Is it Acceptable to Believe Only Catholics ARE Saved?

[PietroPaolo]

has anyone from the old testament been saved?

Great point! Many from the OT have been saved (there are canonized OT saints) and they were not formally members of the Catholic Church (as it didn’t exist yet). However, they were still members of the Church in the sense of the Church Expectant, i.e. they were a part of the People of God as then constituted. Nonetheless, we have to adjust our original question - is a Catholic free to believe people who are outside the People of God, as constituted in their day, never actualize the potency of salvation for those outside the Church (or perhaps better that the number of such people is exceedingly small).

 

[PietroPaolo]

605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412

Yes, but this doesn’t really bear on the question we are discussing, does it? Christ suffered for all, but not all are saved. The CCC isn’t teaching the heresy of universalism.

 

[PietroPaolo]

BTW, I’m not necessarily advocating for this position, I’m simply wondering if it is within the realm of orthodoxy. It seems to me (with the adjustment needed to account for the OT saints) to be perfectly reasonable and orthodox to believe at least the vast majority of those outside the visible Church don’t make it to heaven in the end. As someone pointed out above, not even all within the visible Church are going to be saved (maybe not even the majority). Being outside the Church must then even make salvation less likely. Again, I’m not pushing this as something we have to believe as Catholics, just that it is a theological opinion that is within the realm of orthodoxy (as, for example, limbo still is - even if it isn’t currently popular). I do think such an opinion makes the missionary activity (and indeed the New Evangelization) more urgent than the prevailing Balthazarian “hope of universalism” opinion (which I think flirts with heterodoxy, but doesn’t cross the line as of course we ought to hope for all to be saved). Balthazar’s opinion really cuts the legs out of any evangelical action within the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m asking, is it permissible for a Catholic to believe that, while it is theoretically possible for non-Catholics to be saved, most or all of them are not, in fact, saved?

These are two very different questions, wouldn’t you say? To ask “all non-Catholics are not saved” seems to be making a qualitatively different statement than “most X are not saved”.

bisco’s responses to you are spot-on.

We know that there are Old Testament figures who are in heaven: at the very least, we know that Moses and Elijah are, since they appeared with Christ in the Transfiguration event. So, right there, that takes care of your “all” question, wouldn’t you say?

(Interestingly, it also takes care of your ‘saints’ question, too: the Church considers the Patriarchs as saints. We don’t hear it too often, but there are liturgical references to “St Abraham”, “St Moses”, etc. So, it’s not that the Church only has Catholics as saints. As bisco states, the Church only finds itself able to declare sainthood for Catholics; this doesn’t imply that they’re the only ones in heaven.)

But, what about your question regarding “most” non-Catholics? That one takes on a different tenor. For that answer, you might want to refer to Jesus’ statements about the wide and narrow gates. Depending on how you interpret those statements, Jesus seems to be saying that most people – in general, not just Christians! – will have a hard time “striv[ing] to enter through the narrow gate.”

My question hinges on the importance of the Eucharist as the supreme path to holiness, the importance of the Magisterium to faithfully shepherd us, and on the ability of Catholics to seek forgiveness of post-baptismal mortal sins through sacramental confession.

Hmm… but, you’re asking about non-Catholics, right? They don’t have the Eucharist (and aren’t, in the absence of the fullness of the truth, held to the same standard of knowledge of and participation in the sacraments that Catholics are). They aren’t obliged to follow the teachings of the Magisterium, per se. So, the question is more a question of context, wouldn’t you say? It’s the question of whether, on whatever ‘scale’ you’re envisioning, it’s easier for a Catholic (following the normative means to attain salvation) to attain to heaven, or for a non-Catholic (who is following Jesus or God or the Good, according to their situation in life) to receive the unmitigated grace of God in order to attain to heaven. Does that about sum up your question?

