Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

[guanophore]

One is not saved because of the church he belongs to. Salvation is not found because we are a member of a particular church. Salvation is found through Christ alone. In the Scriptures, after the Gospel was preached people repented, believe on Christ as Savior and got saved. Then they joined a local church. Remember, Christianity is not about religion…but relationship…with Jesus Christ…

I agree, one is not saved because of what church they belong to. This is because there is only ONE CHURCH, and outside of it, there is no salvation. Salvation is found in Christ, but He has chosen not to be “alone”. He has a Body, and it is not headless as you imply. all those who are joined to the head are, by definition, members of His Body, the Church. They did not “join a local church”, because there was only One Church, just as there is today, and everyone who was saved was a member of it. It is the same church all over the world. Although there are local gatherings, they are all part of the One Church.

I agree, Christianity is not about relgion, but about a relationship with Jesus Christ. When we are related to Him, we become relations (members) one of another.

 

[guanophore]

Please clarify the Catholic Chuch’s position as you understand it.

Are saying that Muslims who knowingly deny the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation?

Are you say the non-Catholic Protestants who knowingly reject all uniquely Catholic doctrines are “unknowingly united the the Church” and therefore capable of receiving salvation

No, but people rarely “knowingly” do these things. I have not yet a Protestant yet that rejects Catholic doctrine “knowingly”. People reject it because they don’t understand it, or because they don’t accept it (moral disobedience). No one who disobeys the commandments if God will be saved.

There are people who are unknowingly united to the Church. They do not realize that they are joined to the Catholic church, and they would be abhorred if they did.

 

[guanophore]

From a salvation perspective only: what the purpose of the Catholic Church?

This is a very good question. THe Apostles answers this in his letter to the Ephesians:

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

The Church is the revelation by God of Himself to the world. It is His Body, to which we must be joined in baptism into death, that we might rise to new life.

 

[guanophore]

As a reference for discussion :
From the first page of
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=390318&highlight=salvation+outside

posts #2, 4,5, and 6 includes dozen and dozens of CLEARLY worded statements including many “ex cathedra” statements regarding NO salvation exists outside of the Catholic Church.

Are you in disagreement with these statemants?

Yes, of course. If one is not, then one is not Catholic.

 

[RedBert]

This is a very good question. THe Apostles answers this in his letter to the Ephesians:

Eph 3:9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,
Eph 3:10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

The Church is the revelation by God of Himself to the world. It is His Body, to which we must be joined in baptism into death, that we might rise to new life.

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

Can you elaborate a little more on the purpose of the CC in regards to the plan of Salvation for Muslims…

in other words: if a Muslim never had anything to do with the CC and can still be included in the plan of salvation; what is the point of the CC to those Muslims?

 

[RedBert]

Yes, of course. If one is not, then one is not Catholic.

did you mis-respond to the question “are you in DISagreement?”

 

[arwenEvenstar]

So if the catechism includes Muslims in the plan of salvation because they believe in the ONE TRUE GOD, even though they reject Christ as messiah/savior, how can the cc then say that the protestants cannot be saved? I can’t even begin to list the huge differences between muslim beliefs and christian beliefs regardless of the shared belief in The God of Abraham. How can salvation come to someone who rejects the son of god? “i am the Way, the Truth and the Life…no one can come to the Father except through me”. How do you get around that statement from the lips of christ himself?
Heck, muslims believe the new testament is corrupted…therefore, i.e our whole basis of our belief system corrupted and erroneous as well. So if i follow this logic to it’s conclusion, the jews then must also be included as well…more so, if anything.

I’m confused. Is this really in the cc? is it taken out of context?

I’m new to catholicism and this really throws a wrench into the machine for me. i do believe protestants and catholics alike will be saved because of christ despite their differences in all other areas…all those areas can be debated, but christ can’t. He was either Lord, liar or lunatic as c.s lewis puts it. (Only Catholics and Protestants believe he was Lord) and yet…protestants get the boot cause what?..their traitors? protestors? abandoners? Is it as petty as this? Is this their punishment? Some kind of revenge for splintering off?

Muslims believe Jesus (not Christ) was a teacher/prophet and honor him as they do others such as Mary etc, but they can’t even logically do that since christ claimed to be messiah. In other words, if he claimed to be the messiah, he either was lying or crazy or was really being factual/truthful. I suppose since they believe the nt is a corruption, they’d say he never claimed that in the first place.

