Do Non-Catholics go to Heaven?

[rinnie]

jmcrae,
I think there is a clear teaching in the CC; but perhaps some Catholics are not well Catechized. Hopefully, by the end of this thread, Catholics will be in agreement.

Though, Sir Knight seemed to be sincerely shocked by the teachings of LG; and he doesn’t seem to be giving much in his position. Hopefully you and other Catholics will be able to help him sort through teachings of past and present.

Like I said in a previous post, I’m actually “getting it”–meaning, I’m starting to understand how the past infallible teachings fit with the infallible teachings of LG. In a previous thread, GaryTaylor planted the seeds for my understanding. This thread brought forth the fruit of understanding.

Peace,
Anna

Well Anna if there is a CLEAR teaching on a given that GOD will find a way to baptise ALL babies and they all have a GUARANTEE into heaven, the Church has not revealed it to us yet. Which means the Holy SPirit has not revealed it to the Church yet.

If it has been revealed I will be the first to apologize because I sure missed it. For the time being we are free to believe what we want and rely on the mercy of God.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pope Benedict XVI 2007…

orlandodiocese.org/en/btw-columns/item/283-in-limbo-unbaptized-children-april-2007

 

[rinnie]

:Before I go, let me make this clear.

Sir Knight believes that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ. It was by the body and blood of Christ that our sins are washed away. Baptism is ordinary means and no one can enter into heaven without being WASHED by the body and blood of Christ. That is what Baptism is. having the sin or Original sin washed away.

What he is saying is consistent with the RCC that if you die and have not had the sin of original sin washed away you cannot enter heaven. But we CAN believe that by the mercy of Christ he can WASH away that original sin that the baby is also born with as all of us are, but by extra ordinary means. BUT let me make this clear, IT IS STILL BAPTISED, It is still CLEANSED of the Original SIn. But we do not KNOW the mercy of Christ and we do not know the MIND of Christ. SO we cannot talk for him.

NO ONE defiled with sin can enter heaven, because no sin can enter heaven. We know that to be a true teaching. So they have to be cleansed from sin.

 

[rinnie]

Pope Benedict XVI 2007…

orlandodiocese.org/en/btw-columns/item/283-in-limbo-unbaptized-children-april-2007

Exactly Gary, and what is Baptism, having our sins washed away by the body and blood of Christ.

The fact is and always remains is what is Baptism to a Roman Catholic. Not just the water poured over us. IT is having the GRACE of God to pay for our sins.

We believe in ONE BAPTISM for the forgivness of sins. Rather it is a normal Baptism, the way the Church does it. or is done by Christ in his OWN WAY its still him paying for our sins by being washed by his blood. You cannot enter heaven without the blood of Christ that is what is called Baptism to a Roman Catholic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Sirarch, I am not trying to argue with you, I am trying to get us all on the same page. I am asking you can a baby enter heaven without baptism? According to what we know we have to say NO.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

 

[GaryTaylor]

You cannot enter heaven without the blood of Christ that is what is called Baptism to a Roman Catholic.

To paraphrase St. Augustine, while “we” need the sacraments to be saved, God does not need them to save us.

Thats not to say the CC is not the One Holy Apostolic Church which through Divine Providence Jesus established “Upon this Rock”.

God Bless, Gary

 

[rinnie]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).

SHow me something I have not been saying all along.

CCC We can only trust God and rely on his mercy. That does not say that he will give his mercy we pray he will. We can only say he is a Loving and fair God. This still does not teach the GOD WILL SAVE unbaptised babys in his extra ordinary Grace.

Next line CCC. Says these People CAN be saved. Where is the promise that they will.

We do have the promise in Baptism. Repent and be baptised for the forgiviness of sins.

The problem here is quite simple. The Protestant faith does not understand the difference between Original sin which is forgiven once and for all at Baptism. and actual sin that is the sin we make and are forgiven by repentance through the Church.

 

[rinnie]

To paraphrase St. Augustine, while “we” need the sacraments to be saved, God does not need them to save us.

Thats not to say the CC is not the One Holy Apostolic Church which through Divine Providence Jesus established “Upon this Rock”.

God Bless, Gary

You are right Gary we cannot say that God needs the sacraments to save us. But as you said in the same token we are guaranteed that by the Sacraments we CAN BE SAVED.

By Baptism original sin is wiped out once and for all. THat is a given. By the grace of God a child CAN be saved if he is not baptised by ordinary means.

But again Gary what is baptism to you, Is it not being forgiven which I keep dwelling on, by the blood of Christ. Wihout his blood no one is saved.

All salvation comes from the Jesus Christ which to us is through the Catholic CHurch.

 

[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.