I don’t know that there’s an answer to that question, per se. Lumen Gentium would seem to give us an indication of a way that we can think through the question, though. After talking about all people – Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, on one hand, and other non-Christians in general), LG says this: “[w]herefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.” If it were the case that it’s ‘easier’ or ‘just as easy’ – or, perhaps more to the point, ‘good’ – to hope for salvation without explicitly being a member of the Catholic Church, there would be no reason to make this exhortation, it seems. Instead, we could just let every non-Catholic out there “do his own thing,” and rely on God to take care of the rest. That’s not what the Church does, though. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that there’s a certain element of uncertainty in just hoping that it’ll all work out for non-Catholics…

Catholics make use of these helps, non-Catholics don’t. It seems absurd to think they make no difference in the end (why would Christ have bothered to found a Church at all?)

Certainly the sacraments “make a difference.” For those of us who believe, they’re absolutely critical. The question, though, is whether God “holds it against” those who aren’t Catholic that they don’t participate in the sacraments. He doesn’t.

But, more to the point, the question isn’t even so much as to whether you happen to hold this position, but whether it is acceptable for a Catholic to.

I can’t see how a Catholic could hold to the proposition that non-Catholics do not attain to heaven. A Catholic, however, could believe that most people do not attain to heaven (but it would seem quite uncharitable for them to take that a step further and suggest that most non-Catholics do not get to heaven (and more to the point, are damned in greater proportion than Catholics are).

 

[clem456]

I assume your good faith in asking this question, but the implications of what you are asking open a can of worms.

It seems to me, you are asking for a distinction without a difference.
“Can be” vs. “are in fact”.
How do we know the disposition of someone’s soul, other than canonization? Since we don’t know, we admit that judgment is God’s prerogative. So in effect, the issue could be said to be none of our business. If this is all God’s grace and prerogative, what are we to proclaim to people then?

You are asking if it is ok to believe such and such? What is belief?

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
“I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE”

CHAPTER THREE
**MAN’S RESPONSE TO GOD **

142 By his Revelation, "the invisible God, from the fullness of his love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to invite and receive them into his own company."1 The adequate response to this invitation is faith.

143 By faith, man completely submits his intellect and his will to God.2 With his whole being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this human response to God, the author of revelation, “the obedience of faith”.3

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

THE CREEDS

185 Whoever says “I believe” says “I pledge myself to what we believe.” Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith.

I guess my response to your question is, why would we want to assert something that does not speak with the mind of the Church, out of step with the Gospel, when the faith asks us to submit our will and intellect to the Good News proclaimed by Christ? The Gospel proclaims Good News in hope for all mankind’s salvation. Placing one’s trust and assent (belief) in the damnation of whole peoples seems to run counter.

 

[PietroPaolo]

These are two very different questions, wouldn’t you say? To ask “all non-Catholics are not saved” seems to be making a qualitatively different statement than “most X are not saved”.

bisco’s responses to you are spot-on.

Indeed, which is why I amended the question above (and gave bisco a for actually understanding the question and providing a great answer).

But, what about your question regarding “most” non-Catholics? That one takes on a different tenor. For that answer, you might want to refer to Jesus’ statements about the wide and narrow gates. Depending on how you interpret those statements, Jesus seems to be saying that most people – in general, not just Christians! – will have a hard time “striv[ing] to enter through the narrow gate.”

Which is the genesis of the question. Most of the Doctors and Saints throughout history have taken Christ quite literally (Augustine’s description of man as a massa damnata comes to mind)

Hmm… but, you’re asking about non-Catholics, right? They don’t have the Eucharist (and aren’t, in the absence of the fullness of the truth, held to the same standard of knowledge of and participation in the sacraments that Catholics are). They aren’t obliged to follow the teachings of the Magisterium, per se. So, the question is more a question of context, wouldn’t you say? It’s the question of whether, on whatever ‘scale’ you’re envisioning, it’s easier for a Catholic (following the normative means to attain salvation) to attain to heaven, or for a non-Catholic (who is following Jesus or God or the Good, according to their situation in life) to receive the unmitigated grace of God in order to attain to heaven. Does that about sum up your question?

