Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

[b0Bby123]

Orthodox Catholics would often maintain we broke away from them, Catholics often maintain the Orthodox broke away from us. I myself see us as both breaking away from each other.

Good point… I always like to bring that up when someone talks to me about the Reformation

Thanks for clearing the other part up I have some studying to do on Eastern Catholics

 

[b0Bby123]

Gary,
Thanks again. I’ll research the Eastern Catholics, and then come back with my findings.

 

[LadyJulian]

Something which never fails to confound me is the number of “Christians” (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc) who seem so enthusiastic to see as many people as possible consigned to hell.

 

[theistgal]

Something which never fails to confound me is the number of “Christians” (Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc) who seem so enthusiastic to see as many people as possible consigned to hell.

I know how you feel.

It helps me sometimes to reflect on the Prayer of Fatima (definitely a PRE-Vatican II prayer, BTW!) which is used at the end of each decade of the Rosary:

"Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell,
Lead all souls to heaven [my emphasis]*
and help especially those most in need of Thy mercy."
*
A prayer approved by the Church which asks God to “lead all souls to Heaven” implies that it is possible for all souls to be led to Heaven.

And we know (or should know) that indeed, it is God’s will that all souls go to Heaven!

So AFAIC we should just pray that (and the Our Father, which asks for His will to be done) and just leave the Final Judgment up to Him (since it IS all up to Him anyway! ).

 

[Sirach2]

Erick_Ybara:

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,

Really? Who told him he was not saved? It is not in scripture.

Since you don’t care what the catechism says, do you believe what the bible says? I direct you to Tobit 12:8-9, “Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness, **for almsgiving saves one from death and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.” **Note well, that this message was delivered by Archangel Raphael because God was pleased with Tobit’s abundant charity.

Compare with Acts 10, where we read that Cornelius "was religious and God-fearing, habitually giving generously to the poor. Verse 2 tells us “he continually prayed to God.” Yes, to God, as he understood him. God heard his prayers.

In this scripture account, God again sent his messenger - not Raphael, but Peter - to bring Cornelius into the faith. If we listen to St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16, Cornelius, as well as Tobit, were living the “natural law” in an exemplary manner, which enabled them to achieve justification, whether or not the messengers had been sent. God was pleased and accepted their prayers and alms. [unless you think Raphael lied?]

The teaching from Romans on natural law is very important. If you grasp it and accept it as the Word of God, you should be able to make the transition to understanding how those outside the Church can attain salvation. If you prefer to keep questioning the faith, using one excuse after another to avoid embracing it, then Jesus’s words come to mind, “Unless you accept the Kingdom like a little child, you will never enter it.”

Think about it. There have been 25 threads started by you in Apologetics with some excellent responses, but here you are - questioning Eastern Catholics - in a matter that has nothing to do with embracing the faith or professing it in the Creed. You are going to extremes requiring explanations that have very little to do with a personal faith response to Christ Jesus.

 

[Vico]

Vico and Gary,
with respect to your last posts, I would say that is my exact point. The RCC no doubt was the first Christian church so you will see the foundations of our faith such as in the baltimore edition and in previous or subsequent paragraphs of the ones I’m submitting. However, these teachings, I believe have been tainted by pluralism that has crept in over the years. Therefore, if the question is; can anyone be saved? I would have to say, according to the parts of the Catechism second edition, according to Mother Teresa and Sister Ann, According to Karl Rainer, Cardinal OConner and other liberal thinkers, the answer is YES. Now it seems that we all here know differently and we can go on and on about what says what and where… but we cannot deny this fact that there is a problem with pluralistic ideas within church documents (post Vatican II) and within all levels of the epicopate. This has translated down to the laity. If you travel to other countries (I’m sure that many of you have) you will see this problem more pronounced.
…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church second edition, just as the Baltimore Catechism, does say the anyone can be saved, yet there is a very specific way in which that occurs: baptism of water, blood, or desire must occur. There must be a transformation or metanoia through the individuals will. Of course God has always already taken the first step. The word *can *indicates potential not actual, salvation.

When Christ descended to Hades to teach the Gospel to the dead there, he liberated the just (but not the unjust).

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Really? Who told him he was not saved? It is not in scripture.

Since you don’t care what the catechism says, do you believe what the bible says? I direct you to Tobit 12:8-9, “Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness, **for almsgiving saves one from death and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.” **Note well, that this message was delivered by Archangel Raphael because God was pleased with Tobit’s abundant charity.

Compare with Acts 10, where we read that Cornelius "was religious and God-fearing, habitually giving generously to the poor. Verse 2 tells us “he continually prayed to God.” Yes, to God, as he understood him. God heard his prayers.

