Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[Sirach2]

JMcRae:

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.

There is speculation also as to what happened to the souls of the native Americans who had been here (how long) before Christians arrived from Europe to catechise them. This was one of the reasons the V-2 Council reviewed this matter of salvation, since the New World had not been discovered at the time these incomplete documents were written. The Holy Spirit moved the conciliars to examine the matter in deeper truth.

We trust in St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:14-15 that there are peoople who, in invincible ignorance, followed the natural law, which we know from God’s revelation is written in the heart and conscience of every person. If they followed the natural law and lived uprightly, they attained salvation in some manner known to God alone, who is Mercy and Justice. We read in Revelations 22:12 that God will “render to each one according to his works.”

 

[jmcrae]

There is speculation also as to what happened to the souls of the native Americans who had been here (how long) before Christians arrived from Europe to catechise them. This was one of the reasons the V-2 Council reviewed this matter of salvation, since the New World had not been discovered at the time these incomplete documents were written. The Holy Spirit moved the conciliars to examine the matter in deeper truth.

We trust in St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:14-15 that there are peoople who, in invincible ignorance, followed the natural law, which we know from God’s revelation is written in the heart and conscience of every person. If they followed the natural law and lived uprightly, they attained salvation in some manner known to God alone, who is Mercy and Justice. We read in Revelations 22:12 that God will “render to each one according to his works.”

I don’t disagree with your main point - but I think it’s important to understand that everyone who was saved in pre-Christian times (whether before the actual time of Christ, or before the coming of the missionaries to their part of the world) was saved by Christ dying on the Cross for their sins. What is mysterious is not how they were saved, but how they gained access to the necessary graces - which of course is known to God alone.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved, why does the Church allow a lay person to baptize someone if they are in danger of death? If an unbaptized baby and a baptized baby both go to heaven, then there is no need to make an exception and allow a lay person to baptize a baby that is in danger of death. CCC1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.** In case of necessity, anyone**, even a non-baptized person, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation (I Tim 2:4)“The necessity of Baptism for salvation”. Baptism is necessary for salvation. And what does baptism do? It brings one INTO the Catholic faith.

 

[Sirach2]

JMcRae:

but I think it’s important to understand that everyone who was saved in pre-Christian times (whether before the actual time of Christ, or before the coming of the missionaries to their part of the world) was saved by Christ dying on the Cross for their sins. What is mysterious is not how they were saved, but how they gained access to the necessary graces - which of course is known to God alone.

I absolutely agree with you - the grace of Christ’s redemption is applied to both pre-christian times and afterwards. We cannot know the manner God may inspire a perfect contrition at the hour of death due to the prayers of the Mystical Body of Christ who intercedes for sinners. That is hidden to us, but very much a possibility. St. Faustina revealed this in her Diary, that the hour of death is so important, that God often inspired her to pray for certain souls during that moment, to allow her intercession to obtain repentence for them.

This is why the Church does not say with any certainty whatsoever, that a person has suffered damnation.

 

[Telstar]

If one does not need to be a member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved, why does the Church allow a lay person to baptize someone if they are in danger of death? If an unbaptized baby and a baptized baby both go to heaven, then there is no need to make an exception and allow a lay person to baptize a baby that is in danger of death. CCC1256: The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.** In case of necessity, anyone**, even a non-baptized person, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation (I Tim 2:4)“The necessity of Baptism for salvation”. Baptism is necessary for salvation. And what does baptism do? It brings one INTO the Catholic faith.

