Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[Crusading_Canuk]

In response to the OP, I have to say that we as Catholics must uphold what the Church has always taught in her dogmas. At the Fourth Lateran Council the dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nullus sallus” or “outside the Church there is no slavation” was stated most clearly;

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

In his bull Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV stated;

“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.”

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and this is why spreading the faith and converting heathen and heretic is of the utmost importance. What was previously stated is dogma, and to reject it would be to reject Christ and become a manifest heretic. Of course we must always remember the possibility of inculpable ignorance, at which point the heretic or heathen in question knows nothing of the Church or Her Teachings and has thus made no conscious effort to reject Christ (and we are damned to Hell through either conscious action or inaction; it is always our choice). When one is completely ignorant of Catholicism would not be destined for Hell as long as they hold to the natural law inscribed upon their conscience, and seek God (not worshiping false idols) with a true and honest heart. See the bulls of Pius IX explaining this in greater detail; Singulari Quidem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

But above all we must hold that there is no salvation outside the Church (guaranteed or otherwise), and this is why conversion is amongst the Church’s top priorities.

 

[Sirach2]

Anna Scott:

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

Dear Anna, you have read some of our truths and know them intellectually, but as yet, you haven’t come to full faith. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was a Protestant who had a wonderful Catholic friend. He gradually led her to embrace Catholicism, but for a long while, the doctrine of the Eucharist held her back. God saw her heart and her sincerity, and one day she was able to fully assent and convert. Maybe you could pray to her, if you believe that we have these saintly friends of God who can intercede for us. Looks like Gary is a similar friend for you!

I think the doctrine addresses those who were fully Catholic in the faith, understood the teachings, and deliberately chose to reject them. There was no such seeking of prayerful understanding, so your situation is totally different. No, dear, you are not condemned.

The Church is that lampstand on the table, not hidden under a bushel basket, and clearly gives us God’s Revelation so that we may come into covenant with Him. You will see the light - just persevere! I trust God’s benevolence and immense love for you.

 

[Anna_Scott]

In response to the OP, I have to say that we as Catholics must uphold what the Church has always taught in her dogmas. At the Fourth Lateran Council the dogma of “Extra Ecclesiam nullus sallus” or “outside the Church there is no slavation” was stated most clearly;

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”

In his bull Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV stated; . . . .

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and this is why spreading the faith and converting heathen and heretic is of the utmost importance. What was previously stated is dogma, and to reject it would be to reject Christ and become a manifest heretic. Of course we must always remember the possibility of inculpable ignorance, at which point the heretic or heathen in question knows nothing of the Church or Her Teachings and has thus made no conscious effort to reject Christ (and we are damned to Hell through either conscious action or inaction; it is always our choice). When one is completely ignorant of Catholicism would not be destined for Hell as long as they hold to the natural law inscribed upon their conscience, and seek God (not worshiping false idols) with a true and honest heart. See the bulls of Pius IX explaining this in greater detail; Singulari Quidem and Quanto Conficiamur Moerore.

But above all we must hold that there is no salvation outside the Church (guaranteed or otherwise), and this is why conversion is amongst the Church’s top priorities.

Crusading Canuk,
Are you saying that those of us who know of the Catholic faith, but remain unconvinced that the Pope holds the authority he claims, will not be saved?

Peace,
Anna

P.S. I’ve visited nearly every Province in Canada. Spent the coldest Winter of my life in Alberta–and Canadians said it was a mild winter. :winter:

 

[Anna_Scott]

Dear Anna, you have read some of our truths and know them intellectually, but as yet, you haven’t come to full faith. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton was a Protestant who had a wonderful Catholic friend. He gradually led her to embrace Catholicism, but for a long while, the doctrine of the Eucharist held her back. God saw her heart and her sincerity, and one day she was able to fully assent and convert. Maybe you could pray to her, if you believe that we have these saintly friends of God who can intercede for us. Looks like Gary is a similar friend for you!

