Is it possible to achieve salvation in another relgion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peepers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I will continue my studies. If someone could address Noonan’s points directly, it would be appreciated. But I understand why this might not be the place for that. Noonan makes some claims which are troubling to me, when contrasted to what I have read here in this forum. For example:

“Once upon a time, certainly as late as 1860, the Church taught that it was no sin for a Catholic to own another human being; to command the labor of that other human being without paying compensation; to determine where he or she lived and how much he or she was fed and clothed; to restrict his or her education; to pledge him or her for a loan, forfeit him or her for a default, sell him or her for cash; to do the same as to his or her offspring; and to discipline him or her by physical punishments if he or she were rude or boisterous or slack in service.”

…

“The premier moralist of the West, St. Augustine, said succinctly that Christ “did not make men free from being slaves.” The greatest of reforming popes, Gregory I, accepted a young boy as a slave and gave him as a gift to another bishop; his famous decision to send missionaries to England is said to have arisen from his musings as he browsed in a slave market in Rome.”

Contrast this with Vatican II:

"Again, all that has changed. In the face of the repeated teachings of modern popes, beginning with Leo XIII, on the rights of labor, uncompensated slave labor is seen as a moral outrage. In the light of the teachings of the modern popes and the Second Vatican Council on the dignity of the human person, it is morally unthinkable that one person be allowed to buy, sell, hypothecate, or lease another or dispose of that person’s children.’
 
Peepers,
There is a difference between just and unjust slavery, and the Church has said that the former was not opposed to the Natural Law (cf. Holy Office instruction of 20 June 1866), and theologians upheld that distinction up through the 1950s (e.g., Jone, Koch, Prümmer).
 
SouthpawLink said:
Peepers,
There is a difference between just and unjust slavery, and the Church has said that the former was not opposed to the Natural Law (cf. Holy Office instruction of 20 June 1866), and theologians upheld that distinction up through the 1950s (e.g., Jone, Koch, Prümmer).
Click to expand...
Thanks, SouthpawLink. My concern has nothing to do with the moral ramifications of slavery; What made sense to a first century Roman differs from what makes sense to an American twenty centuries later. My concern is that the ‘moral high ground’ claimed by the Church derives from its apostolic lineage, and its objective moral standards. Noonan is not the only theologian to present a compelling argument that the Church adjusts its moral standard according to popular sentiment, theories of social justice, and economic conditions. I cite his article in particular, for its brevity, and because he is a supporter of the Church. I am trying to reconcile these apparently opposing points of view. Perhaps that is not possible. It seems that some here would say the Noonan’s thesis is heretical.
 
Peepers said:
Thank you for your considered reply. Here is a paper by a Catholic who is well respected, even to the extent that he was an adviser to Vatican II. Judge Noonan’s opinion is that the Church has in fact changed its moral position over time. I cite this paper for its conciseness and the reputation and mental vigor of the author. Noonan’s opening paragraph states:

“THAT THE MORAL teachings of the Catholic Church have changed over time will, I suppose, be denied by almost no one today. To refresh memories and confirm the point, I will describe four large examples of such change in the areas of usury, marriage, slavery, and religious freedom, and then analyze how Catholic theology has dealt with them.”

The intire paper may be viewed at: ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf
Click to expand...
This addresses Judge Noonan’s paper. Since Judge Noonan is in opposition to the Church’s teaching regarding artificial contraception, perhaps its not coincidental that he tries to support his stance by seeing changes in the Church’s teaching in other areas.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3907&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=740973
 
papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

Sicut Dudum

Pope Eugene IV Against the Enslaving of Black Natives from the Canary Islands
January 13, 1435
  1. Some of these people were already baptized; others were even at times tricked and deceived by the promise of Baptism, having been made a promise of safety that was not kept. They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them,
  2. Therefore, We, to whom it pertains, especially in respect to the aforesaid matters, to rebuke each sinner about his sin, and not wishing to pass by dissimulating, and desiring—as is expected from the pastoral office we hold—as far as possible, to provide salutarily, with a holy and fatherly concern, for the sufferings of the inhabitants, beseech the Lord, and exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities, and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade, or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously.
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

Sublimus Dei

Pope Paul III (Topic: the enslavement and evangelization of Indians) May 29, 1537

We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved
 
SouthpawLink said:
I agree about invincible ignorance, but how do the sacraments profit the Orthodox?

