Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[ddarko]

If and only if such conclusions are correct and orthodox.

Ok so lets sit back and analyze whether there was anything unorthodox, sounds good?

1. Were their any infallible proclamations addressing the issue of “invincible ignorance and salvation” by those early papal bulls?

No.

1. Were their any infallible proclamations in past addressing the orthodox belief that OT prophets are all saved?

No.

So LG, by introducing/ more clearly defined the teaching concerning Invincible Ignorance has not contradicted anything in the past. It has merely pointed out that there is the possibility that

1. IF someone was invincibly ignorant by no fault of their own like the OT prophets, that they would be saved.
2. Even in such a case, this salvation is due to the works performed/ state of holiness maintained and pursued to the best of knowledge (Christ the Logos) using grace poured out through the Catholic church alone

Now I am very much interested to hear what you find un-Orthodox in the above.

You have to understand that the early Papal Bulls while infallible, were incomplete. They did not address the issue of invincible ignorance. To claim they did makes those Papal bulls invalid due to not being Orthodox anyway. For, the Orthodox belief/knowledge is that OT prophets were saved (Moses, Elijah for sure). But according to a strict interpretation of these papal bulls, it would suggest that they are not. Thus, invalidating the Papal Bull and seriously questioning the “Infallibility” of these popes.

So it seems to me, that the correct view is to hold that the old Papal Bulls were infallible, yet incomplete in that they did not deal with the specific issue of Invincible Ignorance. When viewed in that light, there is no Contradiction between LG and Old teachings.

God Bless

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

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?

No, but if a pope does not speak what is orthodox, one should not listen to him. Not everything that comes out of mouth or pen of a pope is infallible. He is quite able to be wrong.

The suggestion was that we should hold whatever personal opinion the pope happens to hold simply because of the fact that the pope holds it. That is not Catholic.

 

[ddarko]

No, but if a pope does not speak what is orthodox, one should not listen to him. Not everything that comes out of mouth or pen of a pope is infallible. He is quite able to be wrong.

The suggestion was that we should hold whatever personal opinion the pope happens to hold simply because of the fact that the pope holds it. That is not Catholic.

Um… no one is suggesting what you are claiming above.

As far as I know, the point to you has always been that Church teachings by the magesterium are all infallible. Not just some in the past limited to historical Papal Bulls.

God Bless

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Ok so lets sit back and analyze whether there was anything unorthodox, sounds good?

1. Were their any infallible proclamations addressing the issue of “invincible ignorance and salvation” by those early papal bulls?

Invincible ignorance with regards to any particular sin only means that a person is not subjectively guilty of that particular objective sin, it does not save a person.

1. Were their any infallible proclamations in past addressing the orthodox belief that OT prophets are all saved?

What do OT prophets have to do with the topic? Remember, the Biblical Jewish religion was the true religion prior to Christ, but the blasphemous Talmudic neo-Jewish religion is a false religion – big difference!

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Um… no one is suggesting what you are claiming above.

I have seen it suggested many times on this forum, trying to justify the actions and statements of the Conciliar Popes by saying they must be good and orthodox and to criticize them is “un-Catholic”.

As far as I know, the point to you has always been that Church teachings by the magesterium are all infallible.

That’s not true. That’s why I said you need to understand the Church’s teachings on infallibility.

 

[ddarko]

Invincible ignorance with regards to any particular sin only means that a person is not subjectively guilty of that particular objective sin, it does not save a person.

And where do you get the above infallible teaching from? Specifically, I want to know where you got the “Invincible Ignorance ONLY means…” part.

As far as I know, there is no Church teaching saying that.

What do OT prophets have to do with the topic? Remember, the Biblical Jewish religion was the true religion prior to Christ, but the blasphemous Talmudic neo-Jewish religion is a false religion – big difference!

Because Mr. Viva, THEY WERE NOT CATHOLIC. If the Papal Bulls are correct, all non-Catholics are screwed and in hell. There is no difference between Talmudic or Biblical Jewish. They are not officially Catholic.

If you admit that ANYONE, a SINGLE PERSON, not officially Catholic can and has been saved, then it proves that your historical Papal Bulls are incomplete. Do you understand?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I have seen it suggested many times on this forum, trying to justify the actions and statements of the Conciliar Popes by saying they must be good and orthodox and to criticize them is “un-Catholic”.

