No salvation outside the church

Invincible ignorance is the only exemption to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. You do not have invincible ignorance.

I'm pretty sure the Orthodox have a sort of invisible church theology, I've been looking into both Orthodoxy and Catholicism for a long time and I've always been under the impression that the Orthodox have a much more "softer" approach on hell and salvation than Roman Catholicism.

God forbid! "Invisible Church" theology is strictly Protestant. When we speak of the "invisible Church", we mean the Church in Heaven, which is the saints and the angels. We do not mean an "invisible Church" on earth that would not be a visible institution but a community united solely by the basics of the religion. The visible local community, partaking of the visible Eucharist, and surrounding the visible bishop, is the visible Church.
We of course admit that "we know where the Holy Spirit is but not where He is not", and therefore we respect the entire world as a sacrament, but as far as salvation and justification are concerned, there really is no salvation outside of the very visible Church. As such, we also do not believe that Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants have valid sacraments, for instance - a bishop who is anathematized is laicized and cannot confer the sacrament of ordination. Apostolic succession does not require only to have a line of ordination dating from the apostles: the sacraments are not "magic tricks", without faith they are ineffective, and a bishop who is anathematized as a heretic does not have true faith and therefore cannot ordain someone in the true faith.
I would agree that we are more "soft" on the subject of Hell (actually I prefer to speak of "Hades", as "Hell" can mean plenty of things in English), but I would disagree that we are more "soft" on the subject of salvation and justification outside of the canonical Church, on the contrary.
Anyway, I don't mean to derail the thread into a discussion about Orthodox doctrine. I just meant to comment that in my opinion the Catholics have strongly softened their previously orthodox view, recently. So if you're a Catholic who seeks Catholic doctrine, you shouldn't be so worried about this. Catholicism teaches that schismatic/heretical groups that have apostolic succession still have the sacraments. And in fact, every validly baptized Christian has a sort of imperfect communion with the Church. And in fact, because there is such a thing as invincible ignorance, it's very much possible for someone to die outside of the Church and be saved. At this point, the only way to be sure that you're dooming yourself is to either A) die in a state of mortal sin, or B) recognize that the Catholic Church is truly the Church, but still refuse to join it.

If this is really the case with Orthodoxy, it's baffling that they don't evangelize. At least Catholicism has a long history of going to the ends of the earth to bring the church to people.

I agree that it's baffling. But it's not easy either. The Orthodox churches in the West already have barely enough money to take care of themselves, and while great books are written to introduce Orthodoxy to the West, only nerds read such books. And lots of bishops are more concerned with pleasing the local immigrants from Greece/Russia/Lebanon/etc. than, you know, spreading the faith to a world where Eastern theology has been largely ignored.
The Orthodox churches in Africa are doing great evangelizing work though, and are growing very fast. So the cynicism/laziness/incompetence/lack of funds regarding evangelization is not a problem everywhere. But it's definitely a problem in the West.

There's no liberal view. The ultra literal version of it which implies that the only members of the church are the visible ones, leads to calvinism because God wanted everyone else to perish without even giving them means of salvation. Basically catholics would be luck because they'd be the elect.
For you and OP here goes an explicit quote by Pius IX (so pre Vatican II for autists)
papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9quanto.htm

Also that strict view leading to calvinist is a recent heresy made by Fr. Feeney who also denies the age old Catholic doctrine of baptist of desire and blood and is loved by the most fringe elements of the sede vacantist movement.

Btw there people "out" of the church become members of the same by implicit desire of baptism.
Imo its a rare thing but that it is possible it is.

I've encountered this several times from catholics on this site but I never see it explained
Are you talking about Philippians 3?

...

and you see these as indications that paul is striving to earn salvation?

It is 100% possible that no one is saved outside of the visible church though.

You were asking which verses

OP I read a book called "Basic Theology" by Charles C. Ryrie

It has a good section of it dedicated to the church and the various meaning of the church in theology.

I think one of the interpretations is the church is everyone that believes in god and seeks to know him.

I am New Thought aka "Christian Scientist".

My personal view is that Jesus is "The Way, The Truth, and The Life".

Which means anyone who follows the way, who seeks out the truth, and lives the life of devotion to God is saved.

To me all that talk about "confessing his name" and "being in the church" is not absolutely necessary. You can do those things and yet still not know him. Is a rose not still a rose by any other name? We must get to the essence of who Christ is and we DO NOT need the outward parts.

