Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[ddarko]

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

Ok first, there are two things about LG.

1. LG restates prior Church teaching. Hence it is infallible!
2. LG makes clear what prior teaching of the Church was. Hence it must be given full assent!

So in other words, its like the Church teaching on Contraception. No where is it dogmatically defined to be false. BUT, it is a teaching that has been repeatedly taught by the Church and hence is infallible.

What LG does, just like HV is make clear what was been taught. As you can see, Fr. Feeney, “Traditionalist” etc have a grave misunderstanding of what was taught by EENS. So LG is not denying EENS. Rather, it is explaining what EENS means to the faithful.

Do you see what I am saying?

God Bless

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

PRmerger,

Has he said he is a Traditionalist? I got the impression Sir Knight had never heard about the definitive teachings of LG re extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I could be wrong, but he seemed genuinely shocked when I posted a quote from LG.

Peace,
Anna

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Ok first, there are two things about LG.

1. LG restates prior Church teaching. Hence it is infallible!

Insofar that it authentically restates infallibly defined Church teaching, it operates infallibly as part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Its novelties and opinions are, however, not infallible.

1. LG makes clear what prior teaching of the Church was. Hence it must be given full assent!

If and only if its conclusions are correct and orthodox.

So in other words, its like the Church teaching on Contraception. No where is it dogmatically defined to be false. BUT, it is a teaching that has been repeatedly taught by the Church and hence is infallible.

So you agree that EENS is indeed infallible dogma and to be understood the way the Church has historically understood it, as taught in “Cantate Domino.” Correct?
Council of Florence:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

 

[ddarko]

Insofar that it authentically restates infallibly defined Church teaching, it operates infallibly as part of the Ordinary Magisterium. Its novelties and opinions are, however, not infallible.

There is no novelty. Just explanation of teaching. Hence, there is really nothing to debate here.

The church is the final interpreter. Do you question the church on its Scripture interpretations, which are teachings by the church technically speaking? None of the Scripture interpretations are dogmatically defined, so do you question them?

If and only if its conclusions are correct and orthodox.

And the Church is the decider of that. You and I just have our private opinions on what it means to be orthodox. But the Church has a divinely guided way to declare what is orthodox.

So our private opinions are really moot.

So you agree that EENS is indeed infallible dogma and to be understood the way the Church has historically understood it, as taught in “Cantate Domino.” Correct?

Ok listen. EENS is infallible Dogma. It has been taught clearly in the LG. I can only agree to EENS as it has been taught in LG.

Cantate Domino stated the Church position. It did not TEACH what it was. Do you get the difference?

Its like asking me “Do you agree Scripture and Tradition are infallible?” I say “Of course”. But it doesn’t mean I agree to your interpretation of it. I have to listen to the authority of the Church.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Amen!

However, the Catholic Church goes beyond those who are registered in their local parishes.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

Has he said he is a Traditionalist? I got the impression Sir Knight had never heard about the definitive teachings of LG re extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I could be wrong, but he seemed genuinely shocked when I posted a quote from LG.

Peace,
Anna

I cannot comment on one particular poster. I am only making a generalization regarding some Traditionalists who are “more Catholic than the pope”.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

ddarko,

You are very kind to offer to discuss further by PM; but I’ve pretty much done the above already. I’ve hit a brick wall, so to speak.

I have to say, this thread is not helping. If Catholics look at the early teachings of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and have difficulty reconciling these early teachings with LG —how do you think it looks to me?

Anyway, I really don’t want to debate the issues of LG and ecclesiam nulla salus. I had an extensive discussion of this issue on another thread. There has been very little on this thread that is not a repeat.

I think the biggest concern should be the fact that there are Catholics, on this thread, who cannot reconcile these teachings. They should get the time and attention.

Again, I appreciate your offer to help.
Anna

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,

You are very kind to offer to discuss further by PM; but I’ve pretty much done the above already. I’ve hit a brick wall, so to speak.

I have to say, this thread is not helping. If Catholics look at the early teachings of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and have difficulty reconciling these early teachings with LG —how do you think it looks to me?

Anyway, I really don’t want to debate the issues of LG and ecclesiam nulla salus. I had an extensive discussion of this issue on another thread. There has been very little on this thread that is not a repeat.

I think the biggest concern should be the fact that there are Catholics, on this thread, who cannot reconcile these teachings. They should get the time and attention.

Again, I appreciate your offer to help.
Anna

You’ve tried to go from a historical analysis of Acts of the Apostles to the Church and failed? I would really like to know where you hit the brick wall if I may ask. I might be able to help.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I have to say, this thread is not helping. If Catholics look at the early teachings of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and have difficulty reconciling these early teachings with LG —how do you think it looks to me?
Anna

Well unfortunately some Catholics here don’t want to listen to the church.

As for your reconciliation question, here is one way for you to look at it.

When the early Pope’s spoke infallibly in history, they were addressing those who had knowledge of Christ but refuse to believe. Those indeed will not be saved.

What LG speaks about are those that may be invincibly ignorant. So in a sense, LG gives the complete picture.

