Loading ...(Medieval) Pope and Presiding Bishop Agree — There is no individual salvation
flockwoodI’ve received a couple of e-mails from people who were baffled by the Presiding Bishop’s claims that there is no individual salvation and that salvation is only attainable in community (see earlier post). The notion of individual salvation, she said, is the “great Western heresy.”
If I get a chance at a press conference, I’ll ask her to elaborate on this view. But she seems to be echoing ancient Catholic doctrine — not terribly surprising considering Anglicanism grew out of Catholicism and is a via media between Catholics and other Protestants.
The doctrine, in Latin, is extra ecclesiam nulla salus — “Outside of the Church, there is no salvation.” This, by the way, would be the opposite of universalism — the idea that everyone is always, already saved.
Pope Eugene IV, for example, argued forcefully in 1441 that outside the church, the Roman Catholic Church to be precise, there was no salvation.
“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…,” Pope Eugene IV declared.
Eugene’s comment would’ve set the fifteenth century interfaith dialogue back decades — if there had actually been an interfaith dialogue in the 1440s.
[For more on the "extra ecclesiam..." doctrine, click here.]
July 10th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
There actually was somewhat of an interfaith dialogue in the 1400s; in all likelihood, the Codex Vaticanus, which received second banana billing in the story about the Codex Sinaiticus, was probably a gift to the then-Pope by the then-Patriarch of Constantinople. There was talk of renewing the connections between East and West. Of course, most of those discussions were for the purpose of trying to get Western countries to help the Greeks fight off the Ottoman Turks. When Constantinople finally fell in 1479, the dialogue rather fell with it.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Communal salvation is openly taught in the New Testament. All Christians are part of the Body of Christ, and cannot exist without that mystical and real connection. I’m not sure why it’s a controversial idea to Episcopalians. But then, they never read the Bible.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Niall, in fact, the biblical scholar that you cited in one of your posts to me, Reginald Fuller, was an Episcopalian, and an Episcopal priest. You reckon he didn’t read the Bible? The Anglican church was responsible for translating the King James Version of the Bible. While I understand why this translation is no longer acceptable, it was THE English language bible for hundreds of years. Likewise, the Episcopal Church and its Anglican brother churches also took a big hand in the preparation of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as well.
And, in our services, we always have at least two scriptural readings. You may not like what we say about the Bible, but you can hardly say we don’t read it.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Article Xviii of the 39 Articles of Religion
“XVIII. Of obtaining eternal Salvation only by the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that Law, and the light of Nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.”
July 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Yea I walk through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil for thou art with me.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Caleb -
You take my remarks far too seriously.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
There’s obviously a balance to be struck.
There is the individual acceptance of faith, the personal repentance for sin, and the hope to hear one day “servant, well done.”
There’s also the communal aspect. “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.”
Sometimes these may be in tension. Sometimes one must leave a particular “Law or sect which he professeth” in order to remain faithful to Christ. Our Lord was terribly alone in the Garden of Gethesemane, too.
But abandoning one communion (or being abandoned by it) doesn’t mean one loses the Church. No one body fully expresses Christ’s mystical body–Vatican II affirms this as well. One might go elsewhere–one might reduce contact to a bare minimum–but I think the mystical body of Christ contains many such (dare I say it?) Free Radicals…!
I would have to say that there is no truly solipsistic faith–no one may “bury his talent” in the earth. But the overly communitarian emphasis of late is equally unhealthy. It is ridiculous to translate the Nicene Creed in the plural, for instance.
What Schori was actually doing was taking a cheap shot at the United States. What else would you expect at the end of the day? She just wants to bury us, like Krushchev did.
Newark delenda est!
July 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Niall, I’ll not make that mistake again!
