Is the Catholic Church the only way to be saved?

[John_Higgins]

casherman:

anyone who is baptized and is a believer in Christ is unbeknownst to themselves a part of the Catholic body, though not in full communion.

Absolutely correct. Anyone who tells you differently is wrong, period. BTW, I’ll take the CCC which was written some 80 years after the Catholic Encyclopedia. The former was written BY Church hierarchy, the latter was approved by two of the Church hierarchy. Figure it out.

Welcome to the boards, and don’t let the EENS rigorists get you down.

John

 

[SemperFidelis]

I posted these quotes in another thread but no one will respond. This thread seems to be a little more happening, so I’ll try here. Can someone explain to me how Vatican II and the CCC (What was stated in the above threads) DOES NOT CONTRADICT THESE TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC TEACHINGS:

Saint Augustine, Doctor, (died A.D. 430): “No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.” (Sermon to the People of Caesaria)

Pope Pius XI, A.D. 1922-1939: “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers [the Protestants], obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful?” Let them hear Lactantius crying out: “The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind.”” (Mortalium Animos. The Papal Encyclicals, Claudia Carlen, I.H.M., McGrath Publishing Co., 1981)

*** INFALLIBLE ***: Ex cathedra: “We declare, we say, we define, and we pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302)

Pope Gregory XVI, A.D. 1831-1846 (D.1613): “Now we examine another prolific cause of evils by which, we lament, the Church is at present afflicted, namely indifferentism, or that base opinion which has become prevalent everywhere through the deceit of wicked men, that eternal salvation of the soul can be acquired by any profession of faith whatsoever, if morals are conformed to the standard of the just and the honest. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism” may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbour of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that those who are not with Christ are against Him, and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.” Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.” A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”” (Mirari Vos Arbitramur)

This could not more clearly state that if you are NOT a member of the Catholic Church you WILL NOT BE SAVED. There are about a hundred other quotes that agree with these statements. If the Church today does not profess this (To me it does not seem like it does), then the Church of today is in error. I hope somebody can correct me, for the sake of Catholics everywhere, and for my sake as I hope to be Catholic soon.

---

 

[sodak]

Nice quotes, Semper Fidelis. Tell me, are any of these spoken Ex Cathedra?

Let me pose another question. While this debate rages on, many children are dying around the world from malnutrition, many older people are lonely, many sick people are in need of comforting, well, you get the idea. Put your faith into practice, quit arguing about God’s domain.

 

[djrakowski]

First you posted this:

It is RC dogma that no one is saved outside the Church.

You are saying that God does save those outside of the Church.

What Church are you talking about?

So I responded with paragraphs from the Catechism that explain “No salvation outside the Church” to provide context. Then you responded,

This did not answer the question I asked of rtconstant, but thanks anyway.

To which I offfered in response:

Actualy, my post gave some background that assisted in the answering of the question. You asked if the Catholic Church teaches that nobody can be saved outside of the Church, and I answered with the paragraphs from the Catechism that explain what that means in its proper context. So I did answer the question with an official Catholic source. Please accept my apologies if that’s not good enough for you.

No I did not.

Which thread are you reading?

Caaaan you feeeel the loooove to-niiight

I actually cited what the RCC teaches. I did not ask what the RCC teaches.

Actually you didn’t, but thank you anyway…again.

…

The underlined portion is most intriguing. I posted paragraphs from the Catechism that actually say what the Catholic Church teaches. But you’ve indicated that you’re not interested in Catholicism telling you what Catholicism teaches, but rather dictating to us - from the outside, no less - what Catholicism teaches.

You’re not interested at all in clarification or proper context in which to understand these teachings? Most interesting.

And, yes, again, I did answer you, with official Catholic sources (and I know from other threads that you’re fond of referring to official Catholic sources, at least when you think you can make them refute the practices of Catholics as described in these forums, regardless of how many other sources you choose to ignore that support us).

 

[SemperFidelis]

Nice quotes, Semper Fideles. Tell me, are any of these spoken Ex Cathedra?

Let me pose another question. While this debate rages on, many children are dying around the world from malnutrition, many older people are lonely, many sick people are in need of comforting, well, you get the idea. Put your faith into practice, quit arguing about God’s domain.

