Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[Anna_Scott]

Exactly, is it not better to state I am not understanding, than out of fustration state I don’t believe this??? Then seek clarity?

Anna, your fine where you are, your a good Christian. All thats required is an open mind. Immediately I assumed we were once again stuck on the 14th century Bull. My mistake. Time changes peoples understanding I’m living proof of it. Took me decades to embrace a Marion devotion. I didn’t reject the teaching, contrary I was fully aware of the responsibility. Most of us in Catholic School chose to pass and pray straight to God. But we never disrespected the BVM and we respected those who did venerate Her. I seen it all my life in my own family. Me…I was LAZY.

Time and understanding change, I see this very differently now. Just another example of never say never. You just never know what you will come to see differently in a decade or two.

God Bless, Gary

GaryTaylor,

I appreciate the supportive comments. You are right, I may view things differently a few years down the road.

As you know, I have been working through my journey very openly on these forums. Discussions here, combined with prayer and study, lead me to embrace the Sacraments, infant baptism, the Real Presence, the Communion of the Saints, the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I have released Sola Scriptura, salvation by faith alone, and salvation based solely on the “sinner’s prayer.” Considering the fact that I was a Southern Baptist when I joined this forum in May 2009; I’d say I’ve proven that I am willing to change long held beliefs, if I can’t support them.

My participation on CAF is not for the purpose of proving that I am right; but to continue to search for truth. I carefully weigh what is said here.

I also pay attention to how Catholics treat each other. I think some Catholics on this thread have failed Sir Knight.

Peace to you, GaryTaylor. You are once again the voice of reason.

Anna

 

[Lui]

Holy Mother Church is the final interpreter of Her documents - not a lay person who simply scans them looking for loopholes to condemn his neighbor in an attitude of elitist supremacy.

:clapping:

 

[BartBurk]

Sure, but they’re Catholics by the time they get there.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Well, it’s like what’s going on now. Why do so many people who call themselves Christians do so much that the Bible forbids, or do so little of what the Bible tells us to do, and when you tell them what they are doing they are shocked that that’s what the Bible teaches. I believe it is because they are ignorant to it and do not truly know what God is telling us to do.

I do believe through nature everyone has a chance of knowing God. God has left a fingerprint on this earth and it is undeniable who he is.

On all of this I truly agree

Sorry for the late reply

God love you.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

“For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.”

2 Corinthians 5:14-15

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Unam Sanctam, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Suppose a Conqueror lands on a previously unexplored continent, and annexes the whole of it under the banner of His King. Settlers of the Kingdom arrive. The Conqueror then leaves a Governor to take care of the settlers. However, there are natives in that continent. Since these natives lived in the continent before the Conqueror and the settlers arrived, logically these natives automatically become citizens of the kingdom, and thus under the jurisdiction of the Governor.

This is the case also with the Catholic Church. Since Jesus Christ “died for all” humans, all humans, even though they do not know it, can be bestowed with saving grace through means outside the Catholic Church. This was affirmed by the encyclical Sublimus Dei (“We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge”) which echoes the words of Jesus Christ Himself: "“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice.” (John 10:16a)

However, there is a caveat here. Since all humans can be bestowed with saving grace outside the usual means of the Catholic Church and thus become the Lord’s sheep, all of the human race must necessarily be under the authority of the Pope.

Why? In continuing the above passage, Jesus Christ also said, “There will be one flock, one shepherd” (John 10:16b), the One Shepherd being Jesus Christ. And yet it was only to St. Peter whom Jesus said: “Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15, 16, 17). Therefore, Jesus left to St. Peter’s, and his successors’, care all of His sheep, in the fold (formally Catholic) or not.

In other words, each and every one human creature in the whole world is a Catholic in one sense or another.

And oh yes, another caveat: each and every Person in heaven is a Catholic

God bless us all.

 

[Sirach2]

Sir Knight:

I suggest that you read church history and what other Popes have said on this matter including the numerous Ex-Cathedra Dogma quotes that I have provided for you.

Ex Cathedra was only used twice in the entire history of the church - the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption. You are using faulty terminology to add weight to your citations. They are NOT Ex Cathedra statements.

