I do not understand the Catholic Economy of Salvation and Ecumenism

[PrayforMallory]

The purpose of this thread is to continue the discussion in an earlier thread about the economy of salvation and ecumenism.

I have several questions for discussion:

1. Is it true that the Protestant religions have salvific qualities?
2. Does Judaism have salvific qualities?
3. Is it true that Pagan religions have salvific qualities?
4. What happens if a Protestant or other non-Catholic commits a mortal sin? Is the sacrament necessary for forgiveness? If not, what is the role of the sacrament in salvation? How is it necessary, etc.?

 

[Trishie]

Dear Friend,
When people genuinely believe in God and live according to the basic gospel values of love for God and others, even if they only express it in genuine love and care of others, they are living in God’s love. Of course they are saved, by the action of Jesus, which is for all humankind whether that is understood or not. In Matthew 25, verses 31-46, Jesus explains the criteria for how souls will be judged…buy their genuine charity…which, even if they do not know Him, is love for Him who is both fully God and fully human.
God is merciful, if pagans do not know God or Christ, but live in genuine charity, love and kindness to others, as a just God He won’t penalise them for what they do not know of Him.

Catholics do not believe they are the only ones to be saved. Other Christian churches are part of the Body of Christ…and Vatican Two papers verify that.

As regards Confession, if you are a non- Catholic Christian, of course you’re not going into a Catholic Confessional. As Catholics we listen to the words of Jesus to Peter (to the first priests): basically, “whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” So we go to priests with humble honesty and firm purpose of amendment. To us, this is one of the Sacraments. However we would have to be arrogant and unchristian indeed not to know that the dear God forgives a non Catholic Christian’s sins as truly as our own! God forgives repentant sorrow.

God bless you, Trishie

 

[LilyM]

As for the purpose of Confession - it is, as Canon Law explains it, the ORDINARY means for Catholics to obtain absolution of sins and to be reinstated to the sacraments.

There is another extraordinary method by which anyone may obtain forgiveness of mortal sins - that is through the grace of perfect contrition (contrition motivated by sorrow at having offended God rather than fear of hell or lesser reasons). Confession is an easier option because mere attrition will suffice to obtain absolution, which is why it’s the ordinary means.

In the case of Catholics perfect contrition necessarily includes the resolve to confess as soon as/if it’s possible, since while a Catholic with such contrition is forgiven of sins and will not go to hell if they die, they are still cut off from receiving the sacraments, except in immediate danger of death, until such time as they confess.

For non-Catholics, since sacramental confession isn’t available to them (quite possibly through no fault of their own) but perfect contrition is undoubtedly possible, there would quite possibly be no such requirement of confession for them.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Dear Friend,
When people genuinely believe in God and live according to the basic gospel values of love for God and others, even if they express only express it in genuine love and care of others, they are living in God’s love. Of course they are saved, by the action of Jesus, which is for all humankind whether that is understood or not. In Matthew 25, verses 31-46, Jesus explains the criteria for how souls will be judged…buy their genuine charity…which, even if they do not know Him, is love for Him who is both fully God and fully human.

I can understand that. It just makes being Catholic (or even another kind of Christian) seem less necessary, which is something I don’t think I’m supposed to accept (could be wrong though).

So basically, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc can be saved if they are good people? Is that correct?

 

[LilyM]

I can understand that. It just makes being Catholic (or even another kind of Christian) seem less necessary, which is something I don’t think I’m supposed to accept (could be wrong though).

So basically, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc can be saved if they are good people? Is that correct?

There’s much MUCH more to it than that - for one thing they can’t be aware of the truths of the Catholic Church and knowingly reject them.

It’s a little difficult to be unaware of the Catholic Church and its teachings these days, at least in most places, so few people these days could use the ‘invincible ignorance’ argument.

 

[PrayforMallory]

There’s much MUCH more to it than that - for one thing they can’t be aware of the truths of the Catholic Church and knowingly reject them.

It’s a little difficult to be unaware of the Catholic Church and its teachings these days, at least in most places, so few people these days could use the ‘invincible ignorance’ argument.

I know about invincible ignorance. It makes sense. I can also understand perfect contrition counting for confession in extraordinary circumstances.

What I’m having trouble reconciling is the following:

1. Damnation results from dying in a state of mortal sin.
2. Confession or perfect contrition are how we can be forgiven.
3. People who have never heard of the Catholic Church can be saved from damnation if they are invincibly ignorant.

I can understand all of that. What I can’t get is how other religions can save somebody, or forgive sins.

