Help, I don't want to be a Sedevacantist

[mgsk]

Yes, most sedevacantists even distance themselves from those two…gentlemen.

 

[OraLabora]

But still, that Catechism passage seems to suggest that Muslims will be saved.

No, it says that they can be saved, as was posted earlier when the entire context of your quote was posted:

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.

(my bold)

There’s a very wide gap between the possibility of salvation, and its assurance! The Catechism quote by no means says that the salvation of Muslims is assured.

But it doesn’t exclude that possibility either.

The Church may have much authority on Earth. One thing it does not have the authority to do, is place limits on what God can or cannot do. In a sense, the sedevacantists, by saying that their false church (which is in fact a Protestant church), are placing themselves above God by attempting to place limits on His freedom to act as He wills it.

They may be in for one very rude surprise when God separates the sheep from the goats. Notice here I deliberately use the word “may”, as nobody but God himself can judge them.

 

[Celticnovice]

To be honest, I considered it for a time too … I spent about a month in deep prayer & frequent Eucharistic adoration but was continually guided back to the One True Church.

What this means is that IF a Muslim dies AND never had access/knowledge of Catholicism/Christianity, he may POTENTIALLY be a candidate for Purgatory. This does not mean that they will be considered equally with Catholics, Apostolic Christians, etc. According to St Augustine’s teachings, all religions that do not worship our/I] God are, in actuality, worshiping demons Islam does worship our God… not demons… but they are still incredibly wrong. . . simply less wrong than some others… We cannot assume to know God’s will.

Don’t get me wrong, I am very traditional and I try very hard to conform myself (in both views and practices) to Christ’s Church [rather than picking & choosing or trying to change the Church to fit my invalid notions] … But it seems to me that SSPX has a tendency to be like modern-day Pharisees, they reject the hierarchy that Jesus himself put into place, constantly assuming they are in a better position to interpret doctrine and statutes of Canon Law - they often miss the big picture though.

You should look at these 2 webpages [PLEASE]
Kelopi.net
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/

Hopefully these two (and LOTS of prayer!) can help guide you to Truth. Before you make any decisions, you should begin a novena (my mother just finished a 54 day rosary novena- I’d recommend that one… it would give you ample time to consider this and this devotion is supposed to be the bees’ knees.)

If you’d like to discuss this more personally, you can message me on YouTube * or you can like our Facebook page “Archangelati” (an online Catholic community which has several ex-SSPX members)- and post more questions there (as messages or on our wall if you don’t mind other people seeing) …

I hope this helps… For the record- I was stumped by this (a little) but even more so about the use of Latin… I’m glad that you have the courage to ask rather than just quietly leaving.
May God guide you to the Truth now and forever!
-Stephanie*

Can’t wait to see these links.

 

[LINVS]

I don’t understand many of the Post Vatican statements that “seem” to contradict previous church teaching. Whenever someone examines a statement like “there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church” the response is VERY complicated. I don’t think pre Vatican II Catholics shared modern Catholics understanding of these teachings. Or, there is nothing evil about being a Homosexual; it’s just the act that is sinful. I’ve even heard a Director of Religious Education teach that homosexual acts are a matter of conscience because the Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage. In other words, homosexuals may commit Sodomy because they aren’t allowed to marry. Dare I say it sounds like Sophistry.

Now Jesus did say that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail” over the Church. Does that include the Pope? Is it possible that an elected Pope might not be a legitimite Pope? Is it a heresy to believe in Sedevacantism?

We exist in a complicated universe; our simple human minds can’t understand everything. Certainly, lay people like myself don’t have the understanding that the Doctors of the church have.

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t understand many of the Post Vatican statements that “seem” to contradict previous church teaching. Whenever someone examines a statement like “there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church” the response is VERY complicated. I don’t think pre Vatican II Catholics shared modern Catholics understanding of these teachings. Or, there is nothing evil about being a Homosexual; it’s just the act that is sinful. I’ve even heard a Director of Religious Education teach that homosexual acts are a matter of conscience because the Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage. In other words, homosexuals may commit Sodomy because they aren’t allowed to marry. Dare I say it sounds like Sophistry.