From the beginning of your entry into this thread, let’s review your position:

1. Exposé of all the papal citations, “If you’re not catholic, you will be damned,” etc.
2. Blatant discrediting of the Catechism, implying that one can choose to ignore it.
3. Paganism includes ALL religions other than Catholic. (IOW, everyone who is not catholic is a pagan)
4. Those not living within the RCC will not be saved unless they become part of the flock; they will go to eternal fire.
5. Jesus is saying that you have to BELIEVE in the one true faith AND you have to formally ENTER into that faith, otherwise you will be condemned
6. But hey, if you want to BLINDLY follow those in authority, that’s your business.
7. Whoever dies non-Catholic in this world will descend into Hell … for dying in an unjustified state, in heresy or apostasy.
   http://bestsmileys.com/cartoon/11.gif
   What a missionary spirit you have!! … driving every potential convert away from the Church with your judgmentalism, condemnation, dogmatism, erroneous teaching. Obviously, you have never read Mystici Corporis Christi which forbids this type of coercion.

Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, our sense of duty demands that we condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the Spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not an “interpretation” – it’s what it actually says …
Whoever wishes to be saved needs above all else to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. Unless one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
… there is no other possible meaning.

St. Athanasius then goes on in the same document to define the Catholic Church as the assembled who, joined with the Pope, believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God.

One could come to interpret that to mean that all who believe what the Pope believes about the Trinity are Catholic (and therefore saved) - whether or not they are in formal, visible communion with the Church (although I am assuming that he was assuming that all who believed in the Trinity at the time that he was writing those words were, in fact, in full and formal communion with the Pope).

In any case, it’s very important to go to the source of all of the quotes that seem to define the Catholic Church in a narrow manner - there are, after all, many people in Purgatory and in Heaven who are members of the Catholic Church without being formally registered in Catholic parishes.

 

[PRmerger]

I also pay attention to how Catholics treat each other. I think some Catholics on this thread have failed Sir Knight.

I will have to interject here and voice my contradiction to the above: in my opinion, no Catholics on this thread have failed Sir Knight. All have been charitable and provided trenchant, insightful arguments against his very narrow-minded, and UN-Catholic position.

 

[fanatic1]

What are your thought?

they go to Heaven if they are open to Christ wholeheartedly

and Christ was Catholic

so they have to be open to Crhist’s catholic-ness

 

[Sirach2]

Sir Knight:

That is a bet that you would have lost … “the Roman Catholic Church provides the only true path to salvation” – Pope Benedict XVI (Reference).

It took awhile to find the actual link to the document, since this reference was a prejudiced opinion written by the media who conveniently omitted the link. It did not reflect the Pope’s words in any way. Isn’t it customary in law to show both sides of the story? I offer the truth from the horse’s mouth, which is comprised five Q/A’s. With regard to nonCatholic Churches, Cardinal Levada (not Pope Benedict) had this to say:

1. It 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.
2. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Therefore, Sir Knight, the words you quoted as coming from the Pope are false.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No worries but I really wasn’t looking to discuss this issue with you. I merely pointed out that for you to say I cannot believe what I doesn’t make sense to me is not a valid point to accept or reject being a Catholic.

In fact, whether you understand or not after extensive discussions on the topic is irrelevant to giving full assent to a teaching.

God Bless

ddarko,
I can understand taking this position, if you believe the CC is the only true Church.

However, as a non-Catholic, accepting a faith that espouses doctrines that don’t make sense to me, from both a Biblical and historical perspective, would be foolish. I’ve been down this road before (long story.)

Ironically, if I never questioned the validity of doctrines and claims of those in positions of religious authority; I would still be a Southern Baptist. A SB minister wields a great deal of authority over his congregation–a fact that was part of what got me banned from BaptistBoard–I posted a comment that a Baptist Minister often requires more submission to his teachings, than the Pope expects from Catholics. I was still a Baptist at that time. As I’ve relayed before, they banned me as a “Catholic troll.” I also defended other Catholic beliefs that they were misrepresenting–this didn’t help either.

It was questioning and the insistence that things make sense, which according to you–Catholics are forbidden to do, that brought me to believe in the Sacraments, the Real Presence, infant baptism, the communion of the saints, the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and to release the belief in Sola Scriptura and the security of the believer after praying one simple prayer.

Catholics seem fine with questioning doctrines and authority of any other faith—just not Catholicism—which, again, is fine if you are already a Catholic in Communion with Rome.

I know the Catholic position on Peter, the Keys, etc. I’ve been in numerous discussions over the last two years about these issues. It still all comes down to interpretation.

