Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

[Erick_Ybarra]

It is amazing to me to see such lack of care for the nations. The Scripture says these people are blind, living in darkness, captured by Satan, and guilty before God (Acts 26).

Paul was sent to the nations to proclaim the message of salvation, with the assumption that no one was saved.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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?

Where are they? The original post of yours on the last thread which led to this thread? This is what I found for a first post…

"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."

Perhaps if all are on the same page this would be easier. Doing a quick search of (Catechism and “God vs Allah” by Dr Scott Hahn) this is what came up as your first post. Is it safe to say this is what we are discussing?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Paul was sent to the nations to proclaim the message of salvation, with the assumption that no one was saved.

The Apostle Paul the first interpreter of the Good News of Jesus Christ to the Gentile world was sent indeed. All the Apostles were sent, that is the meaning of Apostle. Ironically they all also belonged to one church.

The assumption no one [who didn’t hear the Good News] was saved assumes that God didn’t create man in his image and desired all to be saved.

Did he create ALL men in His image or just some? Did he create the muslims in His image? Does he desire them to a predestined death? How about the Exodus? Predestined to death? Babylon? What of all these Biblical truths?

Is the Word written on all hearts? Then what of ignorance by learned behavior, culture?

Off the top of my head No Salvation Outside the Church comes immediately to mind. Since its a topic here oh about 2-3 times monthly.

google.com/url?q=http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church&sa=U&ei=vt2LUJ20EPKw0QGS84GADg&ved=0CBoQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFqESvqBIkmZ_GEZLJL5caMxbV9sw

If we read the CCC in context/content thus not pretext, we see that after the ecumenical dialogue follows No Salvation Outside the Church and for good reason.

I would do a search of No Salvation though, I do believe you’ll find it of interest.

Peace

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Even Cornelius was told that he was not saved until he heard the gospel (acts 9).

I really don’t care what the catechism says, the idea that we need to approach the unbelieving world as though they might already be saved is the sure sign of apostacy in the catholic church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The assumption being we approach the unbelieving world as though they might already be saved.

The dilemma is very large faiths like Islam believe they found the objective truth and there is no turning back. How do we solve this dilemma?

 

[b0Bby123]

Comment 1/2

Hello Vico,
Thank you for responding. Very interesting post! It made me think. Due to length, this is my 1st out of 2 replies to your comment.

I have actually seen some of the documents that you referenced. I agree that historic documents prior to Vatican II were very clear about salvation which strictly held to a belief that one MUST have faith in Jesus Christ and MUST be a member in the RCC. I also agree with the fact that the new Catechism has statements that speak of salvation through Jesus Christ. I do not deny that this theology is the correct one and has been clearly documented. However, I don’t believe that negates the contradicting new statements that appear in the references I submitted in my original post, neither do they negate the references that I submit to you in this post. I believe this shows that the history of the doctrine of salvation has gone through some stages since the middle ages that has morphed the RCC basic premises. For example, when the Catechism says that the old covenant for the Jews is still valid… that is a very clear statement (CCC, 839). When the Catechism says that the plan of salvation extends to the Muslims… That also is a very clear statement (CCC, 841). So clear that many in the Catholic church (“Many” being the individuals that I had communication with during my 35 years as a Catholic) now believe in some form of ecumenism or universalism. Some being close relatives that had read these statements and currently profess them as truth.

As for other documents, it must be said that the second edition Catechism echoes the edicts from Vatican II. This means that what is stated in Vatican II is mirrored in the Catechism. Therefore, these are two qualitative sources that can be referenced. For example, paragraph 847 in the Catechism describes God’s plan of salvation for the atheist or agnostic but, I believe is more clearly stated in Vatican II as it says:

“Nor does divine providence deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life" (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Vol 2, 861).

These statements within Vatican II and the new Catechism seem to be contradicting past church fathers such as Pope Gregory XVI when saying “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.” or Pope St Gregory the Great when teaching that “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her [Roman Catholic Church]…" (The Papal Encyclicals Vol I, 1740-1878, 230-231). This means that the church once stated that not only must you believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but you must be part of the RCC as well (the latter being a subject for another discussion).

Universalist ideas within the church are not just in those couple references that I provided a couple references but the liberal worldview I speak of permeates throughout the RCC. One example is Karl Ratzinger, the cardinal, now Pope that played an important role in the formation of Vatican II. While working on Vatican II, Ratzinger would be in agreement to and influenced by Catholic theologian, Vatican II contributor, and inclusivist, Karl Rahner which maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God " (Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 109).

