Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

[Cavaradossi]

Actually, that is not St John Chrysostom teaching. It is St Paul the Apostle’s teaching:

Romans 10: 15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things? 16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the whole world.

The following is directed to no one in particular:

We cannot make God in our own image. I’m sure that you know that God had the Israelites kill the Canaanites (women and children included). Just because we humans have a very modern understanding of love, mercy, and justice, it doesn’t mean that we can change the unchangeable God. If God didn’t save the Canaanites, why would He save your ancestors or mine? Modern society has shaped current ideas on the topics of love and mercy but, has totally removed justice.

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above. Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above. Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin. - St Thomas Aquinas, who wasn’t marred by political correctness or tried to make God something that God is not.

If God is good and is love and is just, he must punish the sinners. That is why Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise over eating a piece of fruit. A good God does not accept evil. St Peter says, “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Christ says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. [Mark 16:16]”

We can make God into our own understanding of right and wrong but, that doesn’t change who God is. He will still be how he has always been.

Note, this is a website that is against Christianity, however, it does list all of the kinds of death penalties God commanded: evilbible.com/Murder.htm Here is an example: Ezekiel 9:5-7 5 And to the others he said in my hearing: Go ye after him through the city, and strike: let not your eyes spare, nor be ye moved with pity. 6 Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau [a Cross], kill him not, and begin ye at my sanctuary. So they began at the ancient men who were before the house. 7 And he said to them: Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew them that were in the city.

When people who are invincibly ignorant get the mark of the beast, will people still say that God will save them?

Luke 18:8 I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

If only few find it, how can God be loving and merciful according to today’s standards?

Here is evidence from an Ecumenical Council, though I know that many won’t accept it. Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. If many people are following you in your understanding about God, maybe you aren’t on the narrow path after all?

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”

• The Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session VI (July 6, 1439), Definition of the Council
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

It seems to me, from your positions in this thread and the types of arguments that you are making, that you are coming close to promoting Feeneyism (for those unfamiliar with this particular heresy, here is a letter from the Holy Office in which the teaching is condemned). Forgive me if that is not your intention, but either way, I think taking a little time to nuance your position might not be a bad idea.

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems to me, from your positions in this thread and the types of arguments that you are making, that you are coming close to promoting Feeneyism (for those unfamiliar with this particular heresy, here is a letter from the Holy Office in which the teaching is condemned). Forgive me if that is not your intention, but either way, I think taking a little time to nuance your position might not be a bad idea.

Wel, Thank you for that link. It was an interesting read. They CDF seems to be saying that even those invincibly ignorant who are well disposed (Those I referred to as sincere pagans like Cornelius before he was sent to St. Peter) are saved by union to the Church by an ‘‘implicit desire’’- which is a desire for the will of God, or for conformity to the will of God. I guess this desire for the will of God could be said to be a desire for the ultimate truth and to follow (obey it) whatever it is. The union with the Church (unknown to him) which is a union with the Lord is what enables him to access salvation- That I did not know was explicitly taught in our church, thanks for bringing it to our attention.

In any case, I think it his highly unreasonable to say that God cannot save all those he wants outside the visible Church, no one of us can put limits on him. We don’t know how, but we know it’s possible. I personally believe that this is what happens because I cannot reconcile the God who died in Jerusalem with the one who will let aborted babies, unbaptized babies, unbaptized mentally-incapacitated individuals, or unbaptized people who had absolutely no way to know the truth because they were cut off from Christians (through no choice of their own), but who did their best with what they knew- all of them, just go down to Hell! I can’t believe that- I just cannot.

 

[Marybeloved]

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”

• The Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session VI (July 6, 1439), Definition of the Council
  Source: papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm

But isn’t it also our faith that God only demands that we do our best? Can he really demand from us what is impossible for us?

For example, it is impossible that an aborted baby, an infant in its mother’s arms, a person who has grown up with mental incapacity, a man living in a continent like Africa, America (before Columbus) or Australia for the greater part of Christian History and others to explicitly acknowledge Christ as his/her savior, and to be baptized- no? It was impossible for those who died before Christ came, no? But if we said that they would go down to Hell because they were not baptized nor explicitly acknowledged faith in Our Lord, we are basically creating an image of a God who requires the impossible from his creatures. That he demands esentially that they save themselves even though it is impossibe for them to do so. But this is not the picture I have of the Christian God- This God himself did the impossible, he didn’t demand it from his creatures.

