Contradiction in Non-Catholics Being Saved?

[Alainval]

It seems to me that Catholicism today has gotten itself into a big problem in regards to the notion of a non-Catholic being saved. I mean, the Church ever since Vatican II seems to suggest that non-Catholics can be saved even if they are in a religion completely opposite to it such as Hinduism. How do we reconcile this idea with this quote for example from one of the Councils: “The Council of Florence (1441) declared in the Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Notice how it seems to be a dogmatic assertion because of the language it uses. I don’t understand how a Catholic can rightly reconcile these. I know they will say that non-Catholics being saved are united to the Church implicitly rather than explicitly, but to me that seems to just come up with a caricature that Catholics back then wouldn’t even assert. Also notice how it even mentions Jews not being saved, and yet today we teach that they can? How do we deal with this?

 

[Maximus1]

Contradictions?
It was interesting that you cited Matthew 25. The section you cited is part of a larger passage( 35-46).
I would just point out an alternate apparent contradiction.
To sum up 35-46, the criteria that makes one judged goat or sheep are acts of Mercy. They are identified:
When I was hungry you gave me food, thirsty…drink…,sick…cumforted me,…a stranger…welcomed me, …in jail…visited me.
" Me" is Jesus himself. And these acts of Mercy were done, or not done, when Jesus presented in need of Mercy in the form of ," least of my brother."
There has been scholarly work on who these brothers were. I tend to think the question," who is my brother,?" was revealed in the Good Samaritan parable very dramatically. ( By Jesus himself quite definitively, via the question Jesus is answering, that precipitated his telling the parable in the first instance).
Either way, the JUDGEMENT in Matthew is the ONLY passage IN THE GOSPELS that speaks of Jesus Judging, the substance of judgement, and going to heaven or hell. JUST ONE PASSAGE.
So in terms of conflict:
The Judgement is apparently everyone, Catholic or non Catholic.
Nothing in 25:35-46 gives advantage at all if you are Catholic.
No mention of Baptism
No mention of any belief requirements or other requirements of the Church the Counsel you mention cites.
It just isn’t there.
In terms of citing to Matthew 25 as support for hells fires, it seems you have to consider the rest of the passage. If literal( in for a penny in for a pound).
In terms of WELCOMING THE STRANGER, that section applying to goats speaks to NOT WELCOMING when the least presents. You don’t get to choose. ( This goes for sick, hungry, etc. )
Membership is not mentioned.
A literal reading offers no other conclusion.
So you cannot reconcile the literal text and the Council. There must be something non literal that reconciles but it isn’t in 25.
And if non literal, it no longer is a literal passage identifying who goes to eternal fire.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Notice how it seems to be a dogmatic assertion because of the language it uses. I don’t understand how a Catholic can rightly reconcile these.

Pope JPII addressed this (citing to the Council of Florence statement specifically).

He noted that salvation ultimately comes from Christ via the Holy Spirit.
The Church is simply God’s instrument for helping people to get saved.
The Church today recognizes a great many ways people can be in communion with the Church during life, and God isn’t bound by the Church’s rules, rather the opposite.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19950531.html

The Council noted, “…unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock.” God who can do all things is quite capable of adding someone to his flock in the last millisecond of life if he calls that person and the person responds.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Here is John Paul II’s full speech run through Google translate:

1. The difficulties that sometimes accompany the development of evangelization highlight a delicate problem whose solution should not be sought in purely historical or sociological terms: the problem of the salvation of those who do not visibly belong to the Church. We are not given the opportunity to scrutinize the mystery of divine action in minds and hearts, to evaluate the power of Christ’s grace in taking possession, in life and in death, of all those “the Father has given him”, and that He himself has proclaimed that he does not want to “lose”. We hear it repeated in one of the Gospel readings proposed for the Mass of the dead (cf. Jn 6, 39-40).
   But, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited "to those who explicitly believe in God and have entered the Church. If salvation is destined for all, it must be made available to all in practice ”. And, admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to access the Christian message, I added: “Many men do not have the opportunity to know or accept the revelation of the Gospel to enter the Church. They live in socio-cultural conditions that do not allow it, and have often been educated in other religious traditions "(Redemptoris Missio, 10).
   We must recognize that as far as it is part of the human capacity for prediction and knowledge, this practical impossibility would seem destined to last for a long time, perhaps even until the final completion of the work of evangelization. Jesus himself warned that only the Father knows “the times and moments” set by him for the establishment of his Kingdom in the world (cf. Acts 1, 7).
2. The above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who believe that in any religion a way of salvation can be found, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous conception. The solution according to the Gospel of the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not here. Instead, we must maintain that the path of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore it is up to the Church and her missionaries to make him known and loved at all times, in all places and in all cultures. Outside of Christ there is “no salvation”. As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name given to men under heaven in which it is established that we can be saved” (Acts 4, 12).
   Even for those who without their guilt do not know Christ and do not recognize themselves as Christians, the divine plan has prepared a way of salvation. As we read in the Conciliar Decree on missionary activity Ad Gentes, we believe that “God, through the ways that he alone knows, can lead men who without their guilt ignore the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (Ad Gentes, 7). Of course, the condition “without their fault” cannot be verified or appreciated by a human evaluation, but must be left solely to divine judgment.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

