Does this teaching of the Church on salvation contradict scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whatischarity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abu said:
You might check out Amy Welborn in her Prove It series at:
amywelborn.wordpress.com/books-written/

I recommend highly using Living Tradition at rtforum.org/lt/index.html of The Roman Theological Forum at: rtforum.org/index.html , you should find some facts there.

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, The Saint Austin Press, 2001 has a good discussion, and covers all doctrine and dogma as well.
Click to expand...
I like Welborn’s work because it’s easy to read and she does not claim to be an expert. She up front that she’s an apologist, not a theologian. She is relying on good theology to drive home her point, except in the area of the saints. She has a lot of hagiogaphy, but is weak in historical analysis. But that’s OK. People can find that elsewhere.

I’m cautious about Living Tradition, because McCarthy has written about 90% of the articles. No single theologian can be an expert in that many branches of theology, neither can a single apologist. I would recommend that site with that warning.

Just my 3 cents. LOL

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
whatischarity said:
On the “Traditional Catholic” thread, A poster posted this regarding what he considers is the absolute necessity of being a practing Catholic in order to gain salvation:

Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singular quadem. Dec. 9, 1854:
For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma17.php

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
27 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. ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

The poster stated that this is a very explicit teaching about the requirement to be a formal member of the church in order to be saved.
Click to expand...
a bit further down in that same Catechism it states:

29 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

…just like taking one verse or a few of Sacred Scripture…out of context…or along is not good…so it is in other areas…
 
Bookcat said:
a bit further down in that same Catechism it states:

29 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
…just like taking one verse or a few of Sacred Scripture…out of context…or along is not good…so it is in other areas…
Click to expand...
The part that I highlighted in red is repeated again by Pope John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint and other writings on non Christians. Above I posted what the Baltimore Catechism said on the same subject. There is no change in the teaching of the Church. This teaching goes back to the Gospel when Jesus says that he has other disciples who are not of this flock and again when he tells the disciples not to worry about John’s disciples, because those who are not against you are for you. In both cases, Jesus is making a reference to a communion between the Church and those who are not physically part of the Church, but are united to her by his grace.

To take these citations out of context by citing them without such information as the target audience and the trigger that led the Councils and popes to make such decrees is to do them a disservice.

Some people are afraid that saying that people who are not Catholic can be saved and that Christ can use other faiths as vehicles of grace as a statement that means that all faiths are the same. This is not the case. The fulness of truth still subsides within the Catholic Church. All that this statement says is that in God’s mercy, those who have only some of the truth can be saved if they are faithful to what they have. The fundamental truth is the desire to be saved, because it is an expression of hope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Thank you all very much for your assistance and references. God bless you all.
 
Abu said:
Br. JR
As I have been unable to find any serious, reasoned refutation of Msgr John F McCarthy’s, or of Fr Harrison’s, and others’, well-thought-out articles at the Roman Theological Forum, and have found that they correspond with what I know of doctrine and dogma, I can only recommend them as of sound Catholicity. [Welcome to the Roman Theological Forum]](Welcome to the Roman Theological Forum]).
Click to expand...
I don’t underestimate your intention or their integrity. I was simply making an observation that the site does not offer a broad spectrum of commentators who are experts on some of the topics on their content page. I’ll give an example of what I mean of variety.

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ – expert on papal writings

Fr. John Corapi, SOLT – expert on Systematic Theology

Fr. Bendict Groeschel, CFR – expert on Religious Psychology and Behavior

Dr. Scott Hahn, PhD – expert in Scripture

Fr. Brian Mullady, OP – expert in Mystical Theology

Do you see what I was looking for? Not necessarily these theologians, but a diversity of theologians by areas of expertise. There are many very good theologians out there. These are just better known because of their exposure on EWTN.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I couldn’t agree more on the soundness of the first four from EWTN and have heard Fr Pacwa in person. Of Fr Mullady I know, but am not familiar with his writing.

Msgr McCarthy, and Fr Harrison (whom I know personally), tend to write to examine and defend doctrine and dogma, and/or expose errors against doctrine and dogma. You might have noticed that Msgr McCarthy has not included a piece by Fr Harrison on *Implicit Faith *which, elsewhere, is examined and refuted by Ludovicus at:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search?q=Harrison

Fr Harrison had referred me to this article of his about 18 months ago, at a time when I needed to defend Humanae Vitae as it was being attacked, and on which Fr Harrison has written most eloquently as *The Ex Cathedra Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae * at rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html . I appreciated seeing the Ludovicus rebuttal, with which I agree.
 