So this God comes down from Heaven to Jerusalem because of man’s absolute incapacity to save himself, but yet we don’t see him go from Jerusalem (or Europe or Asia) to Africa, America and Australia where no Christian has at that time gone (With few exceptions of course)? Catholics believe that a fundamental choice is always made at the last moment- which becomes the eternal, irrevocable choice. Who are we to say that those whom Christians have been unable to reach, are not also availed the same choice and that being well disposed to the best of their ability, they are not given all the grace they need to make the right choice?

I guess I just believe that Christ can and does go to those whom we (Christians) either can’t or won’t. He will not let his beloved souls perish simply because those who are already Christian are disobedient.

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

I guess the question is- Who departs this life in actual mortal sin (actual rejection of God)? Or original sin (absence of sanctifying grace)? Can we say for certain that sincere, well disposed, invincibly ignorant or incapacitated persons do depart this life** in** mortal sin (rejection of God) or original sin (No sanctifying grace)? We Catholics believe that God ‘‘baptized’’ the Blessed Virgin without her corperation, or even an explicit acknowledgment of God- She was only a zygote and even less than that when it happened, and also st john as a six month old baby (pre-birth) in the womb. Should it surprise us if God extends such a mercy to others who cannot come to the church through no personal fault of their own? It doesn’t mean that they are a majority either (The narrow way)- It just means that the window was not completely shut to them just because they couldn’t become Christians *(through no personal fault too). *I’m just concerned about them having **a choice- **and unless Christ went before the Church, they wouldn’t have a choice- they’d be condemned eternally even though they did not refuse salvation. I think the Bible condemns those who reject the truth, not those who are incapable of knowing it, otherwise Christ would not have said:

‘‘Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do’’
‘‘But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more’’

Or even that the Jews who had seen him had seen a greater one than Moses and Solomon, and so would have no excuse on the last day.

 

[Zekariya]

A few last words… Feeneyism teaches a far more restricted view of salvation than faith in Christ and baptism (at least of desire). I am not saying that protestants go to hell (they do at least have faith in Christ, the Trinity, etc) Are you trying to say that all of the Fathers and Councils that taught that man must believe in Christ and be baptized (by water, blood, or desire) are Feeneyites? Has the Vatican, during dialogues, ever in the history of the Church called the evangelical protestants Feeneyites or other such words for that heresy?

How invincibly ignorant must one be to be saved? How much knowledge of Christ must one lack to be invincibly ignorant? The Jews and Romans that crucified Christ, are they invincibly ignorant? Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, were they invincibly ignorant? Gandhi knew plenty about Christ, is he still invincibly ignorant? God will not spare those “innocent” people with the mark of the beast but, he will spare people now? Is there a such thing as invincibly ignorant beast worshippers?

If invincibly ignorant includes those that never heard of Christ, we should never tell them who Christ is lest we make them knowledgeable and they be damned. If invincibly ignorant means those who have heard of Christ yet refuse to believe that the Gospel is true, then all of the non-Christian world will be saved since only a few people will reject what they believe to be true. No one can really define what invincible ignorance means; there would be a lot of contradicting views posited.

God has demonstrated multiple times that He can divinely reveal himself to people without an evangelist, why do you think that God doesn’t do this? I you believe that God does do this, why would he leave some people without that chance and others with a chance? He even brought Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch out of thin air. Has God stopped doing this? I believe that those who truly seek the Truth will find it before they die by an evangelist or a vision of God.

Peace be unto all of you!

In Christ,
Zekariya

 

[Cavaradossi]

A few last words… Feeneyism teaches a far more restricted view of salvation than faith in Christ and baptism (at least of desire). I am not saying that protestants go to hell (they do at least have faith in Christ, the Trinity, etc) Are you trying to say that all of the Fathers and Councils that taught that man must believe in Christ and be baptized (by water, blood, or desire) are Feeneyites? Has the Vatican, during dialogues, ever in the history of the Church called the evangelical protestants Feeneyites or other such words for that heresy?

How invincibly ignorant must one be to be saved? How much knowledge of Christ must one lack to be invincibly ignorant? The Jews and Romans that crucified Christ, are they invincibly ignorant? Sodom, Gomorrah, and the Canaanites, were they invincibly ignorant? Gandhi knew plenty about Christ, is he still invincibly ignorant? God will not spare those “innocent” people with the mark of the beast but, he will spare people now? Is there a such thing as invincibly ignorant beast worshippers?