Because ask yourself, what part of the early Papal bulls and councils explain how the OT prophets are saved?

That is made more clearer in LG as to how that happens. That is the idea of knowing Christ as the Logos. From the law written in ones heart.

So all this means is that if one follows the law in their hearts to the best of their knowledge, they will be members of the Catholic church, but not in an official sense. But they too will be saved.

Now this does not contradict early Papal teachings because they were never meant to address the issue of someone being invincibly ignorant of Christ due to no fault of their own.

Btw, something that you might ask now is, does this mean that we should not evangelize anymore because they are invincibly ignorant they will be saved?

The answer is no. We must evangelize because we cannot know if someone is invincibly ignorant. Some might know the Law in their hearts but feel that they don’t need to follow it. Thus we must teach them why. Some might know Christ but don’t know what to believe and want to know more about him. That thirst we must satisfy. Some might not be invincibly ignorant (while we know the ones before Christ were definitely qualified, its hard to say about those after), so we must try our best to evangelize and convert them to be Catholic. But if we fail to do so, it does not mean that the person will be going to hell. For all we know, he does everything he can to the best of his knowledge, through the grace given through the Catholic Church, and God will judge him accordingly. That is the extra bit that LG teaches.

So the early Papal teachings, while TRUE, were incomplete since they never addressed the issue of Invincible Ignorance.

Did that help?

God Bless

 

[EMTWB141]

I skipped ahead through all the pages (and seemed to have missed something regarding LG (?) and stuff. But my answer is yes, I feel non-catholic Christians can get to Heaven.

Romans 10:9-13
Ephesians 1:13-14
1 Peter 1: 8-9
Ephesians 2:8-9

It’s not by what we do, but rather confess and believe.

 

[Zooey]

After reading the posts I am confused more about what the Catholic Church teaches on this question. I agree that there is no salvation outside of faith in Jesus Christ, as he is explained and confirmed in the Apostles Creed. But are you saying that there is not salvation outside of the Catholic Church? I am so sad that the Catholic Church was torn at the Reformation, and now the Protestant Church is broken further into tiny groups. But I still believe that God is the Judge of hearts and knows who belongs to Him, whether they are part of the Catholic Church or not. We do find unity in Christ and in the Creed, but I long for the day when there is true unity. Can that happen? Oh please, Lord, help us to obey your command and desire for Oneness, as your Father and You are one.

:sad_yes:

There are many Orthodox saints!

When I think of all those who were persecuted & even:crying: killed by the communists, I think that the 20th century surely produced many, many Orthodox saints, whose names are known only to God. More than we could ever number…:byzsoc:

The answer is simple and is taken straight from the word of God. In Romans 10:9-11 it reads:

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

and in John 5:24

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and Believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life.”

Amen!

“Even so, come, Lord Jesus, come”…

 

[Sirach2]

DDarko:

What LG does, just like HV is make clear what was been taught. As you can see, Fr. Feeney, “Traditionalist” etc have a grave misunderstanding of what was taught by EENS. So LG is not denying EENS. Rather, it is explaining what EENS means to the faithful.

From LG Ch. II, 19:

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*)

It is interesting to note that the footnote for this very paragraph from Lumen Gentium refers to Suprema haec sacra, the protocol condemning the Boston heresy of Fr. Feeney, which certainly lays to rest the popular claim among contemporary Feeneyites that the Protocol was simply a letter from one church bureaucrat to another with no particular force behind it.

Here’s the footnote:
(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.
Lumen Gentium:

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.

Examine the footnote from which this teaching was derived:
*(15) Cfr. Leo XIII, Epist. Encycl. Satis cognitum, 29 iun. 1896: *** 28 (1895-96) p. 738. Epist. Encycl. Caritatis studium, 25 iul. 1898: *** 31 (1898-99) p. 11. Pius XII, Nuntius radioph. Nell’alba, 24 dec. 1941: AAS 34 (1942) p. 21.

Have our traditionalists read these historical teachings?

This is the problem with traditionalists who reject LG. They fail to obtain and read each and every footnote’s reference, which gives the historical background from which the Church teaches, upholds, and clarifies in LG. And how could they have read them? They are not theologians with access to these references, but do a peripheral reading of the document, and entrench their understanding in errors circulating from other private opinions on the internet.

The Council issues a very strong warning in this section of LG (Art. 14) similar to St. Paul’s, “Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall.” (1 Cor. 10:12) The lack of charity in condemning those whom God does not condemn will cause them to be judged severely, in the same manner they have judged.

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged

 

[PRmerger]

I have to say, this thread is not helping. If Catholics look at the early teachings of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and have difficulty reconciling these early teachings with LG —how do you think it looks to me?

Perhaps you should look at it as if it were a complicated math problem, in which someone has difficulty arriving at the correct answer. We know what the correct answer is, (the Math Prof has spoken!) but some people simply can’t figure it out, or give up saying, “Yeah, well my Algebra teacher taught me the quadratic formula and it doesn’t work here.”

Now, the fact that some people have difficulty arriving at the answer is more of a testament to that person, no? It ought not provide you with any doubts that there is an answer and that the Math Prof is correct.