That’s the point of contention that you’ve been arguing against, by claiming that there are “no exceptions” for salvation outside the Catholic Church. The fact is that Baptisms performed by using the proper Trinitarian formula, are valid for salvation. When converts come to the RCC, they only need to be re-baptized if there is any doubt that they have been Baptized properly. Certain church’s Baptisms are considered to be valid by the RCC, therefore there has to be a possibility, however small it might be, that salvation must also be possible for those who are Baptized by those churches. Otherwise, no other Baptism could be regarded as valid for converts coming to the RCC. A valid Baptism brings all those that receive it, into the Catholic Church, no matter who Baptizes them, even those other churches. Baptism makes us all members of the Body of Christ, aka, the Catholic Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Telstar:

A valid Baptism brings all those that receive it, into the Catholic Church, no matter who Baptizes them, even those other churches. Baptism makes us all members of the Body of Christ, aka, the Catholic Church.

Well said, Telstar. Vatican 2’s document below makes very clear what you have stated above.

Originally Posted by Unitatis Redintegratio

3. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church -whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

1. Whenever the Sacrament of Baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it, and is received with the right dispositions, a person is truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ, and reborn to a sharing of the divine life, as the Apostle says: “You were buried together with Him in Baptism, and in Him also rose again-through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”.(40)
   Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

So are you saying that EENS states somewhere “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church unless you died under the Law of Moses when all that was required for Salvation was to abide by the Law of Moses”?

If so, what document states that?

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism makes us all members of the Body of Christ, aka, the Catholic Church.

This is quite a trenchant point, Telstar, and one I had not considered.

If the Church allows us to baptize those in near-death situations, then it seems clear that all that is required to make someone a Catholic is baptism, yes?

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s the point of contention that you’ve been arguing against, by claiming that there are “no exceptions” for salvation outside the Catholic Church. The fact is that Baptisms performed by using the proper Trinitarian formula, are valid for salvation. When converts come to the RCC, they only need to be re-baptized if there is any doubt that they have been Baptized properly. Certain church’s Baptisms are considered to be valid by the RCC, therefore there has to be a possibility, however small it might be, that salvation must also be possible for those who are Baptized by those churches. Otherwise, no other Baptism could be regarded as valid for converts coming to the RCC. A valid Baptism brings all those that receive it, into the Catholic Church, no matter who Baptizes them, even those other churches. Baptism makes us all members of the Body of Christ, aka, the Catholic Church.

I refer you to MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832), specifically where it says …A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”… showing that baptism alone does not ensure that one has entered it the “bosom and unity of the Catholic Church”. The belief that one can be any religion and still be saved is a “perverse opinion spread by the wicked”. I, again, refer you to MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832), specifically where it says …
Another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care.

 

[Telstar]

This is quite a trenchant point, Telstar, and one I had not considered.

If the Church allows us to baptize those in near-death situations, then it seems clear that all that is required to make someone a Catholic is baptism, yes?

Technically, yes. If someone has a deep desire to be Baptized or, in the case of infants, the parents (sponsors) have that same desire in their heart, strictly for the sake of belonging to God’s family, through Jesus Christ, then I believe that through the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ, those people will be warmly welcomed into God’s adopted family. God requires one thing from his children above all else, and that’s true love. Every other virtue comes from true love, because God is Love. The door to God’s Love is opened to us through Baptism. That door is the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He died for the love of all of us. We just need to walk through that door, to start down the path to Heaven.

God doesn’t want to shut people out. He wants to draw them all to Himself. As long as that door is opened, anyone that’s received that gift of grace, has a chance for salvation. I’m not saying that those outside the Church, itself, will have an easy time making it all the way through to the end, but it is possible if they follow the law that’s been ‘written in their hearts’. That’s why we should always pray for the conversion of all souls. It’s not necessarily a conversion to the RCC (though that is always the best way), but at least a conversion of their hearts to accept that natural law, and live by it. In the end, God is the Judge of all hearts, and He will decide how well they’ve done. Since they do not have all of the sacraments of the Church to help lift them up (especially the Holy Eucharist), they will have to work that much harder to get there, but it is possible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

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

ddarko,
I said, “I’m getting it.”—meaning reconciling the infallible teachings of past and present is starting to make sense.

Peace,
Anna

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
I said, “I’m getting it.”—meaning reconciling the infallible teachings of past and present is starting to make sense.

