Do only Catholics have salvation?

[BlessedBe13]

**All religions are following the same god? Oh really… that’s funny because I worship Jesus who died on the cross for my sins and my sister, who believes in a New Age sort of hodge podge doesn’t believe in Jesus at all but rather, she worships the mother Earth and the tree gods. Is that the same thing?? I believe that Jesus was the Son of God… Muslums believe that although he was a good man, he was not nearly as special as Muhammad. Does that sound like we worship the same God? I believe that he was the Christ, the son of the Living God and the second part of the trinity; the Jehovah Witnesses believe that he was an angel and in no way, shape or form God. Does that sound like the same God? **

Jesus is supposed to be God right? Well I didn’t say that everyone worships Jesus. Everyone worships God in a different form. You worship God in the form of father, son, holy spirit. Your sister apprarently worships in the form of a God and Goddess. It’s still the same “god” that everyone is worshipping, just in forms they feel more comfortable with. Your religion says that Jesus is God, other religions believe that he was a good man that may or may not have also performed miracles. Of course you are going to believe that he is god. That is what is taught by your religion.

**When Jesus said, “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.” I believe him. When he said the gate to eternal life was narrow and few find it I believe him. There is no other name under heaven by which we might be saved. Do you believe it? If so then you must agree that all religions are not the same. Most religions reject Jesus. They put their faith in other prophets. They are NOTHING like me. My faith is in Jesus. **

Tell me, were you there when Jesus said these things? I don’t think so. The Bible was written by men who were probably influenced by God, but were also trying to make a foundation for and promote their religion. Besides, even if Jesus said these things - ok, he’s supposed to be God. The gate to eternal life is through him? So it is through god, which other religions do worship, just not the same way you do. I never said all religions were the same. That is my point - they are all different ways to worship the same god. You can’t say that your religion is the ONLY truth, because a lot of other religions say that too. What if the Muslims are right and you’re wrong. Personally, I don’t believe there is ONE right religion. I never said other religions were like you. Again that’s my point, you worship god in a different way than others.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

BlessedBe13:

Again that’s my point, you worship god in a different way than others.

Indeed. They worship God in their way, and we worship Him in His way.

 

[Dan-Man916]

other religions are really about man reaching out to God.
Catholicism is about God reaching out to mankind.

 

[BlessedBe13]

GrzeszDeL:

Indeed. They worship God in their way, and we worship Him in His way.

You are still worshiping him in the way your religion dictates. There’s no “right” way of doing it, what should matter is that someone has faith. If anything, that’s what “he” would want, not for everyone to be arguing over who’s right and who’s wrong.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Dan-Man916:

other religions are really about man reaching out to God.
Catholicism is about God reaching out to mankind.

And I don’t see what’s wrong with either of those. It’s nice to know god is reaching out to us, but it’s also important that we reach out to him, so that it’s not just one-sided.

 

[Dan-Man916]

However, our religion is not founded by man. it is founded by God.
Only 2 religions have ever been established by God, Judaism, and its fulfillment, Catholicism.
Therefore, we worship according to God’s Revelation to man, not by man’s perception of trying to reach God.

 

[Dan-Man916]

BlessedBe13:

And I don’t see what’s wrong with either of those. It’s nice to know god is reaching out to us, but it’s also important that we reach out to him, so that it’s not just one-sided.

of course He wants us to reach back out to Him. That is the nature of our faith, it is a communal faith in which we share in the divine life of Christ within the Trinity.

However, we cannot make any human construct of the transcendent, call it God and think that this is really objectively God.
God may accept our sincerity and accept our attempt to commune with Him. However, if our human construct of God is wrong, we aren’t really worshiping him directly are we.
But with God, that may be plenty good enough for Him. Since I’m not God, I’m not going to speak for Him one way or the other.
However, the fact remains that those who do not know God are objectively in a deficient relationship to Him. I’m not blaming anyone for this. Just stating the obvious.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Dan-Man916:

However, the fact remains that those who do not know God are objectively in a deficient relationship to Him. I’m not blaming anyone for this. Just stating the obvious.

No-one really “knows” God. All religions have their own ideas of who/what god is. As I said, what should matter is that they have faith in god.