I think this scares Christians of various sorts who want to scare people into strictly identifying with and being centered within Christianity. Instead of having an attitude of religious openness and just being like "hey, Christianity is a most excellent way to God, and other religions preach some degree of the truth as well but if you take an interest in Christianity I can assure you it has brought me to God and will do the same for you" they just try to scare people. This also extends to science sometimes.

My attitude is to seek the truth always and in all things and that the whole of creation is testament to God.

I believe that I honor Jesus the Christ in this way.

Also when it comes to the trinity some Christians emphasize Jesus the man, or they want each part to held in equal measure, and although I haven't really encountered it there is probably some who emphasize the Father. Me personally, I believe all weight should be upon the Holy Spirit, and the other parts aren't so important; worth knowing about and appreciating of course but the Holy Spirit does the real work in the believer. I feel the Holy Spirit comes first for me.

So do Catholics go to Hell according to Orthodox?

Also before someone says to me "not by works shall you be saved" well… not by empty works shall you be saved, but by works of faith you definitely will be. You can't buy salvation, you can't do some legal act with god to get saved, etc. (it's all shown in the Bible). BUT if you so order your life that you seek to know god and be like god in everything you do, then yes, you are destined for salvation. It may take a lonnnnggg time… but because of your love of god you will attain heaven. You will become perfect… and that does not involve an attitude of passivity without action. It involves both. The contemplative life and the active life, together.

Here are ways you can go wrong:

1. By seeking to do right in the eyes of men. Don't do this. Do right in the eyes of God.
2. By thinking you know enough about ethics that you can decide what is right or wrong. You have to act in accord with your current ethical understanding but you also need god to teach you, gradually, what true virtue is.
3. By uneven development. Do not neglect some part or parts of your life horribly while being entirely focused on one part. Work on the things that are hard and which may not give you the praise of men at all, that your character might be made the more noble. Don't be "a saint abroad" and a "crook at home" or such.
4. By sinning willfully and habitually, thinking god will save you later, so it doesn't matter. No, the process of salvation is continual, and you can prolong your suffering for your whole life doing this, and make things harder for you in death too.

Basically look at yourself. See where your weaknesses are and work to strengthen them.

Expanding on point 2. You need to be open to learning these things and that means dropping previous ideas about morality when god, through the experiences of your life and through study, reveals to you how you were wrong.

Negroes will profess any belief offered to them as long as it means getting gibes so a faith growing in Africa really means nothing. It's an identity for them not a reality.

I'll start believing their faith is sincere when they start believing it while not getting any kind of worldly gains from it.

Even in the west most people go to church "for the community" or "to find a wife" and such. Just right now conditions are such that people rely more on the government than on church charity in the west, so, people espouse secular beliefs instead. In the past the church did more of the charity work and it had more "converts".

A large percentage of humans are willing to espouse a set of beliefs on impure motivations like this. If they even know what it is they're supposed to believe (most don't, these things are just identities, they couldn't even tell you the basics most of the time nevermind what sets apart different denominations in the same religion).

People like me, who seek after the truth/god only, and do so even when there is no worldly incentive to do so, and many potential obstacles like ostracization… are rare.

At one of the churches I go to, there's these two homeless drug addicts that always show up, and then when they get to eat the food they leave and NEVER stay for the sermon after. You can tell who is seriously there for God and who is there for other reasons by seeing who stays for the part after when we have our food. About half of the original population of church goers is emptied out by then.

I've never heard that. Orthodox are sad by the innovations in the West.. but they (at least the cool ones) tend to have a saying: We don't always know where the Holy Spirit is working, but we do know where he is definitely working in one place. Something like that.

God's graces are not bound to anyone. We are bound to his graces instead.

hell isn't real and the soul isn't eternal, your body is your soul, the sinners will be destroyed in Gehenna fire during the second Resurrection after the 1000years in the kingdom age is complete and satan is loosed again to test the elect and then eternal judgement will happen to all the evil and the sinner will be dead for all eternity, Yahweh isn't as cruel as Christians believe it would seem

There's more than just the soul and the body. Man is three parts. That you got this wrong should make you reassess this whole, uninformed worldview you have, but you probably won't.

Bro. The soul is not eternal but the spirit is. Man is body, soul, and spirit. The body (your physical body) dies first. Later the soul (your mind and astral body) dies second. The spirit never dies and never is born. It is eternal.