 

[b0Bby123]

Comment 2/2
Continuation of my comment to Vico…

Moving down the levels of the episcopate, I would also submit for your study Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Conner, Head of the RCC in England and Wales. Cardinal O’Conner, in an interview he gave to the Catholic Herold on 07 January 2005 expresses his hope and belief that God will save all people as he states:

“We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell), let’s face it… I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I’ve loved on this earth” (Catholic Herald, 7 January 2005).

Another example, I’m sorry to say, is Mother Teresa who was adamant that any type of evangelism (at least verbal) while working with the poor in India was unnecessary. For example, In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers, she says:

“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” (Spink, Teresa, 1983, 81-82).

This appears to back the paragraphs 839-843 and possibly 847 in the Catechism and begs the question, why evangelize at all? If someone doesn’t know Jesus wouldn’t you rather have them in ignorant bliss than to evangelize and send them to hell if they don’t convert? Many other examples and comments on universal theology can be attributed to Mother Teresa.

Some may say that Mother Teresa just didn’t portray her thoughts adequately, or that the above interpretation wasn’t what she truly meant… however, this is what others who worked with Mother Teresa believed as well. Sister Ann, a nun who worked in Calcutta and Kathmandu with Mother Teresa’s organization, Missionaries of Charity gave an interview on 23 November, 1984 at the Pashupati Temple in Nepal. In the recorded transcripts she was asked if the Nepali die believing in Shiva or in Ram (two out of the hundreds of Hindu gods) will they go to heaven? Sister Ann said “Yes, that is their faith. My own faith will lead me to God, … So if they have believed in their god very strongly, if they have faith, surely they will be saved” (Cloud, 1985, 41).

Even the Marian apparitions implies universal theology. For instance The RCC sanctioned apparition of Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 showed a vision of hell to three children: Jacinta, Francisco, and Lucia, in which they would later perform sacrifices and mortifications to save people from going to hell. As such, the apparition is reported in saying the following:

"Sacrifice yourselves for sinners,… "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace (transcript of the Lady of Fatima, July 13, 1917)

“Pray much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.” (transcript of the Lady of Fatima, August 19, 1917)
These statements would imply that whether people have a saving faith in Jesus Christ or not, they will be saved from hell or saved from going to hell by the penance and prayers of Catholics.

In conclusion, Although Catholic doctrine was very specific prior to Vatican II and I’m sure that many commenting to this post will provide updated references on salvation through Jesus Christ, it cannot be denied that universalism theology has permeated all levels of the RCC. This seems to teach that all that follow their conscience would have the graces necessary for salvation (except, of course for people like myself that have left the RCC). You can see the evidence of this by studying the RCC’s “New Evangelization” policy which seeks to only “Re-Evangelize” the “De-Christianized” (quoted from my first post describing RCC evangelization of Christians into the RCC and not Non-Christians). This said, Logic would imply that there cannot be two truths. Either the RCC meant what it said as described in the accusations made above or the church is merely misunderstood. Misunderstanding or heresy, either way, the RCC’s dogma has dangerously changed the worldview of its core beliefs. RCC members that know the truth (such as yourself) that believe that Jesus Christ is our only salvation should be active in rebuking this new dogma.

It is my sincere hope that this post does not offend but to educate. Please excuse my grammatical errors… I just don’t feel like writing anymore Thank you very much again for responding to my comments. God Bless!

 

[Ignatius]

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).

My last post was a response to Aramis, not you.

In response to your previous post:
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.

Please 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.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Did you nit read what mother Teresa said? She slander her sister Ann both believed that one can go to heaven though they believe in false gods.

Mucch like this
m.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEvmFt1C3Q

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Said*

 

[Vico]

…, I don’t believe that negates the contradicting new statements that appear in the references I submitted in my original post, neither do they negate the references that I submit to you in this post. I believe this shows that the history of the doctrine of salvation has gone through some stages since the middle ages that has morphed the RCC basic premises. …

Universalist ideas within the church are not just in those couple references that I provided a couple references but the liberal worldview I speak of permeates throughout the RCC. One example is Karl Ratzinger, the cardinal, now Pope that played an important role in the formation of Vatican II. While working on Vatican II, Ratzinger would be in agreement to and influenced by Catholic theologian, Vatican II contributor, and inclusivist, Karl Rahner which maintained that saving faith could be had without any definite belief in Christ or even in God " (Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 109).

