Can we go without Christ if we lead perfect lives?

[Nabooru]

To me, the doctrine of infallible ignorance seems to be pointing that way - but I could be wrong.

Since Jesus died to redeem us from our sins, to me it seems that it’s possible that if one lives a life in perfect alignment with natural law, one would not need redemption. The only quandary for this is original sin. But if one does not sin, could it be said that original sin does not apply to them?

There’s also the issue of what precisely defines sin and how it ties in with natural law and conscience. For example, the 9/11 attackers had been raised to hate any non-Muslim from birth, therefore never taking upon themselves the responsibility to learn about Christ. When they flew those planes into the twin towers, they were obviously certain in their conscience that they were not only doing a right thing but an explicit command of God. Since they do not believe they are committing a sin, are they culpable for punishment for those sins, thus leaving the possibility that in essence they never committed a sin in the truest sense?

Basically, what I’m getting at is that if a person unaware of Christ commits a sin - either because they believe it to be a virtue, or that bad deeds are not the interest of the gods and therefore do not warrant punishment, or it is simply not a sin in their mindset (such as modern Buddhism and homosexuality), even if the sin were, under Catholic doctrine, mortal, would they still die in a state of grace? As though they were not responsible for the sin, and as though the sin were nonexistent since to the soul in question, in their belief, it was not a sin?

 

[fisherman_carl]

No one has lead a perfect life. Therefore everyone needs to be redeemed through Christ. Even the Virgin Mary had special grace to be without sin. It doesn’t matter how good one thinks they are. The bible says all our works are like filthy rags. And it says all have sinned.

In addition all men are under original sin. The bible says that all men are under condemnation because of the one man’s sin. But grace came through Jesus Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

From the teaching of the Church Fathers, these two things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are mutually inclusive, that is, we can only live perfect lives with Christ. And that we as men are incapable of doing good apart from God, so any act of good we do is by the Holy Spirit acting within each and everyone of us. But that is a separate issue from salvation. Salvation isn’t merely “doing good”. I forgot which saint said, that doing good works apart from Christ will do you no good. Indeed, even the atheists do charitable work today, but most only for a tax break, or for a “lasting legacy”, that perhaps they will be remembered fondly by people for being a humanitarian. They do not do it out of genuine love which comes from God. So it is taught that such acts also do not result in anything towards eternity.

 

[meltzerboy]

To me, the doctrine of infallible ignorance seems to be pointing that way - but I could be wrong.

Since Jesus died to redeem us from our sins, to me it seems that it’s possible that if one lives a life in perfect alignment with natural law, one would not need redemption. The only quandary for this is original sin. But if one does not sin, could it be said that original sin does not apply to them?

There’s also the issue of what precisely defines sin and how it ties in with natural law and conscience. For example, the 9/11 attackers had been raised to hate any non-Muslim from birth, therefore never taking upon themselves the responsibility to learn about Christ. When they flew those planes into the twin towers, they were obviously certain in their conscience that they were not only doing a right thing but an explicit command of God. Since they do not believe they are committing a sin, are they culpable for punishment for those sins, thus leaving the possibility that in essence they never committed a sin in the truest sense?

Basically, what I’m getting at is that if a person unaware of Christ commits a sin - either because they believe it to be a virtue, or that bad deeds are not the interest of the gods and therefore do not warrant punishment, or it is simply not a sin in their mindset (such as modern Buddhism and homosexuality), even if the sin were, under Catholic doctrine, mortal, would they still die in a state of grace? As though they were not responsible for the sin, and as though the sin were nonexistent since to the soul in question, in their belief, it was not a sin?

In Judaism we don’t believe one has to lead a perfect life, which is not really possible anyway, to be redeemed. That is what prayer to G-d and seeking forgiveness from others are for.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This was posted to me on another thread, in light of all that was discussed here, I think it is important to see what the church says about this:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D 430. This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and of Popes Innocent III (0 42)) and Boniface VIII in the Bull ‘Unam sanctam’ (D 468), Clement VI (D 570 b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (0 1647, 1677), Leo XI1I, Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis"

As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord" (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praccepti), but also a necessity of means (nee. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God. In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.

Christ ordained affiliation to the Church by founding the Church as an institution unto salvation for all men. He endowed the Apostles with His authority, gave them a universal mandate to teach and baptize and made eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance of His teaching and the reception of Baptism. Luke 10, 16; Mt. 10, 40; 18, 17; 29,19; Mk.16, 15 et seq. That those who, in innocent ignorance, do not know the true Church of Christ, but who are nevertheless ready to bow to the demands of the Divine Will, will not be cast out, springs from the Divine Justice, and from the doctrine of God’s general will of salvation, which is clearly proved in the Scriptures. (1 Tim. 2, 4). The Apostles teach the necessity of the Church for salvation by promulgating Faith in Christ and His Gospel as a condition for salvation. Peter confesses before the High Council: “Neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4, 12). Cf Gal. I, 8; Tit. 3, 10 et seq.; 2 John 10 et seq.