I think the doctrine addresses those who were fully Catholic in the faith, understood the teachings, and deliberately chose to reject them. There was no such seeking of prayerful understanding, so your situation is totally different. No, dear, you are not condemned.

The Church is that lampstand on the table, not hidden under a bushel basket, and clearly gives us God’s Revelation so that we may come into covenant with Him. You will see the light - just persevere! I trust God’s benevolence and immense love for you.

Sirach2,

This is a response that demonstrates the love of Christ, and that always gets my attention.

Some Catholics use the lead-pipe method. uch: ----Much less effective.

Peace and blessings to you, Sirach,
Anna

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Crusading Canuk,
Are you saying that those of us who know of the Catholic faith, but remain unconvinced that the Pope holds the authority he claims, will not be saved?

Peace,
Anna

P.S. I’ve visited nearly every Province in Canada. Spent the coldest Winter of my life in Alberta–and Canadians said it was a mild winter. :winter:

Before I can answer I would need to be clear as to what you mean by “knowing of the Catholic faith” (as stated by who or which group) and “remaining unconvinced the Pope has the authority he claims”.

If this answers you question, Papal Infallibility (and the Primacy of Peter) is dogma ( part of the Faith) which one is required to believe under pain of heresy.

• Oh my Canada’s mild winters have nothing on Newfoundlands average summers.

 

[PRmerger]

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

To ask us if you are condemned is to ask us to commit a heresy in proclaiming that we know your eternal destiny, Anna.

I will simply tell you, “Strive to enter.”

 

[Karenfern]

My vote is yes, if they live decent lives and contribute to the world. A Catholic can be sent to the Nether place if he or she is a horrible and destructive person and a non-Catholic can wind up in Paradise. Tim McVeigh was born Catholic. Mohandas K. Gandhi was not. Which one do you think sits next to God? McVeigh avoided the sacraments, including Confession, until he went a few days before he was executed and only to please his father, who was a devout man. He expressed no remorse for the death of 168 men, women and children. Gandhi inspired people all over the world and was a man of peace. He was also a Hindu and was murdered by a Hindu extremist. The key to where one ends up for eternity is whether one is part of the world and in what way.

That said, however, it’s up to the action of grace in life and that’s between the soul and God.

 

[Lui]

That said, however, it’s up to the action of grace in life and that’s between the soul and God

According to the poll, that’s what almost 90% think. Only about 12% think that only Christians/Catholics can go to Heaven.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

To ask us if you are condemned is to ask us to commit a heresy in proclaiming that we know your eternal destiny, Anna.

I will simply tell you, “Strive to enter.”

Not so, one’s eternal destiny is not set in stone and is entirely changeable until the very moment of death; after death it would be heresy to say “so and so” is burning in Hell, as we cannot know if they had a chance of heart (no mater how unlikely) in their last second on earth. During life however (while we cannot say “you ARE going to Hell“) it is a great act of spiritual charity to warn a person that such an action or belief puts them in grave danger of Hell; we as Catholics have opportunities to spread the Faith and thus help save souls. And when I say that we should warn others that “X” could take them to Hell, I certainly do not mean that we should be vain- glorious Pharisees, rather we should do it in a kind, loving and compassionate way out of genuine love of God and the soul we are conversing with.

-CC

 

[Denise1957]

My vote is yes, if they live decent lives and contribute to the world. A Catholic can be sent to the Nether place if he or she is a horrible and destructive person and a non-Catholic can wind up in Paradise. Tim McVeigh was born Catholic. Mohandas K. Gandhi was not. Which one do you think sits next to God? McVeigh avoided the sacraments, including Confession, until he went a few days before he was executed and only to please his father, who was a devout man. He expressed no remorse for the death of 168 men, women and children. Gandhi inspired people all over the world and was a man of peace. He was also a Hindu and was murdered by a Hindu extremist. The key to where one ends up for eternity is whether one is part of the world and in what way.