Side note: Wonder where they got their info. on christ…i.e, i know it’s in qur’an but wonder what Mohammed’s source was? Or rather what he claimed to be his source? Direct revelation?

Anyway…wish the pope was on this forum…i’d like to hear his take on all this.

 

[arwenEvenstar]

2 Questions:

1. Does anyone here know about john paul 2’s prior ecumenical beliefs regarding protestants? And why he then backed out of it…or was convinced by Ratzinger to change mind? Is that even true? it’s something i was told and would like to get some elaboration on this if anyone knows about it.
2. Can the Catechism be ammended? Has it been ammended? If so, where and on what?
   Didn’t the belief about babies going to hell or purgatory if they died prior to baptism get ammended? Was that in the Catechism? Gee wiz…now, as a former protestant, i need to learn the catechism after all these yrs. of studying the bible and its languages. Lots to learn…never ending. 2000 yrs. of tradition to catch up on. Yikes…and here i thought, i knew it all…lol

Side note, when i first came to believe in christ as savior (as a protestant), the first book i was handed to read by the person who discipled me was “The confessions of St. Augustine”…i was only an 18 yr. old punk who barely graduated H.S…lol. Having never read one full book from cover to cover, reading “The confessions” was like reading in moonspeak language…lol. Who knew, that i’d later become an avid reader and even end up getting my degree in “words” sort of speak. (Lit. major)
I do think it’s cool though, that i learned a lot about the early church fathers via protestant groups and even protestant school. So, believe me, they’re not all such protesters as you may think.

 

[RedBert]

So if the catechism includes Muslims in the plan of salvation because they believe in the ONE TRUE GOD, even though they reject Christ as messiah/savior, how can the cc then say that the protestants cannot be saved? I can’t even begin to list the huge differences between muslim beliefs and christian beliefs regardless of the shared belief in The God of Abraham. How can salvation come to someone who rejects the son of god? “i am the Way, the Truth and the Life…no one can come to the Father except through me”. How do you get around that statement from the lips of christ himself?
.

re: protestants; I think this would apply

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ (“Dogmatic Constitution…,” 1964, 2.15,)

 

[guanophore]

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

Can you elaborate a little more on the purpose of the CC in regards to the plan of Salvation for Muslims…

in other words: if a Muslim never had anything to do with the CC and can still be included in the plan of salvation; what is the point of the CC to those Muslims?

Catholics, unlike our Reformed brethren, believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and wants everyone to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth. Ideally, Muslims are closer to discovering that Truth than others may be, as they worship (or think they do!) the God of Abraham.

God will not save anyone who refuses to come to Him, but some do come to Him without knowing who He is, just as Paul told the Athenians “I observe that you are very religions…what yo u worship as unknown, I now proclainm to you”. Saul thought he was following God too, but he ended uppersecuting the Church, because he did not recognize Christ. Christ revealed Himself to Saul on the road to Damasus. If, when Jesus reveals Himself to those who did not recognize Him for who He is, they fall down in obediencde as Paul did, they can be saved. Hope that helps. guan

 

[guanophore]

did you mis-respond to the question “are you in DISagreement?”

Yes, I did.

I realized it too late to edit.

There is no salvation outside the Church. Jesus only has one Body, and One Church. Therefore, all those who are saved are in some manner connected to it. It is amystery behond our comprehension.

 

[guanophore]

So if the catechism includes Muslims in the plan of salvation because they believe in the ONE TRUE GOD, even though they reject Christ as messiah/savior,

Muslims, by and large, are misinformed about Christ. If, when they come to kno that what they were given to believe in Hinm was wrong, they still reject Him, they will not be saved. People are not condemned to hell for ignorance, but for rebellion.

how can the cc then say that the protestants cannot be saved?

The Catholic Church does not say this.

I can’t even begin to list the huge differences between muslim beliefs and christian beliefs regardless of the shared belief in The God of Abraham. How can salvation come to someone who rejects the son of god?

Most of them are never taught who He is. He is represented to them as a prophet. some branches of Islam also believe that He survived the crucifixion and travelled with His mother to Indial…

**

i am the Way, the Truth and the Life…no one can come to the Father except through me". How do you get around that statement from the lips of christ himself? **

We don’t! EVeryone comes to God through Christ, whose One Body is the Catholic Church. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

arwenEvenstar:

Heck, muslims believe the new testament is corrupted…therefore, i.e our whole basis of our belief system corrupted and erroneous as well.

