Do only Catholics have salvation?

[itsjustdave1988]

BlessedBe13,

I presumed your question was because you wanted to learn, not necessarily cuz your wanted an argument. My bad.

 

[BlessedBe13]

itsjustdave1988:

BlessedBe13,

I presumed your question was because you wanted to learn, not necessarily cuz your wanted an argument. My bad.

so a discussion equals an argument here? Or I suppose it’s only an argument if the view opposes your own. Can’t have opposing views in a discussion. Everyone must be the same or else it’s an argument?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BlessedBe13,

My intent was to tell you the answer to your question because I thought that is what you wanted. I really didn’t care to enter a discussion with you about it. I was merely intending to teach.

Sometimes its hard to distingish the intent of some questions on these forums. At times they are born of a desire to know or clarify some point of Catholic doctrine. At other times it seems the question is only a point of departure into an debate. I would not have answered your question if I realized your question was of the latter kind.

You are free to beleive whatever you want. I’m here to help clarify Catholic doctrine (teach). When I feel in the mood to debate, I can do that too. I’m just not in the mood, so you’ll have to “discuss” your contrary views with someone else.

Good luck.

 

[BlessedBe13]

That’s fine if you dont want to discuss things. I thought part of a discussion was to learn things about other views while presenting your own.

Perhaps in the future I should label whether i am looking for a discussion or not?

 

[John_Higgins]

The Argument, an Excerpt

Mr. Vibrating: Come in.
Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Mr. Vibrating: I’ve told you once.
Man: No you haven’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?

Mr. Vibrating: Just now.
Man: No you didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: I did!
Man: Didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Did!
Man: Didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: I’m telling you, I did!
Man: You did not!

Mr. Vibrating: Oh I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Man: Ah! Just the five minutes.

Mr. Vibrating: Ah, thank you.
Anyway, I did.
Man: You most certainly did not!

Mr. Vibrating: Look, let’s get this thing clear: I quite definitely told you!
Man: No you did not!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes I did!
Man: No you didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes I did!
Man: No you didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes I did!
Man: No you didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes I did!
Man: You didn’t!

Mr. Vibrating: Did!
Man: Oh look, this isn’t an argument!

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn’t! It’s just contradiction!

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t!
Man: It IS!

Mr. Vibrating: It is NOT!
Man: Look, you just contradicted me!

Mr. Vibrating: I did not!
Man: Oh, you DID!

Mr. Vibrating: No no no!
Man: You did just then!

Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense!
Man: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t!
Man: I came here for a good argument!

Mr. Vibrating: No you didn’t, no, you came here for an argument!
Man: An argument isn’t just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: CAN be!
Man: No it can’t! An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t!
Man: Yes it is! 'tisn’t just contradiction.

Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Man: Yes but that’s not just saying “no it isn’t”.

Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn’t! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

Mr. Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: Yes it is!

Mr. Vibrating: Not at all!
Man: Now look…

Mr. Vibrating: (Hits a bell on his desk) [DING] Good morning!
Man: (stunned) What?

Mr. Vibrating: That’s it. Good morning.
Man: But I was just getting interested!

Mr. Vibrating: I’m sorry, the five minutes is up.
Man: That was never five minutes!!

Mr. Vibrating: I’m afraid it was.
Man: It wasn’t…

Mr. Vibrating: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue any more.
Man: WHAT??

Mr. Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
Man: Yes, but that was never five minutes just now! Oh Come on!

Mr. Vibrating: (Hums to himself.)
Man: Look this is ridiculous!

Mr. Vibrating: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
Man: Oh all right. (Pays.)

Mr. Vibrating: Thank you.
Man: Well…

Mr. Vibrating: Well WHAT?
Man: That wasn’t really five minutes just now.

Mr. Vibrating: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
Man: Well I just paid!

Mr. Vibrating: No you didn’t!
Man: I DID!!!

Mr. Vibrating: No you didn’t!
Man: Look, I don’t want to argue about that!

Mr. Vibrating: Well, you didn’t pay!
Man: Ah HAH!! If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing??? I’ve got you.

Mr. Vibrating: No you haven’t!
Man: Yes I have! If you’re arguing, I must have paid.

Mr. Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Man: Oh, I have had enough of this.

Mr. Vibrating: No, you haven’t.
Man: Oh, shut up!

This material is copyright Python Productions Ltd and remains their property

John

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John,

I did feel a little trapped in a similar skit for a sec.

 

[BlessedBe13]

That’s a lovely skit…but has nothing to do with anything . I know an argument is more than contradictions, and I can and do give statements supporting my opinions. However, if I receive sarcasm or rudeness, I can give it right back.