“The Church… alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, n. 9/7: 29 June 1896).

“The unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation” (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1441: Denz. 714).

Validity isn’t enough - they must be licitly administered as well.
Click to expand...
To answer the question “how do sacraments benefit the Orthodox” one has to understand the Church’s understanding of herself. The Church sees herself as the the keeper of the faith, the teacher of truth and the mediator of grace through an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles.

The Church is grounded in the faith of the Apostles. The Orthodox have not abandoned Apostolic succession. They have not abandoned the faith of the Apostles. They have not changed a single piece of revealed truth. The issues that separate them from other Catholic Churches are questions about revelation that were unsettled at the time. Two of them were not settled until hundreds of years later: the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. The other points were purgatory and the processions in the Trinity. The Catholic Churches are willing to let go on the issue of the processions. Sometimes you will see that part omitted by the Holy Father, whenever Eastern Catholics and Orthodox Christians are present. Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility continue to be thorny issues.

However, since they have Apostolic Succession, they remain part of the Church. We must remember that while there is one Catholic Church, it is comprised of 23 independent Churches. Each Church must preserve its link to the Apostles to be Church. The statement above is true, but does not apply to the Orthodox, because they truly are Church. All 23 Catholic Patriarchs agree on this point. Since they are Church, they legitimately celebrate sacraments and will benefit from them.

They are not in heresy. They have a right to celebrate the sacraments, because they have Ordinary bishops who have the authority to grant faculties. Their celebration is valild and licit. Their problem is one of separation, not one of irregular canonical status. Canon Law does not apply to them. Heck, most of Canon Law only applies to Roman Catholics, not to other Catholic Churches. There is an entire code just for them. The two overlap only on essentials.

It’s equally important to remember that Christ’s grace and desire to save is not handcuffed by man’s sinfulness. While separation is a sin on both sides, not just the side of the Orthodox, but also the side of Roman Catholics who seem to be the harshest critics of the Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, God wants to unite his people. One way that he unites is through the sacraments. For this reason, the Catholic Church encourages the Orthodox faithful to stay close to the sacraments, because when they are united to the body in sacris, even though there are other points that separate us, at least there is some communion.

I would suggest that you read Ut Unum Sint and if you can get your hands on the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches, you will find it very interesting. They are truly Catholic in full communion with the Pope. However, you would be surprised how much in their code of law is very Orthodox Christian, not Roman Catholic Christian. The Oriental Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are still considered to be one family.

I truly believe that if the Roman Catholics would back out of this debate and allow the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Catholics, the Holy Father and the Orthodox Patriarchs to work on this without out two-cents, things would move at a faster pace.

The Roman Catholics have been problematic, because we don’t understand the Eastern Catholic Churches. We tend to impose on them all the rules and theological statements that were made for our benefit. We’re not mean people. It’s just that most of our people don’t know that there are more than one Catholic Church. Most of our people don’t understand their mindset and they have a tough time understanding us.

Until recently, the Eastern Catholic Churches took a position of non-involvement in the attempt to reconcile the East and West. They held on to this attitude, because they felt more solidarity with the Orthodox than with the Roman Catholics, despite being in full communion. They felt bullied, ignored and forced to accept Latinazation. Finally, those impositions were dropped. There were other impossitions. I truly believe that the less that Roman Catholics say and the more that Eastern Catholics are allowed to deal with their own people, the better the chances of reunification.

Let’s face it. In the end, when the Orthodox do enter full communion with Catholics, they will not become Roman Catholics. They will be reunited with their own people and their own Churches. One more note of advice, the more that Roman Catholics point the finger at the Orthodox, the more harm that we do to our internal unity. Eastern Catholics do not appreciate it. These are their brothers and sisters and these are their Churches. They have suffered a great deal from the division, not the Roman Catholics. The effects of the division in the East not only affected their life of faith, but their daily lives as well, including their political evolution. Roman Catholics have not had to live with the fall-out. We need ease up and allow the Eastern Churches to deal with this matter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I hope not to echo, but i suppose if you were to think of all those people pre Talmud or OT
then i think the answer is surely yes.
 