There are misunderstandings that occur from relying upon the text without understanding the references. This happen with various publications both of the Church and of the faithful, in fact, the Holy See must issue statements to correct the misunderstandings as a result. As an example, pertaining to this issue you raise, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released this Notification on the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Orbis Books: Maryknoll, New York 1997) by Father Jaques Dupuis, S.J., excerpt, 2001:
V. On the value and salvific function of the religious traditions

1. In accordance with Catholic doctrine, it must be held that «whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions, serves as a preparation for the Gospel (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 16)».[15] It is therefore legitimate to maintain that the Holy Spirit accomplishes salvation in non-Christians also through those elements of truth and goodness present in the various religions; however, to hold that these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology, also because they contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors[16] regarding fundamental truths about God, man and the world.
   Furthermore, the fact that the elements of truth and goodness present in the various world religions may prepare peoples and cultures to receive the salvific event of Jesus Christ does not imply that the sacred texts of these religions can be considered as complementary to the Old Testament, which is the immediate preparation for the Christ event.[17] The**Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of January 19, 2001, in the light of the further developments, confirmed the present Notification, which had been adopted in Ordinary Session of the Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, January 24, 2001, the Memorial of Saint Francis de Sales.*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupuis_en.html

 

[Vico]

…

These statements would imply that whether people have a saving faith in Jesus Christ or not, they will be saved from hell or saved from going to hell by the penance and prayers of Catholics.

In conclusion, Although Catholic doctrine was very specific prior to Vatican II and I’m sure that many commenting to this post will provide updated references on salvation through Jesus Christ, it cannot be denied that universalism theology has permeated all levels of the RCC. This seems to teach that all that follow their conscience would have the graces necessary for salvation (except, of course for people like myself that have left the RCC). You can see the evidence of this by studying the RCC’s “New Evangelization” policy which seeks to only “Re-Evangelize” the “De-Christianized” (quoted from my first post describing RCC evangelization of Christians into the RCC and not Non-Christians). This said, Logic would imply that there cannot be two truths. Either the RCC meant what it said as described in the accusations made above or the church is merely misunderstood. Misunderstanding or heresy, either way, the RCC’s dogma has dangerously changed the worldview of its core beliefs. RCC members that know the truth (such as yourself) that believe that Jesus Christ is our only salvation should be active in rebuking this new dogma.

It is my sincere hope that this post does not offend but to educate. Please excuse my grammatical errors… I just don’t feel like writing anymore Thank you very much again for responding to my comments. God Bless!

It is possible to be saved at the end of one’s life, in a final act of faith, with perfect contrition, called baptism of desire, or in baptism of blood as a martyr. This is the key to understanding how the various salvic elements of truth in other religions, even though not the faith. Why evangelize?, because we follow lamb like the command of our God, yet each one hearing decides if they will receive the Holy Spirit.
Luke 8: 11-15
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. And they by the way side are they that hear; then the devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved. Now they upon the rock, are they who when they hear, receive the word with joy: and these have no roots; for they believe for a while, and in time of temptation, they fall away. And that which fell among thorns, are they who have heard, and going their way, are choked with the cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and yield no fruit. But that on the good ground, are they who in a good and perfect heart, hearing the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit in patience. Now no man lighting a candle covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it upon a candlestick, that they who come in may see the light. For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. Take heed therefore how you hear. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given: and whosoever hath not, that also which he thinketh he hath, shall be taken away from him. And his mother and brethren came unto him; and they could not come at him for the crowd. And it was told him: Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. Who answering, said to them: My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God, and do it.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I really don’t care what the catechism says, the idea that we need to approach the unbelieving world as though they might already be saved is the sure sign of apostacy in the catholic church.

With due respect, that is a rather harsh critique, perhaps better reserved for other forums. We are all free to differ, yet must endeavor to do so respectfully here. No less is expected from the Catholics who post here, commenting on other faiths (Christian and otherwise).

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

There is no practical difference between teaching that someone can be saved while living and dying believing in a false God however Jesus saves then apart from the doctrines they believed and the statement that they can be saved by their false religion.

