Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus…..Outside The Church There Is No Salvation !!!!

[~Anastasia~]

None of that is necessary for salvation other than He died for our sins and I believe and accept that and turn my life over to Him. We are not to add works to His finished work.

Btw, welcome to CF, Mary7. I see you are a fairly new member. We are pleased to have you join us.

Your signature reminds me of another member - one who I have a great deal of respect for. Well-chosen.

Not too much else to say, except that as I just noted, in this area (Traditional Theology - welcome!) there is generally among most a different understanding of the Church as Christ's Body. People may not be saying what it seems they are saying. Our faith is not in the Church to save us, for example, in the sense that Christ saves us. But we are a living community, seeking salvation of ourselves and others, knit together as a Body ... and so on. As I said, much more to say. It is easily misunderstood by those not familiar with it though. But it is the understanding the Church was born with.

God be with you, and again, I wanted to welcome you, to CF and to TT.

 

[santiagoamr]

What was the contexf of when the above declaration was made? Was it directed at lapsed Catholics? Because I have a hard time believing that anyone besides Catholics would be likely to read it at the time it was written.
We Orthodox would certainly not have expressed it that way. We know that salvation is found through being united to Christ's body which is the Orthodox Church (others may disagree with the last bit), but we in no way limit how God may work out the salvation of those who are not members of the Orthodox Church.

Which is the same views we have.

What this means is that the Church is not only the visible or militant members, but also those that are not visible but are good people so they become part of the Church through Baptism of Fire.

 

[santiagoamr]

There is no salvation outside of Jesus, outside of the Church. As Catholics, we teach that fellow Christians are part of the Church. Orthodox teach that non-Orthodox are not part of the Orthodox Church. However, they do NOT teach that non-Orthodox are not going to Heaven. Neither of us would presume to know who Jesus will choose as friend and who he will not.

I will note that before the late 60's (before Vatican II), it was common to misinterpret this doctrine to mean that all non-Catholics would go to hell, with the exception of those who have not heard the Word.

Catholics also teach that Salvation is also accessible to non Christians as well, through this phrase and the Baptism of Fire. This is plainly stated in the Catechism of the RCC

 

[santiagoamr]

This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. The axiom is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that theChurch is necessary for salvation. It is a dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches in reference to their own communions.

And Baptism of Fire IS Doctrine of the Church.

 

[santiagoamr]

prots have a hard time dealing with this...

Of course they have trouble with it, Protestants believe that Faith in Christ is what attains them their salvation, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus states that salvation is much more far reaching and that it is not about Faith or a communion in a community, but about works, that ish how a politheist can become a member of the Church through the Baptism of Fire.

 

[santiagoamr]

Our theology is what has been revealed and handed down. Logic plays no part in it.

Illogical Theology is an impossibility, God is Logic, he is the Creator. If you are not speaking about Tradition, and are actually referring to actual Theology and not Tradition or Dogma, then it requires Logic, because Theology is about UNDERSTANDING and you can not understand without Logic.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And Baptism of Fire IS Doctrine of the Church.

Would the Catholic theology of "Baptism of Fire" be related to purgatory, by chance?

Just curious.

The Orthodox do believe salvation is possible for those who have not heard the Gospel or in other cases, but we simply leave judgement to God and hope in His mercy. We make no determinations or proclamations concerning the who or the how.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Illogical Theology is an impossibility, God is Logic, he is the Creator. If you are not speaking about Tradition, and are actually referring to actual Theology and not Tradition or Dogma, then it requires Logic, because Theology is about UNDERSTANDING and you can not understand without Logic.

Prodromos is certainly more than capable of answering, but no one said anything about "illogical theology". However, I myself have a concern of deriving theology solely on the basis of logic ...

Human systems of logic and philosophy have led to a great deal of heresy ...

 

[santiagoamr]

We may not be actually disagreeing.

Of course theology mustn't contradict Scripture.

And Scripture is primary over the Creed (except there cannot be a disagreement, so that statement is pretty much nonsense).

I can think of nothing within the Creed, offhand, that isn't found in Scripture. So really - what are we saying? The whole discussion is moot.

My point was that one cannot take "He rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures" to mean anything further than what it actually means. Even if what one pulls out of it is true (points of the Creed are found within the Scriptures).

I would argue that the reason for the agreement is that the same Faith was responsible for all: the beliefs of the early Church, the recognition of writings AS Scripture, and the interpretation of those writings and the faith itself to codify the beliefs found in the Creed.

If "Scripture" - meaning "New Testament Scripture" is the basis and foundation for everything - then what did the early Church do in the first decades of its existence, before those Scriptures had been written? It was apparently alive and growing and being firmly established in the Faith.

How can Scripture come before Creed? Scripture was born out of Tradition which is Creed. Without Tradition there is no Scripture. Any other argument would make the belief in scripture redundant, nonsensical and devoid of any value, because You believe in a text because the text tells you you should believe in it.

 

[santiagoamr]

Firstly, I don't care about the Fathers, but about logic.

And where would your premises come from? You must be in a whole new state of Communion with the Holy Spirit then, so as for him to give you special and unique revelation. How would you even trust that revelation? Because you feel it? There is no initial premise.

 

[santiagoamr]

Forgive me. I thought you directly said - what I quoted. I don't know why you accuse me of lying. I admit, I was very surprised by your statement - that you cared nothing about the Fathers (do you know who we mean when we say that?) and that you only care about logic.

I know one of the four "legs" of Anglicanism is reason, for example. But I've never heard anyone say what you did, which is why I asked.

I'm not trying to discredit you, I'm trying to understand.

