Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[ddarko]

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).

I have and I am afraid I disagree with you … partly

ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

So what you say that EENS is fine is TRUE. But it has to be the right interpretation of EENS. Fr. Feeney had the interpretation that EENS = without formally entering the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. THAT IS FALSE and hence his teachings were condemned.

God Bless

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Furthermore, when this College of Bishops in union with the Pope constitutes a DOGMATIC writing, (look up the word in Webster) it is truly infallible. Two Thousand Six Hundred Bishops empowered by the Holy Spirit in a lawfully convened Ecumenical Council are not teaching error.

I understand you believe that Lumen Gentium is infallible but you misunderstand the Church’s teachings on infallibility. Just because a document has the word “Dogmatic” in its English title doesn’t make every sentence in the document a dogma.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .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. . . .

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

And you must give that full assent–that religious submission of mind and will—even to non-infallible teachings, knowing full well, some of those teachings may be determined to be erroneous at a later time.

Peace,
Anna

 

[missmorgan389]

I voted before I really thought about it; for an individual person, “only God knows.” But I do believe non Catholics go to Heaven. I think it’s mainly God’s doing though. We are all His children. If He could have it any way, it wouldn’t be “Catholics” and “Non Catholics.”

So I just think it depends on the heart of a person.

 

[PRmerger]

And you must give that full assent–that religious submission of mind and will—even to non-infallible teachings, knowing full well, some of those teachings may be determined to be erroneous at a later time.

Peace,
Anna

Yes, Anna.

If children must obey their parents, even when they are not infallible, how much more should we obey our Holy Mother Church?

Even when Moses was leading the Israelites the wrong way in the desert, did not God reward them for their obedience?

 

[Sirach2]

VivaCristoRey,
No, dear, it is YOU who misunderstands. There have been sufficient documents to prove infallibility, but you reject it, just as you do Vatican II. Lumen Gentium itself further defines infallibility in Chapter III, dealing with the hierarchical structure of the Church. Is that why you dismiss its teaching?

This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. (41) And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.
*(41) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323.

Your words fall on deaf ears for those who know the truth, even though you would like to distort it. I won’t attempt to initiate a document exchange with you, despite your bait, since I am convinced your mind is set on refuting everything that may be presented.

I recall how predictable you are, and I’m betting I know your next rebuttal.

 

[Sirach2]

VivaCristoRey,

You were active in this thread, where I posted solemn teaching on infallibility from Vatican I, to which you objected here - so I know you read it and know the background. In addition, I posted this unequivocable teaching on infallibility of Vatican 2.

You have read them both, and yet you come here with the audacity to post that “I” don’t understand infallibility? No, I won’t debate with a person who obstinately rejects truth. More than enough has been posted for any reasonable person to understand, if they really were sincere in their seeking.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, Anna.

If children must obey their parents, even when they are not infallible, how much more should we obey our Holy Mother Church?

Even when Moses was leading the Israelites the wrong way in the desert, did not God reward them for their obedience?

PRmerger,
If I were a Catholic in communion with Rome, I’d say that is a very good analogy.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

What happened to Sir Knight. He has dropped out of the discussion. Did anyone help him reconcile the CC’s teachings re extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Peace,
Anna

 

[ddarko]

And you must give that full assent–that religious submission of mind and will—even to non-infallible teachings, knowing full well, some of those teachings may be determined to be erroneous at a later time.

Peace,
Anna

Sure Anna, but the point is, you give full assent to the Church.

I was just pointing out your misconception that a non-believer must understand all doctrines and dogmas before entering the Catholic Church. That is not how it works and as you pointed out above, infeasible. Every-time a dogma will be declared in the future, the person will have a crisis of faith till he understands (if he ever understands) when he is suppossed to feel happy about knowing something definitively.

So no, if this is the path you’ve been trying to reach the Catholic Church from, then I think its best to change your line of approach.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

What happened to Sir Knight. He has dropped out of the discussion. Did anyone help him reconcile the CC’s teachings re extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

Peace,
Anna

Clearly, not even the Pope is able to assist Traditionalists in this endeavor. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,
If I were a Catholic in communion with Rome, I’d say that is a very good analogy.

Peace,
Anna

Yes, I understand.

You do see, dear Anna, why it’s really an issue of authority, not of understanding each and every teaching of our Mother?

I urge you to seek the Church that Jesus founded, and then join it, and give assent to that which Jesus, through this Church, proclaims.

Indeed, even his apostles, I daresay, understood not everything He taught, but simply followed Him whom they knew could not lead them astray.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

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

You are suggesting that a fallible document (Lumen Gentium) changes an infallible dogma (EENS) because you have a mistaken understanding of the Church’s teachings regarding infallibility.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

VivaCristoRey,
No, dear, it is YOU who misunderstands. There have been sufficient documents to prove infallibility, but you reject it, just as you do Vatican II. Lumen Gentium itself further defines infallibility in Chapter III, dealing with the hierarchical structure of the Church. Is that why you dismiss its teaching?

Your words fall on deaf ears for those who know the truth, even though you would like to distort it. I won’t attempt to initiate a document exchange with you, despite your bait, since I am convinced your mind is set on refuting everything that may be presented.

