Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

[Erick_Ybarra]

But how can a Muslim believe in the goodness of his religion without also participating in idolatry.

And if all men are dead in sins, how are they gonna provide works to get there?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But how can a Muslim believe in the goodness of his religion without also participating in idolatry.

And if all men are dead in sins, how are they gonna provide works to get there?

While our Sacraments give us the Graces of God, we do not believe that anyone who is not Christian is completely devoid of grace. Anyone can be good. In fact I’ve seen non-Christians do more good than some Christians. When God finally reveals himself to them at their death, can they, through the life they lived, accept God fully without having to change then?

 

[mardukm]

But how can a Muslim believe in the goodness of his religion without also participating in idolatry.

Well, I’ve met Muslims who believe they believe in the one God of Abraham. Was not Abraham counted among the Saints?

And if all men are dead in sins, how are they gonna provide works to get there?

Well, the Catholic Faith teaches that there is PREVENIENT Grace (well, that’s the specific name of it in Latin theology, but non-Latin theology does not put a specific name to it) for all people. People have the free will to respond or reject that Grace. It is the Grace that allows anyone who responds to it to perform works pleasing to God. Our works alone are never enough, but it is always works in cooperation with Grace. Prevenient Grace is different from Sanctifying Grace.

If through no fault of their own, they have not come to a true knowledge of Christ - a quality that only God can judge - God will perhaps accept their response to the prevenient Grace given by Him as a sign that had they come to a true knowledge of Christ, they would indeed have accepted Him as Lord and Savior.

Here’s something to think about. If: (1) we accept the biblical account that Christ went to preach to the dead; and (2) that the state of existence of souls in the afterlife are not bound by the laws of space/time, then is it not possible that in the afterlife, Christ is even “now” preaching to those souls who, through no fault of their own, never knew Christ or of Christ in this life?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[andrewstx]

But how can a Muslim believe in the goodness of his religion without also participating in idolatry.

And if all men are dead in sins, how are they gonna provide works to get there?

Muslims particpating in idolatry is impossible. Muslims are so anti idol they have no pictures of any kind in their mosques, only very elaborate calligraphy.

 

[Zekariya]

1 Corinthians 10:20 “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

Muslims particpating in idolatry is impossible. Muslims are so anti idol they have no pictures of any kind in their mosques, only very elaborate calligraphy.

This as an example of an Eastern Saint, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Doctor of the Church saying that even monotheistic people who don’t accept Christ don’t worship God the Father and have lost the hope of salvation:

Jeremiah said: “Your house has become for me the den of a hyena”. He does not simply say “of wild beast”, but “of a filthy wild beast”, and again: “I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance”. But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

…“If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father”. Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God? …if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.

• St John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos, Homily 1

The “…” occurs a lot in this quote in order to cut out stuff that might be interpreted as overtly anti-semitic. I don’t know that CAF would want the whole thing quoted here.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

It’s been a while since I read that work from St. Chrysostom, but IIRC, he wasn’t referring to Jews in general, but to Jews who, while living among the barbarians, actually gave in to sacrificing to idols in imitation of the barbarians. It’s possible of course that this was his general impression of Jews - a people unfaithful to God - probably akin to the notion of a “secular Jew.” If I have the time, I’ll have to reread that work.

Blessings,
Marduk

1 Corinthians 10:20 “But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils.”

This as an example of an Eastern Saint, Patriarch of Constantinople, and Doctor of the Church saying that even monotheistic people who don’t accept Christ don’t worship God the Father and have lost the hope of salvation:

Jeremiah said: “Your house has become for me the den of a hyena”. He does not simply say “of wild beast”, but “of a filthy wild beast”, and again: “I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance”. But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

…“If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father”. Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God? …if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.

• St John Chrysostom, Adversus Judaeos, Homily 1

The “…” occurs a lot in this quote in order to cut out stuff that might be interpreted as overtly anti-semitic. I don’t know that CAF would want the whole thing quoted here.

 

[Zekariya]

Dear brother Zekariya,

It’s been a while since I read that work from St. Chrysostom, but IIRC, he wasn’t referring to Jews in general, but to Jews who, while living among the barbarians, actually gave in to sacrificing to idols in imitation of the barbarians. It’s possible of course that this was his general impression of Jews - a people unfaithful to God - probably akin to the notion of a “secular Jew.” If I have the time, I’ll have to reread that work.

Blessings,
Marduk

I highly doubt that he believed that non-Christian religious Jews worshipped the Father or would find salvation based on all that he says. I’ll PM you the link to his homilies.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Is it possible to remain a faithful Catholic and yet still believe that no one can be saved unless they have faith and repentance in Jesus Christ in this life?

 

[Zekariya]

Is it possible to remain a faithful Catholic and yet still believe that no one can be saved unless they have faith and repentance in Jesus Christ in this life?

