Acts 4:12, Marian dogmas, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

As a protestant looking at the teachings of the RCC, I have this question that I haven’t really gotten an answer for, or at least one that makes sense to me, so I’d like to throw it out here and see if I can get my head wrapped around it. It’s a bit complicated, so hang in there with me. Three things are involved

  1. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

  2. The Marian Dogmas (this isn’t about the truth of them, or about Mary, but rather that they are a part of the formal settled dogma one must agree with to enter the RCC, so we can go ahead for this question and assume they are true)

  3. Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus; with is of course “outside of the church there is no salvation.”

Do these three things taken together not contradict on some level? Requiring someone to confess a belief in something directly about Mary seems to go against Acts 4:12 teamed with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. One can’t get into the RCC without confessing the Marian dogmas, hence would (from the RCC perspective) prevent salvation. Yet we are told that there is no other name, besides Jesus, by which we must be saved.

I’m sincerely asking; how is that not a contradiction of scripture?

  1. From Acts 4:12, We know we must be saved by the name of Jesus. No other name will do.

  2. We also know that the Church is the Body of Christ…because the Word of God says so. (Col 1:18, 1Cor 12:20-27, Eph 5:30, Rom 12:4-5, 1Cor 6:15…)

  3. We know Christ told the first leaders of His Church, “who listens to you listens to me, who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me” (Lk 10:16), and “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18) and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1Tim 3:15).

So, knowing all of the above: Is it okay to reject part of the teachings of Christ’s Church? Is it possible to belong to the Body of Christ while simultaneously rejecting part of it (it’s teachings)?

The Marian dogmas don’t save us. It is by Christ’s name by which we are to be saved. The Marian dogmas just happen to be a truth taught by Christ’s Church (His Body).

All salvation comes from Christ…THROUGH His Body, the Church…because that’s how Christ set it up. He didn’t tell His Apostles, “go tell everyone they are saved regalrdless of whether they are incorporated into my Body, the Church”. He said, “baptize all nations…teaching them all that I have commanded you…”.

Don’t misunderstand “outside the Church there is no salvation” to mean that everyone must be named “Catholic” in order to be saved. All salvation comes through Christ’s Body, which is His Church. Anyone who is saved is saved by the Church…even if they don’t realize it.

Thank you for your answer!

We agree here; there’s no other name by which we must be saved, and that name is Jesus.

  1. We also know that the Church is the Body of Christ…because the Word of God says so. (Col 1:18, 1Cor 12:20-27, Eph 5:30, Rom 12:4-5, 1Cor 6:15…)
  1. We know Christ told the first leaders of His Church, “who listens to you listens to me, who rejects you rejects me and the one who sent me” (Lk 10:16), and “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18) and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1Tim 3:15).

These two don’t have a bearing on the contradiction I’m seeking to resolve.

The Marian dogmas don’t save us. It is by Christ’s name by which we are to be saved. The Marian dogmas just happen to be a truth taught by Christ’s Church (His Body).

All salvation comes from Christ…THROUGH His Body, the Church…because that’s how Christ set it up. He didn’t tell His Apostles, “go tell everyone they are saved regalrdless of whether they are incorporated into my Body, the Church”. He said, “baptize all nations…teaching them all that I have commanded you…”.

Don’t misunderstand “outside the Church there is no salvation” to mean that everyone must be named “Catholic” in order to be saved. All salvation comes through Christ’s Body, which is His Church. Anyone who is saved is saved by the Church…even if they don’t realize it.

And this is where I get different responses from different Catholics. The call is to join the RCC, and if one wants to join the RCC, now one has to, in effect, confess certain things about Mary, in addition to Jesus. It isn’t just a teaching, but a dogma, which one is required to hold to join the RCC. If salvation comes via the Church and the Church now says both outside the Church there is no salvation, and also says you must confess thus and so about Mary to join, then there is another name in direct connection with salvation via the RCC. Before they became dogmas I agree this wouldn’t be a contradiction, but once declared dogmatically, now it all becomes linked like a chain, and that is where I can’t untie the knot, logically and biblically speaking…

I think we are approaching the meaning of what Peter said differently. There is salvation in no one else. Our salvation is entirely from Jesus. Salvation does not come from Mary. Confessing the Marian dogmas does not make salvation come from Mary (this is probably the point where we see things differently). It all comes from Jesus.

To believe in Jesus is to confess certain truths. Fully human, fully divine. The Trinity. The Marian dogmas are not apart from these, but wrapped up in the Truth about Jesus and his body, the Church. It’s all under Jesus, from whom salvation comes. Mary isn’t the origin of any salvation or redemption (only Jesus). Believing in certain truths about our religion doesn’t mean we believe Mary is actually giving us salvation. Does that make sense (even if you arent sure or don’t think it correct)? It all comes from proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord, and the deposit of faith revealed to his Apostles by him, the Father, and Holy Spirit.

