Does being Catholic guarantee salvation?

[jeffreedy789]

fortunately, what God does, that is - reality - does not depend on ‘our view’ or on what we find ‘perverse and distasteful.’ yet another reason i’m glad i’m catholic - the focus of my belief, God (as understood and expressed by the Bible and the church), is not subject to the whims of our fancies, or the current fashion in philosophy.

Jesus taught that the late workers are given the same wages as the early ones. the church teaches that infants who are baptised, and death bed converts, will find themselves in heaven, along with the thief on the cross. whether or not you believe this is a matter of your own faith, and eternal destination. i pray that you take them both seriously, and i hope to see you in heaven.

 

[Sherlock]

Hecd,

You wrote: “Indeed, I have a problem with that parable and that teaching. As I said, the idea that a fortunate circumstance of a few seconds duration (or in the case of an infant the act of others to administer the sacrament of baptism entirely unwilled and uncontrolled by the infant herself) determines the everlasting fate of the individual being makes no sense at all - in fact I would say that it is a perverse and distasteful doctrine.”

Am I correct in thinking, since you find Christ’s teaching “perverse and distasteful”, that you are not a Christian, or perhaps are an athiest? I have found that mosts atheists I have known (I used to be one myself) cling pretty tightly to their unfavorable conceptions of God, but I will try my best to explain this “perverse and distasteful” doctrine. I will say, though, that when I was in the process of rejecting atheism and coming to Christianity, this particular parable bothered me as well until I reached a more thorough understanding.

This parable is similar to others that Jesus uses: the prodigal son, the shepherd who searches for the one lost sheep, etc. Indeed, the complaint of the older son in the parable of the prodigal son is essentially the same as that of the workers who were hired early: namely, that they weren’t being treated “fairly”. But they are—the workers received just what they were promised, while the father tells the older son that “everything that I have is yours”. It is only when the older son and the early workers look at others (others who don’t measure up in THEIR eyes, not in the eyes of the father and employer) that they feel they haven’t been treated fairly. Objectively, however, they receive what they have been promised. To criticize the father and employer for their generosity is to forget that THEY are the ones who ultimately own everything the sons and workers rely on.

You find this idea perverse: I have come to see it as a great comfort. I have done a lot of truly unpleasant things in my life, and it would have been intimidating to return to Christianity if I had felt that I had already blown it by not being a good son or a early worker from the beginning. I am thankful for God’s generosity, and since He is so generous, I don’t feel it’s right for me to be less so and declare God to be perverse and distasteful for extending mercy to repentant sinners on their deathbeds or those who die in infancy. Regarding the latter, you speak of their baptism “entirely unwilled and uncontrolled”. Baptism truly is that—a gift. Why do you have a problem with that concept?

 

[Sherlock]

Maisua,

You wrote: “I agree with you, luck/.fate make no sense, and I have great difficulty believing that God created a world wherein unfortuneates * might be damned for God-willed accidents.”

Catholic theology does not hold that unbaptised babies are damned. Where did you get that idea? If you are basing your particular views on God on theology that you find difficult to believe, perhaps it’s because that theology doesn’t exist and you are, in fact, tilting at windmills.*

 

[Sherlock]

Hecd,

You wrote: " I am a cradle Catholic with a quite sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology".

If this were true, you would not need to state it. Frankly, once someone tells me how sophisticated they are in a particular subject, more often than not I find that they are usually deficient in their understanding. The pronouncement of sophistication is invariably the action of an amateur, no matter what the subject.

 

[ISABUS]

“Salvation, though ultimately depending solely upon the love and mercy of God, is open to all by co-operation with divine grace according to the individual’s knowledge.” This is the current definition of the word ‘salvation’ used today by the Catholic Church.

The Church no longer uses the old outdated dogma of Pius IX, allocution of December 9, 1854, “Outside the Church, no salvation.”