I thought you said you were Catholic?

The Catholic church is not a “bible church” like those spawned during the Reformation. The whole basis of our belief system is Jesus Himself, and it was whole and entire before the Bible existed. I agree with you, though, that they have a warped perspective of the faith, and the Scripture. that is why it would be next to impossible to say they “knowingly” reject the faith.

So if i follow this logic to it’s conclusion, the jews then must also be included as well…more so, if anything.

Definitely. salvation is of the Jews.

I’m confused. Is this really in the cc? is it taken out of context?

I’m new to catholicism and this really throws a wrench into the machine for me. i do believe protestants and catholics alike will be saved because of christ despite their differences in all other areas…

Yes, it is really in the CC, and this answers my other question above, thanks.

…all those areas can be debated, but christ can’t. He was either Lord, liar or lunatic as c.s lewis puts it. (Only Catholics and Protestants believe he was Lord) and yet…protestants get the boot cause what?..their traitors? protestors? abandoners?

No one “gets the boot”. Everyone is offered sufficient grace to be saved. Those who refuse the Truth cannot be saved. If, when Saul was confronted by Christ on the road to Damascus, he refused Christ, and decided to believe it was a demon…

Is it as petty as this? Is this their punishment? Some kind of revenge for splintering off?

The penalties for disobedience are built into the disobedience itself. Those who splintered have lost part of the fullness of the Truth. However, modern day Protestants cannot be charged with the sin of heresy, since they never learned teh Truth.

Muslims believe Jesus (not Christ) was a teacher/prophet and honor him as they do others such as Mary etc, but they can’t even logically do that since christ claimed to be messiah. In other words, if he claimed to be the messiah, he either was lying or crazy or was really being factual/truthful. I suppose since they believe the nt is a corruption, they’d say he never claimed that in the first place.

Right. they are given a very skewed understanding of HIm.

Side note: Wonder where they got their info. on christ…i.e, i know it’s in qur’an but wonder what Mohammed’s source was? Or rather what he claimed to be his source? Direct revelation?

Anyway…wish the pope was on this forum…i’d like to hear his take on all this.

Mohammeds mother was a Christian, I believe, so that is the source he used to weave a lot of Christian thougth into his religion.

The pope fully supports the Catechism, so that would be the best place to start.

 

[guanophore]

2 Questions:

1. Does anyone here know about john paul 2’s prior ecumenical beliefs regarding protestants? And why he then backed out of it…or was convinced by Ratzinger to change mind? Is that even true? it’s something i was told and would like to get some elaboration on this if anyone knows about it.

Sorry, can’t help with this. Seems very unlikely to me that JP2 would have any disagreement with Vat.2

1. Can the Catechism be ammended? Has it been ammended? If so, where and on what?

Yes. The first catechetical manual is called the Didache. You can read it free online.

Since that time, it has been constantly updated. The purpose of it is to apply the faith to the modern age. The current catechism is the most complete update since the Reformation. Prior to that (the Baltimore) didn’t not address mantters of Protestantism like this.

Didn't the belief about babies going to hell or purgatory if they died prior to baptism get ammended? Was that in the Catechism? Gee wiz...now, as a former protestant, i need to learn the catechism after all these yrs. of studying the bible and its languages.

Yes, the theological speculation of “limbo” was abandoned by the Church. It was never an official doctrine. Yes, it was addressed in the Catechism. that is available free online too.

Yes, but your study of the catechism will go much further faster, because you have this background.

Lots to learn...never ending. 2000 yrs. of tradition to catch up on. Yikes...and here i thought, i knew it all...lol

I am sure you know a lot, and your previous spiritual formation will stand you in good stead.

Side note, when i first came to believe in christ as savior (as a protestant), the first book i was handed to read by the person who discipled me was “The confessions of St. Augustine”…i was only an 18 yr. old punk who barely graduated H.S…lol. Having never read one full book from cover to cover, reading “The confessions” was like reading in moonspeak language…lol. Who knew, that i’d later become an avid reader and even end up getting my degree in “words” sort of speak. (Lit. major)

In another age, I would have become a philologist also.

It does not pay the rent very well tho.

I do think it's cool though, that i learned a lot about the early church fathers via protestant groups and even protestant school. So, believe me, they're not all such protesters as you may think. ;):p

No, you certainly would not get that from me.

 

[distracted]

.

someone please summarize…

no time to read all posts!!!

