Did a non-catholic who died in 1920 go to hell, but to heaven in 2020?

[SFG]

This question concerns Vaticanum II.

It seems that now it is easier to go to heaven than it was before?

Freely translated from the Dutch Wikipedia page:

Catholic traditionalists reject the views of Vatican II on the extra ecclesiam nulla salus and regard it as a break with the tradition and doctrine of the Church. The resemblance with views as explained by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950) is clear. Pius XII describes those who reduce and dilute the need to belong to the visible Catholic Church (“which is one and the same as the true Church of Christ”, HG, No. 27) as “wanderers”. In Mortalium Animos (1928), his predecessor Pius XI also emphasized the exclusivity of salvation in the Catholic Church and that no one who, with personal consent, remains outside of unity with the Apostolic Seat of Rome and submission to the dogmatic content of the Catholic faith can become partakers of salvation.

So it seems like if you die today, God is easier on you than 100 years ago? But I feel like truth wouldn’t be able to change?

However, I assume that this apparent contradiction can be solved by the following I came up with:

The post I made makes it seem as if Vaticanum II is kind of opposed to the way things were beforehand. But I think it’s the case that centuries ago there were also more ‘including’ voices, whereas Vaticanum II also has some quite ‘conservative’ parts as well. I found this for example: “Dogmatic Constitution, 14: “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.”.”

So perhaps the answer to my question is: it’s not as black and white, it was more grayish before as it is today. But still, the stance of the Church moved slightly towards more reliance on God’s grace and moved away slightly from the importance of His Church?

What do you think about this? Thanks for sharing, I’m still quite new to Christianity and Catholicism and am eager to learn more.

 

[Vico]

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Read Catholic Encyclopedia article which is from before Vatican II.

The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition.

Joyce, G. (1908). The Church. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Other than actual saints, we didn’t know the fate of individual souls in 1920 and we don’t in 2020.

But as Vico said, the doctrine hasn’t changed. But the way it’s presented and understood has shifted, I would say.

Keep in mind that Feeneyism, the idea that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus should be strictly interpreted to mean that all non-Catholics definitely go to hell, was rejected and condemned long before Vatican II.

 

[Dovekin]

After the passage you quoted, The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, known as Lumen Gentium, describes what it means to enter the Church and remain in it. First, there are those who are part of the “visible bodily structure”:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

This is followed by some cautions, that belonging to the visible structure is not enough:

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

After this passage, LG describes the ways that those not “fully incorporated” are related to the Church:

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter…
2. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God…

While the passage you quoted is certainly correct, “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.”, joining the Church was not enough; “the special grace of Christ” is needed for salvation. And that special grace extends beyond the visible limits of the Church to all who act with charity and contrition.

 

[stpurl]

The Catholic Church has never declared any individual at all to be in hell, not even Judas. Therefore your contention that Catholic belief prior to Vatican II was that all non-Catholics went to hell, and after V2 they ‘went to heaven’, is wrong. Also your speculation is flawed regarding “reliance on God’s grace’ and ‘moving from the importance of the Church’ as if the two were completely separate. In fact, the Church does rely on God’s grace but that does not at all affect the Church’s importance as the Bride of Christ.

It’s a very intelligent move on your part to discern Christianity, especially Catholicism, and wish to learn more.

 

[1ke]

It seems that now it is easier to go to heaven than it was before?

“How to get to Heaven” remains the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Freely translated from the Dutch Wikipedia page:

Well, let’s see… what’s wrong with this picture? Freely translated, originally in Dutch, and Wikipedia.

So it seems like if you die today, God is easier on you than 100 years ago? But I feel like truth wouldn’t be able to change?

The problem here is the so-called traditionalists who fail to understand Church teaching and spread their misunderstanding.

The Church has always taught outside the Church there is no salvation. Just as it teaches baptism is necessary for heaven and the sacrament of confession for the forgiveness of sins.

All of the above is, of course, the ordinary means of salvation. It in no way excludes extraordinary action my God, it does not exclude those in ignorance, it does not exclude the many other teachings of the Church— before and after Vatican II— that put this teaching in proper context.

But still, the stance of the Church moved slightly towards more reliance on God’s grace and moved away slightly from the importance of His Church?