When did St. Paul ever quit striving for salvation? Was he not the one who advised us to mortify our body? Or that it was better to be celibate to better pursue God and His business? What's the point of either of these two things, if not to improve the striving of salvation?

Didn't Judas have Christ, and then lose Him?

I don't know what "gibes" mean. If you are claiming that the very vibrant, very humble Orthodox churches of Rwanda and Congo are "fake Orthodox" who convert to get something like money in exchange, you're wrong (both because they are truly Orthodox in faith and practice, and because the Patriarchate of Alexandria isn't exactly rich to begin with so what kind of money is there to send?). The only thing they get in exchange for their conversion is eternal life.

Tell me, O wise one, what "worldly gains" the Orthodox in Congo, for instance, are getting. I think you don't know what you're talking about, which is an extremely bad thing since you are throwing false accusations at your brothers in Christ.
Incidentally I find the "not able to tell you the basics" syndrome to be much more prevalent among cradle Orthodox (especially from Russia) than from the Orthodox of African countries.

As for the rest of your little rant it's so off-topic that I shouldn't comment, but… are you really annoyed that your chuch is feeding homeless drug addicts without expecting something from them in return (like conversion)? And you feel superior to them because you stay for the homily (one of the least important parts of the Liturgy, which can be easily skipped, by the way)? In the same post, you have disparaged Orthodox churches in Africa, the Church feeding outcasts of society without expecting something in return, and, if your priest is aware of the latter, you are also disparaging your own spiritual father. And in all of this you have only exalted yourself ("PEOPLE LIKE ME see after the truth only! PEOPLE LIKE ME have pure intentions! PEOPLE LIKE ME are rare!").
How in the Hell do you not realize that you are praying the prayer of the Pharisee, not that of the Publican?

Gibes meaning food, free stuff of any sort.

Also community and peace.

I'm also not talking about the churches themselves but the people who are going to them. In all probability the ones who lead the churches are likely real. The common people coming to them likely aren't.

Do you seriously believe the average negro in an Orthodox church knows the doctrine btw? Again not talking about the priests running things there, but the ones who attend.

Oh and as for the homeless that I mentioned. I hate them because they are disruptive, they curse and they mock, they are racemixers, and it's all in one ear and out the other with them.

I've been homeless. I know good homeless people and I know horrible ones. I have nothing in principle against feeding the homeless. Also, in the case of drug addicts, if they ever became sincere about stopping, I would support that… but I hate the ones who are just bullshitting us all and got no intentions to stop.

Also I am opposed to foreign aid and to missionary work that involves going abroad. There was a missionary in I think Ireland that first checked to make sure every single person in Ireland was a believer before going to the New World. Only then did he go, after confirming everyone was a believer in his own country. Right now these missionaries are going to far away, foreign countries, and abandoning the people in their own countries. God says help your neighbor, not ignore your neighbors and take off to some country of unrelated people, who will give lip service to what you preach in order to gain the benefits.

Again, the only "free stuff" they are given is eternal life.
Again, you accuse them of heterodoxy, but you have not given any justification beside "they are Negroes" and "people like me are rare". At least explain yourself.

… What? The people who go to them -are- the Church.

What is your problem, dude? First, stop attacking the orthodoxy or lack thereof of people you don't know. That is an extremely grave sin and you are scattering what Christ has given you. Second, yes, every "average negro in an Orthodox church" I've met was very knowledgeable about the faith and practice, and very much Orthodox. I don't know why exactly you have this fixation in your head that this is not likely.

Then bring this issue to your priest, not to random strangers online! You are literally airing out the problems in your parish to strangers in public, instead of telling your priest that this is a problem!

Again I'm not sure why you're talking about this. Each autocephalous Church has its jurisdiction already, you know. Concerning Africa, the Patriarchate of Alexandria (the See of which is already in Africa) handles it today, although it is true that the original boost for evangelization in Africa came from Greek priests and Alexandria sort of took over the operation later (to be fair the Patriarchate was extremely small and irrelevant for most of history, so it wouldn't have been able to set out into the heart of Africa on its own).

As an addenum, about a third of all Orthodox people I've known were from Africa. (mostly Congo, and Ethiopian and Eritrean converts from Oriental Orthodoxy)

...

Why are you mocking me? Yes, I'm an idiot and I am slow both to think and to type, I am not going to pretend otherwise. Do you have another point to make other than "lol look at this guy"?

