Can we try this again?

[diggerdomer]

I have not read the other replies but I stand on firm ground when I say in an un hem and hawing manner. No those people cannot be saved.

Annie

Annie, I don’t believe God is limited by your take on the issue. As the Church teaches, God can save people regardless of the presuppositions you seem to hold.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is simply not true. The Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and is therefore outside the Body of Christ. Bishops who act without the union of the Bishop is illicit just as the SSPX are in schism. Please do not give the argument that their excommunication has been lifted. That would be a long and fruitless discussion.

Annie

This is not correct.

The Catholic Church teaches explicitly that this is not correct.

The fact that Catholics and Orthodox are not in full communion is true, but Catholics consider Orthodox as “Church” (unlike other Christians) and so we are completely members of the Body of Christ regardless of the differences that separate us.

All Christians are part of the Body of Christ. If you disagree, read the New Testament.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians share the same Creed and sacramental life. The only difference is jurisdiction and governance.

Again…the Catholic Church consider Orthodox Christians as “Churches” as opposed to other Christian “ecclesial communities.”

To equate Orthodox (or just about any other Christian community) with schismatics like SSPX is ludicrous.

 

[diggerdomer]

The reason is that the Catholic Church (not any other church) is God’s body on earth.

You know that when you are thinking something, you can get your hands to type it out, and your hands can get your computer to send it to us.

In the same way, when God wants to send us a message, His hands that are typing out the message are, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot do anything without God willing it to, just as in the same way your hands can’t act independently of you - if your hands (the Catholic Church) are to type something out, then your mind (God) has to be thinking that thought, and asking your hands (the Church) to type it out.

To be away from God’s body (the Catholic Church) is to be away from God. Can those who are deliberately and purposely away from God, be saved? Only with great difficulty, I think.

The Catholic Church teaches that Orthodox (non-Catholic, note) Christians are true “Churches” (as defined and understood by the Catholic Church) as well.

 

[Aramis]

The Catechism also states:Article 1

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3G.HTM

Canon 841 of the CIC also states:Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2U.HTM

And the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states:This sacrament is the door of the Church of Christ and the entrance into a new life. We are reborn from the state of slaves of sin into the freedom of the Sons of God. Baptism incorporates us with Christ’s mystical body and makes us partakers of all the privileges flowing from the redemptive act of the Church’s Divine Founder. We shall now outline the principal effects of baptism. newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

The Councils of the Church held long ago that baptism was both non-repeatable and efficacious even when done by some kinds of heretics.

So all those whose baptism meets the minimum set by the councils are, to some degree, united to the Church by baptism. This is the teaching of the church.

Even the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia shows that not all baptism by heretics and schismatics is invalid. It also includes the two non-sacramental forms of baptism as well. Too much to quote here. But go, and look: newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[thistle]

Not necessarily. They may not have full knowledge, intent, etc.

Full knowledge is not complicated. If a person knows the Church teaches a specific teaching (even if they do not understand it) then that consitutes full knowledge. If such a person then rejects that teaching that is heresy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Full knowledge is not complicated. If a person knows the Church teaches a specific teaching (even if they do not understand it) then that consitutes full knowledge. If such a person then rejects that teaching that is heresy.

Actually, I don’t think that is quite the case.

Suppose that I know that the Church teaches that missing Church on Sunday or holy day is a mortal sin (because I read those words in a catechism or on the forums). Now, I don’t understand this. I don’t know anything other than this brief view in a book or on-line that this is a teaching of the Church. I don’t understand it at all, I don’t even know what a holy day is. . .so how can you claim it’s full knowledge?

Full knowledge presupposes you MUST understand it correctly. If you don’t understand it, how can you KNOW it?

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, I don’t think that is quite the case.

Suppose that I know that the Church teaches that missing Church on Sunday or holy day is a mortal sin (because I read those words in a catechism or on the forums). Now, I don’t understand this. I don’t know anything other than this brief view in a book or on-line that this is a teaching of the Church. I don’t understand it at all, I don’t even know what a holy day is. . .so how can you claim it’s full knowledge?

Full knowledge presupposes you MUST understand it correctly. If you don’t understand it, how can you KNOW it?