 

[Trishie]

It is Jesus who saves us.

If we believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus yet we neglect to live as Catholics, we are culpable.
Many people are honestly innocent of the fact.
Do you have access to the Vatican Two documents relating to the Body of Christ? You might find it helpful to read what the Church teaches regarding the Body of Christ and other faiths.

I’m not sure, are you thinking that other faiths may be excluded from the most profound repentance? Or that God’s mercy would discount such repentance? You know that the priest is not acting for himself, but for God?
It is God, and always God, who forgives and saves.
He uses the instruments of Sacrament and priest.
He will not reject the genuine repentance of anyone unable to believe in or partake in the Sacrament.

And dear Friend, thankfully God is profoundly merciful, as how many of us are truly, genuinely capable of absolutely pure contrition!

We are profoundly grateful for the Sacraments and the richness of our Catholic faith and traditions, and we pray for and witness to our non-Catholic folks, but we never for an instant can doubt God’s extraordinary love and mercy to others.
I do hope that you will find peace. Bless you, Trishie

 

[LilyM]

I know about invincible ignorance. It makes sense. I can also understand perfect contrition counting for confession in extraordinary circumstances.

What I’m having trouble reconciling is the following:

1. Damnation results from dying in a state of mortal sin.
2. Confession or perfect contrition are how we can be forgiven.
3. People who have never heard of the Catholic Church can be saved from damnation if they are invincibly ignorant.

I can understand all of that. What I can’t get is how other religions can save somebody, or forgive sins.

1. should be ‘if they are invincibly ignorant AND/OR have perfect contrition’

Religion doesn’t forgive someone their sins - contrition and repentance do, which have nothing to do with religion. Our religion will, possibly, prescribe the form of contrition and repentance that will be sufficient to save, and make it easier (for Catholics and Orthodox for example) for some to be forgiven and thus saved.

Saying that other religions ‘have salvific qualities’ doesn’t necessarily mean they in and of themselves and by themselves can save, invincible ignorance excepted.

We don’t believe that, and it’s not what the statement means. The statement IS similar to saying that I (female) have certain qualities of a man - which doesn’t mean I AM a man, rather that I am like a man in certain important respects.

Now other religions have salvific qualities in that they share certain fundamental truths, which are crucial to salvation, with the Catholic Church.

Paganism and Hindusim share a belief in deity with us, albeit they believe in multiple deities and we don’t.

Judaism and Islam share faith in the One True God of Abraham.

All Christian religions share belief in Jesus Christ.

Some denominations have two valid sacraments (baptism and marriage) and certain fundamental doctrines such as the Trinity.

The Orthodox have seven valid sacraments and a valid priesthood and share in the Apostolic succession.

All these things are necessary for salvation, and in that these religions possess them they can be said to possess ‘salvific qualities’. Catholicism alone, however, possesses all of these AND the fulness of correct teaching and faith as well.

 

[PrayforMallory]

It is Jesus who saves us.

If we believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus yet we neglect to live as Catholics, we are culpable.
Many people are honestly innocent of the fact.
Do you have access to the Vatican Two documents relating to the Body of Christ? You might find it helpful to read what the Church teaches regarding the Body of Christ and other faiths.

I’m not sure, are you thinking that other faiths may be excluded from the most profound repentance? Or that God’s mercy would discount such repentance? You know that the priest is not acting for himself, but for God?
It is God, and always God, who forgives and saves.
He uses the instruments of Sacrament and priest.
He will not reject the genuine repentance of anyone unable to believe in or partake in the Sacrament.

And dear Friend, thankfully God is profoundly merciful, as how many of us are truly, genuinely capable of absolutely pure contrition!

We are profoundly grateful for the Sacraments and the richness of our Catholic faith and traditions, and we pray for and witness to our non-Catholic folks, but we never for an instant can doubt God’s extraordinary love and mercy to others.
I do hope that you will find peace. Bless you, Trishie

I understand this, but what I’m having trouble understanding, what’s confusing me, is the role of becoming Catholic in salvation. I don’t understand it.

Like, let’s say I’m trying to convince a Methodist friend to become Catholic (I picked a denomination I don’t know anyone from). This friend has been made aware of the Truth of the Catholic faith. Am I supposed to tell him that his own Methodist religion can save him? If it does, what’s the point in his becoming Catholic? Is he just suppose to become Catholic because that’s where he feels most comfortable? If so, he’s not going to become Catholic, most likely.