That’s not true. That’s why I said you need to understand the Church’s teachings on infallibility.

Haha alright, I honestly don’t want to get too many arguments so that at the end of the day, we wouldn’t have settled a single argument. I think your error on EENS can be shown without going anywhere close to these issues.

So while I disagree with you and I will claim you are possibly in error (perhaps not because I don’t know what your scope of infallibility) with what you said above, lets fix your first error FIRST. The one on EENS. Lets not get sidetracked. Please answer my post above.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

No, but if a pope does not speak what is orthodox, one should not listen to him. Not everything that comes out of mouth or pen of a pope is infallible. He is quite able to be wrong.

The suggestion was that we should hold whatever personal opinion the pope happens to hold simply because of the fact that the pope holds it. That is not Catholic.

Did you obey your parents only when they spoke infallibly, Viva, or did you obey them because of their authority over you?

Did not Moses lead the Israelites in the wrong direction? What happened to Korah who disobeyed–even though Moses was the one in error?

 

[PRmerger]

If you admit that ANYONE, a SINGLE PERSON, not officially Catholic can and has been saved, then it proves that your historical Papal Bulls are incomplete. Do you understand?

God Bless

And I can give you at least 14,000.

The Holy Innocents. Never baptized. Never in a parish. Yet declared by Holy Mother Church to be in heaven.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And I can give you at least 14,000.

The Holy Innocents. Never baptized. Never in a parish. Yet declared by Holy Mother Church to be in heaven.

They were under the old law and not the new covenant. Try again.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Take Two… on Papal Bulls.

“We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium” (Vatican Council II, vol. 2, p 392).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Take Two… on Papal Bulls.

“We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the Successor of Peter when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ as shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, an infallibility which the whole Episcopate also enjoys when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium” (Vatican Council II, vol. 2, p 392).

Gary,

Reading through these posts is kinda like being in the twilight zone. On the Papal infallibility thread, I was the only person who questioned the consistency of past and present teachings on "no salvation outside the CC; and I had a multitude of Catholics telling me the fallacy of my questions and assumptions. Now, I’m getting it; and Catholics are disagreeing with Catholics. Like I said. . . . .twilight zone.

Peace,
Anna

 

[ddarko]

Gary,

Reading through these posts is kinda like being in the twilight zone. On the Papal infallibility thread, I was the only person who questioned the consistency of past and present teachings on "no salvation outside the CC; and I had a multitude of Catholics telling me the fallacy of my questions and assumptions. Now, I’m getting it; and Catholics are disagreeing with Catholics. Like I said. . . . .twilight zone.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

You don’t seem to comment on situations where someone reconciles them but seems happy to comment on things when there is no position taken by the poster.

I gave you an easy way to reconcile the two teachings. The Papal bulls while infallible were INCOMPLETE with respect to the teaching of salvation.

Why?

Because it did not consider or explain what happens in the case of Invincible Ignorance like in the case of OT prophets or Infants.

LG on the other hand, addressed this issue as well.

Now I understand you spent thread after thread discussing this issue in the past but the answer is that simple. There is no contradiction in teaching because the early Papal Bulls never addressed the issue of Invincible Ignorance and salvation.

On the other hand, Tradition, from the very early Church it-self, has held that those with Invincible Ignorance CAN BE saved given that they act to the best of their knowledge of Christ as the Logos. So the LG teachings is not something pulled out of somewhere either.

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

I gave you an easy way to reconcile the two teachings. The Papal bulls while infallible were INCOMPLETE with respect to the teaching of salvation.

Why?

Because it did not consider or explain what happens in the case of Invincible Ignorance like in the case of OT prophets or Infants.

LG on the other hand, addressed this issue as well.

Now I understand you spent thread after thread discussing this issue in the past but the answer is that simple. **There is no contradiction **in teaching because the early Papal Bulls never addressed the issue of Invincible Ignorance and salvation.

Indeed.

I have given this analogy before, but I’m repeating as I think it’s apropos. While it is not a perfect analogy, I think it makes the point of how Catholic doctrine develops but does not “change” or offer contradictions.