FCEGM said:
You’re welcome. 🙂 Here’s an article on the subject of religious liberty and the Church’s supposed change of teaching:

hprweb.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=263:did-vatican-ii-reverse-the-churchs-teaching-on-religious-liberty&catid=34:current-issue
Click to expand...
Thanks, again. I found O’Neil’s argument to be cogent at points, and also not directly responsive to Noonan at others. I am also struggling with the difference between calling something a “change in doctrine”, vs and “expansion of understanding,” as with the Pauline Privilege. I am just starting this journey so no doubt have a long way to go.
 
Peepers said:
Thanks, again. I found O’Neil’s argument to be cogent at points, and also not directly responsive to Noonan at others. I am also struggling with the difference between calling something a “change in doctrine”, vs and “expansion of understanding,” as with the Pauline Privilege. I am just starting this journey so no doubt have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
God bless you in that journey. Regarding “expansion of understanding”, perhaps Newman’s “On the Development of Christian Doctrine” might be helpful.
 
Peepers said:
Thanks, again. I found O’Neil’s argument to be cogent at points, and also not directly responsive to Noonan at others. I am also struggling with the difference between calling something a “change in doctrine”, vs and “expansion of understanding,” as with the Pauline Privilege. I am just starting this journey so no doubt have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry. You’re in good company. The Church is still trying to understand everything that has been revealed about her. No new revelations . . . just peeling the onion. 😃

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
“They are not in heresy” (JReducation).

“May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted … If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur” (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 20 June 1894). papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

Were there not differences on Original Sin between East and West before Photius’ schism?

Are you stating that only the original schismatics celebrated the sacraments illicitly, but their successors – not guilty of schism – celebrated them licitly?

“When they are united to the body in sacris, even though there are other points that separate us, at least there is some communion” (JRe).

It appears to me that this used to be expressly denied by Rome (e.g., the branch theory).

My post was directed at the Eastern Orthodox, not the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the encyclical I quoted above, Pope Leo wrote, “Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.* It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.”

God bless! 🙂
 
Peepers said:
Don’t start throwing rocks at me for asking this, but what if the Eastern Orthodox Church actually has the true line of apostolic succession? They would say that they do. As a hypothetical case, then, would this mean that all of the Catholics who have been seeking God since the split are lost, in spite of their efforts to lead a virtuous life in the eyes of God?
Click to expand...
That is a big “if,” but I think you know the answer to the question. If the Orthodox are right, and Catholics are wrong, then Catholics are in trouble, because we have rent the garment of our Lord.

We need to get past the modern discomfort with permanent decisions. If we believe that salvation is only through the Church, absent a miracle which we have no right to expect, two things follow, both of which are hard. First, we must obey and defend the true church. Second, we must by our example lead those in our daily life to that church.
 
SouthpawLink said:
“They are not in heresy” (JReducation).

“May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted … If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur” (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, 20 June 1894). papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm

Were there not differences on Original Sin between East and West before Photius’ schism?

Are you stating that only the original schismatics celebrated the sacraments illicitly, but their successors – not guilty of schism – celebrated them licitly?

“When they are united to the body in Sacris, even though there are other points that separate us, at least there is some communion” (JRe).

It appears to me that this used to be expressly denied by Rome (e.g., the branch theory).

My post was directed at the Eastern Orthodox, not the Eastern Catholic Churches.

In the encyclical I quoted above, Pope Leo wrote, “Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.* It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.”

God bless! 🙂
Click to expand...
The bottom line here is that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and now Benedict XVI all say that we (Catholic laity) have not properly understood these statements. They have tried to clarify the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics, what unites and what separates. They have also tried to explain why their celebration of the sacraments are valid, licit and efficacious.