Now Jesus did say that the “Gates of Hell shall not prevail” over the Church. Does that include the Pope? Is it possible that an elected Pope might not be a legitimite Pope? Is it a heresy to believe in Sedevacantism?

We exist in a complicated universe; our simple human minds can’t understand everything. Certainly, lay people like myself don’t have the understanding that the Doctors of the church have.

Rhetorical questions I hope!

Christ said HE would build the Church on a Rock and that rock is PETER!
And the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church.

The Pope does not, has not, and will not preach heresy.

We should stop trying to interpret these documents on our own, or in little groups: that’s a kind of protestantism, and can only lead to people leaving the real Church.

Trust the Pope. Trust the last Pope. Trust the next Pope. Trust all the Popes. But don’t pit one Pope against another - there is only one Peter and that is the Pope sitting in Peter’s chair at any given moment.

If Pope A says X and Pope Y says X+1 then somehow they are both right.

There is only salvation through the Church.

Moslems may be saved.

How? It doesn’t really matter. It just is.

 

[AnotherFriend33]

Please tell me you aren’t referring to being a member of one of the rogue sects calling themselves “Independent Catholics”.

I mean I am not:

Opus Dei​

SSPX​

FSSP​

Any other Group​

Just Plain Catholic, and I think all by myself with the Brain God Gave me.

 

[Jeffgo]

I know I already posted a link to the Catholic Answers show where Tim Staples takes on sedevacantism, but I thought I’d put a summary of his arguments up here as well, to contribute to the discussion:

The caller asked if Vatican II was infallible, and after Tim Staples gave his answer, Patrick Madrid asked the caller if he believed that Pope Benedict was really the pope (this was back before the interregnum we’re currently experiencing). The caller said “no”, and stated that he believed that Pius XII was the last valid pope (Pius XII is a common “cutoff point” for sedevacantists, since his successor started the Second Vatican Council).

Tim then went on to argue against sedevacantism, and the argument went something like this:

The First Vatican Council, which sedevacantists accept as ecumenical since it occurred before Vatican II, stated that there will always be successors to St. Peter.

The caller responded by saying that he believes that we’re in a very long interregnum. After all, interregnums happen (although the longest in Church history was about 3 and a half years), and since interregnums happen whenever a pope dies, the caller argued that it’s possible that the interregnum that occurred after Pius’ death is still ongoing. So, he argued, his assertion that the See has been vacant for 50+ years doesn’t contradict Vatican Council I’s assertion that there will always be successors to St. Peter. The caller believes that there will be a successor to Pius XII some day.

Tim responded by pointing out that the only way that a papal election can be valid is if it is carried out according to the rules laid down by the previous pope–in this case, Pius XII. The election rules laid out by Pius XII dictate that his successor must be elected by the College of Cardinals in a conclave. So, the ONLY way that there could be another Pope after Pius XII is if the cardinals gather in conclave to elect a successor.

However, all of the men who were cardinals at the time of Pius XII’s death are all dead themselves. And, if there has not been a valid pope since Pius XII, then that means that there have been no validly appointed cardinals, either (only the Pope can appoint cardinals, and if John XIII and the rest were fraudulent popes, then their cardinal appointments were invalid).

So, if there has not been a valid Pope since Pius XII, then that means that there are no more cardinals, and if there are no more cardinals, then there is no one who can elect a new pope. If that’s the case, then the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church.

So, we know that there has to be a successor to Pius XII. We know that that successor could only be elected by the cardinals who were alive at the time of Pius XII’s death. The only man those cardinals elected as Pope was Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, better known as John XIII.

In conclusion, we have two options. On the one hand, we can assert that the See has indeed been vacant from Pius XII to today. If this is true, then we would also have to assert that the First Vatican Council was in error, and that the Papacy is not necessary to the Church (in which case, we shouldn’t even be Catholic). On the other hand, we can accept John XIII and his successors as valid popes, and continue believing what Christ said about the Rock of St. Peter–that the gates of hell will never prevail against it.