Close. I’d simply point out the universal applicability of the natural moral law (being written on the hearts of man). No one, the CCC tells us, is truly ignorant of this law. But some non-Catholic religions and denominations teach things that directly contravene this law (use of abc for example) thus putting the followers of these false prophets at great peril. Further, the rejection of not just of the Holy Eucharist, but of sacramental confession seems to put non-Catholics at an extreme disadvantage.

My question also centers less around whether or not many Catholics are saved as it does over whether or not believing they are not falls within the bounds of orthodoxy. I’m not suggesting it is the only orthodox understanding, but I am suggesting it is an orthodox understanding (as opposed to Feenyism or Universalism both of which are heretical).

I don’t know that there’s an answer to that question, per se. Lumen Gentium would seem to give us an indication of a way that we can think through the question, though. After talking about all people – Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, on one hand, and other non-Christians in general), LG says this: “[w]herefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature’, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.” If it were the case that it’s ‘easier’ or ‘just as easy’ – or, perhaps more to the point, ‘good’ – to hope for salvation without explicitly being a member of the Catholic Church, there would be no reason to make this exhortation, it seems. Instead, we could just let every non-Catholic out there “do his own thing,” and rely on God to take care of the rest. That’s not what the Church does, though. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that there’s a certain element of uncertainty in just hoping that it’ll all work out for non-Catholics…

Great point and reference to a all too often unquoted teaching of Vatican 2.

Certainly the sacraments “make a difference.” For those of us who believe, they’re absolutely critical. The question, though, is whether God “holds it against” those who aren’t Catholic that they don’t participate in the sacraments. He doesn’t.

Right, because frequenting the sacraments are not a part of the natural law. Non-Catholics (especially those invisibly ignorant of the truth of the Faith) can’t be justly held accountable for not partaking. Still, the sacraments are not just obligations. They are “helps” in getting to heaven. Being without these helps seems to be a great disadvantage. It’s almost as if Catholics are playing baseball with steroids and non-Catholics are playing without even exercising. Might they do well in the game? Maybe some of them. But can they really compete with the 'roid boys? Not at all.

I can’t see how a Catholic could hold to the proposition that non-Catholics do not attain to heaven. A Catholic, however, could believe that most people do not attain to heaven (but it would seem quite uncharitable for them to take that a step further and suggest that most non-Catholics do not get to heaven (and more to the point, are damned in greater proportion than Catholics are).

I disagree with this last point for the reasons stated above. How is it anymore uncharitable to think Hindus don’t attain heaven in as great of numbers as Catholics do than to believe Hinduism doesn’t attain to truth as much as Catholicism does? To hold your position here it would seem we’d have to drive a wedge between holiness (which is required of those entering heaven - cf Heb 12:14) and truth - which seems untenable. How can truth have so little impact on holiness as to finally make no difference? Especially as Jesus is Truth?

Great response! I appreciate that you actually responded to the topic instead of one of your own devising.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I assume your good faith in asking this question, but the implications of what you are asking open a can of worms.

Should we only ask questions that don’t “open cans of worms?”

It seems to me, you are asking for a distinction without a difference.
“Can be” vs. “are in fact”.

The difference is both real and important - its the difference between something existing potentially and something existing actually. Unicorns can exist, but don’t in fact exist. A five sided square neither can exist nor ***actually in fact ***exists. And God both in fact exists and can exist. The distinction is hardly without a difference.

I guess my response to your question is, why would we want to assert something that does not speak with the mind of the Church, out of step with the Gospel, when the faith asks us to submit our will and intellect to the Good News proclaimed by Christ? The Gospel proclaims Good News in hope for all mankind’s salvation. Placing one’s trust and assent (belief) in the damnation of whole peoples seems to run counter.

I’d be very careful here, especially as the greatest theologians in the Church’s history disagree with your interpretation of scripture. You seem to be saying the Church either a) teaches that all are in fact saved (which it doesn’t) or b) the Church teaches that equal amounts of people from all nations will be saved (it doesn’t teach that either). I’d ask you to provide some evidence that your assertion is actually “the mind of the Church.”