The problem is not with the writings of previous popes and councils, but with the interpretation and application that we are giving to these writings. For example, the Holy See recognizes the legitimate authority and autonomy of the Orthodox Patriarchs. In so doing, there is no question as to whether they have the authority to grant faculties to those in their respective Churches.

As to branch theory, Pope Benedict responded to that the last time that one of the Orthodox Patriarchs visited the Holy See. He publicly stated that the Orthodox Churches are not branches of the one Catholic Church, anymore than are the Eastern Catholic Churches. They are legitimate Sui generis Churches with full apostolic succession. The separation is fixable, but both sides are going to have to compromise. He referred to Pope John Paul’s proposal of a revised look at the papacy that he proposes at the end of Ut Unum Sint, in which the papacy preserves the primacy, but the Churches preserve their autonomy and the Patriarchs govern without papal interference. If I’m reading it correctly, it sounds like a sharing of authority, but retaining the primacy of infallibility.

I’m reminded of something that St. Bonaventure said to the friars who were sent to the Custody of the Holy Land. The question on the table was what to do about the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, who apparently was not very welcoming.

Bonaventure’s response was that until both sides stopped being bullheaded, they were never going to find a solution, because they were too busy finding fault in each other. He commanded the friars not to look for any faults in the Orthodox, but rather to look at themselves and examine their faults and their lack of charity toward the Orthodox.

Bonaventure was a scholar, a leader, a cardinal, a religious superior and a saint. He knew and did not deny that the Roman Catholics were equally responsible for the ongoing conflict between East and West. He had no authority over the Orthodox, but he did have authority over the Roman Catholic friars. So . . . he commanded them to back off.

The bottom line is that we’re not going to achieve unity by posturing and throwing around documents. Unity will come when we admit our faults (both sides) and we look to see what is in Christian Tradition that needs to be addressed to the satisfaction of BOTH sides, not just Roman Catholics.

I’m glad that you posted the clip from Pope’s encyclical. The pope had to write this, because the Eastern Catholics were about to walk. Unfortunately, it was not because of the Holy See. It was because of the layman and the bishops in the dioceses. With the dawn of immigration there was a convergence of the different Churches. They were no longer geographically separated. Roman Catholics (laity and bishops alike) had a very smug attitude toward the Eastern Catholics. The Eastern Catholics were very reactive rather than blow it off. They felt very threatened, especially in the USA. One of the many Latin things that they were asked to do in the USA was to limit ordination to celibate men. This almost brought down the house. Don’t ask me. I have no idea whose bright idea that was; but it was a bad idea.

Again, we have to interpret these documents the way that the popes interpret them and apply them as they do. We also have to stay out of the Vatican’s way. The best way to do that is to promote unity, not submission. This will require a lot of talking and a lot of compromises.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Warrenton said:
That is a big “if,” but I think you know the answer to the question. If the Orthodox are right, and Catholics are wrong, then Catholics are in trouble, because we have rent the garment of our Lord.

We need to get past the modern discomfort with permanent decisions. If we believe that salvation is only through the Church, absent a miracle which we have no right to expect, two things follow, both of which are hard. First, we must obey and defend the true church. Second, we must by our example lead those in our daily life to that church.
Click to expand...
This was already answered by Vatican II and the last five popes. The Orthodox are true Churches with full Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Churches are also true Churches with full Apostolic Succession.

The points to be resolved are the: Immaculate Conception, infallibility, purgatory, and governance. Even the issue of the processions within the Trinity, the Holy See is willing to let it go. That whole argument whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or through the Son, Pope Benedict gets around that by simply omitting that part from the liturgy when he celebrates and the Orthodox are present. He’s a wise man. There are some issues that are more debates about semantics than they are about actual doctrine. Pope Benedict is not one who likes debates about semantics. He makes that very clear in his writings.

As faithful Catholics, we need to follow his lead, if we want unity and resolution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
This was already answered by Vatican II and the last five popes. The Orthodox are true Churches with full Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Churches are also true Churches with full Apostolic Succession.
Click to expand...
I don’t deny it. I was trying to answer the question as posed, as if the Orthodox are correct and we are wrong. Obviously, if we are wrong, then our agreement is not worth any more than our dissent.