If he’s been divorced, he’s committed a mortal sin, but he can be forgiven and saved by the Methodist sect, so becoming Catholic isn’t really necessary for him. I am still bound to tell him, but, when he learns it’s unnecessary, is he supposed to go through all the work and effort to change religions when he doesn’t have to?

None of this makes much sense to me, unfortunately, and I’m trying hard to be at peace with it.

 

[PrayforMallory]

1. should be ‘if they are invincibly ignorant AND/OR have perfect contrition’

Religion doesn’t forgive someone their sins - contrition and repentance do, which have nothing to do with religion. Our religion will, possibly, prescribe the form of contrition and repentance that will be sufficient to save, and make it easier (for Catholics and Orthodox for example) for some to be forgiven and thus saved.

Then is it necessary for me to go to confession? I mean, if I am repentant and contrite it would seem like it wouldn’t be necessary? I’m not invincibly ignorant, but if the Catholic sacraments are of no greater utility in my salvation than being repentant, then it would seem like they aren’t helping me.

 

[LilyM]

I understand this, but what I’m having trouble understanding, what’s confusing me, is the role of becoming Catholic in salvation. I don’t understand it.

Like, let’s say I’m trying to convince a Methodist friend to become Catholic (I picked a denomination I don’t know anyone from). This friend has been made aware of the Truth of the Catholic faith. Am I supposed to tell him that his own Methodist religion can save him? If it does, what’s the point in his becoming Catholic? Is he just suppose to become Catholic because that’s where he feels most comfortable? If so, he’s not going to become Catholic, most likely.

If he’s been divorced, he’s committed a mortal sin, but he can be forgiven and saved by the Methodist sect, so becoming Catholic isn’t really necessary for him. I am still bound to tell him, but, when he learns it’s unnecessary, is he supposed to go through all the work and effort to change religions when he doesn’t have to?

None of this makes much sense to me, unfortunately, and I’m trying hard to be at peace with it.

He can be saved by the Methodist sect? No. He can be saved if he has perfect contrition, which Methodism won’t give him, neither will Catholicism, but is a gift straight from God’s grace and mercy.

Perfect contrition is not something he can manufacture for himself, either, though, but can only possibly gain through God’s grace, to which grace he may well be irredeemably hardened without the help of the Catholic sacraments such as penance and the Eucharist.

And you having told him about some of the teachings of Catholicism, Catholicism becomes necessary for him. He is no longer ignorant. He is bound to give it serious investigation, and if having done so he rejects it then it’s most likely out of wilful hardness of heart or other factors rather than ignorance, and he most likely won’t be saved.

Does that post, and my last one, make it clearer for you?

 

[LilyM]

Then is it necessary for me to go to confession? I mean, if I am repentant and contrite it would seem like it wouldn’t be necessary? I’m not invincibly ignorant, but if the Catholic sacraments are of no greater utility in my salvation than being repentant, then it would seem like they aren’t helping me.

Let me try to explain it again for you. Perfect contrition entails a whole lot more than just generally being repentant and contrite, and certainly is a lot more difficult than the sort of contrition which will suffice in sacramental confession. That’s the advantage of the sacrament and one of the advantages of being Catholic.

Perfect Contrtion means being contrite in a very specific way (purely out of love for God and sorrow at having offended him, and not out of fear of hell or any other reason) and furthermore is ONLY attainable by a very special infusion of God’s grace, so it’s not something any of us can take for granted we ever will attain.

Thirdly - you said it, you’re NOT invincibly ignorant, quite the opposite, so it’s not an option for you. On the other hand being Catholic you have a MUCH much more certain means of forgiveness available to you in the form of sacramental confession. Basically by becoming Catholic you’ve traded the mountainous goat track of salvation for the eight-lane freeway.

 

[PrayforMallory]

He can be saved by the Methodist sect? No. He can be saved if he has perfect contrition, which Methodism won’t give him, neither will Catholicism.

Perfect contrition is not something he can manufacture for himself, either, though, but can only possibly gain through God’s grace, to which grace he may well be irredeemably hardened without the help of the Catholic sacraments such as penance and the Eucharist. Then too, forgiveness is easier in the Catholic sacrament of Penance - he doesn’t need this perfect contrition, just attrition.

And you having told him about some of the teachings of Catholicism, Catholicism becomes necessary for him. He is no longer ignorant. He is bound to give it serious investigation, and if having done so he rejects it then it’s most likely out of wilful hardness of heart or other factors rather than ignorance, and he most likely won’t be saved.

Does that post, and my last one, make it clearer for you?