 

[carol_marie]

BlessedBe13:

No-one really “knows” God. All religions have their own ideas of who/what god is. As I said, what should matter is that they have faith in god.

**I really really “know” God. His name is Jesus. He’s with me every minute of every day. I talk to Him and he speaks to me through his Holy Word, (which by the way is not just a book written by a bunch of men - it’s actually the inspired word of God.) I love Him more than anything, with all of my heart and that love I have for him is only a tiny speck of dust compared to the love He has for me. **
**Jesus is THE ONLY way to God the Father. It’s true that all religions have their own idea of who god is, but the sad thing is unless there God is Jesus, the Christ, The Alpha & the Omega, The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World - unless their god is THAT god, they are wrong. Dead wrong. **

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steven Merton,

unless before death they are joined with Her

The Church has always taught that one may be joined with her in soul, although perhaps not in body.

I believe your understanding of this doctrine is called “Feeneyism,” held in the 40’s by Fr. Leonard Feeney, was denounced by the Church, and resultant disobedience surrounding his promotion of this teaching resulted in his excommuncation from the Church.

Yes, it is an infallible dogma of Catholicism, but its meaning is found not in a Feeneyist interpretation, but in the authentic interpretation of the Magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From the Catechism of St. Pius X:

Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?

A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire. …

Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church. …

Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Pope Pius IX (1846-1878)

“It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in **invincible ignorance **of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life” (From the Encyclical *Quanto conficiamure moerore, *1863, Denzinger 1677)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Furthermore, the Baltimore Catechism of 1891, which served the US wonderfully during Pope St. Pius X’s papacy stated the following:

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church,** and who has never – even in the past – had the slightest doubt of that fact – what will become of him?
**
If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. …

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. … (Baltimore Catechism no. 4)

 

[oat_soda]

itsjustdave1988,
you did a good job showing how “no salvation outside the church” has always been understood as being open to non-catholics. some orthodox try to use this argument against the church to show that we have changed an infallible teaching. 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 forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11909&page=3&pp=100.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Around the year A.D. 150, St. Justin Martyr offered this assessment of how one “belongs” to the Church of Christ, and specifically mentions the pagan philosopher Socrates:

Christ is the Logos [Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, and Heraclitus (Fr. William Most, The Holy Spirit and the Church, Notre Dame Institute Press, 1991p. 75).

St. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies:

Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly. . . and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice (ibid., p. 76).

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, offered on the occasion of his father’s death in A.D. 374:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).

St. Augustine:

“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body. . . . All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark [by baptism of desire]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve Merton,

What you fail to distinguish is the difference between formal sin and material sin. A *formal *heretic, schismatic, etc. cannot attain eternal salvation. So what’s the difference between a formal sinner and a material sinner? A formal sin is committed out of defiance. A material sin may be a sin of grave matter (such as heresy or schism), but full advertence and/or full consent of the will is lacking.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “sin”:

Material and Formal Sin
This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “heresy”:

Excommunication specially reserved to the Roman pontiff, which is incurred by all apostates from the Catholic Faith, by each and all heretics, by whatever name they are known and to whatever sect they belong, and by all who believe in them (* credentes* ), receive, favour, or in any way defend them (Const. “Apostolicae Sedis”, 1869). Heretic here means formal heretic

St. Thomas Aquinas on the difference between “negligent ignorance” and “invincible ignorance”:

Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin.

 

[Steven_Merten]

itsjustdave1988:

Steven Merten,
The Church has always taught that one may be joined with her in soul, although perhaps not in body.

I believe your understanding of this doctrine is called “Feeneyism,” held in the 40’s by Fr. Leonard Feeney, was denounced by the Church, and resultant disobedience surrounding his promotion of this teaching resulted in his excommuncation from the Church.

Yes, it is an infallible dogma of Catholicism, but its meaning is found not in a Feeneyist interpretation, but in the authentic interpretation of the Magisterium.

Hello itsjustdave,

Calm down. Before you call the Pope to have him destroy my soul with excommunication my belief in “no salvation outside the Church”, let me clarify that I am only pointing out the confusion erupting over the strong terminology of this doctrine. This is a discussion.