Neither did I say the Orthodox cannot be saved. I simply observed that it would be a sin against unity to stay disunited, if the Orthodox are correct.

Clearly, the popes would not have preached crusade after crusade to help the Orthodox if they believed they were all damned anyway.

As an aside, my personal feeling (and it is nothing more than that) is that the docrinal differences between East and West (my preferred jargon to Catholic and Orthodox, since both are both) should be set aside in favor of matters of governance and liberty within the Church as a whole. I tend to the view that many of things you mentioned should be left to permissible freedom within the occident and orient. We have a millenium of talking about the same thing differently, but that should not prevent unity.

I also think that if we solidified the hierarchies, we would move closer together over time, as the faithful (clerical and lay) got to know each other better.

To borrow an old Keynan expression, we need to say “harambe” and they are blind who will not see it.
 
This is all very interesting, in a positive way. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge in these matters. I can’t offer much to this part of the discussion, except to offer that I have seen people at war over religious (and political) differences. I am grateful that the Church has found a more amicable path forward than some other religions are struggling with.

On a personal note, the anecdote about St Bonaventure found some resonance. I find that whenever I am thinking unkind thoughts, or “judging” others, then it is time for me to look within and try to uncover what spiritual defect within me is motivating that sort of thinking, or feeling. I will now remember St Bonaventure in that context.
 
“They are legitimate Sui generis Churches with full apostolic succession. The separation is fixable, but both sides are going to have to compromise. He referred to Pope John Paul’s proposal of a revised look at the papacy that he proposes at the end of Ut Unum Sint, in which the papacy preserves the primacy, but the Churches preserve their autonomy and the Patriarchs govern without papal interference” (JReducation).
  • Forgive my delay, I’ll get back to you as soon as possible. I have to wonder, though, what legitimacy is there outside communion with the Apostolic See? How can the Church compromise on the Roman Pontiff’s ordinary and immediate, full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church? (First Vatican Council, Sess. IV, chap. 3, can.: Denz. 1831)
 
JReducation said:
The Church is grounded in the faith of the Apostles. The Orthodox have not abandoned Apostolic succession. They have not abandoned the faith of the Apostles. They have not changed a single piece of revealed truth. The issues that separate them from other Catholic Churches are questions about revelation that were unsettled at the time. However, since they have Apostolic Succession, they remain part of the Church…Since they are Church, they legitimately celebrate sacraments and will benefit from them.

They are not in heresy. They have a right to celebrate the sacraments, because they have Ordinary bishops who have the authority to grant faculties. Their celebration is valild and licit. Their problem is one of separation, not one of irregular canonical status.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t disagree with you more. To claim that the eastern orthodox “have not abandoned the faith of the Apostles. They have not changed a single piece of revealed truth” - to put it mildly, does not sit well with Catholic doctrine nor the writings of the Popes, Saints and doctors. The fact that the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority in all jurisdictions of the Church and is infallible, was taught explicitly to the Church by the Apostles and Christ Himself… The faith of the Apostles is the Catholic faith, which contained the * exact same *Truths as the Church does to this day. When Pius IX made a definition so as to clear up any confusion, he did not invent the doctrine: it came directly from the Apostles and was know from the beginning fo the Church, just like the immaculate conception and the assumption. These were not things the Popes learned later on, or were revealed later on: they are part of the deposit of faith and always were. Thus, the eastern orthodox do not hold the faith of the Apostles unless they hold the Catholic faith, and they most certainly have changed “a single piece of revealed truth”. This is easily proven. The doctrines they reject are revealed truth - and always were even before they were defined dogmatically by the Popes. Also, just because one has apostolic succession does not mean that they are ipso facto part of the Church. Nor does the fact that they are not part of the Latin Rite and validly ordained mean that they licitly celebrate the sacraments. They do not. No one outside the Catholic Church licitly celebrates the sacraments. This has always been the case, and was always explained in Catholic theology manuals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top