Matthew 18: 18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peace

If one puts this in the simplest terms.
[LIST]
*]Jesus established 1 Church. It won’t fail …guranteed. Here’s a snapshot of the 1st 4 centuries. #[FONT=Arial]34[/FONT]
*]The hierarchy and the primacy of Peter, Jesus also established. To be divided from His plan is condemned in scripture. #4
[/LIST]

In short, the above links shows WHERE “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from

For the life of me I don’t understand all the conflict toeards Mary. It’s not a natural conflict. It has to be taught by those who regard her as conflict. AND I think the main reason they attak Mary, She’s TOOOOO Catholic.

Have a look at this 11 minute video. It teaches a ton. I think your questions will be answered. Hit the stop button often if you take notes.
youtube.com/watch?v=xg2OQ_iPTv8

That you for your answer, I can tell you don’t think I’m trying to attack, just to undo a knot that might not be there. :o

We agree that there is salvation in no one else, and that salvation is entirely from Jesus (I do understand that is indeed what the RCC teaches, as well). But I do think it is important that His name is mentioned, in that His name has specific meaning, is above every name, is something we are to confess before men, represent, etc…

Salvation does not come from Mary.

Absolutely. And unlike some other protestants I see that clearly taught in a direct manner by the RCC.

Confessing the Marian dogmas does not make salvation come from Mary (this is probably the point where we see things differently). It all comes from Jesus.

You’re right, this is where the issue is, and it may be a matter of perspective. Those “inside” the RCC see things from one direction, those “outside” see it from the other, almost like an order of operations.

To believe in Jesus is to confess certain truths. Fully human, fully divine. The Trinity. The Marian dogmas are not apart from these, but wrapped up in the Truth about Jesus and his body, the Church. It’s all under Jesus, from whom salvation comes. Mary isn’t the origin of any salvation or redemption (only Jesus). Believing in certain truths about our religion doesn’t mean we believe Mary is actually giving us salvation. Does that make sense (even if you arent sure or don’t think it correct)? It all comes from proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord, and the deposit of faith revealed to his Apostles by him, the Father, and Holy Spirit.

It may help to be more concrete in an example; so we can use the Assumption of Mary. In essence, it can’t be replaced by a confession about something about Jesus (in order to enter the RCC), it is directly about Mary and was proclaimed dogmatic in 1950. Prior to that, anyone entering the church was not responsible for believing in it dogmatically, though it was widely discussed and held. But, when it is added to dogma you now have converts that also must confess, at least by general confession, that Mary was assumed into Heaven in order to enter the RCC.

For the sake of conversation we can even posit that the assumption of Mary did indeed happen. It isn’t the veracity of it that I’m hung up on, it is that to enter the RCC, there is now something about someone else’s person, their name in effect, that one has to confess prior to admittance to a Church that also teaches outside of the church there is no salvation. Hence salvation is, at least indirectly, tied to another name. Again, I see that from “inside” the RCC it is almost a moot point, or not a big deal in terms of linking it to salvation, but from outside looking it, it is a big deal at least on a logical level in trying to get it inline with Acts.

:thumbsup:

:confused: This isn’t an attack on Mary, please read my reply to Wesrock.

Yes, these 2 are directly linked to your question. You want to know if there is a contradiction in your 3 items. Well, according to the Bible, no, there’s not a contradiction. But instead of just giving you my opinion, I provided what we know from Scripture, and then asked you relevant questions about what Scripture says.

Knowing all of the above: Is it okay to reject part of the teachings of Christ’s Church? Is it possible to belong to the Body of Christ while simultaneously rejecting part of it (it’s teachings)?

The Marian dogmas don’t save us. It is by Christ’s name by which we are to be saved. The Marian dogmas just happen to be a truth taught by Christ’s Church (His Body).

All salvation comes from Christ…THROUGH His Body, the Church…because that’s how Christ set it up. He didn’t tell His Apostles, “go tell everyone they are saved regalrdless of whether they are incorporated into my Body, the Church”. He said, “baptize all nations…teaching them all that I have commanded you…”.

Don’t misunderstand “outside the Church there is no salvation” to mean that everyone must be named “Catholic” in order to be saved. All salvation comes through Christ’s Body, which is His Church. Anyone who is saved is saved by the Church…even if they don’t realize it.

The fact is, it isn’t relevant what different answers you get from different Catholics. The Bible teaches the same thing that the Church teaches, and my comments above are what the Bible teaches…and what the Church teaches. [IOW, Not all Catholics articulate the Church teachings in the same way.]