 

[larryo]

No, but faithful Catholics have the best chance for salvation. The Catholic Church, founded by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit, possesses **all **of the means necessary for men to be saved. Catholics who do not faithfully practice their faith and all others are at a severe disadvantage in meeting their obligations to God as defined by the Catholic Church, the only church founded by Jesus and the only church entrusted with the fullness of divinely revealed Truth. To be other than Catholic is to put oneself in grave danger and at the mercy of the Prince of Lies.

 

[JGC]

John Higgins:

I have waded through this thread and am astonished that (with a few exceptions) no one has quoted anything more recent that the 91 year old Catholic Encyclopedia.

It seems to me the Vicar of Christ has caused to be published the definitive document on the teachings of the Magisterium. I dare to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

John

Yes it’s that Encyclopedia again. It should come with a warning about its age and context. A scottish diocese website has it on its links page and is careful to state SOME articles are still useful.

Anyway, your CCC quote gives the current Church teaching. Those EENS ‘traditionalist’ Catholics who would like to damn everyone outside the visible Catholic Church are going against this teaching, stated in the CCC, ‘A sure norm for teaching the faith’ JPII.

This means they are going against Church teaching and ironically, given most of these people are ‘totally loyal to Rome’ saying that the Pope is wrong here. (Sedevacantism anybody… )

They can have their opinions and are entitled to them but what they should not do is in any way claim this is what the Church teaches.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

oat soda:

the point is that the church has an invisible aspect to it and the jews, schismatics, heretics, and pagans, the pope is refering to knowingly turned their back to the true church

Does this mean that when the Florentine fathers wrote in the same Bull of Union with the Copts that
with regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can
that they really only meant those babies who had knowingly turned their back on the Church? Really now, this is just silly. Obviously the Florentine fathers conceive of damnation as the default state, from which we must be affirmatively removed through the sacramental ministry of the Church. As such, it is silly to talk about Jews, Pagans, Heretics and Schismatics being o.k. so long as they have not knowingly chosen to be separated from the Church. Ignorance is regrettable but beside the point. Florence makes clear that we must be joined to the Catholic Church before we die or we are surely lost and that this business of being joined to Her is not the default state.

 

[RBushlow]

BlessedBe13:

I really don’t believe in hell anyway, I stopped at some point when I was still a practicing Catholic.

BB13,

So is your beliefe system now? Are you Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, non-christian, athiest, or what?

 

[JGC]

GrzeszDeL:

Does this mean that when the Florentine fathers wrote in the same Bull of Union with the Copts that
with regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can
that they really only meant those babies who had knowingly turned their back on the Church? Really now, this is just silly. Obviously the Florentine fathers conceive of damnation as the default state, from which we must be affirmatively removed through the sacramental ministry of the Church. As such, it is silly to talk about Jews, Pagans, Heretics and Schismatics being o.k. so long as they have not knowingly chosen to be separated from the Church. Ignorance is regrettable but beside the point. Florence makes clear that we must be joined to the Catholic Church before we die or we are surely lost and that this business of being joined to Her is not the default state.

As post 88 above makes clear, these are your personal opinions and not Church teaching.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

GrzeszDeL,

Infants who die in original sin to not attain eternal life. Nor do any adults who die in original sin attain eternal life. Nor can any Catholics or non-Catholics who die in mortal sin attain eternal life.

However, Scripture teaches us that baptism can be non-sacramental (cf. Acts 10, pouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius prior to sacramental baptism, also, the repentent thief who died on the Cross next to Jesus), whenever God so chooses. The Council of Trent affirms that baptism “or its desire” is efficacious toward the forgiveness of original sin.

What the Church has NOT taught definitively is that infants who die prior to sacramental baptism are not able to be non-sacramentally baptized by “desire.” Some Catholic theologians opine that the desire of the faith community suffices for the desire absent in the infant. The Church has not taught definitively on this point, one way or the other.

So, Catholics may hope and pray that infants who die prior to sacramental baptism, somehow are non-sacramentally baptized by God in his merciful goodness. Yet, the Church does not teach that such infants definitely attain eternal life. Thus the need to sacramentally baptize is retained.

 

[rarndt01]

The Catholic church in and of itself does not give salvation, but salvation comes solely through the grace of God. The church is a MEANS to obtain that salvation from God. And how is this done? Through the blessed sacraments of the church. One can hardly be accepted by God, if one refuses to obey what he has estblished through the church. Can one be saved apart from confirmation, which includes baptism and the the reception of God’s spirit? Can one be saved who rejects our blessed Lord in receiving the Eucharist? And can one be saved without continued confession and absolution? I think not. For these blessed sacraments are the means for us to receive God’s grace, forgiveness and eternal life.

 

[BlessedBe13]

RBushlow:

BB13,

So is your beliefe system now? Are you Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, non-christian, athiest, or what?