If invincibly ignorant includes those that never heard of Christ, we should never tell them who Christ is lest we make them knowledgeable and they be damned. If invincibly ignorant means those who have heard of Christ yet refuse to believe that the Gospel is true, then all of the non-Christian world will be saved since only a few people will reject what they believe to be true. No one can really define what invincible ignorance means; there would be a lot of contradicting views posited.

God has demonstrated multiple times that He can divinely reveal himself to people without an evangelist, why do you think that God doesn’t do this? I you believe that God does do this, why would he leave some people without that chance and others with a chance? He even brought Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch out of thin air. Has God stopped doing this? I believe that those who truly seek the Truth will find it before they die by an evangelist or a vision of God.

Peace be unto all of you!

In Christ,
Zekariya

Those are all question which no man or even the hosts of angels in heaven can answer, as such knowledge is known by God alone. We simply acknowledge on this subject that God can save people who never heard of Christ and hope that He will do so. None of this interferes with the Great Commission in any way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Those are all question which no man or even the hosts of angels in heaven can answer, as such knowledge is known by God alone. We simply acknowledge on this subject that God can save people who never heard of Christ and hope that He will do so. None of this interferes with the Great Commission in any way.

Fr. Lawrence Farley posted a great story on the OCA website about people who never knew Jesus but found him on their own…

oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/a-presence-that-was-not-theirs

 

[Marybeloved]

If invincibly ignorant includes those that never heard of Christ, we should never tell them who Christ is lest we make them knowledgeable and they be damned. If invincibly ignorant means those who have heard of Christ yet refuse to believe that the Gospel is true, then all of the non-Christian world will be saved since only a few people will reject what they believe to be true.

How can you really say that, though? In your own Western world where many have the means and opportunity to find the truth- are the majority embracing Christ and his truth? Even in the churches themselves? There’s many reasons why people reject truth- the underlying theme in them all is self-will. Just look at Adam if you doubt this- He knew what was true and chose self-will, and here we are.

Besides, being invincibly ignorant of Christianity does not equate being invincibly ignorant of all truth, or of right and wrong. You assume that all the non-Christian world is formed only or mostly of people who are all sincerely committed to the truth (and the good) as they know it with all attendant sacrifices…but is that really true? Is it only in our Christian societies that only very few people are willing to sacrifice all comforts for the sake of truth (and objective good)?

No one can really define what invincible ignorance means; there would be a lot of contradicting views posited.

That’s why I said earlier that only God can judge who is truly invincibly ignorant-none else can. It would require knowing a person in depths and breadths that even they don’t know themselves- it requires Divine wisdom which none of us has.

God has demonstrated multiple times that He can divinely reveal himself to people without an evangelist, why do you think that God doesn’t do this? I you believe that God does do this, why would he leave some people without that chance and others with a chance? He even brought Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch out of thin air. Has God stopped doing this? I believe that those who truly seek the Truth will find it before they die by an evangelist or a vision of God.

Yes, this is one of those possibilities I mentioned too. We just don’t know how God would save them (’‘in ways known only to God’’)- We’re just affirming that God is able and merciful, so we can hope for it. Remember that he has told no one that he does this. It’s not a direct part of the revelation, apart from affirming God’s unlimited power and mercy.

Peace be unto all of you!

In Christ,
Zekariya

And to you too

 

[Vico]

Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote in Veritatis Splendor:62. Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, “not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin”.107 In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience.
[107] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 16. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Modern Catholic Dictionary gives a defintion for Invincible Ignorance:INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE. Lack of knowledge, either of fact or law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time or talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable. (Etym. Latin in, not + vincibilis, easily overcome: invincibilis.)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I believe that some people are invincibly ignorant–I just think that it is a small number.

It’s not something that anyone should count on.

Baptized children who die before the state of reason will certainly be saved just as baptized people who have mental defects such that they are incapable of mortal sin will be saved.

People who do their best to obey the natural law and have never heard of Christ COULD be saved.

Now people of other religions who have heard of Jesus–but don’t know enough to pursue knowledge–are there people like that who are INVINCIBLY ignorant?

There may be some but that number would be EXTREMELY small.

What happens to unbaptized babies?

We do not know but we can HOPE that God could would provide a means for them to be saved.

Which means that we should baptize infants.

And we should certainly unceasingly evangelize all people on planet Earth until Jesus returns!

God is a God of Justice and Mercy.