 

[Brandall]

So, I learned about sedevacantism recently, and they really hit a vein with me, and for a while I though they might be right. But I was never fully convinced of what they were saying, and after an enormous intellectual struggle, I decided I would never be one of them, but remain a Traditionalist Catholic. Most of the problems that sedevacantists have with the “Novus Ordo” Church or the “Vatican II Sect” is ambiguous wording, weak leadership, and heretics in high-level positions, that have nothing to do with the Pope and Vatican Dogmas. I fought off sedevacatism, that is, until I read this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

I haven’t read ahead to see if anyone answered your question but you have to read the entire section, not just one paragraph.

 

[oratorymatt]

Stay strong, keep praying, live the faith as best you can. I struggle with paragraph 841, I’d be a lot happier if it included the words ‘claim to’, but it’s for those in legitimate authority to revise if they see fit I guess.

 

[Genesis315]

If it helps, I posted the following for another thread on this topic:

First, I think there should be noted a difference between worshipping God in Spirit and in truth, offering Him “true worship” being in the grace of the Father or "having Him,’ etc., and worshipping God according to the virtue of religion (which is not a theological virtue, but falls under justice).

St. Thomas defines this virtue in the Summa as “to show reverence to one God under one aspect, namely, as the first principle of the creation and government of things.” newadvent.org/summa/3081.htm

Can Muslims do this? They certainly worship “God” as First Principle and Supreme Governor of all things, but is it the same God we know? Can one acknowledge the one God without acknowledging the Trinity?

First, it needs to be pointed out that faith is required to acknowledge the Trinity. The Trinity cannot be reasoned out, as St. Vincent Ferrer explains:
St. Vincent Ferrer:

Concerning the use of the intelligence with regard to the Trinity, St. Thomas asks whether the Trinity of the Divine Persons can be known by natural reasoning. He answers: “It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the Trinity by natural reason.” For man can obtain the knowledge of God by natural reason only from creatures. Now creatures lead us to God as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to him as the principle of all things. Now, the creative power of God is common to the whole Trinity; and hence it belongs to the unity of the essence, and not to the distinction of the Persons. Therefore by natural reason we can know what belongs to the unity of the essence, but not what belongs to the distinction of the Persons. Whoever, then, tries to prove the Trinity of Persons by natural reason, derogates from faith.

Therefore, we can know of God, as the Principle of all things, from reason alone, apart from faith, but we can only know of the Trinity with faith since it is a revealed dogma. The First Vatican Council also defined that God can be known from natural reason alone (Dei Filius, Canon 2.1) and St. Paul says, on account of this, those who do not acknowledge God (but worship idols, are atheists, etc.) are without excuse (Rom. 1:20).

Therefore, one can acknowledge the one God and Creator of all things without having faith and acknowledging the Trinity. But do Muslims do this?

How can we say whether or not we are talking about the same thing? It is the essence of the thing that determines what it is. If we acknowledge the same essence, we acknowledge the same thing. What we can say about the essence of God is that it is the same as His existence. This is summed up as “God is” or, in His own words, “I AM” or “I AM who AM.” (Exo. 3:14)

This concept is formally referred to as the “aesity” of God. Essentially, aesity means self-existence. Aesity explains the metaphysical nature of God as a purely self-existent being that exists in complete actuality. God is not a being that is created by another god; neither does God create Himself into existence. Rather, God has always existed as an unchanging, completely actualized being. God has his Being of himself and to himself such that he is absolute being and the very definition of existence (Acts 17:22-28). Since God’s existence is the same as his essence, it follows that God is existence. (Note: this not to assert pantheism. All other beings participate in his existence on a contingency and thus do not possess the essence of God. Therefore, no other being can be said to be a god or share a part in godhead since they exist solely on a contingency.) This concept is at the root of the definition of all of God’s other perfections because if God is absolute being he must logically contain in Himself all perfections of being.