 

[clem456]

Should we only ask questions that don’t “open cans of worms?”

The difference is both real and important - its the difference between something existing potentially and something existing actually. Unicorns can exist, but don’t in fact exist. A five sided square neither can exist nor ***actually in fact ***exists. And God both in fact exists and can exist. The distinction is hardly without a difference.

You ask if salvation for non-Catholics *in fact *exists? The best and only answer you can give is “I don’t know”.
If I marry my fiancé is she going to *in fact *be faithful to me to the end? “I don’t know” .Do I enter the wedding feast with a minimalist and doubting faith in my wife to be?

The beauty of Christianity is, we don’t live only in fact, we live in faith, hope, and love. Since the Church proclaims Christ’s offer of redemption for all people and the hope that all can be saved, and we can’t know the in fact anyway, how can we hope and believe anything else as Christians?

I’d be very careful here, especially as the greatest theologians in the Church’s history disagree with your interpretation of scripture. You seem to be saying the Church either a) teaches that all are in fact saved (which it doesn’t) or b) the Church teaches that equal amounts of people from all nations will be saved (it doesn’t teach that either). I’d ask you to provide some evidence that your assertion is actually “the mind of the Church.”

Really what I’m trying to say has nothing to do with universalism or quantities of saved etc… I’m just trying to address your question of what the Church asks us to believe.

 

[PietroPaolo]

You ask if salvation for non-Catholics *in fact *exists? The best and only answer you can give is “I don’t know”.
If I marry my fiancé is she going to *in fact *be faithful to me to the end? “I don’t know” .Do I enter the wedding feast with a minimalist and doubting faith in my wife to be?

The beauty of Christianity is, we don’t live in fact alone, we live in faith, hope, and love. Since the Church proclaims Christ’s offer of redemption for all people and the hope that all can be saved, and we can’t know the in fact anyway, how can we hope and believe anything else as Christians?

Not quite. I’m not asking whether non-Catholics are saved or in what numbers they are saved. I’m asking whether it is heterodox or orthodox to hold the theological opinion that few non-Catholics are saved. The distinction is important as they are two entirely different questions.

Really what I’m trying to say has nothing to do with universalism or quantities of saved etc… I’m just trying to address your question of what the Church asks us to believe.

In that case you’ll need to present some evidence that the Church asks us to believe what you claim she does. Saying that Jesus suffered for all isn’t evidence against my proposed theological opinion as not all are saved (in fact Jesus Himself tells us most are not saved).

 

[clem456]

Not quite. I’m not asking whether non-Catholics are saved or in what numbers they are saved
…
Saying that Jesus suffered for all isn’t evidence against my proposed theological opinion as not all are saved (in fact Jesus Himself tells us most are not saved).

Ok I’m confused now. You were asking originally

a more interesting and more difficult question, is whether it is permissible to believe that only Catholics are in fact saved.

 

[clem456]

Right, because frequenting the sacraments are not a part of the natural law. Non-Catholics (especially those invisibly ignorant of the truth of the Faith) can’t be justly held accountable for not partaking. Still, the sacraments are not just obligations. They are “helps” in getting to heaven. Being without these helps seems to be a great disadvantage. It’s almost as if Catholics are playing baseball with steroids and non-Catholics are playing without even exercising. Might they do well in the game? Maybe some of them. But can they really compete with the 'roid boys? Not at all.

The analogy doesn’t really apply in that salvation is not a competition. Salvation is unification with God, who has unlimited helps (grace) which he can give to others as he wills. In your analogy, God can take a 5’2" guy and give him the grace to dunk the basketball. Quantity is meaningless with God’s grace. A drop of God’s grace is enough. The inclination is to take that as a degradation of sacramental grace. Not at all. The fact that the sacraments are helps, doesn’t exclude those that can’t practice them from having God’s help.