Isabus ~

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

You wrote: “The Church no longer uses the old outdated dogma of Pius IX, allocution of December 9, 1854, “Outside the Church, no salvation.””

I would suggest that you brush up on your history. The Church does not toss out dogma depending upon the fashions of the time: the dogma you mention, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”, goes back to the Church Fathers, not to 1854. And if you look at the writings of the Church Fathers, you will see that even while they held that view they recognized such a thing as “invincible ignorance”, though of course that phrase was not used. “Outside the Church, there is no salvation” is still Catholic doctrine, though it needs to be properly understood. Catholic Answers has a good article on this at their website, catholic.com. I would suggest too that you read your Cathechism, specifically 846-848.

 

[MrS]

“Salvation, though ultimately depending solely upon the love and mercy of God, is open to all by co-operation with divine grace according to the individual’s knowledge.” This is the current definition of the word ‘salvation’ used today by the Catholic Church.

The Church no longer uses the old outdated dogma of Pius IX, allocution of December 9, 1854, “Outside the Church, no salvation.”

Isabus ~

THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE

And you would probably support Cardinal Kasper et al who have theorized that the Jews don’t need Jesus to come to salvation.

MrS

 

[MrS]

Sherlock:

Hecd,

You wrote: " I am a cradle Catholic with a quite sophisticated understanding of Catholic theology".

If this were true, you would not need to state it. Frankly, once someone tells me how sophisticated they are in a particular subject, more often than not I find that they are usually deficient in their understanding. **The pronouncement of sophistication is invariably the action of an amateur, no matter what the subject.****/**QUOTE]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Well put, and I think you could include “professionals” also.

The only difference… amateurs do what they do for the love or interest of what they do. Professionals get paid for it.

MrS

 

[MrS]

Reverse the statement:

Salvation (eternity in heaven) guarantees Catholicism!

When we die, we see the Face of God, and all Truth (which is in heaven) is presented to us.

Christ’s wish that we all be one as He is with the Father is fullfilled.

Christ’s statement on One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism (sounds like baptism is pretty important, huh?) is now a reality for us. Since the fullness of the Truth is only found in the Catholic Church (whether you accept that, by Faith, or not), all in heaven are Catholic. Their reward for acceptance is heaven.

The opposite is true also.

Everyone in hell is Catholic.

They too have died, seen the Face of God, and been presented with all the Truth. For whatever reason, they rejected Chirst in the Catholic Church and their eternity will now be away from God. But they now recognize one Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, and are Catholic. Their reward for rejection is hell.

 

[rarndt01]

Of course salvation is offered to all who freely choose to receive it. But it doesn’t come to the individual via their individual methodology or thinking, but rather in the method God himself has chosen.

Jesus Christ explained to his disciples just how men were to receive salvation and what men MUST do to acquire it. The apostles then passed on this gospel or plan to their successors in the Catholic church. This plan of salvation is found in the SACRAMENTS of the church. Confirmation, baptism, penance, the Eucharist. It is THROUGH these sacraments alone that men, women and children can receive the grace and mercy of God to be forgiven and receive eternal life. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!

If man could be saved apart from the blessed sacraments, then all that Christ and the apostles taught would be meaningless. The sacraments of the church are not there for religious show, but for the REAL salvation of the human soul. Trust in the church, for it is the church Christ established and the one that holds the keys to your soul’s salvation. Trust in none other.

Ron from Ohio

 

[ISABUS]

Sherlock:

Isabus,

You wrote: “The Church no longer uses the old outdated dogma of Pius IX, allocution of December 9, 1854, “Outside the Church, no salvation.””

I would suggest that you brush up on your history. The Church does not toss out dogma depending upon the fashions of the time: the dogma you mention, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation”, goes back to the Church Fathers, not to 1854. And if you look at the writings of the Church Fathers, you will see that even while they held that view they recognized such a thing as “invincible ignorance”, though of course that phrase was not used. “Outside the Church, there is no salvation” is still Catholic doctrine, though it needs to be properly understood. Catholic Answers has a good article on this at their website, catholic.com. I would suggest too that you read your Cathechism, specifically 846-848.