The same Holy Scriptures and the same history is interpreted differently by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics in Communion with Rome. All three claim Catholic Tradition and Apostolic Succession. No need to launch into a discussion about “invalid” Anglican orders. I’ve had that discussion many times, as well.

There are many good things about Catholicism. However, saying things are true, because the CC says so, whether they make sense or not, isn’t a convincing argument; unless you are already Catholic.

I read 3 Books by Catholic author, Scott Hahn (love his writing, btw). It took Scott Hahn and his wife 10 years of study, prayer, and serious contemplation, before they both converted to Catholicism. Mrs. Hahn held out for a long time. Obviously, Catholicism had to make sense to her, before she converted.

Peace and blessings to all,
Anna

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
I can understand taking this position, if you believe the CC is the only true Church.

However, as a non-Catholic, accepting a faith that espouses doctrines that don’t make sense to me, from both a Biblical and historical perspective, would be foolish. I’ve been down this road before (long story.)

Ironically, if I never questioned the validity of doctrines and claims of those in positions of religious authority; I would still be a Southern Baptist. A SB minister wields a great deal of authority over his congregation–a fact that was part of what got me banned from BaptistBoard–I posted a comment that a Baptist Minister often requires more submission to his teachings, than the Pope expects from Catholics. I was still a Baptist at that time. As I’ve relayed before, they banned me as a “Catholic troll.” I also defended other Catholic beliefs that they were misrepresenting–this didn’t help either.

It was questioning and the insistence that things make sense, which according to you–Catholics are forbidden to do, that brought me to believe in the Sacraments, the Real Presence, infant baptism, the communion of the saints, the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary; and to release the belief in Sola Scriptura and the security of the believer after praying one simple prayer.

Catholics seem fine with questioning doctrines and authority of any other faith—just not Catholicism—which, again, is fine if you are already a Catholic in Communion with Rome.

I know the Catholic position on Peter, the Keys, etc. I’ve been in numerous discussions over the last two years about these issues. It still all comes down to interpretation.

The same Holy Scriptures and the same history is interpreted differently by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics in Communion with Rome. All three claim Catholic Tradition and Apostolic Succession. No need to launch into a discussion about “invalid” Anglican orders. I’ve had that discussion many times, as well.

There are many good things about Catholicism. However, saying things are true, because the CC says so, whether they make sense or not, isn’t a convincing argument; unless you are already Catholic.

I read 3 Books by Catholic author, Scott Hahn (love his writing, btw). It took Scott Hahn and his wife 10 years of study, prayer, and serious contemplation, before they both converted to Catholicism. Mrs. Hahn held out for a long time. Obviously, Catholicism had to make sense to her, before she converted.

Peace and blessings to all,
Anna

I really don’t think going with Peter and the Keys is going to help this problem. That wasn’t what I was suggesting.

I was suggesting building up the faith from Scratch. So essentially, you have to answer the following question,

“Given God exists, and I know Christ died and rose from the dead, I want to follow Christ. How do I know what Christ said?”

It is answering of the above question using REASON that will get you to the Catholic Church.

After you arrive, you can of course see the doctrines of the keys etc. But first you need to arrive. And as you said, that is still interpretation and which is why I am not suggesting such a thing.

God Bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

It took awhile to find the actual link to the document, since this reference was a prejudiced opinion written by the media who conveniently omitted the link. It did not reflect the Pope’s words in any way. Isn’t it customary in law to show both sides of the story? I offer the truth from the horse’s mouth, which is comprised five Q/A’s. With regard to nonCatholic Churches, Cardinal Levada (not Pope Benedict) had this to say:

1. It 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.
2. The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Therefore, Sir Knight, the words you quoted as coming from the Pope are false.

Sirach2,

Thanks for the link to CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH, which includes a discussion about LUMEN GENTIUM-- which I quoted in Post #90:

. . . .Vatican Link: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
CHAPTER II
ON THE PEOPLE OF GOD
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ.They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities.

Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. . . . .

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126)

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*)

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. . . . .

 

[Anna_Scott]

I really don’t think going with Peter and the Keys is going to help this problem. That wasn’t what I was suggesting.

I’m glad.

I was suggesting building up the faith from Scratch. So essentially, you have to answer the following question,

“Given God exists, and I know Christ died and rose from the dead, I want to follow Christ. How do I know what Christ said?”

It is answering of the above question using REASON that will get you to the Catholic Church.

After you arrive, you can of course see the doctrines of the keys etc. But first you need to arrive. And as you said, that is still interpretation and which is why I am not suggesting such a thing.