That said, however, it’s up to the action of grace in life and that’s between the soul and God.

In the case of Timothy McVeigh, the priest who heard McVeigh’s confession did indicate that there was remorse. McVeigh, who intially hated the African-American priest who went to see him before his execution, called the priest racist names and threw feces at the priest. But Fr. Charles Smith, Divine Word priest, didn’t give up. He kept going to see and talk with McVeigh, and they eventually became friends. McVeigh did confess, and he was not pressured by anyone to do so. McVeigh wanted Fr. Smith to accompany him to his execution, which he did.

It’s quite a miraculous story, really, IMO. But then you’d have to be open to the idea of forgiveness for horrific crimes. I believe that God is greater than any sin that we can commit. He can forgive even Timothy McVeigh. That doesn’t mean that we know that McVeigh is in Heaven. But there was a sincere reconciliation.

In the case of M.K. Gandhi, Mr. Gandhi was mostly influenced by the Gospel account of the Sermon on the Mount, according to St. Matthew. Gandhi seriously considered converting to Christianity, but he didn’t want to offend the Hindus and Muslims in the non-violent movement which was so important to him.

 

[jmcrae]

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

It doesn’t “overrule” anything - there is no contradiction, and thus, nothing to overrule. Even the people of the 16th century understood that someone who is otherwise seeking God, but doesn’t formally become a member of the Church can still have a chance at salvation because he is invisibly already a member of the Church - just as Lumen Gentium explains.

No thinking Catholic has ever believed that salvation is limited only to adults living in a Catholic parish and attending Sunday Mass. There are plenty of ways to be joined to the Church other than being signed up for envelopes.

 

[PRmerger]

During life however (while we cannot say “you ARE going to Hell“) it is a great act of spiritual charity to warn a person that such an action or belief puts them in grave danger of Hell;

'kay. Fair enough. If someone were committing adultery I wouldn’t have a problem warning her about her actions putting her in grave danger of Hell.

But as to whether someone here on the CAFs, professing some belief that may or may not be consonant with Catholicism, needs to be warned that she’s in grave danger of Hell…well, that’s not my purview.

I simply say, “Strive to enter.”

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

'kay. Fair enough. If someone were committing adultery I wouldn’t have a problem warning her about her actions putting her in grave danger of Hell.

But as to whether someone here on the CAFs, professing some belief that may or may not be consonant with Catholicism, needs to be warned that she’s in grave danger of Hell…well, that’s not my purview.

I simply say, “Strive to enter.”

Ok but I thought one of the purposes of CAF was to help spread the Faith? In any case I believe Anna asked if she was “condemned” (I’m assuming that means commiting heresy, and thus in danger of Hell) for not believing in Papal Infallibility. Papal infallibility has been dogma since Vatican I, to consciously deny Catholic dogma (no matter how much of the rest on accepts) is heresy. It is often most charitable to just give a straight answer, at the very least out of respect for the one asking.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

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

It depends on how Catholic the pope is. Sorry, but not all popes are saints. There are plenty of bad popes throughout history.

 

[PRmerger]

It depends on how Catholic the pope is. Sorry, but not all popes are saints. There are plenty of bad popes throughout history.

No one is arguing that any pope needs to be a saint.

Obedience to them is based on their office, not on their impeccability.

Are you proposing that if a pope is sinful one need not obey him when he speaks on faith and morals?

 

[PRmerger]

Ok but I thought one of the purposes of CAF was to help spread the Faith? In any case I believe Anna asked if she was “condemned” (I’m assuming that means commiting heresy, and thus in danger of Hell) for not believing in Papal Infallibility. Papal infallibility has been dogma since Vatican I, to consciously deny Catholic dogma (no matter how much of the rest on accepts) is heresy. It is often most charitable to just give a straight answer, at the very least out of respect for the one asking.

