Is it possible to achieve salvation in another relgion?

[Robert_Burns]

I am curious as to what the Catholic teachings are on this. Can one go to Heaven, if one is a non-Catholic?

You have asked two separate questions.

First , is it possible to achieve salvation through another religion? The answer is no.

Then:

Can one go to heaven , if one is a non Catholic. The answer being - if you meet the criteria of Natural Law as outlined by St Thomas Aquinas in the summa , then yes , but it is in spite of the False religion or paganism , not because of it and you are saved through the Catholic Church.

 

[JReducation]

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.

Let’s clarify here. No one has said that the popes of late pulled infallibility, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption out of their sleeves. We know that these have been part of the Christian tradition back to the Fathers. However, at the time of the split between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, these were not settled issues. All the way until the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas is still denying the Immaculate Conception. It was Bl. John Duns Scotus who gave the Church an answer to the arguments that was acceptable and even then, it was not until the 19the century that the Church declared that this was a dogma to be held by all. By this time the Orthodox were long separated.

The Assumption has never been an issue between the Orthodox and the Catholics. In fact, the Orthodox held that the Dormition of Mary was a dogma long before the Catholic Church declared it to be so. In the Catholic Church it was held as a tradition, but not declared a dogma until this past century.

Infallibility was not declared a dogma until Vatican I. Again, it was a tradition that was in dispute between East and West, including Eastern Catholics. Even today, to ensure that the Eastern Catholics don’t walk, the popes have always made it very clear that they are concerned with the unity between East and West and with the preservation of the faith, not with running their Churches. Unlike the Latin Church where the Bishop of Rome is consulted on most major matters such as the consecration and appointment of bishops, in the Eastern Catholic Churches, this is the responsibility of the Patriarch, not of the pope. If you speak to Eastern Catholics, their understanding of the role of the pope is very different from that of Latin Catholics. There were always points of discrepancy between the Churches until Vatican I settled the questions once and for all.

Pope Paul VI lifted all of the excommunications and anathemas against the Orthodox and they lifted all of the excommunications and anathemas against the Latin Church. They never excommunicated the Eastern Churches. Later, Pope John Paul II would explain that as a result of the anathemas and excommunications being lifted, we no longer hold that they celebrate the sacraments illicitly. Unlike the SSPX, for example, where the excommunications have been lifted, the Orthodox are not subject to Canon Law, nor are any Eastern Christians, including Eastern Catholics. They have their own laws. Therefore, they are not in a state of canonical irregularity, which would be the only reason for the pope to withold faculties from them. You cannot apply Canon Law to those who are not covered by Canon Law. Canon Law is very clear. It’s for the Latin Church only. The Eatern Churches have their own code and the Orthodox have their code. Each Church is bound to abide by the code that binds them.

Illicit means illegal. You cannot be doing something illegal if the law does not apply to you. That’s what the present popes are trying to explain. The canons of 1983 only apply to Latin Catholics. They were written to govern us, not Eastern Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Iotaunum]

Let’s clarify here. No one has said that the popes of late pulled infallibility, the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption out of their sleeves. We know that these have been part of the Christian tradition back to the Fathers. However, at the time of the split between Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, these were not settled issues.

I understand that you realise that these doctrines go back to the Fathers - indeed they go back to the Apostles and Christ Himself. Take the Immaculate Conception, or Papal Infallibility/primacy. These doctrines were revealed by God and were part of the Faith of the Apostles, which is the Catholic Faith. They were not unknown doctrines - they were part of the deposit of faith. If therefore one rejects these doctrines he no longer holds the Catholic faith. I was responding to your claim in this regard that: “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 fact is since they reject these doctrines revealed to the Apostles they reject the faith of the Apostles and have obviously changed more than a piece of revealed truth, unless you want to argue that these doctrines were unknown to the Apostles or were not part of the revealed truth. Catholic dogma forbids this interpretation.
Regarding the “not settled issues” - I would answer that although these doctrines were not dogmatically defined, they were still part of the faith of the Apostles, and were revealed by God from the beginning. The Dogmatic definition clarified, when heretics began to undermine these apostolic doctrines. You could rephrase your statement and say that the orthodox did not think they were dissenting from dogma, and may not be culpable for their rejection specifically (until it was clarified) but no one can claim that before they were defined, the dogmas were not part of the Apostolic faith or revealed by God

All the way until the 13th Century Thomas Aquinas is still denying the Immaculate Conception.