God is not bound by the sacraments. The obvious protest is, “yea but we are ahead because we have them”. The answer is, “you don’t know that you are ahead, and we are not in competition for God’s grace anyway, it is limitless”.

I disagree with this last point for the reasons stated above. How is it anymore uncharitable to think Hindus don’t attain heaven in as great of numbers as Catholics do than to believe Hinduism doesn’t attain to truth as much as Catholicism does? To hold your position here it would seem we’d have to drive a wedge between holiness (which is required of those entering heaven - cf Heb 12:14) and truth - which seems untenable. How can truth have so little impact on holiness as to finally make no difference? Especially as Jesus is Truth?

What does it mean to be charitable? Part of charity is to proclaim the truth of the Gospel.

851 Missionary motivation. It is from God’s love for all men that the Church in every age receives both the obligation and the vigor of her missionary dynamism, "for the love of Christ urges us on."343 Indeed, God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”;344 that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, **must go out **to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.

Note that “God desires all men to be saved”. Your hypothetical position that we can have foreknowledge of, or proclaim and believe, that many, most, all, non-Catholics aren’t saved, goes against the Church’s proclamation of God’s desire.

It’s also noteworthy that Catholics have an obligation to preach the truth entrusted to us by God. In other words, proclaiming the hope which the Gospel holds for all mankind is part of our own sanctification (path to holiness).
The position you asking about is problematic.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

That only Catholics can be saved is contrary to Church teaching. Those who hold on to this **Feenyist **opinion are holding on to heresy.

What IS acceptable to believe (and is in fact the truth), is that there are only Catholics in heaven.

Yes the Boston heresy named after Fr Feeney who incorrectly taught that only Catholics will be saved.

Yes a Jew, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist etc on earth may have lived their entire lives as a person of that faith or no faith but if our Lord deems them worthy they will be Catholic once they enter Heaven

 

[bisco]

i find this confusing. perhaps i am not looking at it from the proper perspective. to be catholic on earth, one must believe and follow church teaching. to be catholic in heaven, after not being catholic on earth, means what?

 

[clem456]

i find this confusing. perhaps i am not looking at it from the proper perspective. to be catholic on earth, one must believe and follow church teaching. to be catholic in heaven, after not being catholic on earth, means what?

To be Catholic means to be part of the “holos”, unified with the whole Body of Christ. To be Catholic is not merely an expression of beliefs or storing up of observances here on earth.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…”

If one is united with God in paradise, one is by definition Catholic, united with God and the whole of the body. There is no division in Christ.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

i find this confusing. perhaps i am not looking at it from the proper perspective. to be catholic on earth, one must believe and follow church teaching. to be catholic in heaven, after not being catholic on earth, means what?

All those in Heaven WILL be Catholic by the time they get there. Non-Catholics are a part of the mystical union of the Church.

At first I used to question how, how many and why but now I just accept that only Christ decides who enters Heaven. The Church provides the teachings to light the way there but many baptised Catholics do not follow the teachings. The burden placed on Catholics is higher, we have no excuse, all the resources are at our disposal.

My own understanding is that non-Catholics will be judged in the end not so much on the content of the doctrines they espouse (i.e., reincarnation v. Christian heaven) or lack of doctrine as per atheists but on the degree to which they are open to a life with God in this world, through their practice of such virtues as honesty, love, forgiveness and compassion in their relationships with other people.

 

[bisco]

i thought that was for those who didn’t know the truth, because they hadn’t been evangelized, but had responded to God’s law written on their heart?

 

[PietroPaolo]

The analogy doesn’t really apply in that salvation is not a competition. Salvation is unification with God, who has unlimited helps (grace) which he can give to others as he wills. In your analogy, God can take a 5’2" guy and give him the grace to dunk the basketball. Quantity is meaningless with God’s grace. A drop of God’s grace is enough. The inclination is to take that as a degradation of sacramental grace. Not at all. The fact that the sacraments are helps, doesn’t exclude those that can’t practice them from having God’s help.

