Church teaching on salvation is un-Biblical?

[Don_Hepler]

Let us clarify some points, because it seems there is some confusion here even among Catholics. First, the CCC:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.–CCC 847 (LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872).

Though at the same time:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.–CCC 846 (LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5)

So what are these two points actually saying? Many post here passages regarding believing in Christ, and those who do not believe in Him will be condemned. Note though that this is not outright condemnation; belief entails a proclamation, or that it is first taught. Hence, one cannot say he rejects something which he has not known nor heard of. In short, he cannot be faulted for not believing because he has not heard of Christ. However, a person who does not believe because he rejects Christ is condemned, since that person has been taught of Him and His Church, and he refuses to believe. There is a distinction between the two cases, as implied by the Catechism.

Interesting thought, I have a question, hopefully you can give me some insight, of something i have missed in my studies. Quote “Catholic church founded as necessary by God through Christ”…The founded is where I got lost, would you explain in detail how this came to be, you may use the scriptures to explain like Math.16. I am assuming, if you have others, that would be helpful, It is just a question, that has gone on, with my question in mind.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I have been told by more than one conservative, well educated, and faithful Catholic priest that even those who have heard but still reject Christ may still be saved if they are “invincibly ignorant”. This was taught by Pope Pius IX in the 1800’s. If my understanding of this teaching is incorrect, then I’d appreciate feedback on that.

Thanks!

Eric

Invincible ignorance applies in certain cases and is only for the Creator to decide. We individual Christians do not decide which other Christians are saved or condemned. That’s the part of the teaching that you left out. I would tend to agree that if a person hears the fullness of the Gospel (from the Catholic Church) and still rejects Christ and salvation, that that person has probably sinned against the Holy Spirit. Sin against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin and this is because a person rejects salvation itself either through their actions or words.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
**
1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
**
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
**
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
**
1794 **A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

IN BRIEF

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (*GS *16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

 

[John_Hiner]

I had to follow up on this thread after listening to Open Line yesterday with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. He cited Mt 25: 31-41 . . .

He says that the nations are the non-believers and that the expression “nations” is commonly used in ancient texts to mean gentiles. He claimsthis passage is about the judgement of non-believers. As we see, some will be called to Him (vs 34) and He will tell them that they had fed Him, clothed Him etc. But they did not know it was Him they were feeding and clothing, because they were not believers. Still, moved by His Grace (back to Romans 2:15) they followed the dictates of their conscience and fed the hungry, etc.

I suppose you have to listen to him say it to make any sense of it, but I wanted to throw it out there for you.

I had never heard of this particular understanding of Mt 25 before, but Fr. Pacwa is brilliant, so it is worth serious thought. By the way, if you don’t already know it, Fr. Pacwa speaks several languages-including Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and he did mention that the original word for ‘nations’ does support his understanding of this passage. Can’t remember what that word was though…

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

This reading of Matthew 25:31-41 is difficult to accept in any direct way. I did not hear this presentation, so I do not know if it is based on some extra-Scriptural speculation about languages other than Greek. However, in the canonical texts the words usually translated as “all nations” are “panta ta ethne” in Greek and “omnes gentes” in Latin (See, Mt 25:32).

These are exactly the same phrases used in Matthew 28:19: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” (Emphasis added.)

Taking these two passages together, it is much more consonant to hear the account of the final judgment as saying that all people will be brought together, believers and non-believers alike, since all will be subject to Christ and judged by Him. The greater the Church’s success in her mission of conversion and baptism, the closer the phrase “all nations” will be to describing only converted and baptized persons.

Further, to read the phrase “all nations” narrowly to refer to “non-believers” would be to suggest that the faithful will not be judged at the second coming. There are several parables and teachings of the Lord, like the parable of the ‘bad fish” (Mt 13:47-51) and the warning that “Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 7:21), which make it clear that believers will also be judged.

It seems Fr. Pacwa may have taken an interesting idea about a Scriptural passage out of context and made too great a claim for it. However, in context, it does not seem to stand up to examination.

(Also, this notion seems dangerous, since it might sap the missionary zeal of members of the Church, if they begin to assume that people who are merely “decent” will reach salvation on some “minimalist” standard. It is much more consistent with the overall Gospel to understand Matthew 25:31-41 as requiring acts of charity from everyone who would be saved, in addition to faith, baptism, and the other marks of the disciples of Christ.)

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[nilofc]

Let me ask you this question. If an infant dies without the sacrament of baptism (maybe because she’s still inside the womb), and obviously, she’s not on that stage to have known and faith in Jesus Christ. You think God will comdem her?

I don’t know about you but my God isn’t that unfair. My God is a loving and merciful God, to those who didn’t have the opportunity to have known Jesus Christ, I think God looks at his heart and conscience. Salvation is entirely to God, let’s not take the prerogative from Him. Because we will never know the depth of His mercy.

God promised us a kingdom but He left us a Church. It only means that His kingdom is His Church. He left us a teaching church. So I suggest for us to stop pitting the catechism with the Bible. Because they are equally the same in containing the word of God. If you believe in Infallibility of the Pope then you will know what I mean.

 

[John_Hiner]

I asked about the above because logically it seems to lead to some odd conclusions. Since most non-Catholics do not know about mortal sin (though they do know about sin in general) then they cannot have FULL knowledge that a particular sin is mortal / grave matter. Therefore, logically they are incapable of committing a mortal sin. This is odd because evangelization would seem to lower their chances of salvation because if we tell them about mortal sin then they know and do have full knowledge and now are capable of doing it whereas before they were not. Since those of us in the Church know about mortal sin then we can commit it – and therefore our chances of getting to heaven are worse than those who never heard because not hearing / knowing guarantees they cannot commit a mortal sin.