I wouldn’t say so, no. These aren’t in opposition to each other, opposite poles, or conflicting things. No. The Church is the ordinary means of grace, through the sacraments.

 

[SFG]

Thank you all for your replies. I’m glad I made a mistake here. I was afraid that I might’ve been right and that there really was a problem with consistency within Church teachings.
I’ll have a look at the link you sent me @Vico , it’ll hopefully clear up some things in my thinking concerning the way things actually were ‘in the good old days’ before Vatican II.

 

[TK421]

1. Church teaching develops, so what people believed 500 years ago isn’t necessarily reflective of what is objectively true.
2. Although it isn’t dogmatic, it is generally believed that prayers can be retroactive, since God is outside of time. So, we have the ability to pray for somebody’s conversion at the moment of their death who died thousands of years ago.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Church teaching develops, so what people believed 500 years ago isn’t necessarily reflective of what is objectively true.

This is false. If the Church teaches something dogmatically we as Catholics are obligated to accept it as objectively true. That’s why the Church only has dogmas on things directly pertaining to faith, and never science or anything like that. Not our purview. Ex Ecclesium Nulla Salus is a defined dogma of the faith, it cannot be changed. The issue comes from how people were interpreting it, not with the teaching itself. The point of VII was to clarify the confusion surrounding the teaching. You have to remember that the dogma was officially pronounced during the Protestant deformation, when people will making the willful choice to abandon the Church (and therefore placing their souls in jeopardy.) Hence the strong language. The teaching itself has always been that people outside the Church can be saved by the grace of God, but that that was not the normative means of salvation. Hence, no other method could be actively relied upon, only hoped for. That is still true today.

In short, the teaching didn’t develop, we just cleared up language which regularly led to misunderstanding by people who were unfamiliar with the historic teachings of the Church.

 

[TK421]

So what they believed 500 years ago wasn’t necessarily true, that is, not on the finer details surrounding a doctrine or dogma.

For example, St Alphonsus Liguori wrote on more than one occasion that all of the pagans that never heard of Christ were assuredly damned. This is something that pained him terribly but he wasn’t able to reconcile it with the need to be baptized and converted.

St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine were also probably wrong about a number of things, in spite of those things being widely believed and taught.

Not that any of this reflects badly on them. People who struggle with great questions are wrong more often than people who struggle with simple questions. If the goal is to be right all of the time, just stick with all of the super easy stuff

The church hierarchy (to say nothing of the laity) is actually wrong very frequently, which is to be expected, given its human makeup. The necessities can’t be wrong, but that is on account of the Holy Spirit rather than people. If it was on account of people, we’d mess up the necessities as well and we’d be lost. Our Original Sin darkens our intellects and corrupts our passions.

 

[Theosis]

I definitely see your frustration and confusion. I too have wrestled with much of the Vatican II documents especially the religious freedom portion suggesting that the Church is no longer necessary for Salvation; which is directly opposed to what has been understood and taught for centuries prior to Vatican II. This is the main topic and issue for us today in the Church who truly seek God.

However, I’ve found Peace in Christ knowing what my conscience has been telling me. No, there is NO salvation outside the Church; the Church whom is the Body of Christ through which we are saved on the Cross; extra Ecclesiam nulla salus… however, IF one is “outside” the Church and dies through no fault of his own, if that person has done all he can to seek the Truth, love God (insofar as He understand’s God and His Word) with all his heart, soul and strength and his neighbor as himself, and has/had been truly sorrowful for his sin before the time of death, then yes that person “may” be saved since had they known or been given the opportunity to know the necessity of Baptism and communion in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church they would’ve entered therein! However, the Church is wise in not judging hearts and souls at the time of their death since only God knows the secrets of men’s hearts.

We also know that many are called and few are chosen. We ought to get over our problem with Hell; if we follow Jesus, obey Him, and continue along the straight and narrow path, who can prevent us from the Love of God? Whether we like it or not, hell is a place we believe exists. We know that God is omnipotent and can do anything He so desires according to His nature, but He has fully revealed Himself in Jesus Christ; there is no more to be said. We know that God is loving and merciful. We ought not disregard the Lord’s words, the words of His Saints and what has been defended since the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Hell is a place people go for those whom reject God’s love and forgiveness in Christ, plain and simple. Something we ought to pray about.