Hey user if you're a smarty pants, may I humbly ask why you picked the Orthodox Church? You seem to be a convert as you're well read.

We could talk over email, discord or here.

Thanks

Nope, I was simply fascinated by how well you where able to respond in all the correct dimensions while raising your own points. Really, it was a compliment. Stop dogging your self.

Oh. I thought you were mocking me. Sorry, I misread you.
I'm really not a "smarty pants", as you put it, but we can talk if you want. Yes, I'm a convert. Maybe it would be better to talk over discord as this would be off-topic here and ten Baptists and Catholics would jump in to argue against me.
My Discord name and tag is The Backward Long Icon#7840 (don't ask). Reply to this so I can delete the post.

Delet tHis

Okay tell me this user. What is so magical about these negroes that you would regard them as all being true and sincere believers, while you don't seem to question me on saying that the average Church goer in the west is not?

I think you are doing the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" thing. Either that or western countries truly are becoming shitholes and I should be thinking about moving to Africa in order to be in the company of better people.

As for explaining myself.

Don't you observe these things for yourself?

How people wear religions like costumes? What motivates them being anything but "the way, the truth, and the life"?

Maybe I am just surrounded by the worst people but everywhere I go I see the majority with wrong motives and little knowledge.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
Hosea 4:6

You are talking about your experience, why should I claim you're spreading falsehood? I'm not where you are.
Likewise, I am talking about my experience, so do not claim that I am spreading falsehood.

If you want to shift the subect to "the average churchgoer in the West", we can do that. As an Orthodox Christian living in a Western country, the "average churchgoer" is of any origin (Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Romanian, French, Chilean, Greek, Lebanese, Afghani, Iraqi, Lybian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Rwandese, Congolese), so that includes so-called "negroes". And the vast majority are "true and sincere believers" as you put it (but the group that is the most sloppy regarding taking the religion seriously is the Russians). So, if what you want is for me to address your claim that the average churchgoer in the West is a lazy scumbag who wants to belong to a group but not be truly religious, then my stance is that this isn't true according to my experience at all (although the Russians who are lazy about the faith and step outside in the middle of the liturgy to take a smoke are a bit of an embarassment).

I do observe this, although among a minority of people, all of which are either Russian or Romanian.
But it seems like you've completely disregarded what I pointed out above - that you sound like you are exalting yourself as one of great faith, while those other people are lazy scumbags and an insult to religion. If you're Orthodox, you should know by now to live by the motto of "look in your own plate" (sometimes literally so, considering how much we fast).

I completely forgot about the Romanis. To be fair, they usually don't know much of the language if at all, and they're extremely poor. Not having a car or a good grasp of the language, they rarely come to church, although when they do the church becomes packed. They have a very solid cult of the saints at home though.

I'm not Orthodox. I am New Thought.

Okay then. Well I universalize my own experiences.

Do you agree with my sentiment though that we should focus on those closest to us (both in blood and in physical proximity) first and move outward from there? I don't like missionaries going to other countries when they got work to do in their own country. I feel quite honestly too that in Asia and Africa they just get into these things to learn English, to make connections, to get free stuff, etc. with the ultimate aim of moving to a white country.

That said I have also often thought stuff like "instead of importing these people here, we need to export our culture to them, so they can make their own countries better".

So tell me, from what you know, do you reckon these Christians abroad just plan to move to white countries, or do you think they will take the teachings of Christ and use them to benefit their own people and that they will retain or even strengthen their racial consciousness?

Also, what do you think about these so called "Christians" in Africa, who then go on to behave in horrendous ways? Does crime ever go down in Africa just because they become Christian?

Random side thought: I read recently that Satan isn't actually "evil" and his purpose rather is to test our faith according to the jews. That the idea of Satan being evil was a thing that started in Christianity.

Makes me wonder; should we be testing each others faith when we see fit?

what protestant sect is this

u wut m8

you're in the dark running into walls

The RCC is full of crap.
Stick with it and improve it. Be better than those pharisees at the Vatican.

pharisees has easily become the new "idolatry", it's slung around with no particular sense, it's just a pseudo-biblical term for things user does not like

You didn't answer anything in my post about what Satan represents. Is he the principle of evil or he who tests our faith?

I would not categorize it as protestant, orthodox, catholic, or any other major division of Christianity you can think of.

Whatever you say rabbi.

This is personally also my greatest gripe as a catholic.
I simply can't fathom how a God that loves all of his creation didn't inspire the other religions.