I have the book “Catechism of the Catholic Church” published by Doubleday 1995. At the very beginning of the book under ‘Apostolic Constitution FIDEI DEPOSITUM’ our Pope John Paul II writes on October 11, 1992, “This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiactical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.”

Sherlock, we are not as you say above talking about dogma. Catechism No. 843, ‘The Church and non-Christians’ preceeds ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’. This is what No. 843 states, "The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. (28) Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth (856) found in these religons as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.” (332)

Please allow me to ask you two questions, “Do you tell your friends or family members who are not Catholic they are condemned and without salvation because they aren’t Catholic? And when in heaven’s name has Pope John Paul II ever said a person is without salvation because he doesn’t believe in God or the Catholic Church?”

I stand by what I have written already which is found in my Catholic Bible Encyclopedia: “Salvation, though ultimately depending solely upon the love and mercy of God, is open to all by co-operation with divine grace according to the individual’s knowledge.” This is the current definition of the word ‘salvation’ used today by the Catholic Church.

I’ll have to return later today to answer the other questions presented to me in this thread.

Peace ~
Isabus

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

I’m afraid you are misunderstanding this doctrine, and I suspect you would have your concerns laid to rest if you took the time to look at this further and see how the Church understands “outside the Church there is no salvation”.

You wrote: “Sherlock, we are not as you say above talking about dogma.”

Yes, we are talking about dogma, like it or not. As I mentioned before, this teaching goes back to the Church Fathers and has been reaffirmed at times in history, including Vatican ll. Here’s a quote from Lumen gentium, which, in case you don’t know, is a document produced by the Vatican ll council:

“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 to enter it or to remain in it.”

The Catechism also states that “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church” ( 847). Perhaps the problem is that you are insisting on understanding the doctrine without the reasonable provisions for invincible ignorance. Those provisions, by the way, do not negate the meaning of the doctrine—let me put it this way: not all Catholics will go to heaven, but everyone in heaven will be Catholic! The Church teaches that “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” In other words, I trust that God will, in ways known only to him, introduce the invincibly ignorant to his Church, perhaps at the moment of death. My job, here on earth, is to reduce that ignorance and introduce Christ’s Church to those seeking salvation.

Here’s the link to the article at Catholic Answers that I think might help. It might help if you read it before commenting further:
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

I will answer your other questions in another post, as I’m probably about to run out of room here.

 

[JGC]

Can Outsiders Be Insiders?
By Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

Having surveyed the history of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, we stand in a position to see how this doctrine has developed over the centuries. And indeed, a close look at history shows that the doctrine has developed, and not reversed. The earliest uses of the slogan were aimed at those who apostatized from the Good News and who were thus fully conscious in their rejection of it. As the Faith spread across the world, many Catholics assumed all had heard the Gospel, and those who remained non-Christian did so from obstinacy and sin. Though their general assumption was incorrect, it pointed to an important truth: those who consciously reject Christ are barred from salvation. When the New World was discovered, however, the old assumptions had to be revised; clearly, there were people who had not heard the Gospel preached. With that came the understanding that God could, in His mercy, save those who never knew of Christ, but nevertheless sought to follow God. None of these points contradict the doctrine enunciated in the Second Vatican Council.

Valid doctrinal development involves the gradual growth in understanding of a core, unchanging truth. At the heart of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is the fundamental dogma that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. Through Christ’s body, God’s grace is channeled into the world. In the words of Lumen Gentium, the Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation.” All salvation comes through Christ’s Church; apart from that grace, there is no hope for eternal life. This point has been understood in different ways throughout the history of Christianity, and yet the doctrine has remained intact. Those who claim the Church has changed its stand on extra ecclesiam fail to recognize this core truth in the midst of its various interpretations. In doing so, they ignore the development that occurs in the doctrinal life of the historic Church.

