Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus

[quote=JKirkLVNV]TNT: I so rarely agree with you that I thought I would chime this in: I can’t find anything here to disagree with you. “The objective means…” very good. Can’t argue with “the objective means.”

I’m slipping!:eek:
My double-trad wife is outa town.

In response to my Message #5

“… whoever

is fortunate enough to find themselves in Heaven, whatever their religious persuasion on this earth (or, even if they were ignorant pagans) – then those persons would indeed have been saved by virtue of the fact that somehow they died “inside the Catholic Church.”
TNT wrote: Message #7

That’s an undestatement.
So, worshipping a twig or stone “somehow” puts a pagan inside the “catholic” church! Amazing, indeed. Can anyone propose what, exactly, this “somehow” pertains to?

St. Thomas taught that invincible ignorance, while it undoubtedly excuses from sin, in this case the sin of infidelity, cannot save:…

Rejected by the Magisterium:.
In 1679 Pope Innocent XI condemned the following proposition which implied that one could be saved without supernatural faith or revelation:

Condemned: “A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification” (Denz. 2123). 12 As St. Paul taught, if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then “Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

"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

(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Unfortunately, I have not had time to respond until now.

  1. Also unfortunately, TNT has failed to read (or understand) the logic in “… whoever is fortunate enough to find themselves in Heaven…” ! It has the same meaning as:

a) IF anyone has attained Salvation and is in Heaven -
THEN that individual is a Member of the Mystical Body of Christ in Heaven and is, therefore, a Catholic.

Cf. Dogma: “The members of the Kingdom of God on earth and in the other world sanctified by the redeeming grace of Christ are united in a common supernatural life with the Head of the Church and with one another. (Sent. certa.)”

Dogma: “God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) suffienct grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.) “

Dogma: “God, by His Eternal Resolve of Will, has predetermined certain men to eternal blessedness. (De fide.)”

b) Inasmuch as we mere human beings cannot place limits on God:

IF God chooses to grant Salvation to anyone who has not been a card-carrying Member of the Catholic Church (the pre-Christian “just” come to mind for one instance!)
THEN, I submit, those individuals ARE Members of the Mystical Body in Heaven when they were not so on Earth!

c) Furthermore, there may also be instances of post BC persons – both Christians who have received Baptism and those who have received Baptism of Desire or Blood AND even pagans – who God may choose to grant Salvation and, therefore, are also Members of the Mystical Body in Heaven and, therefore, are Catholics.

  1. TNT chooses to ignore the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church via the Catechism of the Catholic Church #818 and 819, including: “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation…”.

  2. The Catechism specifically addresses “Outside the Church there is no salvation” in Nos. 846 to 848 – which TNT also chooses to ignore – particularly #847: “these too may achieve eternal salvation.”

2 be continued:


  1. TNT ostensibly quotes from Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum

Condemned: “A faith amply indicated from the testimony of creation, or from a similar motive, suffices for justification” (Denz. 2123). 12 As St. Paul taught, if salvation were possible by the Mosaic Law, or by the natural law as well, then “Christ died in vain” (Galatians 2:21).

The problem is that – according to my personal copy of Denzinger’s “The Sources pf Catholic Dogma,” Loreto Publications, 1955, quotations from Pope Innocent XI occupy references from #1147 to 1288 inclusive – NOT 2123 as claimed! Furthermore, #2123 in Denzinger’s is from Pope Pius X on “he Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis”, and has NOTHING at all to do with the matter under discussion!

  1. Perhaps TNT may get somewhere with his quote from (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441. Well –

**IF **TNT wishes to claim Cantate Domino as an authorative reference
THEN I would claim the same authority – Cantato Domino “A Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites” at #712 to ask TNT whether HE is circumcised – and what follows from THAT condition pursuant to Cantato Domino?

#712: “…All

, therefore, who … observe circumcision … it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.”
6. What is, perhaps, worse still is the source from whence you have culled the Cantato Domino false reference! A Google Search on the given “quote” demonstrates that there are only three websites which carry the “quote” – and all three are schismatic Feeneyite sites under the control of the St Benedict Center at New Hampshire. There are/were several schisms within the Feeneyite group – up to 6 –8 I understand, some of whom reconciled with the Catholic Church (e.g. the Still River group). The St Benedict Center remained unreconciled and schismatic – reviling Vatican II and Pope John Paul II personally for multiple alleged heresied. Of course, it also supported the so-called Tridentine Latin Mass.

The sites are: [/font]http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/CenterReview/center_review_9_2003_pelagius.html (and another page) and [/font]http://www.catholicism.org/eens-salvation-amerindian.html

In another forum, some posters claim that the SSPX have lost the right to be known as Catholic in virtue of their schism. If THAT is so, then the St Benedict Center Feeneyites also would have lost that right. Therefore, TNT, to support your case, not only do you write without logic, give false references, but you do not shrink from cite from allegedly non-Catholic sources which vilify a Catholic Ecumenical Council and Catholic Popes in order to support your cases by mixing your illogical brew. To BE logical – in the knowledge that The St Benedict Center Feeneyites are classical schismatics, you ought to support the conclusion that these folk (who preach the most extreme interpretation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus) are themselves “outside the Church” and that should they persist in that unhappy state will NOT attain Salvation.

2 b continued:


  1. Finally TNT twists my logic (IF/THEN) to speculate on

“So, worshipping a twig or stone “somehow” puts a pagan inside the “catholic” church! Amazing, indeed. Can anyone propose what, exactly, this “somehow” pertains to? “

Nowhere have I claimed that “worshipping a twig or stone ‘somehow’ puts a pagan inside the “catholic” church!” But, this is just another logical error – the “strawman” illogic. But, to briefly address the point:

**IF **such a person was fortunate enough to attain salvation and be in Heaven,
**THEN it would NOT be due to that belief – but, **per the Catechism (#847) “through no faultof [his] own…[he] too may achieve salvation.”

I hope, TNT, that the above demonstrated the foolishness of your plucking bits and pieces (some true – and some false) and engaging in your private interpretation of these passages contrary to the legitimate authority which has been given you by Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Fr. Feeney was not ex communicated for believing the Doctrine EENS- it was for disobeying an order to “go to Rome” which is required of all Jesuits, should they be called there.
He died in the good graces of the Catholic Church, and all he had to do was recite the Creed- which says there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Why do you lie about his being disciplined? Does it help you to prove there is salvation outside the Church- which is in complete opposition to the Dogma?

I suggest you get facts right, so that you are not embarrassed. Don’t rely on modernist for your information.

This thread is a bit above my head although I find it interesting. Several posters though mention pre and post Vatican II as if things had changed. See below:


Many Catholics use Vatican II as an excuse stating that things have changed in the Catholic faith and that it is their prerogative to do as they wish. Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states clearly in the book “The Cardinal Ratzinger Report,” that it is absolutely incorrect to refer to Pre-Vatican Council II and Post-Vatican Council II, as if there were changes in the Church’s position in matters of faith and morals. The only changes in that respect have sprung from erroneous interpretations of the Council. Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:

“It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church’s moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic,” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere.”


waxednwaned wrote:

I suggest you get facts right, so that you are not embarrassed. Don’t rely on modernist for your information.

To whom are you addressing this advice?

[quote=Sean O L]waxednwaned wrote:

To whom are you addressing this advice?

It was addressed to those who were guilty of it.

And in your opinion - “who were guilty of it”

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.