I think God inspired all religions, and those that make an earnest effort to approach him can be saved through faith and divine grace.

However some religions are outright twisted and evil (judaism and satanism specifically) because their entire philosophy is about rebellion against God or the rejection of Jesus.

I don't think buddhists, hindus, sikhs and muslims go to hell.
Depending on their devotion and divine grace, they might be saved (I hope).

I believe there is only one God, and people sought him out across the world way before Jesus came to Earth. I think that God is graceful enough to have given them signs and revelations of himself, hence the great religion of the east came to be.

Like the greeks, easterners also achieved the conclusion that there is ultimately but one God.

New Thought is basically its own category.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Thought

Neither, Satan is Satan. He was the highest of all the angels, who fell due to pride. Trying to reproduce him as some sort of allegorical rendering is occultic (almost talmudic, really).

there is no "principle of evil", evil is the privation of good (God). "he who tests our faith" isn't even exclusively satan, the urges of our own body in the state of original sin and the temptations of the world are also sources of "tests of our faith".

ANYTHING that is not of God, that is of men, is of Satan.

Protestant/new age sect it is then.

not an argument

Well what do you categorize Swedenborg under?

… Oh. I thought you were Orthodox, I didn't look at your post history ITT and thought you were Orthodox, since you were originally replying to this:

We should focus on those closest to us, regardless of blood relations. People obssess over making changes through country-wide laws, or going to a far away country to evangelize, while ignoring the poor and the needy that are immediately in front of them, and not educating the people around them about Christianity. Hierarchs of the Church, like Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, have talked about this, although even St. John Chrysostom addressed this issue, regarding those Christians who would donate to the Church to let it do the charity worrk, while ignoring themselves the people in front of them. When we help the needy we do not do a transaction to satisfy God. What God wants us for us to love the needy and the outcasts, and delegating other people to do it for you is not the right way to do it.

I don't care in the slightest about "racial consciousness", but I think I have made my point sufficiently clear. Christianity is not a Palestinian religion that is exported to other countries, Christianity is a catholic, universal religion, and each nation is free to give their own expression of Orthodoxy. Not that I deny that there are communities that adhere to Orthodoxy mainly because they want to get perks out of it, though. This is what happened when the Bulgars were evangelized by Constantinople - King Boris wanted political perks most of all, and therefore enjoyed to fuel the fire between Rome and Constantinople in the hope that the Church of Bulgaria would be recognized as a Patriarchate.
This isn't the situation in Congo and Rwanda though. They consider Orthodox Christianity to be -their- religion, not a foreign religion that they latch onto in the hope of getting something out of it. If anything, becoming Orthodox rather than Catholic or Protestant doesn't help them much with any ambition to move West or something, since Orthodoxy is mostly Eastern.

I don't really care about non-Orthodox Christians, so I can't help answer that question.

who?

swedish lutheran = smells protestant to me

I don't believe anything protestants believe though.

As for "New Age" that is very offensive to me.

I guess you could call it gnostic but it's not very much like the older gnosticism that is expressed in the Pistis Sophia.

I'll let you and the orthodox get chummy

By the way, a Greek documentary about Congolese Orthodoxy came out recently: youtube.com/watch?v=JY3N_wf28UI

Look up William Walker Atkinson. He is the one whose words I believe.

See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_New_Thought_terms
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Church_of_Christ,_Scientist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Panentheism

You should. The entire bible is the story of a tribe keeping itself separate from the rest and warring upon all others. Nation = a people. Not an arbitrary geographical boundary or a piece of paper that says you're a citizen. It's a people bound together by blood first and faith second. Throughout the bible there are passages expressing a racial consciousness where one is supposed to care about their own people.

Even when you care for the stranger, it should be in terms of, being at peace with your neighbors, and not creating unnecessary wars. You don't mix with them though.

...

I'm pretty sure I wasn't having an argument with you :)

I will be back later, going to give you time to read that pdf.

The Church is the new Israel. We are a part of the people of God not by blood, but by faith. Our nation is the Kingdom of God, the Church. Marriage with non-Christians (and even, historically, non-Orthodox Christians) is forbidden.
So, I actually agree completely that the Bible forbids race-mixing. The Law of Moses has prescriptions against marrying non-Jews. The people of Israel were fooled into idolatry again and again because of the sin of mixing with pagan tribes, inevitably leading to worshipping their gods. Ezra (in Ezra 10) and Nehemiah (in Nehemiah 13) had to take drastic measures to purify Israel from the co-mingling it had done during the exile.
But the New Testament reveals that there are truly two races: the race of Adam and the race of Christ. The Jews' tribal isolationism was a pedagogue, a prefiguration of this. The epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans clarify that the "seed of Abraham" is not by blood, but by faith.