I don’t “label” myself under any religion right now, but I am currently studying Wicca.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Steven Merten:

Hello Skyron,

“No Salvation outside the Church”, infallibility, ecumenanism; Your not the only one who is confused. For the sake of ecumenanism, Church leaders seem to be working double overtime trying to find ways around Pope Eugene IV “infallible teaching” from the council of Florence. What it says and what modern Church leaders now say it says, seems to be totally opposites.

Jesus gave the Church the power to “hold sins bound” and “hold sins loost” or in other words “the keys to the Kingdom”. If papal infallibility has any realtion to the “keys to the Kingdom”, as I have heard some say it dose, one would think that the “infallible” Church teaching on “No Salvation outside the Church” is one that the Pope should now consider “holding loost”. Again, I am no expert on “No Salvation outside the Church”, infallibility and ecumenanism. However, to read the “infallible” doctrine on “No salavation outside the Church” does not make me happy about being Catholic.

I do know that the “infallible” doctrine on no salvation to non-Catholics was not brought up until after the Joint Catholic Lutheran Declaration on Justification was already signed by the Lutherans. They were greatly upset when it came out later. Why did Catholic leaders not see any sence in bringing up, what they believe to be infallible knowledge of no salvation for the Lutherans, when discussing salvation with them?

"There are three ex cathedra papal pronouncements that outside the Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three is from Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447), who infallibly taught at the Council of Florence:

“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, heretics, and schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; … no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and*** unity*** of the Catholic Church.”

Quoted from John Vennari
oltyn.com/V2-unity.htm

​

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten

You need to keep in mind what the Christian church was when certain statments were made. The one you quote above was made prior to the Reformation which means that, at that time, to be Christian was to be Catholic. There was no such thing as a non-Catholic Christian.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Catholic4aReasn:

You need to keep in mind what the Christian church was when certain statments were made. The one you quote above was made prior to the Reformation which means that, at that time, to be Christian was to be Catholic. There was no such thing as a non-Catholic Christian.

Huh? There were plenty of non-Catholic Christians around at the time of Florence. The whole reason that Florence was held was to resolve schisms between the Catholic Church and various eastern patriarchates. The idea of non-Catholic Christians was very much a tangible reality in the minds of the Florentine Fathers.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

itsjustdave1988:

Infants who die in original sin to not attain eternal life. Nor do any adults who die in original sin attain eternal life. Nor can any Catholics or non-Catholics who die in mortal sin attain eternal life.

However, Scripture teaches us that baptism can be non-sacramental (cf. Acts 10, pouring of the Spirit upon Cornelius prior to sacramental baptism, also, the repentent thief who died on the Cross next to Jesus), whenever God so chooses. The Council of Trent affirms that baptism “or its desire” is efficacious toward the forgiveness of original sin.

Hey, you will get no argument from me that the baptisms of blood and desire are efficacious. This, however, is still a darn sight further away than most here would care to admit from the idea that a pagan might be saved so long as he has not knowingly reject the Church.

What the Church has NOT taught definitively is that infants who die prior to sacramental baptism are not able to be non-sacramentally baptized by “desire.” Some Catholic theologians opine that the desire of the faith community suffices for the desire absent in the infant. The Church has not taught definitively on this point, one way or the other.

I confess that, much as I would like to believe what you say, I am hard pressed to reconcile these claims to the claims of the Florentine text which I quoted above. In any case, it is rather beside the point; my only reason for citing the text was to point out the inadequacies of the idea that when Florence says speaks of Jews, pagans, heretics and schismatics, it only means those Jews, pagans, heretics and schismatics who have knowingly rejected the Faith. This seems like a rather sentimental eisegesis to my mind with little basis in the text. The actual definitive enunciations of Church teaching are far less sanguine about the hope for salvation of non-Catholics (Christian or otherwise).

 

[GrzeszDeL]

JGC:

As post 88 above makes clear, these are your personal opinions and not Church teaching.

From where I am standing, post #88 seems much more useful for determining what JGC thinks than for determining what the Church teaches.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

Steven Merten:

if papal “infallibility” is taken from the Christ given “Keys to the Kingdom” to hold sins bound or loost, I think it is time for Pope John Paul II to hold Pope Eugenes “infallible” doctrine, “loost”. Then the Church can write a more appropriate doctrine in line with the will of Jesus.

none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can never be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’

I just wanted to comment on this sentiment which has appeared in a number of your posts, Steve. The Pope, it is true, has the power to “bind & loose,” but this refers to his authority to make binding legal judgements. It most definitely does not mean that he has the power to reinvent the Faith however he sees fit. Now that an ecumenical council has infallibly declared that only Catholics will be saved, no one, not even the Pope or another council, can change that. The Church has irrevocably committed Herself to the claim, and there is no going back.