 

[Sirach2]

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…

In the strict literal sense of proclaiming a new dogma, none were made. In the sense of giving teaching and further defining of existing doctrine, assent is obligatory, as Paul VI also stated in the Council closing statement:

“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”

The only two times dogma was declared above and beyond the Deposit of Faith was for the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother. Your error implies that unless it is a new dogma in the realm of Ex Cathedra statements, it can be ignored, set aside, accepted as one sees fit, etc. Who cannot see the error in your belief? Read again the solemn declaration made in Vatican 1 that I have posted twice for you, that submission is required NOT ONLY in matters of faith and morals, which is true of LG, but includes all matters of discipline and government of the Church.

 

[Sirach2]

VivaCristoRey:

So you agree that EENS is indeed infallible dogma and to be understood the way the Church has historically understood it, as taught in “Cantate Domino.” Correct?

The error is that some ultra-trads do NOT interpret the teaching according to the Mind of the Church, as She has understood it. The beginning of the Bull anethematizes a long list of heretical sects, and closes with the words that most trads take comletely out of context with the entire meaning of Pope Eugene. Let’s read.

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull
**Cantate Domino, 1441 **

All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ. The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

We find therefore, the mention of various heresies and heretics who have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heretics mentioned in the Bull had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact.

Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who** shed their blood for Christ, **will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have NOT heard the gospel. The ones to whom these decrees are addressed are those that have heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church. It is true that these cannot be saved.

Notice that this decree does not say, “If those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict EENS view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. If, after hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.
**Conclusion: **The assumptions behind the rigorist, EENS are false.

1. In this decree there was no mention of those who have not heard the message. Nor of those who through no fault of their own, were born into noncatholic communities many years after the Reformation, which had not happened yet at the writing of this Bull. It addressed primarily heretics who chose to leave the Church.
2. The magisterium’s position (as stated in CCC 846-847, and which quotes LG) has thus not departed from the truths of the this decree.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Maybe it would help to view “Dominus Iesus”. Heres a brief preview and of course you can Google Benedicts complete context of the Doctrine. Yet this specific part here pertains to this conversation.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lMSBTRO0T4AVEFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cDJqb2prBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOV8xNjM-/SIG=11utnt9gi/EXP=1312053618/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

God Bless, Gary

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you, Gary Taylor. Yet another excellent reference!

I think it is good to show the words from Pope Pius IV in 1863, between Eugene IV and Vatican 2, that adds additional weight to the consistent truth of Church teaching:

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

1. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency does not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
2. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”

Paragraph 8 is undeniably true, but many ultra-trads will circulate only the first sentence out of context as proof of their erroneous belief, irrespective of the preceding paragraph 7. I note the teaching in Art. 8, that those who oppose the authority and “statements” [including those of ecumenical councils; i.e., V-2’s LG under discussion here] of the Church cannot obtain salvation.

 

[Sirach2]

VivaCristoRey:

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.

I understand you believe that Lumen Gentium is infallible but you misunderstand
You are suggesting that a fallible document (Lumen Gentium) changes an infallible dogma (EENS)

So you agree that EENS is indeed infallible dogma and to be understood the way the Church has historically understood it, as taught in “Cantate Domino.” Correct?

You call “your” council document from Pope Eugene ‘infallible’ yet you deny infallibility to the Council documents of other popes. Looks like ala/carte to me in the stubbornness of holding onto one’s views, despite clear teaching to the contrary.

Truth be told, all conciliar documents are infallible, but you prefer to interpret these in your own private manner and have appointed yourself as sole arbitor of which Councils are infallible, and which are not. It is critical to understand them in the light of how the Church Herself understands them, and to avoid taking them out of context with the entire meaning of the document.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .We find therefore, the mention of various heresies and heretics who have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heretics mentioned in the Bull had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact.

Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who** shed their blood for Christ, **will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel. . . .

Sirach2,

I have to say you are shedding an interesting light in reconciling LG and the earlier teachings re “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” On the last thread, GaryTaylor was really the only one who stepped up and addressed the issue and answered direct questions. I can always count on Gary to be a voice of reason and for his patience.

So, considering all his groundwork on the other thread combined with the insights posted here by you and others, this is actually starting to make sense.

However, I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say regarding those who “knowingly deny various truths of the Catholic Faith.”

I know basically what the Catholic Church teaches; but I’m not convinced that the Pope holds the authority that he claims or that the CC is the only true Church. Does that mean I am condemned?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Maybe it would help to view “Dominus Iesus”. Heres a brief preview and of course you can Google Benedicts complete context of the Doctrine. Yet this specific part here pertains to this conversation.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7lMSBTRO0T4AVEFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1cDJqb2prBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOV8xNjM-/SIG=11utnt9gi/EXP=1312053618/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

God Bless, Gary

Gary,
You know I’m one of your biggest fans. :clapping: I can always count on you.

On another note, I need to stop saying I’m signing off a thread. It seems like saying, “I’m signing off” pretty much guarantees my return.

Peace,
Anna