It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well. St. Irenaeus teaches that: “in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is also the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Adv. haer. III 24, I). Origen formally declares: “Outside the Church nobody will be saved” (extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur; In Jesu Nave hom. 3, 5); similarly St. Cyprian: “Outside the Church there is no salvation" (salus extra ecciesiam non est; Ep. 73, 21). The Fathers, for example, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, regard, as types of the necessity of the Church for salvation, the saving Ark of Noah and the House of Rahab OOS. 2, 18 et seq.). In the Primitive Church the conviction of her necessity for salvation found practical expression in her missionary zeal, in the readiness of her children to suffer martyrdom and in her battle against heresy.

In view of the stress laid upon the necessity of membership of the Church for salvation it is understandable that the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church is mentioned only hesitantly. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine admit that catechumens who depart this life before the reception of Baptism can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion (St. Ambrose, De obitu Val. 51; St. Augustine, De hapt. IV 22,29). On the other hand, Gennadius of Marseilles denies them this possibility, except in the case of martyrdom (De eccl. Dogm. 74). St. Augustine distinguishes also, not indeed using the terminology, between material and formal heretics. Thus he does regard material heretics as heretics properly so-called (Ep. 43, I, I). He seems to estimate their possibility of salvation otherwise than he does that of heretics proper.

St. Thomas, agreeing with Tradition, teaches the general necessity of the Church for salvation. Expos. symb. a. 9. On the other hand, he concedes that a person may be saved extrasacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore the possibility of salvation without actual membership of the Church by reason of a desire to be a member of the Church. S. th. III 68, 2.

As against the reproach of intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religions, or to all Christian confessions (Indifferentism); for there is only one truth. But the Church recognizes the propriety of civil tolerance, by preaching the commandment of neighborly charity towards all men, even those in error. Cf. the prayers of the Liturgy on Good Friday.

 

[Julia_Mae]

To me, the doctrine of infallible ignorance seems to be pointing that way - but I could be wrong.

"Invincible ignorance."

Most of what you said on your post is also said by Saint Paul in his letters, especially Romans.

But no one is living a perfect life without Jesus and even then, it won’t be perfect.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Nobody can lead a perfect life without Christ.

And a deed not known being a sin is not a sin. God do not punish people for not knowing something, remember that God is life, love, forgiveness and hope.

What I would like to add is that, as I dit write a while ago, is that if we do something that makes us feel bad, it is most likely wrong (sin) and the feeling we have is God teaching us to know what is right and what is not right.

 

[Ion]

Where?

 

[po18guy]

Short answer: Yes! Always and everywhere, as God has granted each of us the freedom to choose or reject Him. There may be absolutely no discernible consequence in this life whatsoever. The next life, however, is a horse of another color.

 

[GodsMissionary]

It’s not possible to lead a perfect life, since we have fallen before we were born, and accepted it as a consequence before we were born, with the two exceptions, Mary and Jesus, and Mary was a special case and only due to her roll. God knows us before we enter into the world. To lead a life perfectly, and yet reject Christ, automatically makes it null and void along the perfection, for it has flawed in the core element, that Christ was there before the foundations of the world was laid down.

You can try all you want, but it’s not you that does lives a life of holiness, but God living through you, and that you cannot do it on your own strength, try as you might, you can’t do it, for all of mankind is in a fallen state and nature due to our very nature and make up, all due to that fateful day, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

 

[po18guy]

Where?

I just noted this. Yes, where can we go?

 

[Nabooru]

So if I’m unaware if it’s a sin, then it doesn’t count as a sin, even if it’s a mortal sin? What I’m saying, if I do not ever consider that I am committing a sin (happens more often than you think), or I assume my sins either do not matter to God or that they are forgiven without Christ’s redemption, under those circumstances, would I be considered blameless?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I assume my sins either do not matter to God or that they are forgiven without Christ’s redemption, under those circumstances, would I be considered blameless?

That is a bit much.

Also, if presented with the truth, regardless if you agree, then you are held to that standard.

The idea formulated after the discovery of the new world in the 16th century since there were now all these people (native americans) who had been living without Any possibility of Christ.