God is not bound by the sacraments. The obvious protest is, “yea but we are ahead because we have them”. The answer is, “you don’t know that you are ahead, and we are not in competition for God’s grace anyway, it is limitless”.

What does it mean to be charitable? Part of charity is to proclaim the truth of the Gospel.

Note that “God desires all men to be saved”. Your hypothetical position that we can have foreknowledge of, or proclaim and believe, that many, most, all, non-Catholics aren’t saved, goes against the Church’s proclamation of God’s desire.

It’s also noteworthy that Catholics have an obligation to preach the truth entrusted to us by God. In other words, proclaiming the hope which the Gospel holds for all mankind is part of our own sanctification (path to holiness).
The position you asking about is problematic.

All of this is a bit beside the point though, which is whether or not the position I’ve staked out is orthodox. I’m not saying it is the only orthodox position or that all Catholics must hold it (those are different arguments). The question here is a different one altogether.

Think of limbo. If I asked whether it is permissible for Catholics to believe unbaptized babies don’t go to heaven an answer wouldn’t be to dispute whether or not limbo is the actual fate of unbaptized babies. You’re not grappling with my actual question.

The closest you get is in pointing out that God wills all to be saved. However, it doesn’t follow that all are actually saved. God also wills that we decide whether or not we are saved. Thus it is our will, not His, that ultimately decides our fate. Its like a marriage. Both parties have to be willing to get married for a marriage to take place. There has to be 2 yeses. God answers “yes” to everyone. But it doesn’t then follow that everyone answers “yes” to God. With only one “yes” (God’s) a person can’t be saved.

 

[clem456]

All those in Heaven WILL be Catholic by the time they get there. Non-Catholics are a part of the mystical union of the Church.

At first I used to question how, how many and why but now I just accept that only Christ decides who enters Heaven. The Church provides the teachings to light the way there but many baptised Catholics do not follow the teachings. The burden placed on Catholics is higher, we have no excuse, all the resources are at our disposal.

My own understanding is that non-Catholics will be judged in the end not so much on the content of the doctrines they espouse (i.e., reincarnation v. Christian heaven) or lack of doctrine as per atheists but on the degree to which they are open to a life with God in this world, through their practice of such virtues as honesty, love, forgiveness and compassion in their relationships with other people.

It is difficult to comprehend.
In human thinking, there is only so much of anything to go around. We think of limitation, deprivation, and competition.
And if we are told to follow a certain path, we find it hard to accept that others can get there by a different path. It doesn’t seem fair.

‘Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?’

My honest answer is “yes”, I can be envious when others receive God’s blessings when they haven’t followed the “orthodox” way.

But God’s grace is of a supernatural nature, not human. He bestows it as he wills.

2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord’s words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.

A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God’s grace, she replied: ‘If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.’"58

We cannot presume on God’s grace one way or another…that we Catholics have it, or that non-Catholics can’t have it.
God gives us the Church as the sacrament of salvation. I depend on the sacraments and the graces that flow from them. As professing and practicing Catholics we are given a great gift. Hopefully that grace gives me eyes to see God’s grace working in others in more profound ways.

 

[PietroPaolo]

The Church provides the teachings to light the way there but many baptised Catholics do not follow the teachings. The burden placed on Catholics is higher, we have no excuse, all the resources are at our disposal.

This is highly problematic. You are suggesting that Christ; by founding the Church, assuring her teaching of truth, and by providing the Sacraments - including the Eucharist; is actually making it harder for people to be saved. If that was the case, He would have done better to never found the Church at all and leave everyone in their own pagan religions to be saved by their own “good will.”

But really, this is beside the point being discussed here. Which is simply whether the following position:

Most non-Catholics will not be saved.

Is a permissible theological opinion for a Catholic. I’m arguing that it is. I’m not arguing that it is the only permissible theological opinion for Catholics, but I am arguing that it is within the realm of orthodoxy.

 

[bisco]

i don’t think this is acceptable catholic thought because it is judgmental.