I’m a bit confused—doesn’t using reason involve an expectation that things make sense–which you said was not a valid point to accept or reject being Catholic?

. . . . .I merely pointed out that for you to say I cannot believe what I doesn’t make sense to me is not a valid point to accept or reject being a Catholic.

In fact, whether you understand or not after extensive discussions on the topic is irrelevant to giving full assent to a teaching.

Ironically, if I use reason to get to the Catholic Church, as you say; I must then give “full assent to a teaching”–even to the abandon of reason----

Peace,
Anna

 

[Sirach2]

Hi Anna,

I’m a bit confused—doesn’t using reason involve an expectation that things make sense–which you said was not a valid point to accept or reject being Catholic?

There are truths we assent to that are not fully understandable, but we believe it on the authority of God Himself, who cannot deceive us. One would be the Trinity - three persons in One God. Who understands this? Another is the Eucharist. We believe it is true, but how simple bread can transubstantiate into Christ’s Body at the words of the priest is not understandable, but on Jesus’s say so, we believe. It is a matter of faith. We cannot understand how our bodies will be resurrected, nor what glorified form they will take, but we believe this will occur. Etc. Hope this makes sense?

 

[ddarko]

I’m glad.

Great!

I’m a bit confused—doesn’t using reason involve an expectation that things make sense–which you said was not a valid point to accept or reject being Catholic?

Aah yes. I think I need to clarify.

So when you use reason to find out how to KNOW what Christ said and what he teaches, that is of course through pure reason.

But once you find out how, then you give full assent to it. After that, it does not make sense to question the teachings themselves.

In other words, the usual technique many try to follow is to first justify each and every single doctrine to themselves and then accept the church. What I am saying is that it was never suppossed to be that way. The point was to discover who to or what to trust through REASON. After that, one gives full assent.

Did that clarify?

Ironically, if I use reason to get to the Catholic Church, as you say; I must then give “full assent to a teaching”–even to the abandon of reason----

You give full assent to listen to the church ONCE you figure out it is the right one through REASON.

This doesn’t mean you are to throw away reason in your day-to-day lives. You still have to APPLY Church teaching and you need REASON for other things.

Here’s an analogy. Let us say you also know Peter knew Christ and was the only apostle. After the Resurrection, now you want to know about Christ. The reasonable choice is to ask Peter. Now when Peter says “Christ said that heaven is like this”, for you to say that sounds unreasonable or that I’ve heard Christ saying something like this before is moot. If you do that, then you have to deny all that Peter says for everything might be false. So you either give full assent to Peter, because he is the only one who knows what Christ taught as he was his Apostle or you discard everything he teaches at which point there is no real Christianity. Because to accept just somethings and reject others at this point of the knowledge process is merely you choosing what you like/agrees with what you think is right, and therefore that can hardly be a religion.

Again it’s an analogy so might not be perfect. But I think it conveys what I want to say.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

There are truths we assent to that are not fully understandable, but we believe it on the authority of God Himself, who cannot deceive us.

Indeed.

In the end, it is an issue of authority. One may not understand all of the teachings of the CC, but as Cardinal Newman posited: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer”.

Indeed, I propose if any man is in a church in which he agrees with all things that have been professed, then he is in a church that he has sought that conforms to his own image, rather than conforming his image to that of Christ’s.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

I know you probably haven’t studied the writings of Fr. Feeney but this is not exactly his error. His primary error involved the denial that Baptism of Blood and Desire were ineffective, that they could not save a person and that water was an absolute necessity.

It is perfectly orthodox to accept the dogma of EENS and also accept Baptism of Blood and Desire (even implicit Baptism of Desire, like St. Thomas teaches).

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Well actually you have rejected part of the Catholic teaching.

The thing to realize is that the church’s teaching infallibility is not limited to history. Everything that is taught today and to the future is infallible.

Not every statement in every document produced by every member of the Church is infallible. Then you would have plenty of conflicting “infallible” teachings. Sorry, but infallible teachings don’t change.

 

[ddarko]

Not every statement in every document produced by every member of the Church is infallible. Then you would have plenty of conflicting “infallible” teachings. Sorry, but infallible teachings don’t change.

Sure of course they don’t.

So when the church states that this is what it means NOW and there is no contradiction with the past according to their interpretation, you TRUST that too.

I am not sure where you got that idea “all sayings are infallible” from.

God Bless