Since God’s essence is existence, if one acknowledges His essence, one can only acknowledge He who exists–it is impossible to acknowledge a completely actualized being that is not the true God. Similarly, there cannot exist two of such beings, because then neither would contain in Himself all perfections of being.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Essence and Existence gives the Thomist position on this:

-If essence and existence were but one thing, we should be unable to conceive the one without conceiving the other. But we are as a fact able to conceive of essence by itself.
-If there be no real distinction between the two, then the essence is identical with the existence. But in God alone are these identical.

newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm

In other words, when essence and existence are but one thing, we cannot conceive of one without conceiving of the other. And this is the case only with God. Therefore, to conceive a being with aesity is to conceive of the one God who exists–it’s impossible to conceive of something where essence and existence are identical, but that is not God.

Since Muslims do conceive of God as being completely self-actualized as far as I can tell (see here for example)–of being non-contingent–as having aesity, then they therefore can only be said to acknowledge the one God who exists and it is to Him that they honor as First Principle and Creator according to the virtue of religion.

I would say therefore that we know God; they know of God. We worship Him in Spirit and in Truth and serve Him in supernatural faith, they worship only in a natural way–but they do adore Him, despite their other errors.

 

[triumphguy]

Another way to look at this question.

God created the world through the Word.

The world experienced the Fall as a result of the sin of one man.

The Father sent the Son (that same Word) to redeem all things into one in him.

But the Word was made flesh - became a particular man, Jesus the Son of God, but a descendant of David, and so a man of a particular faith, even though he is the Son of God who made ALL things.

And so [BIBLEDRB]John 12:32[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Colossians 1:20[/BIBLEDRB]

How does this message get sent into the world - First through the disciples who went 2 by 2, then through the Church that was built on rock. But the message is for all people, and indeed all creation.

So in the whole salvific mission all nature and all people are meant to be saved, but they are saved through Christ a particular man in history (though the Son of God), who started a particular Church, built on a particular person (Peter).

So just as ALL nature and ALL people suffered as the result of one man, Adam, so ALL nature and ALL people are intended to be saved by Christ. As the hymn goes “A Second Adam to the fight, and to the rescue came.”

So how many true religions are there? One.
However, humanity is so oriented to God that we might glimpse him through reason and through other faiths.

But who has saved the world? Jesus.

And where is Jesus found now - in the Body of Christ, the Church.

So is there salvation outside the Church? No.

Can people of other faiths be saved? Yes.

Is this a contradiction? No, because they are saved by the Second Adam, Jesus the Christ who died and rose for us.

If Christ hadn’t fulfilled His salvific mission then no-one would be saved - not even the holiest person even.

Since He did, ALL can be saved.

Perhaps that’s why we call the Church Catholic?

 

[gburgos2002]

sedevacantism is a theological opinion
its not an article of faith, one cannot a heretic or a schismatic if they hold onto the sedevacantist position
there is nothing bad about sedevacantism, its just one conclusion in the understanding that there is a crisis in the catholic church

 

[wxornot]

So, I learned about sedevacantism recently, and they really hit a vein with me, and for a while I though they might be right. But I was never fully convinced of what they were saying, and after an enormous intellectual struggle, I decided I would never be one of them, but remain a Traditionalist Catholic. Most of the problems that sedevacantists have with the “Novus Ordo” Church or the “Vatican II Sect” is ambiguous wording, weak leadership, and heretics in high-level positions, that have nothing to do with the Pope and Vatican Dogmas. I fought off sedevacatism, that is, until I read this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

That part of the Catechism does not agree with past teaching. The CCC does not stand on its own. It must be supported by previous teaching. So just ignore it and realize it is a part of CC political correctness. Now…if I’m banned…you will know why.

 

[rrmp412013]

cu?i tu?n r?c r? nÃo c? nhÃ

B? suu t?p game online mobile

 

[malphono]

SPAMreported

 

[JReducation]

841: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims: "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."