Peace,
Anna

Oh ok, sorry, I misunderstood you then. That is good news

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Very good analog. Now explain your position in light of the following …

• 
  *] About 585 A.D., Pope Pelagius II infallibly stated, “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized (means excommunicated) according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord. [Gal. 3:7]” (SOURCE: Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 24
  
  *] In 1208 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, catholic, and Apostolic (Church) outside which we believe that no one is saved.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 423)
  
  *] In 1215 A.D., Pope Innocent III infallibly stated, “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 430)
  
  *] In 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sins…” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 468)
  
  *] In 1302 A.D., by the power invested in him, Pope Boniface VIII infallibly stated, “…we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 469)
  
  *] In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "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 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. (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

 

[PRmerger]

Technically, yes. If someone has a deep desire to be Baptized or, in the case of infants, the parents (sponsors) have that same desire in their heart, strictly for the sake of belonging to God’s family, through Jesus Christ, then I believe that through the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ, those people will be warmly welcomed into God’s adopted family.

Amen!

And only God knows the “desire in their heart”, and would it not be just for someone who truly desires Him to be allowed to be with Him in eternity?

Again, the fact that a lay person can baptize on one’s deathbed–(this is Church sanctioned!) is indication that baptism makes someone Catholic!

I never thought about that argument before, and I am certainly putting in my arsenal against the Traditionalists who misinterpret EENS!

 

[Anna_Scott]

Oh ok, sorry, I misunderstood you then. That is good news

God Bless

No worries.

Anna

 

[Sirach2]

Sir Knight:

I refer you to MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832), specifically where it says …
A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that…

You take quotes out of context to make your viewpoint appear to be logical and factual, but you are seriously in error. Note that the Pope referred to willful schismatics of his day when the document was written in 1832. The Catholic Encyclopedia names some of them.

The first was caused in France by the Civil Constitution of the clergy of 1790. The condemnation of the Civil Constitution by Pius VI in 1791 opened the eyes of some, but others persisted until their “Constitutional Church” declined shamefully and disappeared irrevocably in the revolutionary turmoil.
(20) A schism of another nature and of less importance was that of the so-called Petite Église or the Incommunicants, formed at the beginning of the nineteenth century by groups who were dissatisfied with the Concordat and the concordatory clergy.
(21) In 1831 the Abbé Chatel founded the French Catholic Church, a small group which never acquired importance.

Have you noticed that nobody is responding to your nonsense?

Yes, nonsense, as you have misunderstood other documents as well. The encyclical you quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with lawfully baptized christians of other faiths -* in our day* - who are NOT willful schismatics, but through no fault of their own, were born into these denominations. It is right and just that the Church addressed the matter in Vatican 2.

How is it that you suppress the teachings of an entire ecumenical council (2600 bishops) in favor of a mere encyclical of older times that addressed another issue altogether?

And more ridiculous yet, you dared to quote the Catechism as authentic teaching with regard to baptism, yet previously you alleged that the teachings therein are not infallible. Cherry-picking, huh? Only the truths you want to agree with your private opinion are infallible.

http://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif Ramble on…

 

[rinnie]

I’m glad.

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?

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

Anna think about you last comment. Jesus gave us those 2 things though did he not?

He gave us History and Reason. If we go back and put together history you can find the Catholic Church you can’t deny it. Now unless you can say that the RCC is not the Church that Jesus came to at the time of Pentecost you have to use Reason to accept that St Peter was part of the RCC.

Now if ST Peter was indeed apart of the RCC and Human Reason and History can prove this, do you not agree that the RCC HAS to be a part of the OHCAC that was started by Christ.

Now today now only do we have HISTORY we have actual remains of ST Peter in the RCC.

Now human reason would have to come with some kind of doubt that St Peter was not part of the RCC. But History would rebuke that person.

Now History can show using Human Reason that St Peter was what we call the first Pope, and History can take you right up to date to every Human Pope from ST. Peter on.