It may be impossible for us to read everyone’s soul but it won’t be for Jesus–He will PERFECTLY judge all.

 

[b0Bby123]

This subject ties into the RCC’s policy called the “New Evangelization” By understanding this concept, you can better understand the RCC’s concepts on salvation to Non-Catholics.

Ever since the inception of the “Year of Faith” the New Evangelization has been pushed with fervency. This policy is a call to all Catholics to be bold and spread their faith to the unsaved. Many may have questions on what do Catholics mean by the “New” Evangelization. Dr. Scott Hahn, author, theologian and Catholic apologist for the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology illustrates this policy in the video, What is the New Evangelization. In the video, Hahn separates Evangelism into two distinctive categories: Primary and Secondary Evangelization. The former entails the normal evangelization that all Christians have done to spread God’s word throughout history. The latter, however, describes the New Evangelization which focuses on “re-evangelizing the de-Christianized”. Dr. Hahn said the push started around January 1993 although I believe that it was initiated a couple months earlier with the promulgation of the RCC Catechism, Second Edition in October 1992. This I believe is very important because the updated Catechism cements the current views of the Catholic faith. One such view documented is on salvation which describes very well why the RCC priorities have shifted to focus on the “de-Christianized”.

In the catechism, starting at paragraph 839, it discusses the status of certain non-Christians in God’s economy. For instance, it says that even though Jews do not believe in Jesus as the savior, it implies that the Old Covenant is still valid because they believe in a Messiah, only that the next time He comes the Jews believe that it will be the first. I believe that this denies Jesus. Jesus said that “I am the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

The book goes further in discussing Muslims, in that they are also children of God and worship the same as Christians, therefore, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator” (841). I have studied Islamic culture and religion, I’m required to within my job. I can’t agree with this statement. The Quran and Hadith are diametrically opposed to our Bible. In backing up this statement, Muslims deny the deity of Jesus and even that Jesus had died on the cross. the first part of this statement is written plainly on the outside of the Dome in Jerusalem. In refutation of those writings, Acts 4:11-12 quotes Jesus as saying there is no salvation through anyone but Jesus. To summarize this paragraph, The god of the Muslim is not our God.

The catechism also talks briefly about other pantheistic and polytheistic religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, saying that they all are on a path to God. However, what’s most interesting is when the book discusses non-catholic Christians. This group is described as those that either know the Word of God and refuse to enter the RCC or those who have, in the words of Robert Barron priest and host of the Word on Fire video series, “divorced themselves from God”. As this group is discussed you can see that the tone noticeably changes. Simply put the Catechism pronounces that there is no salvation to those who knowingly separate themselves from the church (RCC).

This seems to be the evangelization priorities of the RCC as per the “New Evangelization” policy and the Catechism and it summarizes RCC concepts of salvation among Non-Catholics. These beliefs are what I believe could fall under what one may call near-worldwide ecumenism. So there is an important impasse that we must cross as Christians. If the Bible, believed to be inspired text, says that Jesus is our only way to heaven but the Catechism states that there are other paths, then one might ask (with all due respect) how can God be so contradicting? The answer that we all should be joyous about is that He’s not. With this in mind we can logically assume that both texts cannot be correct. This subject is an extremely important part of our faith as Christians. Before any of us jump to any conclusions, we all must first pray that God opens our eyes and ears for His truth. Thank you for your time.

 

[Ignatius]

For instance,

Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc,etc

I heard a priest from the roman catholic tradition say that if muslims lead good lives, they will go to heaven when they die. Is it the same in eastern catholicism?

You completely misunderstood what he was saying. Jesus said, "
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you" Mat 7:7

Rest assured that if anyone that is saved, they are saved through Jesus Christ.

It is nothing different than what He did for all of the generations who came before Him when He “he went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (1Pt 3:19)
that they might be saved.

 

[b0Bby123]

Hello Ignatious… I’m not sure that he did misunderstand. I always like to see things in writing. that’s why I used the catechism as a source in the post that is right above yours. I also checked with Papal edicts, priests, and the general laity which makes up the majority of people in this forum… Many believe that Jesus is not the only way…merely the best way. This is what I picked up from many of the reliable Catholic sources. If I’m wrong, please clarify.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I also checked with Papal edicts, priests, and the general laity which makes up the majority of people in this forum… Many believe that Jesus is not the only way…merely the best way. This is what I picked up

Then you should have no problem posting the links which support this theory the Primacy supports “many path’s” to Heaven. Do post the “entire” content/context thus we won’t fall error to reading Sola Scriptura.

