Could Not be Saved?

[Elizabeth502]

CMatt, I think you’re getting hung up on syntax (which is understandable). It just means that a refusal to live the Faith with clear knowledge that it is the true Faith, combined with resources and supports to live that Faith, is perilous to one’s salvation. Do remember that the Catechism mostly abbreviates doctrine on big concepts like salvation and redemption. It would have to, or otherwise it would be at least as many volumes as The Summa.

IOW, I agree with thistle’s post about 4 posts upthread.

Keep in mind that that is a principle that the CCC is stating. Church authorities never prophesy actual destinations of individual souls, because God’s merciful call and merciful intervention at the end of life is always an unknown, including to God’s Church!

If someone is confused – or in a prolonged period of genuine moral or intellectual confusion – and they die in that state, it is unlikely that such lack of resolution, if sincere, will condemn a person to eternal damnation. It is more likely that a “hardness of heart” condition, combined with a pattern of refusal to try to resolve internal contradictions, increases the likelihood of separation. Much of that is because such a person is exhibiting extreme pride, and pride makes it quite difficult to recognize and receive God’s forgiveness at the end of life!

 

[thistle]

So if I go out and tell some person a variety of teachings the CC holds to be true and I back it up with, say, the Catechism and they don’t believe it they go to hell?

The thread is about properly catechised Catholics!!!
Any such Catholic who rejects Church teachings and/or the Church itself and dies unrepentent goes to Hell.

 

[fhansen]

The thread is about properly catechised Catholics!!!
Any such Catholic who rejects Church teachings and/or the Church itself and dies unrepentent goes to Hell.

I understand. But properly catechized still only means they’ve received the information. And my problem with this is that it may takes years of life experience before Gods revelation even begins to make sense to a person. They must not only hear the Word, they must believe it-and not merely claim to believe it-before it can have its affect.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I understand. But properly catechized still only means they’ve received the information. And my problem with this is that it may takes years of life experience before Gods revelation even begins to make sense to a person. They must not only hear the Word, they must believe it-and not merely claim to believe it-before it can have its affect.

See my post #40. God’s knowledge, not to mention His mercy, takes into account all of what you say.

 

[CMatt25]

I understand. But properly catechized still only means they’ve received the information. And my problem with this is that it may takes years of life experience before Gods revelation even begins to make sense to a person. They must not only hear the Word, they must believe it-and not merely claim to believe it-before it can have its affect.

You seem to be saying it takes more than just being told. I was thinking too it takes more than being properly catechized but faith as well.

From the last few posts, and I might be misreading what is being said, but I think the difference is Thistle seems to be saying if someone is told, properly of course, the teachings of the Catholic Church, then they know and are to just automatically place faith and belief into what they are told. And their belief can never change or else they will go to hell if they don’t repent and go back to their earlier belief.

Elizabeth said she agrees with Thistle but seems to be allowing a bit more leeway since we don’t know for certain God’s ultimate destination for any particular individual’s soul.

I think perhaps both are basically saying if one’s belief or faith changes later, then they really didn’t know to begin with. But I might be misinterpreting their words.

Do you think a person could have indeed known by placing faith in what they were told, but then later experience a change in faith, not remain as a result of this change, and still be saved?

 

[steve_b]

" 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."

Do these words in your CCC mean they can not be saved since “could not” is a tense of can not. Or do they mean* might not***. If the latter, why didn’t the writiers simply say that?

Here’s that reference from the CCC
**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.

having read through many of the responses, I offer this as food for thought and discussion.

Protestants originally broke from the Church of Rome. Therefore, Scripturally speaking, Let me ask you, how do you think Paul for example, would respond to Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII… etc etc etc

For consideration, I refer you to 2 of Paul’s letters, the 1st to the Church of Rome

Rom 16:
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to* watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18* For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Does that sound like souls who follow those who divide,

• will they be okay?

what are the actual consequences on one’s soul who divides? Paul gives THAT instruction to those who aren’t getting the mesage the 1st time, so he has to warn them over and over again. For consideration, I refer to Galatians. And note the consequence

Gal 5:
19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition,* dissensions, factions* 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

ergo, if one is guilty of (dissension, διχοστασία *dichostasia, *and factions αἵρεσις hairesis ) from the Catholic Church, and doesn’t return to unity with the Church before they die,

• will they be okay?

What about those born into division and aren’t directly guilty of division? #846 above covers that as well. Once a person knows the Catholic Church is started by Christ and necessary for salvation (i.e. they are not a member now, but see they should be in the CC) and THEN refuse to enter her,

• are they okay?

 

[thistle]

I understand. But properly catechized still only means they’ve received the information. And my problem with this is that it may takes years of life experience before Gods revelation even begins to make sense to a person. They must not only hear the Word, they must believe it-and not merely claim to believe it-before it can have its affect.

That is not correct. When a Catholic is told what the Church teaches through proper catechism that is the stage where a Catholic MUST accept the teachings. Even though at the beginning they may not understand a particular teaching they must believe it to be true because the Catholic Church cannot be in error in matters of faith and morals.

 

[fhansen]

You seem to be saying it takes more than just being told. I was thinking too it takes more than being properly catechized but faith as well.