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

Now to your questions, although my previous post may make answering them redundant:

Question #1: “Do you tell your friends or family members who are not Catholic they are condemned and without salvation because they aren’t Catholic?”

No, because to do so would be doing the Church’s teaching on this a grave disservice. My efforts are to evangelize and to show them that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. If they are truly ignorant of this, then #1—they aren’t going to be condemned; and #2—I need to bring the truth of Christ’s Church to them and do so in love. Hitting them over the head with a Feeney-ite interpretation would make me guilty of false teaching and would be extremely counter-productive. Again, I’d recommend the Catholic Answers article that I linked, as it points out the need to avoid the extremes of indifferentism and radical traditionalism (Feeneyism).

Question #2: “And when in heaven’s name has Pope John Paul II ever said a person is without salvation because he doesn’t believe in God or the Catholic Church?”

I will have to get back to you on that one, as I recall JPll’s book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” mentioning atheism quite a bit. Regarding non-Catholics: here is what JPll says about the Catechism: “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion”. Therefore, I think it is reasonable that JPll would stand behind the Catechism’s understanding of the “outside the Church there is no salvation” doctrine. But if you are asking when the Pope ever said EXACTLY what you formulated; that is, “a person is without salvation because he doesn’t believe in God or the Catholic Church”, then I doubt he ever has: he’s not stupid, uncharitable, nor does he teach false doctrine.

You wrote: “I stand by what I have written already which is found in my Catholic Bible Encyclopedia: “Salvation, though ultimately depending solely upon the love and mercy of God, is open to all by co-operation with divine grace according to the individual’s knowledge.” This is the current definition of the word ‘salvation’ used today by the Catholic Church.”

I don’t see the conflict, to tell you the truth. You are seeing a problem where none exists, and it has nothing to do with the definition of salvation. I don’t think you have read up on the Church’s teaching, and I think that if you did, you would find that you and I are not in conflict (unless you are an indifferentist, in which case you and I most certainly disagree). I’m not a Feeney-ite, which seems to be the straw man you are attacking (straw man because I do not hold to the Feeneyite understanding of “outside the Church there is no salvation”, but rather to the Church’s, as expressed in the Catechism). Again, read the Catechism thoroughly (not just one piece of it), and read the Catholic Answers article I linked to in the previous post. There are probably some other articles that go into this in greater depth—I will see what I can find for you, though I won’t get to it until later in the day.

God bless.

 

[ISABUS]

Sherlock, I appreciate all the effort you put forth in your two posts. I noted on your profile page you stated that you are ‘a cradle-Catholic who is only now discovering the treasures of our faith’. There are a lot more buried treasures you need to locate before directing me in the way of my faith. I have many, many years more than you in the Catholic religion and much experience with Bishops, priests, and nuns who have become my personal friends.

The most important thing to remember is that there is not a person alive who knows what God has planned for them, not even the Pope. God’s love supersedes any written document. Our faith is based on love for God and God’s love for every living creature. This is the truth. It is very simple to understand therefore retains a purity that is universal which is pleasing to God.

May Christ be with you always on your journey for there are many roads ahead ~

Isabus

 

[Sherlock]

Isabus,

You wrote: " There are a lot more buried treasures you need to locate before directing me in the way of my faith. I have many, many years more than you in the Catholic religion and much experience with Bishops, priests, and nuns who have become my personal friends."

I am not holding myself up as an expert, I am holding up the teaching of the Church. Your argument is with the Catechism (the “sure norm”), not with me. Forgive me if it seems as if I am preaching to you, but it does seem, by your posts, that you misunderstand the doctrine “outside the Church there is no salvation”, which is still a doctrine taught by the Church, despite your claim to the contrary in your first post.