You point out that Pope Pius X papacy says, " The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood". Pope Eugene infallibly says, “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.”

Oat Soda says, “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.” I say, "Then who are the Jews, schismatics, heretics and pagans that have not turned their backs on the Church and are invisably safe in the bosom of the Church? I thought “turning your back on the Church” was part of the definition of being a heretic or schismatic? Another poster says that Pope John Paul II believes that all Jews and Pagans burn in hell. Its all kind of confusing.

I am not trying to promote “feeneyism” or “no salvation outside the Church” as you want to imply that I should be excommunicated for and burn in hell for. I am just pointing out all this confusion in hopes that the Pope will write a clearer doctrine on just who the Church actually teaches and warns “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”.

“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.”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[oat_soda]

"Then who are the Jews, schismatics, heretics and pagans that have not turned their backs on the Church and are invisably safe in the bosom of the Church?

another way of looking at it would be that those jews, schismatics, heretics, and pagans, are not saved by the merits of their erroneous views, but are saved by freely consenting to God’s grace. in doing so, they are saved through the church. like has been said earlier, God doesn’t condem the ignorant, only those who reject Christ and his body, “the church, knowingly that the catholic church founded by God through Christ as a necessity”. ultimatley, only God knows who is saved.

“Because the church is a mystery, it has an invisible dimension. This mystery is larger than the visible structure and organization of the church. The church, as the mystical body of Christ, penetrates and embraces all of us. The spiritual mystical dimensions of the church are much greater than any sociological statistics could ever show” (Pope JPII, crossing the threshold of hope).

 

[Dan-Man916]

going back from a few posts.

saying that someone is in the soul of the Church doesn’t really have a basis in Tradition.
the concept might be there, but the verbage certainly isn’t.

I believe that the first time this wording may have been used was with Bellarmine. But i’m not 100% sure.

So i don’t really know if we can say that the Church always believed that non-Catholics belong to the “soul” of the Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

I am calm … perhaps I should have used a bunch of smilie faces as you seem to sense some anger in me that is not there.

You point out that Pope Pius X papacy says, " The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood". Pope Eugene infallibly says, “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.”

Yes, Pope Eugene (and Pope Pius X) are correct. Formal heretics and schismatics who pour out their blood in the name of Christ are still formal heretics and schismatics, and as such die in a state of mortal sin. If they remain impenitent in formal grave sin, no matter their actions, they will not attain eternal life. That the absence of baptism can be supplied by martyrdom does not mean that it must, whether one witholds their contrition for other formal grave sins or not.

BTW, Catholics, who pour out their blood in the name of Christ who die impenitent in formal grave sin also cannot attain eternal life. *Anyone *who dies impenitent in formal grave sin, no matter how they die, cannot attain eternal life. One must be in a state of grace when they die to be described as one who *truly *abides “within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

That this is not a quaint little invention of the Catholic Church made after Pope Eugene’s bull is proved by the writings, centuries before Eugene’s bull, of St. Thomas Aquinas, an esteemed Doctor of the Catholic Church …

Augustine (Ad Fortunatum) speaking of the comparison between Baptisms says: “The newly baptized confesses his faith in the presence of the priest: the martyr in the presence of the persecutor. The former is sprinkled with water, after he has confessed; the latter with his blood. The former receives the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the bishop’s hands; the latter is made the temple of the Holy Ghost.”

I answer that, As stated above (11), the shedding of blood for Christ’s sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. (ST, III, 66, 12).

Now, St. Thomas Aquinas does not claim that a Catholic or otherwise, who remains impenitent in formal grave sin can pour out their blood for Christ and be forgiven of the sin in which they deliberately withhold contrition. You have to understand him in context. Likewise, you have to understand Pope Eugene’s Bull to the Copts in context. He was writing specifically to the Copts. If a Coptic Christian was impenitent in formal heresy, whether they died for Christ or not, they would not attain eternal life. He said nothing of those who are invincibly ignorant or who sin materially but not formally. It is speculative that Pope Eugene rejected the long held belief that acts of invicible ignorance is not sin, which was expounded upon centuries earlier by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.

to be continued…