Yes, I understand all of us who love God do desire that all of humanity come to God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. We desire no one be condemned. However, free-will, folks. People are free to either love God or not. We cannot force anyone to love God as that would not be loving of us nor would it inspire love in the one whom we are trying to convince or force. We need to set aside our own ideas and agendas and let God lead. We also have to be mindful that people, even priests and bishops are sinful. Look to what the Saints have been shown throughout the centuries especially concerning the End.

If we completely disregard hell all-together, we fool ourselves. It is a place that is part of our faith and even expressed in the Apostles Creed. Saints have had visions of hell… even the little and young holy children of Fatima had visions of hell and they were just little kids! It terrified them! Our Lady wanted them to know the truth and these Saints clearly saw people there suffering. Who was/is there is irrelevant.

 

[Theosis]

How else should we understand “Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18) or “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers’" (Matt 7:21-23) or “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind. When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away. Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth” (Matt 13:47-50) or " Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit. 'I, Jesus, sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ Let the hearer say, ‘Come.’ Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water. I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book" (Rev 22:14-18)?

 

[phil19034]

So what they believed 500 years ago wasn’t necessarily true, that is, not on the finer details surrounding a doctrine or dogma.

For example, St Alphonsus Liguori wrote on more than one occasion that all of the pagans that never heard of Christ were assuredly damned. This is something that pained him terribly but he wasn’t able to reconcile it with the need to be baptized and converted.

St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine were also probably wrong about a number of things, in spite of those things being widely believed and taught.

Not that any of this reflects badly on them. People who struggle with great questions are wrong more often than people who struggle with simple questions. If the goal is to be right all of the time, just stick with all of the super easy stuff

The church hierarchy (to say nothing of the laity) is actually wrong very frequently, which is to be expected, given its human makeup. The necessities can’t be wrong, but that is on account of the Holy Spirit rather than people. If it was on account of people, we’d mess up the necessities as well and we’d be lost. Our Original Sin darkens our intellects and corrupts our passions.

Well, to be clear, there are plenty of Catholics today who believe things that are not necessarily true as well.

 

[phil19034]

This is false. If the Church teaches something dogmatically we as Catholics are obligated to accept it as objectively true.

I think @TK421 was referring to individuals, not the Church herself

 

[TK421]

Well, to be clear, there are plenty of Catholics today who believe things that are not necessarily true as well.

I think when we get to Heaven - God willing - we’ll blush at ourselves in this earthly life. But it will be okay, because God preserves us and cherishes us.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But still, the stance of the Church moved slightly towards more reliance on God’s grace and moved away slightly from the importance of His Church?

The stance of the Church didn’t move one iota.

It appears that some people didn’t understand Church teaching then and don’t understand Church teaching today (As usual).

A poorly translated Dutch Wikipedia page giving the apparent opinion of some random “traditionalists” out there means nothing. It’s on the same level as if I asked my cat to give an opinion by jumping on counter A or counter B.

God is also outside time. Once you’re dead, you’re no longer in 1920, 2020, or 200 BC. You’re on God’s time. It has nothing to do with what’s happening on earth, it is in essence timeless. Therefore, your question doesn’t even make sense.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Church teaching develops, so what people believed 500 years ago isn’t necessarily reflective of what is objectively true.

Exactly. I’ve already posted before on the forum that there used to be a lot of ordinary Catholics with poor understanding/ poor catechesis who actually thought that only Catholics went to Heaven, to the point where there were jokes about it.

 

[stpurl]

There is, however, a difference between what ‘some Catholics’ believed and what the Church taught.

Church teaching has not changed. Our understanding of it may have deepened (hopefully for the best!) but the teaching does not change. As G. K Chesterton put it more or less, the Church is what keeps us from being a slave to the modern world.

I refer of course to dogma and doctrine with the above. Disciplines are NOT the same, and they may change. But teachings, no. They are, since they are from God, like Him unchanging and timeless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is, however, a difference between what ‘some Catholics’ believed and what the Church taught.

Yes, I noted that such Catholics who essentially believed Feeneyism were poorly catechized or just did not fully understand what “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” meant.

 

[stpurl]

Right. But the teaching itself, extra Ecclesiam, has not changed. It meant the same thing in 1920 that it does in 2020 or indeed in 1020, or 120. As the Holy Spirit guides us we understand it more fully (hopefully).