Well it is a matter of debate whether St. Thomas rejected the doctrine or not. I have heard convincing arguments to the contrary, but whether or not he did is superfluous, given that St Thomas left the decision to the magisterium of the Church and would have corrected his thinking, as he does many times in the Summa, had the dogmatic definition came within his lifetime. The point is, if we accept that St Thomas did reject the doctrine, we would still have no basis for saying that he did not change/reject a single piece of revealed truth - for the doctrine was revealed, though not defined. Therefore if he rejected the doctrine, he did so inculpably, but it does not alter the fact that he rejected a revealed truth - that’s if he did. This applies to all, including the orthodox.

Pope Paul VI lifted all of the excommunications and anathemas against the Orthodox and they lifted all of the excommunications and anathemas against the Latin Church.

What Paul VI attempted to do was irrelevant. No one, including the Pope can remit an excommunication while the person still openly rejects Catholic dogma and the authority of the Church. To openly reject dogmas and reject the authority of the Church excommunicates ipso facto. Thus if the excommunication was lifted it was incured ipso facto when they rejected the dogmas and authority. This runs contrary to 2000 years of Catholic tradition and teaching on the matter. It may have been a nice ecumenical gesture, according to the Pope, but it does not alter the fact that one cannot be in communion with the Church who rejects its dogmas and authority. The Pope cannot change this. Also, the orthodox have no authority to lift any excommunications on the Pope or Latin Church since they have the authority to excommunicate neither.

They have their own laws. Therefore, they are not in a state of canonical irregularity, which would be the only reason for the pope to withold faculties from them.

They are in a state of canonical irregularity with the Church since they are bound to the eastern Canons, which do not permit a rejection of dogmas and Papal authority. I do not judge them by the Latin code, but the Pope can surely, and must, withhold faculties from them when they reject the Church’s authority and numerous dogmas. They are in open schism and heresy - this is more than enough reason to withhold faculties, without considering canon law which does not apply in the east.

Illicit means illegal. You cannot be doing something illegal if the law does not apply to you. That’s what the present popes are trying to explain. The canons of 1983 only apply to Latin Catholics.

I agree that the Latin rite code does not apply in the east, but the eastern law does, and this does not permit the orthodox to reject dogmas and Papal authority. Liceity always comes from the Church no matter what. Once a church goes into schism, and becomes heretical; rejecting dogmas and the authority of the Pope, then they cannot licitly use the sacraments. This law is one which is essential to the very nature of the Church, it supersedes any written canons. I have read on this deeply and I am not aware of one doctor or theologian before 1900 who disagrees with what I have just written.

I am not questioning your good will but I think your opinions on these maters and not in keeping with the Churches traditional teaching. A lot of the facts have been ignored due to misguided ecumenical gestures, but the facts remain the same. They will not be in communion with the Church/licitly celebrate the sacraments until they come back to the one true Church Christ founded and accept all the dogmas bar none. Until then they cannot claim to hold the faith of the Apostles intact.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, snipped for space

Well it is a matter of debate whether St. Thomas rejected the doctrine or not. I have heard convincing arguments to the contrary, but whether or not he did is superfluous, given that St Thomas left the decision to the magisterium of the Church and would have corrected his thinking, as he does many times in the Summa, had the dogmatic definition came within his lifetime. The point is, if we accept that St Thomas did reject the doctrine, we would still have no basis for saying that he did not change/reject a single piece of revealed truth - for the doctrine was revealed, though not defined. Therefore if he rejected the doctrine, he did so inculpably, but it does not alter the fact that he rejected a revealed truth - that’s if he did. This applies to all, including the orthodox.