So the Church teaches God will save us under two circumstances:

1. We receive the Sacrament of Penance.
   or
2. We perform an act of perfect contrition/or are invincibly ignorant.

Your above post makes more sense to me. I thought that the belief systems of other religions were being taught as salvific.

So basically:

My Methodist friend has been divorced and remarried, thus he’s committed adultery based on the Church’s teachings. He goes regularly to a Methodist Church, and he repents of certain sins, but not of his divorce, because he doesn’t believe the Catholic teaching on divorce, even though he’s been informed of it. He’s sorry for some of his sins, but his contrition isn’t perfect. He dies in a car wreck and his soul is thus put in jeopardy.

Conversely,

My Buddhist friend has been taught about Catholicism (the pope recently came to his city). He rejects it. He has been divorced and remarried. He is never sorry for any of his sins (he doesn’t have a similar concept of sin). He dies in a car wreck, and his soul is put in jeopardy.

Conversely,

An Amazonian tribesman lives an upright, virtuous life free from mortal sin (due to the natural law). He follows the law as best he knows it. He has no contact with anyone outside his tribe, in which no one has ever heard of Catholicism. He gets hit by an arrow and dies. He is saved by God due to his invincible ignorance?

Conversely,

My Catholic friend has been divorced and remarried. He gets in a car wreck, and before he dies a priest performs absolution (he is truly penitent, etc.). His soul is not in jeopardy as far as we can tell?

Conversely,

I have an atheist friend. Same set of circumstances, except that right before he dies, he makes an act of perfect contrition. He receives grace and is sorry only for offending God. He is forgiven by God for this extraordinary act of contrition.

Is this accurate?

 

[LilyM]

So the Church teaches God will save us under two circumstances:

1. We receive the Sacrament of Penance.
   or
2. We perform an act of perfect contrition/or are invincibly ignorant.

Your above post makes more sense to me. I thought that the belief systems of other religions were being taught as salvific.

So basically:

My Methodist friend has been divorced and remarried, thus he’s committed adultery based on the Church’s teachings. He goes regularly to a Methodist Church, and he repents of certain sins, but not of his divorce, because he doesn’t believe the Catholic teaching on divorce, even though he’s been informed of it. He’s sorry for some of his sins, but his contrition isn’t perfect. He dies in a car wreck and his soul is thus put in jeopardy.

Conversely,

My Buddhist friend has been taught about Catholicism (the pope recently came to his city). He rejects it. He has been divorced and remarried. He is never sorry for any of his sins (he doesn’t have a similar concept of sin). He dies in a car wreck, and his soul is put in jeopardy.

Conversely,

An Amazonian tribesman lives an upright, virtuous life free from mortal sin (due to the natural law). He follows the law as best he knows it. He has no contact with anyone outside his tribe, in which no one has ever heard of Catholicism. He gets hit by an arrow and dies. He is saved by God due to his invincible ignorance?

Conversely,

My Catholic friend has been divorced and remarried. He gets in a car wreck, and before he dies a priest performs absolution (he is truly penitent, etc.). His soul is not in jeopardy as far as we can tell?

Is this accurate?

It’s a bit more nuanced than that, so I’d add one or two provisos - the state of a person’s knowledge of Catholic teaching is important (ie one visit by the Pope probably wouldn’t be sufficient to remove the possibility of invincible ignorance).

Equally important might be WHY, if they have reasonable and accurate knowledge of Catholic teaching, they reject it. There are lots of people brought up, through no fault of their own, in communities that are rabidly anti-Catholic for one reason or another, and such conditioning is incredibly difficult to overcome with any amount of rational knowledge of Catholicism. I don’t think God will be too harsh on such a one.

Finally - remember God sets the rules for us, but He is certainly not bound by them. If He so chooses, He can save all of the above regardless. Not that we can presume so, and having been given much as Catholics more will be required of us.

Otherwise, not a bad effort

 

[PrayforMallory]

With the proviso that ultimately God alone judges people’s souls and that God isn’t BOUND by any rules, and so could save all of the above if He so wishes, it sounds reasonably accurate.

And I think at least a little more education on the beliefs of the Catholic Church than a single visit by the Pope would be required before one could no longer be called ‘invincibly ignorant’, but I would hesitate to try to judge exactly how much information, besides which the reasons behind the person rejecting Catholic teaching matter as much as what they know of it.

This makes sense. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wanted to. He could undo creation in an instant, by virtue of being omnipotent. But I don’t understand the need to put that caveat in there. Like, everybody knows what he* can* do, but does the Church not have an idea of what he does?