We also have the duty to make sure we understand what we’re reading, which means that we need to ask questions. Willful ignorance is also a grave sin. We can’t simply turn our heads and say “I don’t understand.” We have to make the effort to understand.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We also have the duty to make sure we understand what we’re reading, which means that we need to ask questions. Willful ignorance is also a grave sin. We can’t simply turn our heads and say “I don’t understand.” We have to make the effort to understand.

Absolutely, I agree with you 100%.

However, Thistle specifically said “even if they don’t understand the teaching”. I was attempting to speak up with the idea that a person who didn’t understand because of lack of opportunity, lack of comprehension or some other barrier is not necessarily culpable, because if he does not know the teaching he can’t be said to reject it with full knowledge.

I do agree that one is bound to attempt to understand. No excuse for "I don’t understand so I don’t accept’. . .

 

[MarkInOregon]

Without all the hem hawing around the issue… When the Catholic Church defines mortal sin and states such things as if you have full knowledge and understandng of the Catholic Church and do not enter or remain in it, you could not be saved… Which can include I presume folks who still fully understand and once did believe everything but simply no longer do… Is the Church saying then ahead of time what God’s judgment will be toward such people? That they can not be saved without repenting in an acceptable Catholic manner what they do not believe? Yes or no? And if not, how so? As it sure seems like that is what the Church is doing. Thank you and peace and God bless.

I am confused (no surprise there)–if a person doesn’t believes that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be and doesn’t believe its teachings are true–then, I think, one would say that person doesn’t have full knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Church. I believe what the Church is saying is that if one truly understands and believes that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be and that its teachings are true–and then that person still refuses to enter the Church–that person has a problem–it is one that can be rectified–but as long as that person refuses to enter the Church they know to be the Church founded by Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit, the Church where they can recieve Christs body, blood, soul and divinity, forgiveness for their sins, etc–well they are rejecting Christ/God.

You are not suggesting that God is Going to let all those who knowingly and willfully reject him into heaven are you?

Peace,
Mark

 

[diggerdomer]

Full knowledge is not complicated. If a person knows the Church teaches a specific teaching (even if they do not understand it) then that consitutes full knowledge. If such a person then rejects that teaching that is heresy.

Not understanding it means they don’t have full knowledge.

 

[jmcrae]

Not understanding it means they don’t have full knowledge.

Let’s be careful not to require theology degrees before we can commit sin, though, too.

If you have a reasonable suspicion that something is sinful, you should follow up on your suspicion. Also, you don’t need a lofty understanding of God, before you can grasp the concept of sin. A child who steals cookies from his mother can “get” the idea that he has offended his mother.

One tip-off for the child in question would be that he is tempted to lie to his mother about it, if she asks him what happened to the cookies - if so, then yes, he knew that he was doing something bad.

 

[diggerdomer]

Let’s be careful not to require theology degrees before we can commit sin, though, too.

If you have a reasonable suspicion that something is sinful, you should follow up on your suspicion. Also, you don’t need a lofty understanding of God, before you can grasp the concept of sin. A child who steals cookies from his mother can “get” the idea that he has offended his mother.

One tip-off for the child in question would be that he is tempted to lie to his mother about it, if she asks him what happened to the cookies - if so, then yes, he knew that he was doing something bad.

Of course theological education is not required for sin. But before one is going to judge another of committing a mortal sin, one should be assured that all the criteria the Church teaches regarding mortal sin are met. Benefit of the doubt, from human judges, should go to the supposed sinner. The original question was specifically about mortal sin, not sin in general.

 

[JohnCS]

Actually, I don’t think that is quite the case.

Suppose that I know that the Church teaches that missing Church on Sunday or holy day is a mortal sin (because I read those words in a catechism or on the forums). Now, I don’t understand this. I don’t know anything other than this brief view in a book or on-line that this is a teaching of the Church. I don’t understand it at all, I don’t even know what a holy day is. . .so how can you claim it’s full knowledge?

Full knowledge presupposes you MUST understand it correctly. If you don’t understand it, how can you KNOW it?