For this reason in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes the Council declares that in the heart of every man of good will “grace works invisibly”, and that "the Holy Spirit gives everyone the opportunity to come into contact, in the way God knows, with the Mystery Easter "(Gaudium et Spes, 22).
3. It is important to emphasize that the way of salvation followed by those who ignore the Gospel is not a way outside of Christ and the Church. The universal salvific will is linked to the unique mediation of Christ. The First Letter to Timothy affirms it: “God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. In fact, only one is God, and only one is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all "(1 Tim 2: 3-6). Peter proclaims it when he says that “in no one else there is salvation”, and calls Jesus “head of the corner” (Acts 4: 11-12), highlighting the necessary role of Christ as the foundation of the Church.
This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” draws its origin from the same words of the Lord, who claims to have come “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as he explains Saint Paul when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14 cf. Rom 5:18). Christ achieved universal salvation with the gift of his own life: no other mediator was established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the Cross must always be recognized in the destiny of every man.
4. And since Christ carries out salvation through his mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is essentially linked to the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - “outside the Church there is no salvation” -, enunciated by San Cipriano (Epist 73,21: PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Lateran Council IV (Denz. 802), in the bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (Denz.-S. 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, Denz.-S. 1351).
The axiom means that for those who do not ignore that the Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ as necessary there is an obligation to enter and persevere in it in order to obtain salvation (cf. Lumen Gentium, 14 ). For those who have not received the announcement of the Gospel, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible through mysterious ways since divine grace is conferred on them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external adhesion to the Church but always, however, in relation to it (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 10). It is a “mysterious relationship”: mysterious to those who receive it, because they do not know the Church and indeed sometimes externally reject it; mysterious even in itself because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which involves an essential reference to the Church founded by the Savior.
Saving grace, in order to operate, requires adhesion, cooperation, yes to the divine donation: and this adhesion is, at least implicitly, oriented towards Christ and the Church.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Therefore we can also say sine Ecclesia nulla salus - “without the Church there is no salvation” -: adherence to the Church-Mystical Body of Christ, however implicit it is precisely mysterious, constitutes an essential condition for salvation.
5. Religions can exert a positive influence on the fate of those who are part of it and follow its indications with sincerity of spirit. But if the decisive action for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, we must bear in mind that man receives only from Christ, through the Holy Spirit, his salvation. It begins already in earthly life, which grace, accepted and paid, makes fruitful, in an evangelical sense, for the earth and for heaven.
Hence the importance of the indispensable role of the Church, which “is not an end in itself but fervently urges to be all of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, and all of men, among men and for men”. A role that is therefore not “ecclesiocentric” as has been said at times: the Church does not exist or work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine filiation in Christ (cf. Redemptoris Missio, 19). It therefore exercises implicit mediation also towards those who ignore the Gospel.
However, this must not lead to the conclusion that his missionary activity is in such circumstances less necessary. Quite the contrary. In fact, those who ignore Christ, even without being guilty, find themselves in a condition of darkness and spiritual famine with negative repercussions often also on a cultural and moral level. The missionary action of the Church can provide him with the conditions for the full development of Christ’s saving grace, proposing full and conscious adherence to the message of faith and active participation in ecclesial life in the sacraments.
This is the theological line taken from the Christian tradition. The magisterium of the Church has followed her in doctrine and practice as the way marked by Christ himself for the Apostles and missionaries of all times.