 

[b0Bby123]

Hello Gary,
I think you misunderstood my post as being hostile. It’s not. I humbly suggest that you read my original post. In that post I used the catechism and popular Catholic theologian Scott Hahn as a source.
Your right, I didn’t copy every word of the source and use Turubian style citations to format my post… It’s a chat room!
I would be happy to provide more sources… if necessary. However, throughout the whole time I have been asking this question, in the multiple media venues, you are the only one that responded to this question… and you didn’t answer any questions. Again I say that I would be happy to provide more sources. With an answer like that it hardly seems necessary. Your a senior member?

If anyone is interested in seriously answering my post, I would be very appreciative. I am just trying to get to the truth. Whether I’m right or wrong doesn’t matter… Finding the truth of God is my motivation.

 

[Ignatius]

Hello Ignatious… I’m not sure that he did misunderstand. I always like to see things in writing. that’s why I used the catechism as a source in the post that is right above yours. I also checked with Papal edicts, priests, and the general laity which makes up the majority of people in this forum… Many believe that Jesus is not the only way…merely the best way. This is what I picked up from many of the reliable Catholic sources. If I’m wrong, please clarify.

The clear and consistent Catholic Church teaching has always been that only through Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. If you think someone says differently then either you are misunderstanding them or they are misinformed.
Why don’t you post those official Church documents (not chat room conversations) that you claim say differently with the context and a link so that we can examine the entire text and then we will see.

 

[Richca]

For instance,

Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc,etc

I heard a priest from the roman catholic tradition say that if muslims lead good lives, they will go to heaven when they die. Is it the same in eastern catholicism?

Yes, the Eastern Catholic Churches profess the same faith as the latin rite catholics. However, a person 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.

 

[Aramis]

The clear and consistent Catholic Church teaching has always been that only through Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. If you think someone says differently then either you are misunderstanding them or they are misinformed.
Why don’t you post those official Church documents (not chat room conversations) that you claim say differently with the context and a link so that we can examine the entire text and then we will see.

VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
(CCC VI at www.vatican.va. Emphasis/underlining mine. Internal reference footnote numbers deleted for ease of reading)

If the promulgated Catechnism isn’t good enough, then nothing will be, save maybe personal revelation (but that’s not something to count upon).

 

[Vico]

…If the Bible, believed to be inspired text, says that Jesus is our only way to heaven but the Catechism states that there are other paths, then one might ask (with all due respect) how can God be so contradicting?..

The Catechism does not say that there are other paths to salvation other than Jesus Christ. It maintains that outside the Church there is no salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 335 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. 336

335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.

​

Letter From the Headquarters of The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (Denzinger, n. 801).

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith, Responses To Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects Of The Doctrine On The ChurchIt is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;9935832:

b0Bby123;9920929:

Hello Ignatious… I’m not sure that he did misunderstand. I always like to see things in writing. that’s why I used the catechism as a source in the post that is right above yours. I also checked with Papal edicts, priests, and the general laity which makes up the majority of people in this forum… Many believe that Jesus is not the only way…merely the best way. This is what I picked up from many of the reliable Catholic sources. If I’m wrong, please clarify.

The clear and consistent Catholic Church teaching has always been that only through Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. If you think someone says differently then either you are misunderstanding them or they are misinformed.
Why don’t you post those official Church documents (not chat room conversations) that you claim say differently with the context and a link so that we can examine the entire text and then we will see.
If the promulgated Catechnism isn’t good enough, then nothing will be, save maybe personal revelation (but that’s not something to count upon).

If you’ll look at the post that I was responding to, you’ll see that I was asking b0Bby123 for the citations with context and links that support his false contention that the Catholic Church teaches that you can be saved other than through Jesus Christ. I asked this so that we can see where he misunderstands Church Teaching.
I suppose now we never will get to see what documents b0Bby123 was refering to. But thanks for your 2 cents anyway.

 

[b0Bby123]

Ignacious… In response to your last post… I’ve been away for a day and that constitutes your ridiculous comment?

In regards to your penultimate response, I will first direct you to the references in my original post (Catechism and “God vs Allah” by Dr Scott Hahn). Are these sources not reliable enough for you? Are they not worth the time to respond to?

I would very much like a rational discussion with someone (for example with most of the other members that responded) Please learn some netiquette and then respond to my original post (with sources).