Because if we are ready to say that we can be saved by christ still while believing false theology, then what’s the practical difference? None. Sure theologically and theoretically.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In conclusion, Although Catholic doctrine was very specific prior to Vatican II

The assumption being “was” specific as far as your understanding of the historical teaching throughout the Church. Course we disagree here as I believe its never been clearer since V-II .

.and I’m sure that many commenting to this post will provide updated references on salvation through Jesus Christ,

Hows the Creed for starts? These other’s just may help also.

catholic.com/library/salvation.asp

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp

it cannot be denied that universalism theology has permeated all levels of the RCC

Actually you would have to prove your point to begin this point, which I’m not seeing.

.

This seems to teach that all that follow their conscience would have the graces necessary for salvation (except, of course for people like myself that have left the RCC).

Incorrect the Church cannot know the intentions of individuals that is for the Lord to judge. Perhaps is this the reason you left the CC then you simply do not understand the teaching. Its in the links above.

You can see the evidence of this by studying the RCC’s “New Evangelization” policy

Incorrect since the premise of the New Evangelixation in priorty is to incourage a deeper understanding of the Christian Faith and history thus Catholicism

This said, Logic would imply that there cannot be two truths. Either the RCC meant what it said as described in the accusations made above or the church is merely misunderstood.

No logic implies your conclusion is based on false premise to start, thus what follows is still to be fully understood…an unknown yet.

RCC members that know the truth (such as yourself) that believe that Jesus Christ is our only salvation should be active in rebuking this new dogma.

Actually the correct path is correct understanding of what is actually taught in content/context. The point that their is no other name on which we could be saved but Jesus Christ sounds 100% Catholic to me. This is a concern for you?

It is my sincere hope that this post does not offend but to educate.

A common point to begin.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It is interesting. No one here is seeing the practical ramifications to the Vatican II teachings.
Old Catholicism would enter into a land where Christ was not know, and immediately begin evangelizing the people for the purpose of salvation.

Now, if this were to happen, then the Catholic Church would not assume that everyone is lost and condemned because of their sin, but rather would evangelize fellow believers in God who may be already saved. And if after years and years of evangelizing, the people of the land still do not have a “full” and “correct” understanding of the Catholic teaching, then they are not held liable for rejecting the truth because after all they did not know. And so in this community you would have the Catholic Church who believes that there is one gospel for salvation which requires faith and baptism, but at the same time God can save anyone however which way he wants, and therefore we are not to teach the outside world the condemnation of God. This would be a community of people who all agree to disagree and all sides affirm the veritable possibility of each side going to heaven.

This is simply repugnant to the early Christian Church. Can you imagine if the Roman Empire saw that the Christians did not exclusive the gospel? If Christianity was self-proclaimed to be just “one” of the ways to God. Oh please, do not tell me the Catholic Church teaches that. By the fact of allowing people to be saved by Jesus in their other religions, this is in practical application, saying that there are more than “one” way to get to heaven.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Jesus, who has all authority in heaven and on earth, commanded the apostles to “Preach the gospel to every creature. They who believe and are baptized will be saved. They who do not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15).

It breaks my heart and makes me weep to see how the Body of Christ has fudged this teaching.

Please spare us the few instances where people are saved apart from baptism. Rather show where someone has been saved apart from faith in the true God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Please spare us the few instances where people are saved apart from baptism. Rather show where someone has been saved apart from faith in the true God.

There is no need, we do not know who is saved outside the Church. Theory being we know where the Church is we do not know where it is not. Baptism is well Documented we “hope” for the innocent children outside the Sacrament we do not know. We pray for the conversation of sinners. The rest is in Gods hands.

Still waiting on your response on the muslim dilemma? You seem to have a better plan than V-II. I haven’t heard one yet.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Islamic faith is based on early Christian heresy, Judaism, and paganism. If is condemned at the root, all its fruit too

 

[GaryTaylor]

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus in a brief history could be read here, obviously dating prior to V-II.

google.com/url?q=http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_032.htm&sa=U&ei=VhqMUNjkI6T30gHi9IDACg&ved=0CBUQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGqZ1GOZbCgepXNJhf44tZyl6kYOQ

.” Without presuming “to establish limits to the divine mercy, which is infinite,” we must hold it as certain that “those who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance is invincible, will never be charged with any guilt on this account before the eyes of the Lord. Who is there that would arrogate to himself the power to point out the extent of such ignorance according to the nature and variety of peoples, regions, talents, and so many other things?” Pope Pius IX

So we are obviously not talking V-II agree’d?