This bothers me immensely. If this is saying that Muslims can be saved by being Muslims then I have no other choice but to become a sedevacantist. This contradicts numerous papal decrees and Vatican statements concerning the Muslims and other religions in general and even the Bible itself, and if this really is saying Muslims are saved, then I will be forced to believe that the Sedevacantists are right, which is something I really don’t want to do.

I am trying to interpret this in a way not to say what I think it’s saying, but this seems uncharacteristically direct for today’s church, and that scares me.

Help if you have something to add, thanks.

To understand this statement, one has to understand the philosophy that goes behind it. It does not contradict what the Church has always believed. However, it does try to add to what the Church has believed by making some clarifications that were not made in the past, but the Church feels must be made today.

1. The first thing we must understand is that the Church is speaking to Catholics, not to non-Catholics.
2. In the past, when the Church made statements condemning the idea of salvation outside the Church, such as at the Council of Florence, one must understand, as the popes understand, that the Council of Florence was making a pastoral statement directed at Catholics who were abandoning the faith. It was a time when Christiandom was under political attack from many fronts by non-Catholics. Many Catholics, in order to survive, were embracing non-Catholic faiths. In other words, they were abandoning the faith. The Council of Florence was speaking to them, not to the non-Catholic believer. The Church has no authority over non-Catholics. Therefore, she cannot legislate to them. She can only legislate to her own people. She speaks to her people about the perils of being outside the Church. Common sense tells us that if one lives in the Church where the Church of Jesus Christ subsists with all of its truths, it is very grave to abandon the fullness of truth for whatever reason.
3. Having said that in the past, there has been a misunderstanding on the part of many Catholics who were born later. We were not part of the context to which the previous popes and councils were speaking. It is very easy to look back, read words and take them out of context, unless one looks to the background. The Church, as the protector of truth, has a duty to clarify whatever misconceptions Catholics may have.
4. This statement is telling US, not Muslims, something that we need to know. She’s telling us that Muslims are also included in God’s plan. She is telling us that Muslims adore the same God that we do. Now here is where the CCC assumes that you know that even those who worship the same God as we do may not and do not always understand the nature of God. However, not understanding the Trinitarian nature of does not mean that it’s a different God. I like to use the example of parents and a child. Two parents can have different understanding of their child, but it remains the same child. Abraham and Paul worshiped the same God, but Abraham’s understanding of God was imperfect.

 

[JReducation]

1. The Church also wants us to remember that she has no authority to handcuff God. She cannot tell God whom he can save and what means he can use to save. She assumes that the reader understands and knows that there are elements of the Truth found outside of the visible confines of the Catholic Church. Just because they’re found outiside of the Church, they are not less truth. When Muslims say that God is creator, there is no falsehood there. He is Creator. When they say that he will judge man for his sins, there is no falsehood there. He will do so and so forth.
2. Something that the Church never felt the need to state in the past was that those truths found in Islam (in this case) are revealed to the world through the Catholic Church, not despite the Catholic Church or without the Catholic Church. If there were no Catholic Church, there would be no living deposit of truth. Only the Catholic Church can identify truth wherever it may be found. No one but the Church has the authority to say that X is truth. It is only the Church that has the authority to say that Islam’s believe in a one God who is creator, judge, lover and beloved is truth. Only the Church has the authority to say that Islam’s belief in the power of prayer is truth. This was not said in the past, not because the Church did not know this, but more than likely because there was not much contact between Catholics and Muslims. Today, we are neighbors, colleagues, classmates, etc.
3. Finally, the Church knows that God wants to save and that he will use whatever means are available to him to do so. The Church cannot deny that God can choose to save Muslims, Jews, Protestants and others through those parts of the truth that they know, if they are faithful to them and if they use them to the best advantage possible to get closer to God. If they follow truth to its logical conclusion, it will lead them to the Catholic Church. However, man’s life being short, his ability to comprehend truth being impaired by sin, blindness and other impediments that are not always his fault, not all men who follow the pieces of truth that they know will reach the Church in their lifetime. However, God who is merciful does not ignore their desire to know truth and to be faithful to truth. Somehow, in some mysterious way that we cannot understand in this life, the fullness of truth is revealed to the soul, even if it’s at the moment of death. At that moment, the soul will choose. His eternal destiny will be determined by that choice.