So here’s the difference between our positions.

You believe that you can and ought to tell people they are in danger of going to hell based on what they profess here on the CAFs.

My belief: I wouldn’t ever even dream of telling someone where he might end up based on his posts on a forum. As if!

Imagine the laughter in heaven of those who actually know the final outcome: seeing one person say, “You’re destined for hell!” and actually being the one to end up there -and the poor recipient of that prophecy being able to laugh with the saints in heaven at the self-righteous folly of some here on earth.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

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:

If and only if such conclusions are correct and orthodox.

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.

Umm… come again? Are you saying that those two teachings are not part of the Deposit of Faith?

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.

I am saying that when we have to choose between an infallible dogma or even a historically taught teaching and a novel, fallible teaching, the only Catholic thing to do is to reject the novelty or at the very least resist it until it is proved to be in complete conformity to prior teaching. Blindly accepting that everything, especially novelty, that comes out of the mouth or hand of a bishop or even a pope is orthodox is not true obedience.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

You call “your” council document from Pope Eugene ‘infallible’ yet

Because it is a solemn definition of the EENS dogma.

you deny infallibility to the Council documents of other popes.

I deny infallibility to fallible statements, yes. You ascribe infallibility to fallible statements, even to entire documents.

Looks like ala/carte to me in the stubbornness of holding onto one’s views, despite clear teaching to the contrary.

Yup, sticking to orthodoxy, regardless of the popularity of heterodoxy.

Truth be told, all conciliar documents are infallible,

False.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

My vote is yes, if they live decent lives and contribute to the world. A Catholic can be sent to the Nether place if he or she is a horrible and destructive person and a non-Catholic can wind up in Paradise. Tim McVeigh was born Catholic. Mohandas K. Gandhi was not. Which one do you think sits next to God? McVeigh avoided the sacraments, including Confession, until he went a few days before he was executed and only to please his father, who was a devout man. He expressed no remorse for the death of 168 men, women and children. Gandhi inspired people all over the world and was a man of peace. He was also a Hindu and was murdered by a Hindu extremist. The key to where one ends up for eternity is whether one is part of the world and in what way.

That said, however, it’s up to the action of grace in life and that’s between the soul and God.

It is forbidden to presume to know someone’s eternal destiny (apart from canonized saints, of course). But what’s wrong with saying that neither would be saved if they did not repent before death?

Remember, you don’t have to be a “horrible, destructive person” as people usually think of that to go to Hell. All you need to do is to commit a single mortal sin – you can have a dirty thought, you don’t have to be a mass murderer.

Sorry, but one does not go to Heaven based on doing good works, that’s a condemned heresy called “Pelagianism”. One needs supernatural faith, hope and charity; not merely natural virtues.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

So here’s the difference between our positions.

You believe that you can and ought to tell people they are in danger of going to hell based on what they profess here on the CAFs.

My belief: I wouldn’t ever even dream of telling someone where he might end up based on his posts on a forum. As if!

Imagine the laughter in heaven of those who actually know the final outcome: seeing one person say, “You’re destined for hell!” and actually being the one to end up there -and the poor recipient of that prophecy being able to laugh with the saints in heaven at the self-righteous folly of some here on earth.

Again a significant part of CAF is faith sharing, sharing the Catholic Faith and that pertaining to it (ie. Dogmas). I am not saying anybody is destined to go to Hell (and I do not wish that upon anybody), I am answering a question which was posed to me; and I quote “Crusading Canuk, Are you saying that those of us who know of the Catholic faith, but remain unconvinced that the Pope holds the authority he claims, will not be saved?” I could give the PC (and dishonest) answer saying that it is ok to reject dogma, and your salvation is all the safer for it. Or I could show the one asking the question enough respect to be honest and say “Papal infallibility is dogma, and to reject dogma greatly endangers your soul.” I hardly feel that it is “self righteous” to be honest with somebody about what the Church teaches