Whether you have “many, many years more” than I do in the Faith is immaterial. The Church has many, many more years than you, and it is her teaching that I am repeating. Nor does your personal friendship with “Bishops, priests, and nuns” guarantee that you have been given correct understanding of Catholic doctrine: trust me, I know plenty of dissenting priests and nuns, and thankfully quite a number of orthodox ones as well (and yes, I have personal friendships among the latter). And don’t get me started on bishops…

You wrote: “The most important thing to remember is that there is not a person alive who knows what God has planned for them, not even the Pope.”

I never claimed otherwise, nor does the Pope. It is such an obvious truth that I truly wouldn’t elevate it to the status of “the most important thing to remember”—I think I’ll reserve that for something less bloody obvious. Having said that, it does not follow that we don’t know anything: I follow Christ through the Church that He founded. That is more satisfying than wandering around in the dark, shrugging my shoulders at the utter incomprehensibility of it all. Not everything is relative.

Apart from those items, I want to say that I appreciate the tone of your post. Thanks for taking the time to consider mine, and may God bless you and hold you in His hand.

 

[seeking_21]

Origen:

My advice: strive to be perfect, and pray for those who have died, that they might be cleansed from all imperfection and enter the heavenly kingdom. And pray for protestants, living and dead, that they may be freed from their hatred.

Um, pray for protestants to be freed from their hatred?? Who says they are full of hatred? I am a protestant and I posted this question because people who know I am considering the catholic faith continually ask me why I would give up what I know and go to a church full of rules & regulations that offer a false sense of security - like follow the rules and all is well, but dont’ worry about a personal relationship with Christ (which protestants pride themselves on.)

I know they ask these questions due to a lack of understanding, and I came here to seek a more well reasoned response.

 

[seeking_21]

Sherlock:

You give the hypothetical case of a Catholic who goes to Mass, etc., but “doesn’t have any faith”: well, since we are to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, mind and strength, then it seems that your hypothetical Catholic is not doing so.

You mention “the idea that the way to heaven, including all necessary grace, is neatly laid out in the sacraments and if you just follow along and play by the rules then you’ll go to heaven.” What you describe is superstitious, because it completely ignores love of God. The Catholic Church teaches: “To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition” (Catechism 2111).

Thanks, Sherlock

This quote from the catechism is exactly the answer I needed!

 

[Sherlock]

Seeking 21,

I’m glad I could help out, and I hope that you’ll always find the answers you’re looking for here at the forum.

You wrote, in response to Origen: “Um, pray for protestants to be freed from their hatred?? Who says they are full of hatred?”

Origen would have been more accurate to qualify his remark by saying “some” Protestants. However, although you may not feel any animosity towards Catholicism (and I thank you for that), there really are those out there who do. I have been called a “mouthpiece of Satan”, a “practicioner of Satan’s darkest crafts”, evil, foul, etc., etc. There is a particular strain of Baptist that is susceptible to that kind of thinking, but I have run across Lutherans who regarded the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon and viewed the Pope as the anti-Christ. Most of my friends are Protestants of varying stripes, and some come from backgrounds that are quite hateful towards Catholics. Most, however, merely have a lot of wrong ideas about Catholicism and don’t have any animosity. I have been gently setting the record straight, and in fact one of my closest friends is now interested in converting, though I think the idea still seems foreign—time will tell, and I’m not pushing. But make no mistake, there are those who truly are hateful, especially ex-Catholics. (I don’t see this in converts to Catholicism from Protestantism, by the way: I haven’t run across anyone who just hated their former Protestant church.) If you want to see a particularly hateful bunch, go here, but have your rabies shot ready: p197.ezboard.com/fformercatholicsforchristfrm1

So, please forgive us if we lump when we shouldn’t. I think sometimes it’s a response (but a very poor one) to that sort of Catholic-bashing.

 

[Sherlock]

Seeker 21,

Ooops! DON"T go to the anti-Catholic site that I listed! I’ve read that it’s infected with spyware (I’m something of a Luddite, so I don’t know exactly what is meant by that, but I’m sure it’s something to be avoided).