Let’s say that I am working in an Emergency Unit and someone brings in a guy who was attacked by a wild animal. **That’s all the medical providers need to know at this point. **Later, as he recovers he’s able to tell us that the wild animal was a big black female bear. Later on we find that the patient develops a fever, and we investigate and determine that the mama bear had rabies and now the patient needs treatment for that.

See how the story has been refined, but not changed? The initial story: “a guy was attacked by a wild animal” is still true. But now we have more refined info.

Change would be: the guy was actually in a drunken knife fight at a bar.

And if we said, “Hey! We’ve always said the guy was in a drunken fight at a bar; we never said he was attacked by a wild animal”, then, one would have a valid criticism of the CC.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Anna,

You don’t seem to comment on situations where someone reconciles them but seems happy to comment on things when there is no position taken by the poster.

I gave you an easy way to reconcile the two teachings. The Papal bulls while infallible were INCOMPLETE with respect to the teaching of salvation.

Why?

Because it did not consider or explain what happens in the case of Invincible Ignorance like in the case of OT prophets or Infants.

The OT prophets and righteous were not invincibly ignorant, or ignorant in any way of Christ. They were bound by the Law of Moses, and knew of Christ through the Torah and the prophesies and were anticipating His return. When the righteous of the OT died they didn’t go to Heaven then went to the Bosom of Abraham, which was envisioned as a perpetual feast and a foreshadowing of Christ to come. They knew of Christ, they followed God’s Las, and they did not enter Heaven until Christ opened the Gates after the Harrowing of Hell on Holy Saturday.

In the case of infants if they have received as valid Baptism (using the proper matter, form and intent) from any denomination (they are not guilty of original sin, and are unable to commit sin by wilful belief in heresy) they will go to Heaven. If not while they cannot enter Heaven, they will go to Limbo where the only pain is the thought of the lack of the Beatific Vision.

 

[ddarko]

The OT prophets and righteous were not invincibly ignorant, or ignorant in any way of Christ. They were bound by the Law of Moses, and knew of Christ through the Torah and the prophesies and were anticipating His return. When the righteous of the OT died they didn’t go to Heaven then went to the Bosom of Abraham, which was envisioned as a perpetual feast and a foreshadowing of Christ to come. They knew of Christ, they followed God’s Las, and they did not enter Heaven until Christ opened the Gates after the Harrowing of Hell on Holy Saturday.

In the case of infants if they have received as valid Baptism (using the proper matter, form and intent) from any denomination (they are not guilty of original sin, and are unable to commit sin by wilful belief in heresy) they will go to Heaven. If not while they cannot enter Heaven, they will go to Limbo where the only pain is the thought of the lack of the Beatific Vision.

The POINT was made to to Anna and to those declaring OFFICIAL membership was required of the Catholic Church.

So the POINT to you too is that no matter how you want to argue, none of the OT prophets or infants killed by Herod were OFFICIALLY CATHOLIC. Yet they made it to Heaven according to Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, one has to conclude that the Papal Bulls were incomplete.

God Bless

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

The POINT was made to to Anna and to those declaring OFFICIAL membership was required of the Catholic Church.

So the POINT to you too is that no matter how you want to argue, none of the OT prophets or infants killed by Herod were OFFICIALLY CATHOLIC. Yet they made it to Heaven according to Tradition and Scripture. Therefore, one has to conclude that the Papal Bulls were incomplete.

God Bless

They weren’t Catholic, because they died under the Law of Moses when all that was required for Salvation was to abide by the Law of Moses (a covenant between god and a single nation; Israel) if you were a Jew, and the seven Noahide Laws if you were a gentile. The Catholic Church wasn’t founded until the Law of Moses and the prophesies had been fulfilled at Pentecost. Once the Catholic Church was founded the requirements for salvation were changed with the implementation of the New and Everlasting Covenant between God and the New Israel, the Catholic Church.

And the explanation of Invincible Ignorance of heathens and heretics was explained in detail by Pope Pius IX.