Your pdf focuses almost exclusively on the OT (and its interpretation is more or less correct, I have no clue why it feels the need to be so convulted when you can just look at the Hebrew or Greek text and easily see what is meant). It fails to address how this concept, like many others in the OT, is re-interpreted in light of Christ in the NT.

What is the church? St Bellarmine gives the following definition
As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: "A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth"
Catholic ecclesiology states that one must possess the external and internal bonds of unity, ecclesiastical and sacramental. One is bound interiorly through the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity and externally by submission to the hierarchy, profession of faith and sacramental unity. St Pius X clarified that the church is one and the same and these are different angles to view the one church, the interior bonds of communion with the church does not extend beyond the visible society of the church, and while baptized non Catholics have imperfect sacramental communion, that alone does not allow salvation.

St Chrysostom says the following about an invisible church
“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible.”

Here are the three acts of the extra ordinary magesterium we must read all subsequent interpretation in light of

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Vatican II upheld this teaching fully and Lumen Gentium and the catechism state that it is impossible for one to knowingly reject the church and be saved, salvation outside the church is due to exceptions made by God of baptized persons due to ignorance, Protestant churches are not a normative avenue of salvation

Remember the Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, bearing the marks of infallibility, authority and indefectability. The church is a visible society composed of men, when Jesus instructed us on how to deal with a heretic, when he was expelled and treated as a heathen and a publican there was no other church to join, the same case in 1 John, the one church is the body of Christ alone.

Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

— St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

Saint Ambrose (died A.D. 397): “Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. …Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward.” (The Fathers of the Church )

Saint Jerome (died A.D. 420): “As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built. …This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. …And as for heretics, I have never spared them; on the contrary, I have seen to it in every possible way that the Church’s enemies are also my enemies.” (Manual of Patrology and History of Theology )

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem )

No, Judas was a devil and never saved
The "striving" and "pressing on" is never in doubt of having salvation

I do not recognize this quote of St. Ambrose, but either way I would be careful to use it in the context you are using. The other quotes are fine, of course, but St. Ambrose certainly didn't intend to make a reference to papal primacy here (again, if the quote is legitimate at all - I don't recognize it, and your source is too vague).
Ambrose also said:

But again, the other quotes are fine. St. Jerome definitely meant papal primacy (even though his earlier stance was more "egalitarian" so to speak).
However, let me ask you about Vatican II. I agree that Vatican II clearly means that one cannot consciously reject the Church, knowing it is the Church of Christ, and yet be saved. But there is a huge difference between simply being in schism/heresy and acknowledging that the Catholic Church is the Church but still rejecting it. The latter seems to be the current Catholic interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church" but it seems to give so much wiggle room that it essentially shuts down the original meaning, and effectively contradicts what Catholicisim had historically believed before then. Could you elaborate?

Vatican II reaffirmed the doctrine of EENS, Catholic ecclesiology doesn’t work in a way where on council “overrides” another, they are read in light of eachother. They specifically say no one can knowingly reject the church and be saved in Lumen gentium, do not confuse the ecumenical tone for specific definition of doctrine. The bishops and hierarchy have been soft and their attitude does not reflect per se the acts of the council. Lumen Gentiums formulation of the doctrine is in line with St Thomas for the most part with the only exception being invincible ignorance.

Vatican II was also a pastoral council, it changed the manner in which the church presents the truth but did not define any new truths or change the traditional definitions

Good, because this is how the Catholic Church exalts itself to the status of Godhood and blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that he is the way and the truth and the life, not a religion claiming to have been built by Peter when in reality it’s the invention of a pagan emperor.

It’s because the Catholic Church has arrogantly declared itself to be the source of salvation, it’s been given over to all kinds of wickedness, which is why the satanic jesuits control the church and most priests are homosexuals or pedophiles.

But I also won’t lie and say there aren’t issues with the documents themselves

But what is "knowingly rejecting the Church"? Certainly not everyone who is Protestant or Orthodox is currently "knowingly rejecting the Church". They do not even believe the Catholic Church is the Church at all.