“faith and repentance [and at least baptism of desire] in Jesus Christ”

Yes, it is. Unless St John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, wasn’t a faithful Catholic.

 

[mardukm]

Is it possible to remain a faithful Catholic and yet still believe that no one can be saved unless they have faith and repentance in Jesus Christ in this life?

Of course! The principle of invincible ignorance maintains only a probability/possibility, not an absolute certainty.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrueLight]

Well I guess what’s the difference between roman catholics and eastern Catholics? It is just the independence from Rome?

Erick if you are also interested in what Roman Catholics believe about this I
I would suggest you start a similar thread in the TC or apologetics forum. I fear it is not as simple as explained to you. That way we won’t derail this thread.

Catholic teaching traditionally has been that outside the Church there is no salvation. Now we do have invincible ignorance, but that is not to say that you can be whatever and as long as you’re good in the eyes of man, you’re good with God.

You will find that traditional Catholics more follow traditional Church teaching.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well I guess what’s the difference between roman catholics and eastern Catholics? It is just the independence from Rome?

BTW - Eastern Catholics are not “independent from Rome”.

Also, TL’s suggestion seems prudent. Your inquiries really reach well beyond EC opinion on this matter, which really differs from Latin Catholic opinion only in perspective.

As regards your original question, mardukm summed it up best:

It’s a matter of emphasis. From my studies, it seems the Latin Tradition is more focused on the probability (laying out the conditions explicitly, though not defining the conditions) that a non-Christian will be saved, whereas the non-Latin Traditons focus more on the possibility that non-Christians will be saved.

 

[Marybeloved]

I appreciate your response.

I’m trying to understand the catholic view better here.

It seems to me that the Church has taught that anyone, Muslim Jew Buddhist Hindu, serving whatever idol, the Egyptians, Canaanites, Babylonian, etc etc CAN BE SAVED without ever believing in the truth but by their good works to the false doctrine and light they have.

I understand God applies the sacrifice of Jesus to their account. But they can remain pagan idol worshippers all their life.

This seems to against the fact that it is only faith in Jesus and baptism are necessary for heaven.

I heard a priest say that his Muslim friends can all go to heaven

Yes, this always bothers Catholics, especially the CCC’s direct reference to Muslims. Many are very much bothered by the CCC’s statements that they believe in the same God as we, especially. But you should know that this is NOT part of the infalible teaching of the church, even by the very definition of infallibility given in the CCC.

What is part of the faith regarding this issue:

• God has given means of salvation to the church by which all humanity may be saved.
• God is God- absolutely unlimited by or to the activity of the church.
• God is love- He does not punish honest ignorance of the truth where the person is not culpable

Beyond this, everything else said in the CCC about Muslims and other non-Christians really falls outside the Church’s own protection of infallibility, which protects only what the Church says about faith and morals. I personaly believe that the Church is right, they do worship the one God, our creator, and can be saved. I have a very hard time accepting the idea that children born in Saudi Arabia are by that fact condemned to hell, no one chooses the circumstances, places or society in which they’re born. And while some are born with many options and opportunities to find truth, many are not especially in Muslim societies-even socially speaking (not just by state law). I also don’t believe that my ancestors who only ever heard of the name ‘‘Jesus’’ about a century and a half ago for the first time, that those who lived earlier than that are condemned just because they had never met a european or an Eastern Christian before they died:shrug:

But you only have to believe those three things in bullets not much else regarding the matter of salvation outside the church *(Christians outside visible communion are considered imperfectly united with the church and so access salvation, but you seem to be *asking specifically about non-Christians).

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Marybeloved,

Yes, this always bothers Catholics, especially the CCC’s direct reference to Muslims. Many are very much bothered by the CCC’s statements that they believe in the same God as we, especially

I’m not aware that the CCC claims that they believe in the same God we do. AFAIK, all the CCC claims is that they believe, as we do, in God who is merciful and who will judge mankind. In other words, those are the only two things we hold in common with the Muslims in their belief about God. That is far from saying we believe in the same God as the Muslims.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I highly doubt that he believed that non-Christian religious Jews worshipped the Father or would find salvation based on all that he says. I’ll PM you the link to his homilies.

I’ll run this by you to see what you (or others will) think:

I have the impression after re-reading Adversus Judaeos that St. Chrysostom was violating scripture - namely:

Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:19-10)

In those days they shall no longer say: “‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:29)

Even a cursory reading of Adversus Judaeos reveals that St. Chrysostom was blaming the Jews of his day for the crucifixion of Christ, and this was the basis for his indomitable stance against the Jews. Wasn’t St. Chrysostom wrong for believing that?

Now, if his experience of Jews was as a people who generally gave in to the ways of barbarians and sacrified to their idols, then we can see that he was referring to Jews who were doing something grevious in the eyes of God in his present day. This would not refute the principle of invincible ignorance.