What Paul VI attempted to do was irrelevant. No one, including the Pope can remit an excommunication while the person still openly rejects Catholic dogma and the authority of the Church. To openly reject dogmas and reject the authority of the Church excommunicates ipso facto. Thus if the excommunication was lifted it was incured ipso facto when they rejected the dogmas and authority. This runs contrary to 2000 years of Catholic tradition and teaching on the matter. It may have been a nice ecumenical gesture, according to the Pope, but it does not alter the fact that one cannot be in communion with the Church who rejects its dogmas and authority. The Pope cannot change this. Also, the orthodox have no authority to lift any excommunications on the Pope or Latin Church since they have the authority to excommunicate neither.

They are in a state of canonical irregularity with the Church since they are bound to the eastern Canons, which do not permit a rejection of dogmas and Papal authority. I do not judge them by the Latin code, but the Pope can surely, and must, withhold faculties from them when they reject the Church’s authority and numerous dogmas. They are in open schism and heresy - this is more than enough reason to withhold faculties, without considering canon law which does not apply in the east.

I am not questioning your good will but I think your opinions on these maters and not in keeping with the Churches traditional teaching. A lot of the facts have been ignored due to misguided ecumenical gestures, but the facts remain the same. They will not be in communion with the Church/licitly celebrate the sacraments until they come back to the one true Church Christ founded and accept all the dogmas bar none. Until then they cannot claim to hold the faith of the Apostles intact.

Slow down here. We can’t tell the pope what he can and cannot do on matters of law. If the pope says that the excommunications are lifted, they are lifted. Then you have succeeding popes who repeat the same thing. Pope John Paul went as far as writing to the Catholic faithful and asked us to put aside all of the old arguments against the Orthodox. Read “Ut Unum Sint”. He actually calls us to do this.

There are no dogmas that dictate on excommunication. Excommunication is a judicial action. It’s up to the popes to decide when it is to be used and when not.

Also, the papacy did acknowledge that the Orthodox do have the authority to excommunicate the Latin Catholics and the other way around, because they are legitimate bishops and legitimate successors of the Apostles. Pope Paul was not just being nice. You’re talking about a pope who was a Doctor of Canon Law, not an apologist or a theologian. The man knew law. It was he who began the reform of Canon Law as we know it today. It was he who said that in legal matters, the law only applies to those for whom it is written.

Canon Law for the Oriental Churches was written for the Churches in communion with the pope, not for the Orthodox. It does not bind them. Pope Paul made this very clear in the Code for the Oriental Churches. In the opening line he explicitly says that they are for the Catholic Churches of the East. Pope John Paul clarifies that the Orthodox are not bound to those canons.

There is nothing in Revelation that says that a pope cannot change canon law, even if it has been in place since day one. It’s Canon Law, not moral law or dogma.

We may not like admitting that the Orthodox hierarchy have authority to grant faculties, but if the Catholic Church says that they do, then we have to assent to that. They cannot grant faculties to a Catholic priest or the other way around. Because neither side has jurisdiction. That has nothing to do with the schism.

As far as the dogmas are concerned, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure both argued that the Immaculate Conception was not possible. They believed that the Tradition had deviated from reason. They are not schismatics. In fact, both are Doctors. One does not become a schismatic because one disagrees on a point that is still being debated. What you had was a rather tumultuous situation. On the one hand, we had tradition saying one thing and on the other, we had theologians saying another. We cannot hold culpable those who side with one side or the other. Once it became defined, the discussion is over. All Catholics are bound to assent and not to opine on the matter again. As far as non-Catholics are concerned, if they disagree or don’t understand why we believe this, that is not a sin. A sin is to know something and deny it. To deny that which you can’t believe is not a sin, because it’s an honest attempt on your part to do what you believe is right. This takes us back to Thomas and Bonaventure. They beleived they were right. Therefore, they were not culpable of sin. We have to be fair to people as Christ is fair. Read the Rule of St. Francis on this issue and his admonitions. He’s very clear and very helpful in this area.