Though forgive me, I see what I said can seem unkind. I was just really surprised by what you said. This is what it implies to me.

Do not be afraid of people accusing you of lying, speak without fear, the truth is with you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How can Scripture come before Creed? Scripture was born out of Tradition which is Creed. Without Tradition there is no Scripture. Any other argument would make the belief in scripture redundant, nonsensical and devoid of any value, because You believe in a text because the text tells you you should believe in it.

Oh dear.

Forgive me. You make assumptions that are incorrect about my post. Please allow me to clarify.

I do not say Scripture precedes the Creed - at least not the completion of the canon. The writings themselves actually did. But it matters not. This is not some contest - pitting Scripture against Creed. That idea is nonsense to me.

My comment concerned honor.

But again, it is a discussion about nothing. They cannot contradict.

I think in a sense we do not disagree. My comments have been that the Faith, as handed to the Apostles, and passed down to the Church, is the basis of everything. Aka Holy Tradition. It is the basis for knowing Truth, which the Creed articulates, against heretics of the day. It is the basis for recognizing writings AS Scripture.

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "You believe in a text because the text tells you you should believe in it".

I believe in the truths presented in the Holy Scriptures. I believe in them because the Church Fathers, in their wisdom and led by the Holy Spirit, recognized these writings, having been part of the liturgical life of the Church, as Scripture.

I am not sola scriptura, if that's what you're thinking?

 

[santiagoamr]

None of that is necessary for salvation other than He died for our sins and I believe and accept that and turn my life over to Him. We are not to add works to His finished work.

Yes the equivocal view of most Protestant beliefs has been thoroughly established, studied and debunked, by scripture alone, thank you for the reminder. Yes that egotistical view that only Christians can attain salvation is not of my taste and like Christ himself said in the Gospel, one must follow the commandments, and that is non negotiable, this will always trump any exegesis taken out of context from any of Paul's writings.

 

[santiagoamr]

We have a different understanding of Theology in the Orthodox Church, in fact only three Saints of the Church have been given the title of Theologian.

They are:
St John the Evangelist;
St Gregory of Nazianzus; and
St Symeon the New Theologian.

For the Orthodox, a Theologian is a man who prays.

Numbers brother, numbers, there have been much more Catholics for Theologians to come from.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do not be afraid of people accusing you of lying, speak without fear, the truth is with you.

Without fear, speaking the Truth, yes.

But also meekly and humbly (or at least trying to) and excusing others rather than accusing them.

This is what our Saints teach and model. At least some of them. I am not presuming to follow in the footsteps of St. Nicholas. But I admit, I can get offended on behalf of the Church ... I am simply trying to learn to walk out these precepts with whatever grace God is willing to provide me.

Lord knows I make mistakes.

 

[santiagoamr]

Fathers are not apostles nor prophets.
But I trust you, when you said that logic plays no part in your theology...

The Fathers of the Church were THE FIRS holders of Scripture and Tradition, without there input there is no Bible, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic "."

 

[santiagoamr]

Without fear, speaking the Truth, yes.

But also meekly and humbly (or at least trying to) and excusing others rather than accusing them.

This is what our Saints teach and model. At least some of them. I am not presuming to follow in the footsteps of St. Nicholas. But I admit, I can get offended on behalf of the Church ... I am simply trying to learn to walk out these precepts with whatever grace God is willing to provide me.

Lord knows I make mistakes.

If we are to follow Christ's example then with the truth there is no tip toe, nor patience, the Truth IS, but your intentions are very laudable.

 

[santiagoamr]

Oh dear.

Forgive me. You make assumptions that are incorrect about my post. Please allow me to clarify.

I do not say Scripture precedes the Creed - at least not the completion of the canon. The writings themselves actually did. But it matters not. This is not some contest - pitting Scripture against Creed. That idea is nonsense to me.

My comment concerned honor.

But again, it is a discussion about nothing. They cannot contradict.

I think in a sense we do not disagree. My comments have been that the Faith, as handed to the Apostles, and passed down to the Church, is the basis of everything. Aka Holy Tradition. It is the basis for knowing Truth, which the Creed articulates, against heretics of the day. It is the basis for recognizing writings AS Scripture.

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "You believe in a text because the text tells you you should believe in it".

I believe in the truths presented in the Holy Scriptures. I believe in them because the Church Fathers, in their wisdom and led by the Holy Spirit, recognized these writings, having been part of the liturgical life of the Church, as Scripture.

I am not sola scriptura, if that's what you're thinking?

I know you are not, nor I was implying that you were, just trying to clarify your post. You said it well "My comments have been that the Faith, as handed to the Apostles, and passed down to the Church, is the basis of everything. Aka Holy Tradition."

 

[~Anastasia~]

If we are to follow Christ's example then with the truth there is no tip toe, nor patience, the Truth IS, but your intentions are very laudable.

Thank you.

If I ever reach the level of St. Paisios or St. Seraphim, then perhaps I'll raise my expectations to emulate Christ in this. But somehow, I don't think I'll live the many, many, MANY decades that would probably require.

I'm joking, dear brother. But thank you.

 

[santiagoamr]

Prodromos is certainly more than capable of answering, but no one said anything about "illogical theology". However, I myself have a concern of deriving theology solely on the basis of logic ...

Human systems of logic and philosophy have led to a great deal of heresy ...

Agreed, Theology is not based on Logic it makes use of it, it's purpose is to understand Revelation, not to create revelation, and can not go against or ignore what is our Creed.

Example

God declared "I AM" that simple statement is full of meaning and at the time and for centuries it was not understood. That was the revelation, the Creed is and was that there is only one God, the understanding that has emerged from that statement and creed is Theology.