I may be wrong here, but I think what Thistle meant by understanding it, is the WHYit is a sin. For instance, I know that the church teaches that contraception is a sin, I have read a few papers and explanations about why the church teaches it, but I still can’t grasp what is so wrong with it. If I use contraception it is still a sin even though I don’t fully grasp (understand) why. The Church says it is a sin and I should accept and live by that until I do grasp it. I have always wondered about something when I hear about the church teaching that people of other denominations “can” be saved. For instance, Jesus is explicit when he says (paraphrasing) if you do not eat my body and drink my blood, you will NOT have eternal life. So, we as catholics either believe what we teach when we say that the Eucharist is the body of Christ and it is what he is talking about in those passages, or we do not. If what we teach about the Eucharist and those passages is true, then I don’t see how anyone outside the Church can be saved UNLESS through God’s mercy they are saved because they did not know any better (incocievalbe ignorance). He pretty much said eat it or you can’t get in! We are the only one’s eating it. I can’t seem to stop wondering about that. God bless!****

 

[steve_b]

One also must be careful with “outside the church” since the church’s definition of “outside the church” is different than many Catholics might think.

The Orthodox, for example, are not “outside the church”… in much the same way a palsyed limb isn’t outside the body… it acts upon its own, but is still attached, and still otherwise healthy.

There is a sequence of thought taught in the CCC. Maintaining Catholic unity is necessary and it is an important act of charity of the heart. While someone might be baptized, and entitled to be called Christian as a result, if they don’t maintain Catholic unity they violate charity. And what is the consequence?

**815 **What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity “binds everything together in perfect harmony.” But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
  -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.
  **836 **“All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”
  **837 **“Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’”

 

[thistle]

Not understanding it means they don’t have full knowledge.

Full knowledge is one of the three conditions required for a mortal sin.
Full understanding is NOT!

Full knowledge simply means a person KNOWS that the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter and that is sufficient to bind a Catholic.
It is then up to that person to make every effort to understand the teaching (assuming they don’t understand the teaching) but the understanding is not necessary for the known teaching to bind that person.

 

[jmcrae]

Full knowledge is one of the three conditions required for a mortal sin.
Full understanding is NOT!

Full knowledge simply means a person KNOWS that the Church teaches something is a sin of grave matter and that is sufficient to bind a Catholic.
It is then up to that person to make every effort to understand the teaching (assuming they don’t understand the teaching) but the understanding is not necessary for the known teaching to bind that person.

This makes sense to me. For a person who is inclined to obey, the fact that the teaching is there and known to be there should be sufficient. Again, you shouldn’t need a theology degree before you can begin to obey the Church, and you shouldn’t need a theology degree before you can begin to accuse yourself of sin.

 

[CMatt25]

I am confused (no surprise there)–if a person doesn’t believes that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be and doesn’t believe its teachings are true–then, I think, one would say that person doesn’t have full knowledge and understanding of the Catholic Church. I believe what the Church is saying is that if one truly understands and believes that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be and that its teachings are true–and then that person still refuses to enter the Church–that person has a problem–it is one that can be rectified–but as long as that person refuses to enter the Church they know to be the Church founded by Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit, the Church where they can recieve Christs body, blood, soul and divinity, forgiveness for their sins, etc–well they are rejecting Christ/God.

You are not suggesting that God is Going to let all those who knowingly and willfully reject him into heaven are you?

Peace,
Mark

I’m confused as well. As you seem to be saying someone can not have full knowledge and understanding and simply reject, not God, but what the Catholic Church proclaims to be. As for myself I suggest nothing in regard to God’s judgement as it depends on how one defines “rejecting Him”. Disagreeing with the CC I’m not certain qualifies.

 

[CMatt25]

Benefit of the doubt, from human judges, should go to the supposed sinner. The original question was specifically about mortal sin, not sin in general.

to what you said about human judges. And correct. Yes the original question was about mortal sin. Not about eating cookies.

 

[jmcrae]

to what you said about human judges. And correct. Yes the original question was about mortal sin. Not about eating cookies.

Stealing from your mother violates two of the ten commandments, so it is, indeed, a mortal sin, if done with the full knowledge that mother will get angry if she finds out, and not under any kind of coercion (ie: no gun to the head).

 

[jmcrae]

Disagreeing with the CC I’m not certain qualifies.

The CC is God’s voice speaking on the earth. To disagree with what God’s voice is saying is the same thing as to disagree with God, since it is God who causes His own voice to speak - no human being acting independently ever does this.