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.

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. I was responding to the contradiction in Sir Knight’s post. He pointed out that those who were Baptized in the name of the Trinity, did in fact become members of the Catholic Church through that action, no matter who performed the action. He agrees with that. So do I. He used it to make a point about the necessity of Baptism for salvation. I also agree with that. But, at the same time, he was using that fact to back up his argument that there is no chance of salvation, for anyone else, not even other Christians. His main point has been that unless they are bona fide, practicing members of the Roman Catholic Church, in full communion with the Pope, they’re all going to hell. I strongly disagree.

He completely contradicted himself because both of those statements cannot be true. If a valid Baptism makes someone a member of the Body of Christ (aka Catholic), then there has to be some chance that there can be salvation for those souls that have received a ‘valid Baptism’. I was just explaining to him how I thought he had contradicted his own argument, and actually proved that people can attain salvation, even if they’re not in full communion with the Pope, because they are joined to the Body of Christ by the valid Baptism that makes them “Catholic”.

Does that help clear up my position a little? It’s exasperating that he uses the CCC to back up what he thinks is correct, but if anyone else uses it, it’s wrong. You can’t win with someone like that. I have a friend that’s sedevacantist and her arguments are very similar. But, you can’t tell them that their beliefs make them schismatic, if they stubbornly refuse to believe, or follow, what the Church and the Pope teaches. I have no problem with them humbly disagreeing with things that they might not like or understand, but when they promote dissent amongst other Catholics by denigrating the Church and Her leaders, then they are fighting ‘against the Church’. By their own actions, they are actively separating and excommunicating themselves from the Church. They don’t see it that way at all.

I also have to wonder how someone that’s supposed to be so dedicated to the teachings of the Church can be so cold-hearted and uncharitable towards other children of God. They’ll certainly never gain any converts to their position by such a judgmental, hard-nosed, ‘fire & brimstone’ approach to evangelizing or maintaining the Faith.

 

[Julia_Mae]

from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

The Church has spoken clearly on this issue.

 

[Telstar]

Sirarch, I am not trying to argue with you, I am trying to get us all on the same page. I am asking you can a baby enter heaven without baptism? According to what we know we have to say NO.

But is Baptism possible by extra-ordinary means we have to say yes, because extra ordinary means can have Christ wash away that sin any way he wants. ITs still a baptism, cleansing of the sin. We call it baptism by ordinary means.

BUt back to the question if a baby is not cleaned from that sin, Will it enter heaven. We have to say no. Do you not agree.

Now if it cannot enter heaven, where is it to go. I know you hate to say it, or even think it, but what would your answer be, if NOT heaven where?

So what I am saying do you see what Sir Knight is saying. Thats all I am saying. IF not heaven its has to be hell do you agree?

You are arguing points that have already been answered by Sirach, and many others, in this thread. You seem to want to defend Sir Knight’s position on Baptism, but that was not the *main *point that he was making in his post. According to him, all babies that are not Baptized go to hell. Period. The Catholic Church teaches otherwise, and states that we cannot know for sure what happens to them, but that they *may *be saved by the Grace and Mercy of God, in some way, (i.e. by ‘extraordinary means’). Sir Knight denies that those ‘extraordinary means’ even exist at all. He believes that anyone that is not Roman Catholic can never go to Heaven. He believes that everyone outside the RC Church goes to hell, no matter who they are, where they are, or what they do. He doesn’t believe that it’s possible, even though the Bible tell us that it is possible for others to be saved.

“Romans 2:[11] For there is no respect of persons with God. [12] For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law; and whosoever have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. [13] For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [14] For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: [15] Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, [16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.”

Go back and reread the responses that have been posted about infants being unbaptized. Sir Knight claims that the CCC’s answers to that question, as well as the possibility of salvation outside the Church, are wrong. He doesn’t believe that the doctrines that were clarified in LG are valid. He picks and chooses which of the Church’s doctrines he wants to believe, and claims that others contradict dogma, even though they do not. All of his other quotes of dogma, Papal Bulls, etc., are taken completely out of context to back up his false claims. That’s the argument that he made, and that’s what we’ve all been trying to point out to him. It’s his erroneous interpretations of those Papal Bulls, dogmas and doctrines that make him question and disagree with what the Church is teaching.

The Church cannot teach error, but he would have us think, not only that it can, but it does. Unfortunately for him, he’s wrong. If he were right, then the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, and that can never happen. Either he is really having a hard time understanding the truth, or he is stubbornly rejecting it because he thinks that he knows better than the Bishops, and even the Pope, on matters of Catholic Doctrine.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Have you noticed that nobody is responding to your nonsense?