Now using simple logic and human reason, and history you have to come to the conclusion with that and the scripture of the laying of hands and passing on the keys to the kingdom that the Pope HAS to have them.

It goes from History Jesus having them and passing them on to St Peter, saying that Hades (death) would never end the existance of the CC. Which would be the death of Peter, simply because Jesus left in the Physical sense, Peter left in the Physical sense, but Jesus left his Holy SPirit to lead, and Peter left the passing of the Physical keys, which is person to person. You must agree that HAS to get you thinking.

 

[rinnie]

That’s the point of contention that you’ve been arguing against, by claiming that there are “no exceptions” for salvation outside the Catholic Church. The fact is that Baptisms performed by using the proper Trinitarian formula, are valid for salvation. When converts come to the RCC, they only need to be re-baptized if there is any doubt that they have been Baptized properly. Certain church’s Baptisms are considered to be valid by the RCC, therefore there has to be a possibility, however small it might be, that salvation must also be possible for those who are Baptized by those churches. Otherwise, no other Baptism could be regarded as valid for converts coming to the RCC. A valid Baptism brings all those that receive it, into the Catholic Church, no matter who Baptizes them, even those other churches. Baptism makes us all members of the Body of Christ, aka, the Catholic Church.

I am kinda lost how you are arguing with him on this point. Where is there any kind of Baptism in the Name of the Father the SOn and the Holy Spirit not a Catholic Baptism?

I guess what I am asking you here is how are you separating Baptism from the Catholic Church, which another way of putting this is, how do you separate CHrist from the OHCAC?

Because even if a person is to become part of the OHCAC through RCIA if that person is baptised in the name of the Trinity it is considered a VALID Catholic Baptism.

By you saying that if they are baptised in the Trinity and do NOT have to be RE-Baptised you are really validating his claim are you not.

SO if you agree with the RCC that if a person is baptised in the name of the Trinity they ARE untied to Christ in the RCC although not in perfect union because they do not have ALL of the Sacraments.

So again what is your argument that Salvation is made possible by Jesus Christ by our union of ONE BAPTISM for the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ whom tells us that he and the Church are ONE.

 

[rinnie]

There is speculation also as to what happened to the souls of the native Americans who had been here (how long) before Christians arrived from Europe to catechise them. This was one of the reasons the V-2 Council reviewed this matter of salvation, since the New World had not been discovered at the time these incomplete documents were written. The Holy Spirit moved the conciliars to examine the matter in deeper truth.

We trust in St. Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:14-15 that there are peoople who, in invincible ignorance, followed the natural law, which we know from God’s revelation is written in the heart and conscience of every person. If they followed the natural law and lived uprightly, they attained salvation in some manner known to God alone, who is Mercy and Justice. We read in Revelations 22:12 that God will “render to each one according to his works.”

There is no speculation from where I can see this. Salvation was made possible by Christ by his death on the cross.

In the O.T. the souls were held. they could not enter heaven UNTIL Jesus released them from hades.

It was by his death on the cross that opened UP the gates of heaven and it was Christ himself who went down into hades to release those souls from what we call Original SIn, which is really ONE Baptism for the forgivness of sins.

So I am a little confused how you say they attained salvation to some manner know only to God, God revealed to us that Salvation would come from his Son Jesus Christ.

Even the Jews who could NOT SEE Christ for who he IS and WAS still were, and are to this day looking for him, do you not agree. Are they not still waiting for him?

So again I am not seeing what you are saying.

Nothing takes away from the fact that ALL salvaton comes from the CC which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Sirach2]

Salvation was made possible by Christ by his death on the cross.

In the O.T. the souls were held. they could not enter heaven UNTIL Jesus released them from hades.

Rinnie, you didn’t read far enough before posting. Read my words here:

I absolutely agree with you - the grace of Christ’s redemption is applied to both pre-christian times and afterwards.