 

[Nabooru]

I can totally understand and agree with that. But as an example from the same region, let’s take the Aztecs. They would sacrifice thousands in a day, men, women and children, to their gods. They got these victims by ritually attacking nearby subjected villages and taking prisoners. Part of this is why the Spaniards managed to conquer them - the local tribes that the Aztecs used as victim supply were more than happy to assist in overthrowing them.

Now what the Aztecs did was heinous and abhorrent to us and the vast majority of humanity, but could they be held culpable for it, seeing as they thought they were performing an action that ensured the happiness of the gods and the existence of the world?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can totally understand and agree with that. But as an example from the same region, let’s take the Aztecs. They would sacrifice thousands in a day, men, women and children, to their gods. They got these victims by ritually attacking nearby subjected villages and taking prisoners. Part of this is why the Spaniards managed to conquer them - the local tribes that the Aztecs used as victim supply were more than happy to assist in overthrowing them.

Now what the Aztecs did was heinous and abhorrent to us and the vast majority of humanity, but could they be held culpable for it, seeing as they thought they were performing an action that ensured the happiness of the gods and the existence of the world?

This is why the CCC says they CAN be saved. God can do it, they must be seeking the truth and if presented with Baptism they would accept it.

So all that to say only God knows, but in today’s culture, it would be hard to say that all people in the modern developed world have not heard the truth and/ or been presented an opportunity for baptism. So I find it a huge stretch to use these principles in our culture.

That said, it is up to God

Gods truth is written on all men’s hearts. If they are open to God and truth, I have no doubt they will find Christ.

 

[Nabooru]

This is why the CCC says they CAN be saved. God can do it, they must be seeking the truth and if presented with Baptism they would accept it.

So all that to say only God knows, but in today’s culture, it would be hard to say that all people in the modern developed world have not heard the truth and/ or been presented an opportunity for baptism. So I find it a huge stretch to use these principles in our culture.

That said, it is up to God

Gods truth is written on all men’s hearts. If they are open to God and truth, I have no doubt they will find Christ.

So it depends on whether that Aztec would seek a God like Christ and would readily worship Him if given the opportunity, correct? Would that necessitate some dissatisfaction with one’s current imposed or known belief system, finding it lacking or unsuited to one’s spiritual need?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So it depends on whether that Aztec would seek a God like Christ and would readily worship Him if given the opportunity, correct?

Yes

Would that necessitate some dissatisfaction with one’s current imposed or known belief system, finding it lacking or unsuited to one’s spiritual need?

Possibly, in the case of the Aztecs and human sacrifice, absolutely.

So as an example hypothetically, the Aztec Priest enslaving and murdering his subjects probably has a selfish heart out of line with Christ and faces hell, but the layman who stands for peace, love and justice probably is in line with Christ and is seeking to love God and his neighbor and thus “could” be saved.

 

[Nabooru]

This is why the CCC says they CAN be saved. God can do it, they must be seeking the truth and if presented with Baptism they would accept it.

So all that to say only God knows, but in today’s culture, it would be hard to say that all people in the modern developed world have not heard the truth and/ or been presented an opportunity for baptism. So I find it a huge stretch to use these principles in our culture.

That said, it is up to God

Gods truth is written on all men’s hearts. If they are open to God and truth, I have no doubt they will find Christ.

I can agree with that, but wouldn’t an essential part of that desire be humility? I can be all for peace and justice - I imagine most people are - but I could also think I’m A-ok and there’s no need for any sort of redemption on my part. In such a case I would be only remembering my good deeds, and ignoring or not noticing the bad ones.

I wasn’t always a Christian, and I definitely though before I was that I had no need of forgiveness or God’s mercy, because that was something that God neither provided not required, and I was fine just living as I always had with the reassurance that I would always redeem myself by trying to be a good person, whatever that means. One of the biggest realizations I had was that I couldn’t redeem myself. I think that’s a necessary part, at the very least feeling a need for forgiveness.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I can agree with that, but wouldn’t an essential part of that desire be humility? I can be all for peace and justice - I imagine most people are - but I could also think I’m A-ok and there’s no need for any sort of redemption on my part. In such a case I would be only remembering my good deeds, and ignoring or not noticing the bad ones.

I wasn’t always a Christian, and I definitely though before I was that I had no need of forgiveness or God’s mercy, because that was something that God neither provided not required, and I was fine just living as I always had with the reassurance that I would always redeem myself by trying to be a good person, whatever that means. One of the biggest realizations I had was that I couldn’t redeem myself. I think that’s a necessary part, at the very least feeling a need for forgiveness.

Humility would definitely be a huge part of it. I would say you can’t truly love God or neighbors without humility!