From the last few posts, and I might be misreading what is being said, but I think the difference is Thistle seems to be saying if someone is told, properly of course, the teachings of the Catholic Church, then they know and are to just automatically place faith and belief into what they are told. And their belief can never change or else they will go to hell if they don’t repent and go back to their earlier belief.

Elizabeth said she agrees with Thistle but seems to be allowing a bit more leeway since we don’t know for certain God’s ultimate destination for any particular individual’s soul.

I think perhaps both are basically saying if one’s belief or faith changes later, then they really didn’t know to begin with. But I might be misinterpreting their words.

Do you think a person could have indeed known by placing faith in what they were told, but then later experience a change in faith, not remain as a result of this change, and still be saved?

I think there’s a lot we don’t know if we’re honest about it-we’re only human. But I also believe that all that is right and just demands that man has faith in, hope in, and love for God, and that He established a Church to help us towards that end.

Anyway, this discussion is related to the debate over whether salvation is possible outside the Church, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The bull Unam Sanctam, for example, can be looked upon as laying down solid principles, as Elizabeth was speaking of, whereby, in this case, it stated that all must be members of the Catholic Church and all must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. And I believe this is true because in this is the wisdom of God; this is His normative way, the way He provided for man to be saved. But in modern documents we see more attention paid- maybe more than the leaders back in 1302 would’ve allowed for-to the alternative ways that God may save us, with more consideration given to human limitations, IMO. So we end up with a both/and situation rather than an either/or as the Church, perhaps, has grown in understanding of the way the light of the gospel and grace in general works in us.

The gospel-and the heart of God-have been made more clearIy understood through much history and many hard lessons such as those learned from the Arian and Pelagian controversies and the thoughts of Augustine, Aquinas, et al in general, just to give a couple examples.

And we keep moving/growing/understanding/renewing. I don’t think anything like the punishments for heresy dealt by the civil authorities and indirectly sanctioned by the Church during the Inquisition could be considered for even a moment as justifiable today -and not simply because “times have changed”- but because we know better than ever now the inconsistencies between those actions and the gospel we’ve been privileged to possess. Just some thoughts-more than I meant to offer.

 

[fhansen]

That is not correct. When a Catholic is told what the Church teaches through proper catechism that is the stage where a Catholic MUST accept the teachings. Even though at the beginning they may not understand a particular teaching they must believe it to be true because the Catholic Church cannot be in error in matters of faith and morals.

Yes, but first they must come to believe that the Catholic Church cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals.

 

[thistle]

Yes, but first they must come to believe that the Catholic Church cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals.

You do realise we are talking about people who are already Catholic and have been properly catechised, don’t you??
Once sacramentally baptised as a Catholic and brought up in the faith and properly catechised there is no get out of jail free card for a Catholic who rejects a teaching of the Church or the Church itself. To do either puts that Catholic in a state of mortal sin. Dying in an unrepented state means they go to Hell.

 

[fhansen]

You do realise we are talking about people who are already Catholic and have been properly catechised, don’t you??
Once sacramentally baptised as a Catholic and brought up in the faith and properly catechised there is no get out of jail free card for a Catholic who rejects a teaching of the Church or the Church itself. To do either puts that Catholic in a state of mortal sin. Dying in an unrepented state means they go to Hell.

OK, say you were confirmed at 13 yrs old after having been properly catechized. If asked, you tell everyone you believe in God and the CC. But the truth is that you don’t know what you believe-faith hasn’t taken hold-but you’re convinced you believe because you’ve been told you must. Had you lived longer you would’ve left the faith and explored other religions but instead you were killed in an accident the next day. What’s your eternal fate?

Or, alternatively, you live on to, say, 17 yrs of age, at which time you realize you don’t believe any of it.You don’t disbelieve it-you just don’t have a clue if any of it’s true. You’re killed in an accident the next day. Is this OK because you haven’t formally rejected the faith?

 

[CMatt25]

OK, say you were confirmed at 13 yrs old after having been properly catechized. If asked, you tell everyone you believe in God and the CC. But the truth is that you don’t know what you believe-faith hasn’t taken hold-but you’re convinced you believe because you’ve been told you must. Had you lived longer you would’ve left the faith and explored other religions but instead you were killed in an accident the next day. What’s your eternal fate?

Or, alternatively, you live on to, say, 17 yrs of age, at which time you realize you don’t believe any of it.You don’t disbelieve it-you just don’t have a clue if any of it’s true. You’re killed in an accident the next day. Is this OK because you haven’t formally rejected the faith?

Good questions. In a way they go back to what you said about there being “a lot we don’t know if we’re honest about it-we’re only human”.

 

[thistle]

OK, say you were confirmed at 13 yrs old after having been properly catechized. If asked, you tell everyone you believe in God and the CC. But the truth is that you don’t know what you believe-faith hasn’t taken hold-but you’re convinced you believe because you’ve been told you must. Had you lived longer you would’ve left the faith and explored other religions but instead you were killed in an accident the next day. What’s your eternal fate?

Or, alternatively, you live on to, say, 17 yrs of age, at which time you realize you don’t believe any of it.You don’t disbelieve it-you just don’t have a clue if any of it’s true. You’re killed in an accident the next day. Is this OK because you haven’t formally rejected the faith?

Anyone who is a sacramentally baptised Catholic, of sound mind, reached the age of reason, properly catechised may not reject the Church or its teachings for any reason whatsoever without putting themselves in a state of mortal sin.