By the way, could you explain to me what is "invincible ignorance"? Isn't it that someone who dies without knowing about Catholicism or having a way to know about it can be saved?

I like Vatican II. It balances out Vatican I and gets really close to the Orthodox notion of "no conciliarity without primacy, no primacy without conciliarity". I'm concerned though because it goes in a direction that is neither in line with traditional Catholicism nor traditional Orthodoxy (the wording surrounding the Jews borders on dual covenant theology, for instance).

I disagree with some of the collegiality introduced at the council and it’s the source of all the liturgical abuse we see in th Church, I would rather have seen them move in the direction of Eucharistic ecclesiology and communion espoused by Meyerdorff.

There has not been a dogmatic definition of invincible ignorance yet so the safest bet is to see what St Thomas’ formulation is as his elevated status gives him precedent in lieu of a dogmatic declaration

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Now Neo Thomists have elaborated upon this and ignorance is not merely a deprivation of knowledge but a barrier preventing you from even knowing you should be searching for this knowledge, we have an obligation to search for truth and form our conscience, the modern commentaries on the notion place doubt on how many people in a modern, first world nation could claim this but at the end of the day only God knows

It's not God who dictates some idiotic doctrine that idiots cling on.
It's an admirable trait to hold onto your denomination, but if you'll have to choose stupid rules over God's will, know your choice by then.

Really? Point this scripture out. It's like, being one of the sunken on the Titanic. And just because you see a straggling random in the sea, you're all like….. "winnie the pooh that….. we are of the Titanic vessel. Screw any straggling ship wrecked buffoon who was endangered out at sea who wants to get aboard our ship.

But the. Again it's like…… Ehhh…. I have to use logic at some point.

Who in their sane mind would speak ill of their father.
also read the OT, namely Genesis and Wisdom.

Those protestants and orthodoxes can think for themselves at read right?
In the protestant case they theology is self serving so of course deep inside they know they are wrong.
I doubt anyone is truly ignorant about the reality of the church except people hwo live in the middle of the jungle though.

Get out with your shitty tolerance of other theological opinions.
There's no freedom of though in God.
The Truth is only one.

Quintessentially Catholic
Augustine and his buddy Plato would be so pleased with you

That's true for tribes in America before the Spaniards and similar since it was impossible to know even the existence of the Catholic Church.
As for people living today there's no such thing as invencible ignorance.
Thanks. Althogh Plato had nothing do to with us he was a cool dude.

...

I mean, the Apostle Paul literally addresses this. 2 Corinthians 6:11-18:

He also addresses the case in which a person converts after already marrying a non-believer, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16:

I mean, there is a difference between "do not marry someone who is outside the Church" and "do not have fellowship of any kind with non-believers". 1 Corinthias 5:9-11:

You haven't met many people in life, have you?
Pro-tip: no one who isn't Catholic cares about Catholicism, except for dumb Evangelicals who think the Pope is the antichrist.

Exactly they are going to perish if they don't change.
And I was talking about heretics btw.
Schismatics by definition are orthodox in faith, but only separated from Rome. Ivan that lived in the Russian countryside in the 15th century isn't guilty of the sin of schism.

Although the path that the orthodox Church took after the schism is borderline heresy but nothing like protestants, not even in a million years.

If anyone rejects Catholic doctrine, he is a heretic, by your standards. If Ivan who lives in the Russian countryside in the 15th century is obedient to what his priest teaches, then he is necessarily a heretic for you.

"Borderline" heresy? The councils of Florence and Vatican I declared as dogma several things that the Orthodox explicitly reject. Do not be a hypocrite, either we are heretics for you or we are not. The only thing we have above Protestants, from where you stand, is apostolic succession, but it does not help for salvation.

Then you are right. I forgot issues like papal infallibility which no one must deny. Then orthodoxes are truly heretics.
He was really ignorant of what the true Church taught and it was impossible for him to know better. Besides he had access to the sacraments.

The only Catholics that think Catholicism is Christian are the ignorant ones at the bottom of the food chain. They have no idea that their church is a satanic coven practicing Babylonian mysticism because their role in the church it to basically act as a human shield preventing the truth from coming to light

Reminder that “Babylonian mysticism” is a boogeyman invented by the SDAz

Source: my ass aka Satan

Correction, no salvation outside of CHRIST

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. If you got any problem with that you can complain with God when die.

Christ gave His authority to the Apostles though. You deny them, you deny Him. Remember?