Obviously we couldn’t know for certain how ignorant someone ultimately is, and I can certainly see a person’s motives mattering.

The emphasis on that caveat. It could end up being seriously misinterpreted, couldn’t it?

I guess I’m confused because I never heard a sermon where Hell was mentioned until I moved to this Archdiocese.

 

[PrayforMallory]

With the proviso that ultimately God alone judges people’s souls and that God isn’t BOUND by any rules, and so could save all of the above if He so wishes, it sounds reasonably accurate.

And I think at least a little more education on the beliefs of the Catholic Church than a single visit by the Pope would be required before one could no longer be called ‘invincibly ignorant’, but I would hesitate to try to judge exactly how much information, besides which the reasons behind the person rejecting Catholic teaching matter as much as what they know of it.

This makes sense. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wanted to. He could undo creation in an instant, by virtue of being omnipotent. But I don’t understand the need to put that caveat in there. Like, everybody knows what he* can* do, but does the Church not have an idea of what he does?

Obviously we couldn’t know for certain how ignorant someone ultimately is, and I can certainly see a person’s motives mattering.

The emphasis on that caveat. It could end up being seriously misinterpreted, couldn’t it?

I guess I’m confused because I never heard a sermon where Hell was mentioned until I moved to this Archdiocese.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Equally important might be WHY, if they have reasonable and accurate knowledge of Catholic teaching, they reject it. There are lots of people brought up, through no fault of their own, in communities that are rabidly anti-Catholic for one reason or another, and such conditioning is incredibly difficult to overcome with any amount of rational knowledge of Catholicism. I don’t think God will be too harsh on such a one.

When we say something like this, I can understand it, but it would be too difficult to say that any particular “level” of anti-Catholic indoctrination or ignorance automatically meant the person was no longer culpable. Would it be accurate to say that the culpability of people who reject Catholicism and grew up in a rabid anti-Catholic environment, is known only to God, thus it could never be definitively said that they are saved?

 

[LilyM]

This makes sense. God could make 2 + 2 = 5 if he wanted to. He could undo creation in an instant, by virtue of being omnipotent. But I don’t understand the need to put that caveat in there. Like, everybody knows what he* can* do, but does the Church not have an idea of what he does?

Obviously we couldn’t know for certain how ignorant someone ultimately is, and I can certainly see a person’s motives mattering.

The emphasis on that caveat. It could end up being seriously misinterpreted, couldn’t it?

I guess I’m confused because I never heard a sermon where Hell was mentioned until I moved to this Archdiocese.

Caveats are necessary, I think, because there is a strong temptation for at least some of us scholarly inquisitive types to reach a point where we think we have God all figured out. Of course this may not apply to you, in my experience it applies to more people than not on this site. And it’s not just for your benefit that I write

The best we or the Church can do, is to figure out what God wants of US, which is by far the easiest task of all. Along with that knowlege, we know only some of what or who He is and does (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the nature of Jesus, the Marian dogmas and so on). There’s still plenty outside of this that is theological speculation rather than knowledge.

 

[PrayforMallory]

Caveats are necessary, I think, because there is a strong temptation for at least some of us scholarly inquisitive types to reach a point where we think we have God all figured out. Of course this may not apply to you, in my experience it applies to more people than not on this site. And it’s not just for your benefit that I write

The best we or the Church can do, is to figure out what God wants of US, which is by far the easiest task of all. Along with that knowlege, we know only some of what or who He is and does (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the nature of Jesus, the Marian dogmas and so on). There’s still plenty outside of this that is theological speculation rather than knowledge.

I guess I just wonder about the necessity of stating that one, because we could include it in any statement we make about God, i.e., God transforms the host into the Body of Christ, but he can avoid doing this if he wants, God forgives our sins in the sacrament of reconciliation, but he can deny us if he wants. Also, it seems like it’s used to deny hell by some people I’ve heard before.
What confuses me is that this seems to be stated only when we talk about salvation.

 

[elts1956]

I can understand that. It just makes being Catholic (or even another kind of Christian) seem less necessary, which is something I don’t think I’m supposed to accept (could be wrong though).

So basically, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc can be saved if they are good people? Is that correct?

Protestants are, by Pope John Paul II’s definition, because each of the Protestant Churches has at least part of the truth and means for Salvation, considered a part of the Mystical Body of Christ (ie. Catholic Church) if they are striving for that perfect Union with God. This same Pope has also said, those of the non-Christian sects can be saved by means of which we do not know. He was the ecumenical Pope who worked all his life toward unity with other denominations and faiths and the above is what he said in so many words.