I recall how predictable you are, and I’m betting I know your next rebuttal.

Name one dogma defined at Vatican II. I will PayPal you $100.

Pope Paul VI said there wasn’t any, Pope Benedict XVI has said there are not any but maybe you can find one…

 

[ddarko]

You are suggesting that a fallible document (Lumen Gentium) changes an infallible dogma (EENS) because you have a mistaken understanding of the Church’s teachings regarding infallibility.

???

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Lumen Gentium has made clear what was infallibly declared throughout history.

If you do not understand HOW it is the case (how to interpret the past teachings in light of the interpretation in Lumen Gentium) that is just your inability to grasp it.

It does not give you the right to dissent. You should assent to the teaching of the LG because it claims to be that which has been already proclaimed and is TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.

Since it has been proclaimed and taught so many times in history, it is INFALLIBLE anyway.

So I really don’t get what you are talking about LG teaching being fallible while stating EENS has been taught in the past. All thats wrong here is your interpretation of what EENS means in the past. Fix that and you are fine.

God Bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sure Anna, but the point is, you give full assent to the Church.

I was just pointing out your misconception that a non-believer must understand all doctrines and dogmas before entering the Catholic Church. That is not how it works and as you pointed out above, infeasible. Every-time a dogma will be declared in the future, the person will have a crisis of faith till he understands (if he ever understands) when he is suppossed to feel happy about knowing something definitively.

So no, if this is the path you’ve been trying to reach the Catholic Church from, then I think its best to change your line of approach.

God Bless

ddarko,
My thinking is really not so simplistic. Despite the “rationalistic” assertions of my posts as of late; I do realize that more than reason, or making sense of things, is necessary. That leap of faith is an important part of Christianity. I think I’m just tired of the same discussions over and over again. My efforts are probably counterproductive, in my present state of mind. I’m not really adding anything to the discussion.

I think Sir Knight’s questions are much more important right now, than the obstacles to my conversion to Catholicism–which are off topic anyway.

Peace
Anna

 

[ddarko]

Name one dogma defined at Vatican II. I will PayPal you $100.

Pope Paul VI said there wasn’t any, Pope Benedict XVI has said there are not any but maybe you can find one…

Hahaha, of course there aren’t any. Which is why I don’t get why people have problems with VII in the first place. All VII did was re-affirm what was said in the history of the church and lay it out clearly for the faithful to understand.

Considering how confused you are with EENS, I think that was a good idea since I am sure you are not the only one who thinks of EENS according to your interpretation i.e. without formal membership in the Catholic church, one is not saved.

God Bless

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

???

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Lumen Gentium has made clear what was infallibly declared throughout history.

If you do not understand HOW it is the case (how to interpret the past teachings in light of the interpretation in Lumen Gentium) that is just your inability to grasp it.

It does not give you the right to dissent. You should assent to the teaching of the LG because it claims to be that which has been already proclaimed and is TAUGHT BY THE CHURCH.

Since it has been proclaimed and taught so many times in history, it is INFALLIBLE anyway.

So I really don’t get what you are talking about LG teaching being fallible while stating EENS has been taught in the past. All thats wrong here is your interpretation of what EENS means in the past. Fix that and you are fine.

God Bless

I see, we just have to re-define “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” to mean “Extra Ecclesiam Salus EST” and then we’re fine… Sorry but once a teaching is infallibly proclaimed to be part of the Deposit of Faith, to affirm the contrary is not orthodox. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Hahaha, of course there aren’t any. Which is why I don’t get why people have problems with VII in the first place. All VII did was re-affirm what was said in the history of the church and lay it out clearly for the faithful to understand.

So then why do you keep arguing that LG is infallible and saying that it overrules prior Church teaching on the subject?

Considering how confused you are with EENS, I think that was a good idea since I am sure you are not the only one who thinks of EENS according to your interpretation i.e. without formal membership in the Catholic church, one is not saved.

I have already expressed my understanding earlier in this thread.

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
My thinking is really not so simplistic. Despite the “rationalistic” assertions of my posts as of late; I do realize that more than reason, or making sense of things, is necessary. That leap of faith is an important part of Christianity. I think I’m just tired of the same discussions over and over again. My efforts are probably counterproductive, in my present state of mind. I’m not really adding anything to the discussion.

Actually I am not talking about leaps of faith here. I am actually talking about rational discourse.

What I am pointing out here is that you are applying Rational Discourse to the wrong part. If your intention is to find out if the Catholic Church is true, you must put all your energies to see how to make the connection between the Resurrected Christ and Church. If there is none, you abandon the Catholic Church. If not you embrace the Church.

If I may suggest a line of approach, take some early church writings, or Acts of the Apostles and treat it as a mere historical text (not of any theological value). Put your self in the shoes of a pagan and ask yourself after reading the book/s, “who or what is the most reasonable place/entity to go to if I wanted to learn the faith?”.

Please PM me if you are interested in what I said above. That way we can let this thread get back to the original issue as well and continue our discussion via PM.

God Bless