heavily on the fathers, but can provide no real magisterial support prior to the mid-19th century.
You view the Magesterium more narrowly than than the Catholic Church does. The oft-forgotton (or ignored) Ordinary Magesterium is also infallible. Neither Councils nor Popes (Extra-Ordinary Magesterium) have ever defined a host of central tenants of the Faith, but they have still been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magesterium over the millenia. See Michael L.'s recent post on the Ordinary Magesterium.
http://mliccione.blogspot.com/
>>>... a magisterial disclaimer
No disclaimers I'm afraid. Just a bunch of wiggling Papists with clearly contradicting statements.
:')
John, you surely don't have to respond to any of this. You did bring it on yourself though, just like I did with the Purdy's. I'm trying to make you pay just like they made me. Hah.
Yes, I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church several years ago. It's a treasure.
>>>Yes, I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church several years ago. It's a treasure.
Congratulations. I was received into the Catholic Church about a year and a half ago. I recently visited a Melkite Greek Catholic Church (they were having a picnic with Lebanese food) and my wife and I went on a tour of the Church. I also frequented a Byzantine Carmelite (kind of crazy huh) monestery for a while. I have yet to attend a Divine Liturgy.
I have a great affinity for the Eastern Churches and their practices/disciplines in my limited exposure. I pray for the schism to be healed often during Mass. God bless you and yours.
John,
>>>I just think that it's being completely false to pretend that this was indeed the official position down through all of Rome's history.
Here is a short series by Shawn M. on the various Church models throughout history. I highly recommend it. It is four posts long (you'll have to scroll up).
http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_rerum-novarum_archive.html#106957758673492098
My current understanding of Ecclesiology and EENS is superficial at best. So my posts above are to the best of my current understanding, which may become more nuanced as I study more. I tend to err toward a more rigid understanding with my limited knowledge, rather than "everbody's fine, let's hold hands and dance around a fire".
It is a little bit frustrating seeing "radical Traditionalists" and some non-Catholics so well aligned on this. It is always quote the Fourth Lateran council, quote Eugene IV, quote Pius V, quote Boniface VIII's "Unam Sanctum", case closed. It is not just not that cut and dry.
"John, you surely don't have to respond to any of this. You did bring it on yourself though, just like I did with the Purdy's. I'm trying to make you pay just like they made me. Hah."
Hehe. Yes, and I am keeping my mouth shut. It's kind of funny how it is almost the same discussion all over again.
Actually, my lack of commenting may be more due to the fact that I am currently working on a large home remodeling project than my great self restraint.
Back to work now . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home