Are you aware of any quote from St. Chrysostom indicating an explicit denial of the principle of invincible ignorance?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Dear sister Marybeloved,

I’m not aware that the CCC claims that they believe in the same God we do. AFAIK, all the CCC claims is that they believe, as we do, in God who is merciful and who will judge mankind. In other words, those are the only two things we hold in common with the Muslims in their belief about God. That is far from saying we believe in the same God as the Muslims.

Blessings,
Marduk

Well perhaps I’m the one that doesn’t understand but doesnt it say together with us they adore the one merciful God? I personally have no problem with it since I believe it is a fact that they do. (There are no two beings that are immaterial, eternal, one, infinite, omnipotent etc- and this is the being all Muslims turn to worship). I believe they have very wrong ideas about this being, very false beliefs *(and some true ones too) *but I don’t doubt that they do believe in the One Creator, whom they worship- if plytheistic, idolatrous Greeks could be said to worship the true God by St. Paul, then surely Muslims can. But mostly it doesn’t bother me because the church doesn’t have infallibility to tell us the content of another faith. So the magisterium could be wrong in their judgment of the Islamic religion (that it adores THE one God maker of all) without affecting the faith at all. This is just an empirical study into another faith and what we think they believe, but jus like anathemas on people or groups, it could be dead on or way off- it’s not faith or morals, and not infallible.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

They may believe in the God of the old testament, which is the dame God revealed to Jews and to Christians, but to say that they worship Him is incompatible with the apostolic voice.

Paul said that damnation belonged to the Jews who were blind and unbelieving. That this blindness consists of seperation from God. And that this situation will not be reversed until the coming of Jesus.

I would assume the apostolic voice would say the same about Muslims

 

[Marybeloved]

They may believe in the God of the old testament, which is the dame God revealed to Jews and to Christians, but to say that they worship Him is incompatible with the apostolic voice.

Paul said that damnation belonged to the Jews who were blind and unbelieving. That this blindness consists of seperation from God. And that this situation will not be reversed until the coming of Jesus.

I would assume the apostolic voice would say the same about Muslims

And wasn’t it this same St. Paul who says in the Bible that the pagan polytheistic, idol-worshipping Greeks worshipped the true God without knowing it? Remember? When they had an extra altar to the unknown god, just incase they forgot one? Paul says, this God whom you worship without knowing, him I preach to you. Muslims have a far better idea of the true God than those Greeks, I could tell you that.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And wasn’t it this same St. Paul who says in the Bible that the pagan polytheistic, idol-worshipping Greeks worshipped the true God without knowing it? Remember? When they had an extra altar to the unknown god, just incase they forgot one? Paul says, this God whom you worship without knowing, him I preach to you. Muslims have a far better idea of the true God than those Greeks, I could tell you that.

Acts 17:16 NASB

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. (Acts 17:16).

This is beginning of the of the context. And Paul was not commending them if worshipping the true God, for he says they worshipped the unknown God in ignorance. Paul does not find here an article of true religion, rather he taught that the ‘‘unknown God’’ that they worship is actually ‘‘unknown’’ to them! In other words they were correct to out unknown there and Paul used this as a way to speak to them about the God they do not know and teach then so that they might known. For goodness sake, this passage is anything but answer form of the current teaching that all men from any pagan religion can be saved through their obedience moved by grave.

 

[Zekariya]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I’ll run this by you to see what you (or others will) think:

I have the impression after re-reading Adversus Judaeos that St. Chrysostom was violating scripture - namely:

Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek 18:19-10)

In those days they shall no longer say: “‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:29)

Even a cursory reading of Adversus Judaeos reveals that St. Chrysostom was blaming the Jews of his day for the crucifixion of Christ, and this was the basis for his indomitable stance against the Jews. Wasn’t St. Chrysostom wrong for believing that?

Now, if his experience of Jews was as a people who generally gave in to the ways of barbarians and sacrified to their idols, then we can see that he was referring to Jews who were doing something grevious in the eyes of God in his present day. This would not refute the principle of invincible ignorance.

Are you aware of any quote from St. Chrysostom indicating an explicit denial of the principle of invincible ignorance?

Blessings,
Marduk

I am aware that St John Chrysostom didn’t consider invincibly ignorant to be able to attain salvation. He quotes Christ saying, .“If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father”. You can’t worship someone that you have no knowledge of. He obviously did not consider monotheistic non-Christians to worship the same God that we worship. Also his blaming the Jews of his day was a rhetorical form used back then:

“According to Patristics’ scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos [Greek: blame], whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.” - Wilken, Robert Louis. 1983. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century.

Also, we have no quote from Christ saying that masturbation is a sin. We can’t argue for something based on silence.