I’m sure there is something about these concepts I don’t know. Perhaps someone can tell me the part I’m missing.

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I am not able to follow this argument. Perhaps the circumstance should be listed, to see if we can find the Church’s teaching and confirm it through the Scriptures that reflect it.

For example, “mortal sin” is only relevant to people who have been baptized. No unbaptized person can commit a mortal sin. That would be like a rock committing suicide. It cannot be done. The sin is called “mortal” because it kills the life of grace within the sinner. That life of grace can only be infused by baptism, or by a special miracle. So, an unbaptized person is not excluded from heaven because he has sinned mortally, but because he has not been saved. It is his birthright to exist outside of heaven – Adam chose it for him and has left it to him as an inheritance. If he or his parents do not establish a different state, then his inheritance is what Adam left him.

Now people who have not been baptized can do evil. They will be judged for this. However, the judgment will not exclude them from heaven – being outside the state of grace does that. Judgment for them will assign degrees of punishment.

Here is a second example which is difficult to follow: People frequently say, ‘What about someone born in the middle of a jungle who has never heard of Christ?” or something to that effect – pre-Columbian Aztecs or something like that. This way of talking seems subtly blasphemous to me. It is a secularists’ question. It seems to presume a sort of randomized universe to which God must respond, rather than acknowledging Him to be the omniscient and all-powerful Creator. After all, no person is born randomly. No person is born in a place that God does not choose.

For the faithful the question is not “how can God save someone who is born in such an unlucky place”. Rather, the question should be “why did God choose to place that person where and when he would not have the assistance of the Gospel?”

Regarding contemporary people in the middle of the jungle, the question should be “how can we get to that person in time and in a way that will save them?”

Confusion arises because, in the Second Vatican Council, the Holy Spirit and the Councilor Fathers spoke to the secular world. Among other things, they responded to this secular question about salvation for those who have not heard the Gospel. The answer and its concomitant descriptions cast in secular terms are very different than when the same events are described in ecclesial language.

So, if we can specify what situation we are talking about, and whether we are speaking among members of the Church or to secular minds, we may make progress in sorting out the problems Eric is pointing out.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I agree with Semper Fi. Explicit rejection is the key to consistent damnation.

Also, I tend to agree in a limited sense with John – εθν-η – nations, would tend to imply Israel/Judah as well as the pagans.

To the contrary of my statement, there is certainly precedent for seeing foreigners implied by nations – as the world-view of the scripture writers is typically Jewish;

In strong support of Pacwa’s statement there is – for example: Numbers 23:9 which explicitly says the descendants of Jacob will not be numbered among the nations.

But, more informally – comparisons are implied between all people and nations: eg: Psalm 22:8, and 57:9.

And especially what of passages like: Is 11:12 where Israel is clearly to be found scattered in the nations. eg: Jeremiah 1:5, 29:14, && especially Jerimiah 31:7 & Ezikiel 5:5-7, Hosea 9:17

Or to look at it from the start:
Genes 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

(Is this only of Abraham’s other descendants, eg: the Ishmaelites, Midianites, etc.? – and the blessing???)

Certainly, Paul took no chances in Romans – He convicts the nations of sin, and the Israelites as well independently.

But in some ways, John’s argument is moot: Christians are a nation which knew God not (primarily pagans) who were grafted in to eternal life upon knowing him. Certainly, then, even granting Pacwa’s supposed assertion: For Christians, it is easy to envision being on either side of the judgment – depending on how Jesus decides to view us.

 

[Potato1]

Let me ask you this question. If an infant dies without the sacrament of baptism (maybe because she’s still inside the womb), and obviously, she’s not on that stage to have known and faith in Jesus Christ. You think God will comdem her?

I don’t know about you but my God isn’t that unfair. My God is a loving and merciful God, to those who didn’t have the opportunity to have known Jesus Christ, I think God looks at his heart and conscience. Salvation is entirely to God, let’s not take the prerogative from Him. Because we will never know the depth of His mercy.

God promised us a kingdom but He left us a Church. It only means that His kingdom is His Church. He left us a teaching church. So I suggest for us to stop pitting the catechism with the Bible. Because they are equally the same in containing the word of God. If you believe in Infallibility of the Pope then you will know what I mean.

Let me ask you a question… Why do you think that infant is owed heaven? Your view on Gods fairtness is your right but it isn’t Church teaching. the Church has struggled with this for some time now. If innocent people (infants) need to do nothing to gain heaven then Christ wasn’t a savior overcomming sin (original included) but a teacher of the Way to accept to gain heaven. I believe He was both. I do not know if unbaptized innocents make it to heaven, the Church has no saint of such after the institution of baptism ( The holy innocents killed by Herod were before the sacrament was established) You are free and encoraged by the Church to HOPE for salvation of innocents but to dictate to God what is fair or not is certainly at most a sin and at least a poor understanding of our salvation.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

( The holy innocents killed by Herod were before the sacrament was established)

And even granting that their salvation is on Christ’s merits – they were none-the-less baptized by blood. A martyrs death, dying on account of Jesus – unable to explicitly reject him.

 

[Potato1]

He left us a teaching church. So I suggest for us to stop pitting the catechism with the Bible. Because they are equally the same in containing the word of God. If you believe in Infallibility of the Pope then you will know what I mean.

This is a subject also misunderstood by some Catholics that is delt with on these threads a lot. The CCC and the Bible are not to be “pitted” against eachother true. But they are not equals. The CCC is a tool and summation of our Catholic Church, Her dogma, teachings and beliefs. (Note… Those are Three seperate levels or entities of Church thought.) The CCC is not infallible, it was never declared so, it was never meant to be. It is a tool to better educateand catecise. The Bible is infallibe, declared so by the Church.
In short the CCC contains dogma, yes, but it itself is not dogmatic.