 

[poche]

This is from the Baltimore Catechism which was used extensively before Vatican II;

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

1.(1) Has been validly baptized;

2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and

3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?

A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Lesson 11: On the Church

 

[Ammi]

The bigger obstacle than “knowing whether the Catholic Church is the true Church” is when someone hears the Gospel message (unadulterated) and decidedly does not believe.

You will find that the Church never contradicts Mark 16:16

And there are no conditions of needing to understand or accept as the truth, in order to believe silliness.

 

[po18guy]

When one perceives inconsistency or contradiction in thr Church, it is best, always and everywhere…

…to question oneself first.

To pray and seek greater understanding first.

If we do not, we risk falling prey to the prince of this world.

 

[Dovekin]

One of the principal accomplishments of the Council of Florence was the decree of union with the Eastern Orthodox:

Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice. For, the wall that divided the western and the eastern church has been removed, peace and harmony have returned, since the corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, has joined both sides with a very strong bond of love and peace, uniting and holding them together in a covenant of everlasting unity. After a long haze of grief and a dark and unlovely gloom of long-enduring strife, the radiance of hoped-for union has illuminated all.

How do you suppose the bishops at Florence dealt with this issue? Did they count the “schismatics” (including the Orthodox) as outside of the reach of Christ’s redemption? This is largely the same problem as you are having with Florence and Vatican II, but it is within the bounds of the one council at Florence.

 

[littlebird]

Can people be saved hundreds of years ago when there were no nt bibles or no catechism ?

There were not even any churches that were called Catholic churches for a few hundred years. What happens to people that lived at that time ?

I believe the literacy rate was generally under 10% at that time.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Notice how it seems to be a dogmatic assertion because of the language it uses. I don’t understand how a Catholic can rightly reconcile these. I know they will say that non-Catholics being saved are united to the Church implicitly rather than explicitly, but to me that seems to just come up with a caricature that Catholics back then wouldn’t even assert. Also notice how it even mentions Jews not being saved, and yet today we teach that they can? How do we deal with this?

The nature of the Church is that it addresses timeless Truths to its contemporary flock. The Council of Florence would have been dealing with specific problems of its day that were putting faith at risk. We aren’t supposed to look back and think that all doctrine is fully defined in one era alone, never more to develop … because human beings can’t know everything.

In the ongoing angst about the Church teaching on the death penalty, 800 years ago Aquinas wisely uses this analogy to explain the moral justification of its use. A criminal is like an infected limb that threatens to infect the whole body if it is not amputated. The welfare of the whole body being the priority. Today we have better medicine and insight into the causes of a deadly infection and can treat it without fearing the death of the whole body. The whole body being the priority.

This is why Pope Francis is so adamant about rigidity being a debilitating affliction in the faith life. We have to be teachable and malleable to hear the Holy Spirit.

 

[poche]

That is for God to judge.

 

[Ammi]

Right. He will not judge differently than how He says He will judge.

 

[poche]

Yes, but how do we know whose ignorance is invincible and whose rejection is contumaciously sinful. Only God knows. It is not for us to say.

 

[Ammi]

I’m not convinced Scripture or the Church relates that rejecting/disbelieving the Gospel message can be invincible at all. It does NOT mean I am judging anyone at all (to relate the Gospel, and its warnings). Knowing whether the Catholic Church is the true Church, and which Teachings are infallible or how to interpret them, is another matter.

 

[rossum]

Is God omnipotent or is His saving power limited by the speed at which Catholic missionaries can travel the world?

Could God have saved a native Australian in 1450, long before any Catholic (or even Christian) missionaries arrived there? If He could, then membership of the Catholic Church is not essential for salvation.

 

[ListensToTheDead]

Being a Catholic isn’t easy.

Imagine being a gym teacher and trying to teach a bunch of 5 year olds the rules and nuances of kick ball. You work on it all week with the promise that come Friday the kids will finally play a full match.

On Friday, a teacher walks in and hands you children not participating in a school trip and they go on to ruin your planned game. They don’t know the rules and haven’t had the opportunity to even practice. You can’t blame them for just being children and entertaining themselves and being distracted.

Who do you think the gym teacher is more disappointed in ? The children who had until the last moment joined the gymnasium by happenstance or the ones who knew the rules and had ample opportunities to have practiced but still got distracted / willing didn’t follow the rules ?

I say, lucky them poor us.