I’m sorry, but I don’t think I’m explaining my question in a way that is clear. What I’m trying to sus out isn’t tied to the veracity of a teaching, or rejecting a teaching, or the RCC as the Body of Christ, etc… it is tied to the sheer way the teachings are linked together.

Thank you for your time,
grace and peace,
K

I really do not understand your position, unless it is simply some form of Sola Scriptura.

Even the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are accepted by many Protestant communities, include the names of Mary and Pontius Pilate and include the truth that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived, tying salvation to names other than Jesus. How would professing other truths about Mary, truths admittedly not so explicit in Sacred Scripture but truths about the favors she received from God and about her faithfulness to God, contradict or diminish the truth that Jesus Christ is our one and only Savior?

They are linked together in this way (probably not the only way to articulate this):
1). The Church is the Body of Christ.
2). We are saved by none other than the name of Jesus, through His Body, the Church, which He gave us to lead us to Himself.
3). The Marian dogmas are true teachings of Christ’s Church.
4). You can’t [knowingly, with full consent of the will and full understanding] reject a truth of Christ’s Church, which is His Body, and still claim to be united to Christ. [That doesn’t mean you have to agree, or that you have to fully understand then “right now”…].
5). Outside of Christ’s Body, there is no salvation. If you are saved/to be saved, it is through His Body, the Church, even if you don’t know it.

(See Post #2 for the pertinent Scriptural passages)

This is usually the issue I run into when attempting this conversation. I don’t have a position, I have a question. The question I’m asking has nothing to do with sola scriptura.

Even the early creeds, such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, include the names of Mary and Pontius Pilate and include the truth that she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. How would professing other truths about Mary, truths admittedly not so explicit in Sacred Scripture but truths about the favors she received from God and about her faithfulness to God, contradict or diminish the truth that Jesus Christ is our one and only Savior?

Because it is not dogmatically declared and connected to extra ecclesiam nulla salus taught by an organizational church.

I didn’t say you were attacking Mary. I was making a broad statement. I apologise. I should have been more specific.

Did you find the video was helpful?

I believe that what Kilska is saying is that if one wants to become a part of the RCC, they MUST believe the dogma. She’s right about this. If a person doesn’t believe in a dogma, they are told to pray about it and keep an open mind so that eventually they’ll come to believe it.
If you are entering the church as a convert, you must believe the dogma, or at least say you do. (lie!).

So if I must believe any Marian dogma, to enter the church in which we say we find salvation, then isn’t that putting another name under heaven, in the sense that if we don’t believe the dogma, we can’t enter the church that saves us, thus:

Marian dogma becomes a passive means of salvation!

She has a great point; if I understood correctly.

God bless

Excuse me?

It (Immaculate Conception / Assumption) is dogmatically declared.

But I don’t understand your association of these dogmas with extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You realize, don’t you, that (according to Catholics) YOU are also a member of this ecclesiam (assuming you have received valid Christian Baptism). But we don’t expect you to accept Conception or Assumption.

Most protestants receive valid Christian Baptism and all the Saving Grace that goes along with it. They are thus united with the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly (but validly). A Baptized protestant who dies free of mortal sin is assured the same salvation as a Catholic. You don’t have to accept Conception or Assumption.

Heck, we don’t necessarily even require Catholics to believe these dogmas. It is expected, but a Catholic may doubt these (or any) dogmas without incurring sin (or excommunication) under certain circumstances.

This is not true. The Church does not expect converts to be fully formed in their faith and beliefs as a condition of entry into the Church.

Any Catholic (cradle or convert) may doubt any dogma and not incur sin, provided s/he realizes the doubt is a personal fault and makes an ongoing effort to correct it. A Catholic may publicly say he has doubts about a doctrine (but he may not promote his doubts as an alternate belief).

Of course, if converts doubt major dogmas of the Church, why in the world would they convert? I think converts tend to have fewer doubts, but they are not required to.

FWIW, I still had doubts about Assumption on the day I was received into the Church, and I was on the fence about Immaculate Conception. My priest knew this (because I talked with him about it). It was not an impediment or a secret.

Bingo! It’s not something that I’m arguing, I’d like to understand how the teaching can be held concurrently and remain logically consistent with scripture and with itself. It represents a conundrum for someone from a background such as mine if I were to wish to enter the Church.

And to the point others have made, I’m aware of the leeway given newbies, and it seems Pope Francis is pushing for even greater room for growth… but it does give pause to someone that studies both scripture and the catechism. If I decided to join, I would see it like signing an agreement, and one shouldn’t sign an agreement unless one knows and understands what is in the agreement, esp. since we Christians (all of us) do believe in vows. Again, I think room for growth is good, this is just a particular issue that I’ve tried for awhile to figure out. Not that I’m converting. :stuck_out_tongue:

grace and peace,
K

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.