Have a Holy Easter

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Fide_Roma]

Here’s What Our Popes have said:

"Pope Palagius II ( A,D, 578-590) "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… if slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church."

                                                            Denzinger 246-247

Note: Denzinger or Enchiridion Symbolorum contains all the major pronouncements of the Popes-either defining alone or at the head of their bishops in Council-and all the ex cathedra
definitions.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great ( A.D. 590-604 ) : " Now the Holy Church proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
( Moralia )

Pope Sylvester II ( A.D. 991 ) " I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."
Profession of faith made as Archbishop of Reims

Pope Innocent III ( A.D. 1198-1216 ) " With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved."
Denzinger 423

Pope Boniface VIII ( A.D. 1302 ) " There is only one Catholic Church; this we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. For at the time of the Deluge there existed only one Ark, the figure of the one Church. And all things outside this Ark perished."
" Unam Sanctum" Denzinger 468

Pope Leo XIII ( A.D.1878-1903 ) " This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."
Encyclical “Annum Ingressi Sumus”

Pope Paul VI " The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. The people of God and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing, both of them designating the Church. Membership in the Church requires conditions other than Baptism alone; it requires identical faith and unity of communion, so that by means of the Catholic Church alone, which is the unrestricted instrument of salvation, is it possible to obtain the fullness of the means of salvation. Indeed, the Church is both a sure and exclusive means of attaining salvation. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation, for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Outside this Body, the Holy Spirit gives life to no one: those who are enemies to unity do not participate in the charity of Divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"

                                                   General Audiences May 15 and June 12 1974
                                                   The Wanderer May 30 and July 4, 1975
                                                   Losservatore Romano June 8, 1972

Seems Pretty clear.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s What Our Popes have said:

"Pope Palagius II ( A,D, 578-590) "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… if slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church."

                                                            Denzinger 246-247

Note: Denzinger or Enchiridion Symbolorum contains all the major pronouncements of the Popes-either defining alone or at the head of their bishops in Council-and all the ex cathedra
definitions.

Pope Saint Gregory the Great ( A.D. 590-604 ) : " Now the Holy Church proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."
( Moralia )

Pope Sylvester II ( A.D. 991 ) " I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."
Profession of faith made as Archbishop of Reims

Pope Innocent III ( A.D. 1198-1216 ) " With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved."
Denzinger 423

Pope Boniface VIII ( A.D. 1302 ) " There is only one Catholic Church; this we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. For at the time of the Deluge there existed only one Ark, the figure of the one Church. And all things outside this Ark perished."
" Unam Sanctum" Denzinger 468

Pope Leo XIII ( A.D.1878-1903 ) " This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."
Encyclical “Annum Ingressi Sumus”

Pope Paul VI " The Catholic Church alone is the Body of Christ, of which He is Head and Savior. The people of God and the Mystical Body of Christ are one and the same thing, both of them designating the Church. Membership in the Church requires conditions other than Baptism alone; it requires identical faith and unity of communion, so that by means of the Catholic Church alone, which is the unrestricted instrument of salvation, is it possible to obtain the fullness of the means of salvation. Indeed, the Church is both a sure and exclusive means of attaining salvation. We must always remember the unity of the Mystical Body outside which there is no salvation, for there is no entering into salvation outside the Church. Outside this Body, the Holy Spirit gives life to no one: those who are enemies to unity do not participate in the charity of Divine life; those outside the Church do not possess the Holy Spirit. The entrance to salvation is open to no one outside the Church!"

                                                   General Audiences May 15 and June 12 1974
                                                   The Wanderer May 30 and July 4, 1975
                                                   Losservatore Romano June 8, 1972

Seems Pretty clear.

It also seems very clear that you deliberately left out John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

**819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

870 “The sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”(LG 8).**

I believe that all of the popes that you cited would be very disappointed to see that you’re leaving out their successors and what their successors have added to help in the understanding of what they said.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Thank you for participating. This thread is now CLOSED.