In this scripture account, God again sent his messenger - not Raphael, but Peter - to bring Cornelius into the faith. If we listen to St. Paul in Romans 2:14-16, Cornelius, as well as Tobit, were living the “natural law” in an exemplary manner, which enabled them to achieve justification, whether or not the messengers had been sent. God was pleased and accepted their prayers and alms. [unless you think Raphael lied?]

The teaching from Romans on natural law is very important. If you grasp it and accept it as the Word of God, you should be able to make the transition to understanding how those outside the Church can attain salvation. If you prefer to keep questioning the faith, using one excuse after another to avoid embracing it, then Jesus’s words come to mind, “Unless you accept the Kingdom like a little child, you will never enter it.”

Think about it. There have been 25 threads started by you in Apologetics with some excellent responses, but here you are - questioning Eastern Catholics - in a matter that has nothing to do with embracing the faith or professing it in the Creed. You are going to extremes requiring explanations that have very little to do with a personal faith response to Christ Jesus.

Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved (Acts 11).

It is clear that prior to hearing the gospel, cornelius was in need of salvation

 

[Sirach2]

It is clear that prior to hearing the gospel, cornelius was in need of salvation.

I don’t know what bible you are reading, Erick, but that is not what scripture says in any of the six Protestant or Catholic bibles I have checked.

drbo.org/chapter/51010.htm

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NIV

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+10&version=NKJV

usccb.org/bible/acts/10

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010:32&version=KJV

And my own two bibles, St. Joseph and NAB.

It simply is not in scripture.

What concerns me is that you did not respond to anything I said in the rest of my post, only the part where you attempted to make scripture say what you believe … and failed. You are not even using the correct chapter, which happens to be Acts 10, not 11.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Well, I am not sure why you cannot see this, but I will paste it below and put the reference. It actually is from Acts 11. It is a very odd thing for you to make the statements you have in this last post.

Acts 11:4-17
4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. 6 When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ 10 Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. 11 At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14*** who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved***.’ 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

From just a first reading, it seems that Cornelius and his household were not saved until the coming of Peter?

Also, I do not really have a problem with God saving people who have an invincible ignorance. But what gets me is that Catholics are willing to admit even that people who have been exposed and have heard the arguments for the Catholic Church, simply by fact of their failure to understand the teaching, may go to heaven anyway.

 

[Sirach2]

Well, I am not sure why you cannot see this, but I will paste it below and put the reference. It actually is from Acts 11. It is a very odd thing for you to make the statements you have in this last post.

I had read the original account in all of the versions I posted, which are from Acts 10:32. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between the two scriptures. In the first version, Cornelius said nothing about becoming saved. He was told to send for Peter to hear what he would have to say. Check it out.

From just a first reading, it seems that Cornelius and his household were not saved until the coming of Peter?

I disagree, based on the way he found favor with God PRIOR to sending for Peter. Had he never been baptized and brought into the faith, I believe he would have attained justification and salvation, especially since the Holy Spirit was manifested within him before receiving water baptism, the proof that St. Peter needed.

Also, I do not really have a problem with God saving people who have an invincible ignorance. But what gets me is that Catholics are willing to admit even that people who have been exposed and have heard the arguments for the Catholic Church, simply by fact of their failure to understand the teaching, may go to heaven anyway.

Obviously, my scripture accounts of Tobit and Cornelius who had NOT heard the arguments, found favor with God for their prayers and almsgiving. Peter is saying the same as St. Paul in Romans 2:13-16 with regard to natural law. “Now I see that he who fears God in every nation and does what is right is acceptable to God.” Formerly, Jews were not permitted to associate with anything/anyone considered “unclean.” Because the matter was so important, God sent the vision to him three times.

Now we have the reverse with hard-hats saying that God can’t save anyone unless He meets with their criteria.

 

[Church_Militant]

To Militant
I respect your enthusiasm, but not your tactics. He may have in the past but I have not witnessed any hostility from Erik. I would assume that since he is on the fence of leaving the RCC that you might try to be witnessing to him with love. I have seen nothing but bully tactics from your end. This is the impression you are giving to a trial member. I realize you are a senior member. I would challenge you to act accordingly. Until that happens, your posts will be ignored. God Bless.

:yawn: Ignore away…If you don’t listen, it’s your soul.

You wouldn’t see hostility…it’s in your best interest not to, Just as you won’t see your own hostility towards me just because, having been one of you n-Cs for many many years, I see what you guys generally are saying between the lines.

A great many of you n-Cs that come in here, (not all, by any means) do so wielding pejorative terminology and treating us as if we are just ignorant people who check our brains at the church door, never read the Bible, and then you act like those Catholics whom you have seen as less than exemplary are the norm when that is no more true of us than those in n-C communities. You never dare to compare your best examples to ours…(and here the Eastern Church has many many awesome saints) and when we tell you that the Catechism or other document would answer your issues, you, as Erik recently put it, “don’t care” to read it, which is crazy so far as we are concerned, because few of us can cover these issues as well as the authors of that Catechism do…(one of whom just happens to be the current Pope.)