 

[ddarko]

They weren’t Catholic, because they died under the Law of Moses when all that was required for Salvation was to abide by the Law of Moses (a covenant between god and a single nation; Israel) if you were a Jew, and the seven Noahide Laws if you were a gentile. The Catholic Church wasn’t founded until the Law of Moses and the prophesies had been fulfilled at Pentecost. **Once the Catholic Church was founded the requirements for salvation were changed with the implementation of the New and Everlasting Covenant between God and the New Israel, the Catholic Church.
**
And the explanation of Invincible Ignorance of heathens and heretics was explained in detail by Pope Pius IX.

Ok dude, I am a bit tired of people not comprehending things.

1. There is, as we know, a group of people who were saved WHILE THEY WERE NOT OFFICIALLY CATHOLIC (even the matter of HOW is irrelevant)
2. But such an exception was not declared in the Papal Bulls.
3. Therefore, regardless of HOW they were saved, since the Papal Bulls have not addressed the issue,
   3a) The papal bulls are incomplete
   3b) Therefore it makes no sense to say LG is contradicting anything in those declarations
4. Therefore, since LG does not contradict anything that is said, you MUST give full assent to what is taught in it regarding salvation

If you don’t get the above, the problem is not religion. The problem is somewhere in either Logical comprehension or deep conviction that YOU are right. Both of which are out of my capabilities to treat through a forum post.

Secondly, while your statement (Bolded above and quoted below)

"Once the Catholic Church was founded the requirements for salvation were changed with the implementation of the New and Everlasting Covenant between God and the New Israel, the Catholic Church."

is merely a PLAUSIBLE explanation to HOW they were saved. It is NOT part of ANY infallible declaration. So there is no REASON to believe that the SOLE reason the OT prophets were saved is satisfied BY YOUR merely PLAUSIBLE explanation above or that you or whoever else said that are even RIGHT above.

There is reason to think its pretty weird to think the above because if they could be saved by the Catholic Church not-existing, just by the law or which ever merit you want to claim, then that same way must exist/be included in the new WAY as well. Otherwise, the institution of the Catholic Church has actually made some to loose salvation. Anyway, regardless of whether this objection stands, the following is true.

If the the Church decides and gives a more definitive reason, which also describes HOW they were SAVED in LG, it would do you well to put pride aside and accept it.

For you to go around saying “oooh the Church contradicted it-self, so I am going Traditional” is illogical and lacks any foundation. If the Church contradicted it-self, and you can objectively verify that, the best thing for you to do is become an Atheist or leave Christianity.

I would appreciate it if you took the time to put some thought in to what I am saying rather than replying to me with something for the sake of defending your position.

God Bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Invincible ignorance with regards to any particular sin only means that a person is not subjectively guilty of that particular objective sin, it does not save a person.

What do OT prophets have to do with the topic? Remember, the Biblical Jewish religion was the true religion prior to Christ, but the blasphemous Talmudic neo-Jewish religion is a false religion – big difference!

FYI, the Talmud is the codification of the Oral Law, which the Pharisees believed was given by G-d to Moses together with the Written Law, or Torah. The Talmud also contains applications of the Law to everyday life, as well as rabbinical commentaries. There is nothing blasphemous about it. Just as Catholicism has Church Tradition and the Magisterium, which are both esteemed in addition to Holy Scripture, Judaism has the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh, and particularly Torah) as well as the Talmud, and, especially for Chasidic Jews, the Kabbalah, including the Zohar.

 

[jmcrae]

They weren’t Catholic, because they died under the Law of Moses when all that was required for Salvation was to abide by the Law of Moses (a covenant between god and a single nation; Israel) if you were a Jew, and the seven Noahide Laws if you were a gentile.

No pre-Christian Jew was ever saved until after Jesus died on the Cross - yet, they were saved without baptism and without formal membership in the Catholic Church.

As far as whether any pre-Christian Gentiles were ever saved, there is speculation that some of the philosophers may have been saved, since they seem to have prophesied Christ’s death and resurrection in some way, but I don’t know of anything that says that the seven Noahide laws ever saved anybody.

The Catholic Church wasn’t founded until the Law of Moses and the prophesies had been fulfilled at Pentecost. Once the Catholic Church was founded the requirements for salvation were changed with the implementation of the New and Everlasting Covenant between God and the New Israel, the Catholic Church.

Christ fulfilled that same law - nothing was ever “changed.” Merely perfected, on the Cross.