:hypno:

 

[JacobG]

First of all, the question in this thread is ridiculous. Being “saved” has nothing whatsoever to do with what church a person belongs to. It isn’t about religion at all…but about a relationship…with Jesus Christ. Being born again is more than attending church, reading the Bible, saying prayers, etc. Being born from above means you understand the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. You acknowledge that you are a lost sinner, that Christ died for you and there’s no way to heaven without full repentance and trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation. If you’re looking for another way to heaven, its your way, and man’s way leads to destruction.

Matt. 7:13-14: Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The “saved” are everywhere and found in many faiths.

 

[Grapevine70]

God’s grace and love has no boundaries he loves all. God is first and foremost love. He awaits everyone and He is there at the doorstep knocking on the door waiting for us to allow him inside into our hearts.
Now whether one was born Budhist, Muslim, Bahai, Protestant etc and never was exposed to the truth about the Holy Trinity ie God then they will be judged according to how well they followed the “trueness” of their faith with a good heart. God is not unjust he is the only one who can save anyone. I think it is very egotistical to say that Non-Catholics won’t be saved. However, it us who believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit that will be judged with a greater measure because we live in the light of the truth and do not follow the teachings passed down from the Holy Apostels in the new testament and we for example do not follow the decrees and definitions of the Holy Synods which began with 1st ecumenical council of Nicea in 325 AD.

 

[Randy_Carson]

JacobG and Grapevine-

Did you read the OP or the article linked? Or did you just see the title of the thread and decide to respond?

Shea’s argument parallels that of Jimmy Akin here:

The Necessity of Being Catholic (Condensed)
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

1. To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.
2. To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ’s Church.
3. To be a member of Christ’s Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.
4. To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
5. Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the “hypothetical syllogism” argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition – that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[distracted]

I’m confused. Is this really in the cc? is it taken out of context?

I’m new to catholicism and this really throws a wrench into the machine for me.is.

if no one else says this i will…

i have doubts about Christianity sometimes even still… after yrs and yrs of being a Christian, Cradle Catholic… fallen-away catholic and revert… now catechized 15 yrs…

the thing that will keep me in the Church when nothing else will is the

Real Presence of Christ in the Church

most Catholics dont’ spend much time There… They are definitely missing out on a lot that Jesus has for them… i hope you are not one ofthem???

i was clueless about the RP until a good priest told me about “it” years ago… I am SO thankful for that priest and his compassion… too bad i can’t now be back in his Church…

 

[distracted]

I think it is very egotistical to say that Non-Catholics won’t be saved. AD.

you can call the truth anything you want but that doesn’t change anything… it is still truth… There are many truths that sound… whatever they sound like … but that is a problem with the hear-er, not the truth he is hearing… we bring our own “stuff” to whatever it is we are reading or hearing or perceiving or etc…

even so, i am not one to say that non-C’s can’t be saved. i know of people who are more “catholic” than some --or maybe even most catholics --i know… Of cuorse, only God knows but “you will know them by their fruits”…

in any case, if anyone is saved, whether officially Catholic or not, it is because of the Catholic Church…

there is only ONE true Church… (even martin Luther was Catholic most of his life…)

the non-c churches are “part of” the Roman Catholic Church to one degree or another and frankly, ***i feel that the other “churches” enhance Catholicism and add something wonderful to it… ***

 

[paul_c]

you can call the truth anything you want but that doesn’t change anything… it is still truth… There are many truths that sound… whatever they sound like … but that is a problem with the hear-er, not the truth he is hearing… we bring our own “stuff” to whatever it is we are reading or hearing or perceiving or etc…

even so, i am not one to say that non-C’s can’t be saved. i know of people who are more “catholic” than some --or maybe even most catholics --i know… Of cuorse, only God knows but “you will know them by their fruits”…

in any case, if anyone is saved, whether officially Catholic or not, it is because of the Catholic Church…

there is only ONE true Church… (even martin Luther was Catholic most of his life…)

the non-c churches are “part of” the Roman Catholic Church to one degree or another and frankly, ***i feel that the other “churches” enhance Catholicism and add something wonderful to it… ***

How do you feel that other Churches enhance Catholicism and add something wonderful to it? The Catholic church already has the fullness of truth, what is left to add? Is not the goal to bring all people to the same fullness of truth? Do you think the other churches aid in that endeavor in some way or are they in fact detractors, misleading many into error?