Catholics, whether Eastern or Latin Rites have no problem explaining and defending our faith, but please…don’t disrespect us by refusing the sources we offer. We use them, and wouldn’t offer them if we weren’t sure they would be helpful. That just makes our responding to you a waste of our time.

This thread is way longer than it ever needed to be. Erik asked a biased question, implying that we believe something that we’ve demonstrated several times and from many sources, that we do not believe and yet he continues to argue. If you don’t want to know what we really believe, then don’t ask. And when you do ask, then accept the answer that we work so hard to offer and take it at face value. We’re not playing games here and neither does the Church.

 

[Church_Militant]

Also, I do not really have a problem with God saving people who have an invincible ignorance. But what gets me is that Catholics are willing to admit even that people who have been exposed and have heard the arguments for the Catholic Church, simply by fact of their failure to understand the teaching, may go to heaven anyway.

So …since we are not God, then may is as far as we or the Church is willing to go. The possibility exists, but it remains wholly in God’s venue and we are not qualified to say more than what we have.

We evangelize and do the best we can with it, but this is as definitive as it gets…

Everything else is pretty far above our respective pay grades.

Understand Erik, that those, like yourself, who have been exposed to the truths of the Catholic faith, will ultimately account for your response to this knowledge. It may make a difference in your eternal salvation, just as it may also be mitigated by misinformation, or lack of proper understanding, (for whatever reason). I would not bank my eternal soul on any of that were I you, but that’s the reality you face.

Remember Luke 12:48 Erik.

 

[Sirach2]

Erick_Ybara:

But what gets me is that Catholics are willing to admit even that people who have been exposed and have heard the arguments for the Catholic Church, simply by fact of their failure to understand the teaching, may go to heaven anyway.

Let’s break that down a second, ok? Many people have heard and been exposed to Catholicism, but due to their upbringing in other faiths that THEIR faith is the true one, they cannot make the transition internally. They did not receive the gift of faith to understand and consequently belong to the class of invincibly ignorant of the true faith.

If hearing was all that is needed, they, and you would have converted long ago.

It’s a horse of a different color, though, whenever they heard the truth, understood it, and finally rejected it. These will NOT be saved.

As Militant warned, you are on the brink of hearing, yet continually looking for arguments to dismiss the abundance of truths that have been presented to you. Even here, none of us can perceive the internal forum of your spirit or determine the purity of motive behind your questioning. It belongs to God alone. [But it **may make you culpable for what you’ve heard.]

 

[Richca]

So …since we are not God, then may

is as far as we or the Church is willing to go. The possibility exists, but it remains wholly in God’s venue and we are not qualified to say more than what we have.

We evangelize and do the best we can with it, but this is as definitive as it gets…

Everything else is pretty far above our respective pay grades.

I agree with Church Militant here. The Catholic Church does not know with certainty the eternal destiny of a soul at death. Jesus Christ alone is the judge of every person’s eternal destiny at death.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Church Militant,

It goes both ways. You will stand before God on the day of judgement and Christ knows your works, whether they are good or bad.

If Mary devotion is actually heretical teaching, you will answer for that. If James is speaking about a 2nd approval that occurs after justification by faith alone, you will answer for that, if all the praying to saints and venerating them (including the shrines of the immaculate conception) is wrong, you will have to answer for that.

 

[Sirach2]

Your motives are becoming crystal clear, Erick. You are not truly seeking faith, but using intellect alone to justify your reason in opposition to truth, for which you demand proof texts. God does not ask “reason” of us, but “faith.” We cannot help you any further.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

By saying it goes both ways? Its just a logical fact. Btw I’m on my way to a morning mass. I really do think I’m seeking.

 

[Sirach2]

I really do think I’m seeking.

:ehh: Seeking what? A few more threads to entice posters to respond to you? This is my first entry replying to your search efforts and you have not responded with so much as a yay, a nay, a maybe, or further questions to the information I posted for you … nothing. Looks to me like a deadlocked monologue where you alone ask all the questions without the common courtesy of a dialogue.

To quote Church Militant: "If you don’t want to know what we really believe, then don’t ask. And when you do ask, then accept the answer that we work so hard to offer and take it at face value. We’re not playing games here … "

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I disagree with the notion that someone can be saved from repentance and faith in Jesus christ personally excercised. If God does save someone outside of faith in Christ, then I will find out in heaven

 

[Sirach2]

If you get there, be sure to ask Moses, Abraham and Elijah whether they had faith in Jesus Christ.