Again, the CCC assumes that the Catholic is being taught this background information. Remember, the CCC is a compendium of Catholic truth. It was written with the idea that the local Churches would use it as a resource to produce good catechisms that elaborate on what’s in the CCC at a level that is appropriate for the target audience, be it children, teens or adults. Unfortunately, we have had the CCC for almost 20 years and have not produced too many good catechisms.

If you want to read a good one, I strongly recommend the Catholic Catechism for Adults published by the US Conference of Bishops. It goes into these passages and breaks them open, giving the reader the bigger picture. I don’t know if there are other books as good as that one. There may be; but I’m not familiar with them.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Brother JR I respectfully disagree with the notion that when the Church says that there is no salvation outside the Church that she means something different or only meant it as a pastoral admonition rather than an absolute dogmatic statement of faith. I agree with Pope St. Pius X that they only have hope of salvation to whatever degree they are united to the church. I believe that through invincible ignorance, cooperation with the graces the Lord provides, and true repentance of their past sins they are united to the Church and her salvation by baptism of implicit desire. I believe with the earliest fathers and the most recent saints that there is one Catholic faith without which you cannot be saved.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR I respectfully disagree with the notion that when the Church says that there is no salvation outside the Church that she means something different or only meant it as a pastoral admonition rather than an absolute dogmatic statement of faith.

That’s not what I said. First, one must understand that the Church’s pastoral admonitions are based on her faith. They are not mere opinions of the moment. What I said was the the Council of Florence was making a pastoral statement. This was a clarification made by Pope Benedict himself in one of his lessons on this matter. He was trying to address the misunderstanding that many have concerning what the Council of Florence was trying to do. Many people are reading the statements of Florence, but are not reading the history behind Florence and how the popes understand Florence. When we read the decree without the background that the popes have, we can misunderstand the intention of that Council. It’s those misunderstandings that make what the CCC says sound as if there is a conflict, when in fact there is none.

That being said, no one has ever said that a pastoral statement is not grounded in truth. Just the opposite. All pastoral statements are grounded in faith. That’s why we can’t brush something aside as being “just pastoral”.

I’m not sure how the term “pastoral” came to be taken so lightly in Traddom. In fact, it is the Church’s mission to be pastoral. All pastoral statements and actions must be based on the Church’s understanding of truth.

I agree with Pope St. Pius X that they only have hope of salvation to whatever degree they are united to the church. I believe that through invincible ignorance, cooperation with the graces the Lord provides, and true repentance of their past sins they are united to the Church and her salvation by baptism of implicit desire. I believe with the earliest fathers and the most recent saints that there is one Catholic faith without which you cannot be saved.

No one has contradicted this. What is being done today is an attempt to clarify what these words meen.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

JReducation: I am 54 and converted with my mother who is 76 to the Catholic faith two years ago. We are the only two people in our family that are Catholics.

My mom worries about some of our relatives who are not Catholic of making it to heaven, I have told her that God judges all of us on what we know and that if you are invincibly ignorant and trying your best to live the christian life if you’re christian or even obeying the natural law by practicing other religions in areas that do not conflict with the natural law then you can be saved.

I told her that being Catholic is a two edged sword. On the one hand since we know more of the fullness of truth we will be held to a higher standard of judgement. On the other hand since we have the sacraments we have great faucets of grace that it is possible of us to partake that can help us make it to heaven.

Lastly I told her that it was my opinion that we have a better chance of making it to heaven and avoiding Hell by becoming Catholic and practicing our Catholic faith then if we had never become Catholic.

Do you think this is true?

Please correct me if I have said anything wrong–I’m still learning.