JReducation said:
…
The Baltimore Catechism says:

**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” does ot mean that everyone who is not a Catholic will be condemned. It does mean that no one can be saved unless he belongs in some manner to the Catholic church, either actually or in desire, for the means of grace are not given wtihout some relation to the divine institution established by Christ. No. 167

Those who ar outside the Church through no fault of their own are not culpable in the sight of God.

Persons who make use of the graces that God gives them, even though tey are not members of the true Church, actually have the desire to become members inasmuch as hey wish to use all the means ordained by God for their salvation. No. 168**

First, the grace to be saved enters the world through the Church. This makes the Church necessary for salvation.

Second, the grace to be saved establishes a connection between the person and the Church. If you recall what I posted above about Baptism of Desire, article number 168 specifically addresses the person’s desire to use what God has given them for their salvation.

A good example is a Hindu who knows about Christianity, but is not convinced that this is the path to salvation. However, he wants salvation and he follows what he truly believes IS the path to salvation, he has the desire and is therefore connected to the Church. He is not physically a member of the Church, but he is not outside of her reach. The grace that flows from Christ, through the Church, into the world is available to him.

I hope that helps. Remember, when talking to older Catholics or younger ones, most Catholics are educated by catechists or by their own reading, not by theologians or historians who know what the documents really mean or why they were written. Many people reach them very literally. It is a grave act against charity to attack people, because they don’t understand Christ as we understand him.

I can give you a simple example. I went through statistics in graduate school. I know what all the terms mean. I understand numbers. But I do not understand statistics. Don’t ever ask me to create a research paper and present the stats. Knowing about it does not mean that I understand it. I passed becaues I could repeat what the teacher said and did. Many non-Catholics and non-Christians can repeat what we say. It’s like advanced math to them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I have spent so many hours on this issue but unfortunately, I am still not clear. I just stumbled on another post which seems to contradict what you mentioned above.
Baltimore Catechism
    1. Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?
      …
      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?
Click to expand...
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. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister – not being a true priest – has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition – that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic – with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts – might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.
Click to expand...
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.
…
Click to expand...
Isn’t this contradictory to the fact that those outside the church through no fault of theirs will also be saved?
Replacing a Hindu with a Protestant in the example you presented above, wouldn’t that be at odds with the Baltimore Catechism?

In my Bible, the heading of Romans 10:5-21 is: Salvation Is for All and as already mentioned in the first post, there are just many areas in the Bible (especially in the Gospel of John) where Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly stated that ALL who believe in him will have eternal life.

Please, I need more clarifications on this issue.
A child born in a Protestant or Muslim family would grow up to become a Protestant and Muslim respectively (same with Catholics). So will such a person be saved? (Yes or No + explanation)

Thanks
 
kelvinf said:
I have spent so many hours on this issue but unfortunately, I am still not clear. I just stumbled on another post which seems to contradict what you mentioned above.

Isn’t this contradictory to the fact that those outside the church through no fault of theirs will also be saved?
Replacing a Hindu with a Protestant in the example you presented above, wouldn’t that be at odds with the Baltimore Catechism?

In my Bible, the heading of Romans 10:5-21 is: Salvation Is for All and as already mentioned in the first post, there are just many areas in the Bible (especially in the Gospel of John) where Jesus of Nazareth repeatedly stated that ALL who believe in him will have eternal life.

Please, I need more clarifications on this issue.
A child born in a Protestant or Muslim family would grow up to become a Protestant and Muslim respectively (same with Catholics). So will such a person be saved? (Yes or No + explanation)

Thanks
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the matter here as far as the Catholic Church teaches. This is included in the CCC, the revised version of the Baltimore Catechism and the teachings of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Persons who make use of the graces that God gives them, even though they are not members of the true Church, actually have the desire to become members inasmuch as hey wish to use all the means ordained by God for their salvation. No. 168

This is what John Paul II referred to as an imperfect communion with the Church, because they lack the fullness of truth. However, they are being faithful to the truth that they do know by using the means that they have to reach God. God in his mercy does not ignore those efforts.

In addition, any truths that are found in other places or other faiths, are Catholic truths, since the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. The individual who is faithful to the truths that he knows is in fact receiving those thruths through the Church. Because truth enters the world through revelation and the Church is the guardian of that revelation. Hence the truth that he possesses is a Catholic truth. His salvatioin is coming through the Church, even when a person is not a physical member of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top