I naturally flinched at the charge, which is often made about we Episcopalians, even when we’re wearing tweed.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Outside of the Church, the Body of Christ, there is no salvation. That said, the Church is that mystical unity in Christ of those who believe Him to be the Son of God. There are many in TEC who have no understanding of what this means and how it is at the heart of Holy Tradition.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This is the kind of religious gobbledygook that simply serves to divide people rather than uniting them, as religion should. I defy anyone to tell me a single practical application of any difference between whatever theoretical concepts are being set off against each other here. I can’t imagine the explanation making anyone love his neighbor any more; if anything, it gives one a reason not to love his neighbor who believes in whatever doctrine is labeled heretical.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Paul writes to the ROMANS, how ironic, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. So, according to the pope & Bishop this then is to be A communal response, not an individual one? So why was the Ethiopian eunuch, all alone in the chariot with Philip baptized after philip said, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And HE answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I dont see anyone else in the chariot with Phillip. Again to the ROMANS Paul says, “That if thou shalt confess with THY mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in THINE heart that God hath raised him from the dead, THOU shalt be saved. Sounds pretty personal to me. Lets not forget these words were penned before the ROMAN CATHOLIC church was around. Never mind ROMANS CHAP 9, where in accordince with salvation we read, “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on WHOM I will have compassion.” So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.Therefore hath he mercy on WHOM he will [have mercy], and WHOM he will he hardeneth.” this of course speaking of PERSONAL ELECTION. Better rethink your theology on salvation, and I havent even scratched the surface.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
The usual criticism of liberal Christians is that they are really “unitarians”… but from some of the more recent posts here it would appear that “utilitarian” would be a more apt designation.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Come on guys, this particular guy was appointed as his uncle’s treasurer who was the Pope during this period in religion, only after he was bumped as being to young of an archbishop. The church controlled money and land and the recipients of most of it at the time were cardinals and bishops. This article is merely the equivalent of a sentence out of a book. It goes on and on and its quite intriguing.
July 13th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Caleb -
I’m all for creating obstacles to religious unity, since it makes religion much less dangerous and effective.
July 14th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Niall, have you read the Adams-Jefferson correspondence? Their take on religious freedom was that it would lead to the withering away of all religions. When a Methodist had to live next door to a Quaker and two doors from a Catholic, they’d all soon see that everyone is alike.
There are obviously problems with that theory. One, can you imagine if all Christian religions withered away, and left (as they hoped) only Freemasonry standing?
Would you rather deal with bishops, or with fat businessmen in fezzes driving go-carts around? (Hmm, that’s a tough one.)
Also, religion has plainly not withered away–it is stronger than ever. This argues powerfully for me that there’s really something to it. There’s also plainly something to the enduring disagreements.
So, I wouldn’t say you have to oppose religious unity–religion is not inclined to unity in the first place.
As for me–I think the Body of Christ is not nearly as broken as we proud little fellows would like to think it is.
Once the Diocese of Newark is excised like the melanoma that it is, the Mystical Body will shine all the brighter.
See??
July 14th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Well, given that most of my relatives are Masons, I’ll take the guys in the go-carts over most bishops (Catholic or Episcopal) that I’ve known, but that’s just me.
And, Niall, that’s a good point: The last thing we need is one unified religious hierarchy.
July 15th, 2009 at 7:43 am
WEAVE ALL THE WEBS YOU ALL MIGHT WANT, IGNORE ALL THE THINGS THAT CHRIST SAID IF IT’S NOT BENEFIT TO YOR SCHEMES OF THINGS, BUT HE DID SAY, “AND SO I SAY TO YOU, YOU ARE PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH, AND THE GATES OF HELL SHAL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT. I WILL GIVE YOU THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. WHATEVER YOU BIND ON EARTH SHALL BE BOUND IN HEAVEN; AND WHATEVER YOU LOOSE ON EARTH SHAL BE LOOSED IN HEAVEN.” MATT. 16:18-19, HE ALSO SAID, “….AND THERE WILL BE ONE FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD,” JOHN 10:16,”SO THAT THEY MAY BE ALL BE ONE, AS YOU, FATHER, ARE IN ME AND I IN YOU, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE IN US, THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT YOU SENT ME. AND I HAVE GIVEN THEM THE GLORY YOU GAVE ME, SO THAT THEY MAY BE ONE, AS WE ARE ONE, I IN THEM AND YOU IN ME, THAT THEY MAY HAVE BE BROUGHT TO PERFECTION AS ONE, THAT THE WORLD MAY KNOW THAT YOU SENT ME, AND THAT YOU LOVED ME… JOHN 17:21-23. THESE ARE SOME OF THE BIBLE QUOTES THAT THOSE WHO DON’T WANT TO BELIEVE IN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, OVERLOOK OR INTERPRET TO THEIR LIKING,OR TOTALLY IGNORE, YET THEY CLAIM THEY ARE “CHRISTIANS”,I.E.
FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, BUT TO THEIR LIKINGS.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Caleb, your bitterness towards Catholics will tarnish the credibility to any you say. Or should I say your obsessiveness towards Catholics.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:34 am
“anything you say” sorry about that.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Perplexed, I’m not bitter, I just don’t like pedophiles. Sorry if that offends anyone.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
pedophiles and catholics aren’t synonyms to the rest of the world.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I understand that, Perplexed. However, when the “good Catholics” line up to support their own church hierarchy even when that hierarchy covers up thousands of cases of pedophilia, it’s hard to tell the difference. My mother was Catholic, and many of my relatives are Catholic, and they agree with me on this point: The church must change its stance on pedophilia, or the rest of the world will equate pedophiles and Catholics. Perplexed, don’t kill the messenger here.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Caleb, all I’m trying to do is get you to understand when you say catholics it takes us all in. It offends us all. I have been on here long enough to know that sometimes you beleive without merit, just personal preference, take the shroud for instance, you belittled it saying it wasn’t accurate, that carbon dating had it several centuries after Christ, the one that has yet to be discovered by all of these great scientists is the composition of the fabric.
Caleb ,I respect your opinion, and some days I even like what you say, but after you beat a dead horse for so long, it starts to stink.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Caleb, were you abused by a catholic priest?
July 16th, 2009 at 5:31 am
What an odd question, perplexed! If you don’t mind, why do you ask? And how would Caleb’s answer affect the substance and merits of his allegations?
July 16th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Jose, Caleb grew up Catholic and somewhere for some reason he changed what his beliefs were, he left the church, but he didn’t go far. He basically went next door in a religious sense. His core beliefs are the same, yet he searches for answers, deep theological answers while he harbors a deep resentment almost hated for the catholic religion, but the religion he is studying now is an off shoot of Catholicism. There is something that connects the division in his views and I wonder if it was abuse. His allegations to catholics are almost a hatred and the bitterness of hatred will ruin your life and he’s to smart to let hatred ruin him, I hope. I worry about him, I read his posts, sometimes and I can feel his cynicism, I don’t know if that is from religion or his profession.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am
No, perplexed, I was not abused by a Catholic priest (or anyone else), and did not grow up Catholic. My mother was Catholic, (a member of the oldest Catholic family in Eastern Kentucky, according to the official history of the Diocese of Covington) and my sister did spend some time going to a Catholic school; she was also never abused by anyone, and is still Catholic. I grew up with my father’s family, which was protestant.
After my parents’ divorce, my mother remarried in the Catholic Church (after doing whatever the Church required her to do to annul the marriage), and my half siblings went to Catholic school, and are Catholic. I get along just fine with all of them, and before her death, my mother encouraged me to do what I could to bring the wrongdoers to justice, which I have tried to do in some small way. Every Catholic relative I’ve talked to about this has said the same thing.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear, as Nixon used to say: My antipathy toward the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not personal. No Catholic has ever done anything bad to me, and no relative or personal friend was abused by Catholic priests. Every victim I have interviewed has been a stranger to me, as has every priest that I ever thought was a child molester. When I was growing up, nuns and priests were around occasionally, and I liked all of them. They were friendly and outgoing, and never did anything remotely improper around me or anyone I knew. Again, and I can’t say this enough, my condemnation is not of the Catholics in the pews, or the good priests and nuns: I condemn the bishops and hierarchy of the church, and those lay people and priests who either perpetrated these abuses or helped cover them up, either directly, or by inaction.
Perplexed, you can say this is anger if you want, but if it is, it is righteous indignation and holy anger. I don’t like pedophiles, and I don’t like the people who have hidden and covered up pedophilia for many years, and I don’t like the fact that many otherwise “good” Catholics support those people.
If I keep beating that horse, Perplexed, maybe it’s so that everyone will absolutely positively understand that it does stink. To high heaven. And I can’t understand why the stink doesn’t offend everyone as much as it does me.