I noticed that people are unable to refute the evidence that I have provided and lack the courage to admit that they are wrong. If I am wrong, it should be a simple matter to explain away the objections that posted HERE.

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.

An infallible declaration from ANY DAY remains infallible.

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?

You clearly do not understand the concept of infallible teaching. Once something is officially declared infallible, it remains infallible forever. There is no expiration date on infallible teaching. No future Pope, council, groups of bishops, etc.;; can ever contradict that infallible teaching.

Secondly, exactly where did these thousands of Bishops say that people of other faiths will be saved?

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.

I quoted from both scripture AND officially declared Church dogmas. I was told that I was misunderstanding what was being said. I don’t see how since the message seems pretty clear, but since folks kept saying that V2 placed those teachings in a different light, I quoted teachings from after V2 which also support my position.

 

[Sir_Knight]

from The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation”**846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.The Church has spoken clearly on this issue.

… “those too MAY achieve eternal salvation” – it doesn’t say that if they seek God with a sincere heart, they WILL achieve eternal salvation. They MAY achieve eternal salvation. God MAY send a missionary to convert and baptize them. But if they remain outside of the Catholic Church, they will not be saved. The Church has spoken clearly on this issue …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 (those who do not practice the one true religion), but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics (those who were baptized into the faith but rejected one or more aspects of the faith) cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

 

[Sir_Knight]

He’s not but the fact that he used one paragraph out of what 80-something in the CCC on Baptism gives one a bias view IMHO.

Why would I need to quote others if this one proves my point? Is there a passage which says that baptism is not needed for salvation? If there isn’t a passage that says that, then how am I being bias?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Indeed.

Does not our Holy Mother Church teach this:
However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers and sisters.-**-cited on the Knights of Columbus **website.

We may accept them but that isn’t the issue being discussed. The question is whether or not they accept the one true Catholic faith. To say that a person of ANY faith will be saved is the heresy of indifference. The Church OFFICIALLY declared this to be a PERVERSE opinion spread the WICKED …
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. – MIRARI VOS, the Encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832)
… The belief that “it is possible to obtain eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion as long as morality is maintained” is a perverse opinion spread by the wicked – THAT is official Church dogma … infallible Church teaching which can never be changed or contradicted.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Rinnie, I think Sir Knight was making a point, due to his colored highlight, to discredit the posts regarding invincible ignorance - that those who live the natural law written in their hearts may obtain salvation. He is obstinately denying this teaching by using the CCC’s words to imply that baptism ALONE grants salvation.

Baptism alone opens the door to salvation. It doesn’t guarantee it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, that was not his point. I’ll bet on it, since he has so often said that without baptism to remove original sin, even unbaptized babies go to hell. PRmerger refuted that with the Holy Innocents, and once again, Sir Knight objected.

PRmerger didn’t refute anything. He cited an example PRIOR to the establishment of the Catholic Church. The Holy Innocents were under the Old Law and NOT under the new and everlasting covenant.

And, as I ask, which no one has been able to answer, if unbaptized babies go to heaven, why does the Church make the special exception to allow anyone to baptize a baby if there is danger of death? If both baptized and unbaptized babies go to heaven, what does it matter?

 

[Sir_Knight]

1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized.

" Baptism is necessary for salvation " I believe was the highlighted point made.

Its no different than stating “There’s No Salvation outside the CC” yet ignoring the entire context of LG.

Are both this correct statements “No Salvation outside the CC” and “Baptism is necessary for Salvation”…yes they are. However its ignoring the context. In other words its reading “Sola Scriptura”.

I don’t for a moment doubt the intentions are good of Sir Knight, on the contrary I believe he’s a very good Catholic. Nevertheless we also have an obligation to present the Doctrine correctly.

Peace

Baptism of Desire

1259 -For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit “desire” to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Kindly reconcile what you just said with the following infallible teaching …"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." – Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence (SOURCE: D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

 

[Sirach2]

[sign1]Blah, Blah, Blah!
Ramble on…[/sign1]

 

[PRmerger]

Go back and reread the responses that have been posted about infants being unbaptized.

Indeed.

It seems that some Traditionalists espouse a new teaching “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”

I wonder if there is any Magisterial document that proclaims the above?

Or is it something new that Traditionalists are positing in order to be more Catholic than the pope?

The Church cannot teach error, but he would have us think, not only that it can, but it does. Unfortunately for him, he’s wrong. If he were right, then the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, and that can never happen. Either he is really having a hard time understanding the truth, or he is stubbornly rejecting it because he thinks that he knows better than the Bishops, and even the Pope, on matters of Catholic Doctrine.

Trenchant comment. Well said! :clapping:

Bravo!