Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What you just said has been previously condemned by the Church:

“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” Pope St. Pius X, Oath against Modernism

"Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: “Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down.” Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (Appealing for Peace), Nov 1, 1914
 
Eddie18 said:
Infallible Catholic teaching cannot change just like 2+2=4 cannot change.
Click to expand...
That’s perfectly correct. If it’s infallible, then it cannot change. But not all Church teaching is infallible. That’s what Eddie can’t seem to comprehend.
 
No, the teaching has not been changed. Pope Francis’ statements to reporters on a plane, to pilgrims, etc. are not dogmatic.
 
So you’re saying the dogma, “outside the Church there is no salvation” is not infallible? My gosh!
 
You really need to go back through this entire thread because many examples have been given with documented proof where the teaching today is the opposite of that of the past.
 
My post addressed another poster’s specific reference to a statement made by Pope Francis. You are taking my statement out of context.
 
Eddie18 said:
“outside the Church there is no salvation”
Click to expand...
That’s infallible, but it does not mean what you think it means. It is possible for someone to be part of the Mystical Body of Christ without being a Christian. They are part of the Church Invisible. They can also be saved through Jesus, although how this is done is known only to God.

This is all explained in this Catholic Answers article:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

Again, you really have to talk to your priest or spiritual advisor. They can explain this to you. You will never be able to figure it out on your own.
 
Are you familiar with the concept of “both/and”?
Are you familiar with “living Magisterium”?

Is an oak tree an acorn? What do you think?
Isn’t an acorn both part of an oak tree, and yet developed from it’s original form?

How about an unborn child? Is the unborn child the same human being as the adult?
Isn’t that unborn child both part of the adult and developed from it’s original form?

Likewise Catholic Church is the Living Body of Christ, not a dead thing that never develops. What is expressed in the past develops and grows without losing living continuity.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I’m very familiar with the doctrine. It’s called baptism of desire. It’s a rare exception to the rule where someone dies in invincible ignorance and in the state of perfect contrition. It is a rare exception and never assumed - “outside the Church there is no salvation” stands as the rule. If baptism of desire were assumed, there would have been no need for Saints and missionaries these past 20 centuries to dedicate their lives converting people.
 
AndrewAxland said:
Except for Dogma, of course, which never changes
Click to expand...
Eddie18 said:
Infallible Catholic teaching cannot change just like 2+2=4 cannot change.
Click to expand...
The Pope has the power of binding and loosing. It is in the Bible. There are cases where the teaching has changed, or in terms that some like to use, has developed.
Take for example the infallible dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This dogma was taught for 700 years in the Roman Church and is still taught in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Roman Catholic Church has changed it so that now it is taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son.
Another example, is whether the Blood was shed for all or for many. Before Vatican II it was taught that the Blood was shed for many,.
 
Last edited:
Eddie18 said:
If baptism of desire were assumed
Click to expand...
It isn’t. In fact, the salvation of those baptized sacramentally is not assumed, either.

And how rare or common Baptism of Desire is no one can tell but God alone. He saves them though Jesus, but how he saves them is beyond faith or reason, so we can never know until we are united with Him in Heaven.
 
Binding and loosing refers to the forgiveness of sins, not the abrogation of laws.
 
Eddie18 said:
Binding and loosing refers to the forgiveness of sins, not the abrogation of laws.
Click to expand...
Indeed. AINg’s post was incorrect. Besides, there has been one pope who was, and still remains, excommunicated, Pope Honorius I.
 
Last edited:
That is exactly the point. The dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” means that non-Catholics are NOT saved by default. In rare circumstances, such people can be saved through baptism of desire/invincible ignorance, but this is the exception to the rule and never assumed.

This is why the quotes in the OP are worded the way they are.
 
Eddie18 said:
That is exactly the point. The dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” means that non-Catholics are NOT saved by default. In rare circumstances, such people can be saved through baptism of desire/invincible ignorance, but this is the exception to the rule and never assumed.
Click to expand...
Would you say that a person would not be saved if he had a virtuous life but never came into contact with the true Church?
 
What does “rare” mean, and how do you know how “rare” it is?
The Church preaches that Gospel to all people, that we might know about God’s abundant life, and that we have access to it, NOT that it is exclusive to the club of the explicitly baptized.

The Church speaks in hope to all people. Hope is the expectation of things unseen. Not the same thing as presumption.
 
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
Eddie18:
That is exactly the point. The dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” means that non-Catholics are NOT saved by default. In rare circumstances, such people can be saved through baptism of desire/invincible ignorance, but this is the exception to the rule and never assumed.
Click to expand...
Would you say that a person would not be saved if he had a virtuous life but never came into contact with the true Church?
Click to expand...
He would. He’d be wrong according to everything we know, but he’d affirm you’re right.
 
Eddie18 said:
The dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation” means that non-Catholics are NOT saved by default.
Click to expand...
Catholics inside the Church are not saved by default, either, are they? As for those outside the Church, they have to rely on God’s grace and mercy, and the fact that Jesus died for their sins as He died for ours. God gives his grace to all men, and His mercy is infinite. So who he saves is known only to Him, and how He saves them is also known only to Him. Even the Church cannot know this, because it is beyond human understanding through faith and reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top