First off, I am in no way trying to damage the Church, so don’t patronize me by going way off topic. I am fully aware that there is much suffering in the world, but this pertains not to the subject at hand. I am trying to decipher for myself whether or not the One, True, Church is the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, as I currently know it could not possibly be any other, including the one I am currently a member of. I would consider this important as it pertains to my salvation and I am not going to join a Church that is not the One, True, Church. And yes, if you read one of those quotes above, it is from a Council (Lateran IV) and has the words INFALLIBLE TEACHING in front of it. Now since the One, True, Church cannot err, I am trying to put the pieces of Tradition and Vatican II together to see if it has in fact erred. This would help me decipher who the One, True, Church is. Have a good day.

 

[Atemi]

First off, I am in no way trying to damage the Church, so don’t patronize me by going way off topic. I am fully aware that there is much suffering in the world, but this pertains not to the subject at hand. I am trying to decipher for myself whether or not the One, True, Church is the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, as I currently know it could not possibly be any other, including the one I am currently a member of. I would consider this important as it pertains to my salvation and I am not going to join a Church that is not the One, True, Church. And yes, if you read one of those quotes above, it is from a Council (Lateran IV) and has the words INFALLIBLE TEACHING in front of it. Now since the One, True, Church cannot err, I am trying to put the pieces of Tradition and Vatican II together to see if it has in fact erred. This would help me decipher who the One, True, Church is. Have a good day.

It is Traditionlist Catholics that are most in line with the doctrines of the quotes and men you posted.

Those men most assuredly did not teach that “heretics” could be saved. They taught that only actual Catholics could be saved as it was in the Church that the sacraments could be found.

Here is the supposedly infallible Council of Florence for just another of many, many examples:

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it, do the church’s sacraments, contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

This is not ambiguous, is it?

Here is the papal pronouncement earlier in Unum Sanctum about the Orthodox:

“if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ”

You will not find much of this talk on a thread like this or from many modernist Catholics at all. Some modernist Catholics I have told about this and they thought I was quoting some fringe element or some anti-Catholic literature.

Now from my POV, there is only one true church, and that is the Body of Christ made up of all the faithful in Christ everywhere…just as Scripture makes plain for us.

But that is a different thread.

Solid inquiry. What you are touching on is very important, IMO.

…

 

[SemperFidelis]

One of the big problems I see here is that a lot of modern Catholics don’t even act like anything existed before Vatican II. They think they know better than 1950 years of Church teaching, 20 Ecumenical Councils, and 260 Popes. When someone asks what the Church teaches everyone looks at one of the sixteen documents of Vatican II to see what they say. What happened to tradition? The CCC is supposed to be the “norm for teaching the faith”. But what does one do when the “norm” contradicts 1950 years of Church teaching. Vatican II made everything way to confusing, created a lot of problems, and seems like to me it contradicts earlier infallible teachings of the Church. I think I need to take a break from this website. It is starting to demoralize me.

 

[Atemi]

First you posted this:

**It is RC dogma that no one is saved outside the Church.

You are saying that God does save those outside of the Church.

What Church are you talking about?**

So I responded with paragraphs from the Catechism that explain “No salvation outside the Church” to provide context.

I did not ask for context as I know full well the context.

Constant claimed that there was salvation outside the Church: the Body of Christ.

Even according to the Catechism, this is not true.

I merely asked Constant what Church he was talking about.

Then you responded,

**This did not answer the question I asked of rtconstant, but thanks anyway. **

To which I offfered in response:

Actualy, my post gave some background that assisted in the answering of the question. You asked if the Catholic Church teaches that nobody can be saved outside of the Church, and I answered with the paragraphs from the Catechism that explain what that means in its proper context. So I did answer the question with an official Catholic source. Please accept my apologies if that’s not good enough for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atemi
**No I did not.

Which thread are you reading?**

Caaaan you feeeel the loooove to-niiight

You erroneously said I “asked if the Catholic Church teaches that nobody can be saved outside of the Church.”

Never did I do so, so it was inappropriate to claim I did so.

No biggie, really, but let’s not pretend I asked any such thing. So your response did not address my question.

I actually cited what the RCC teaches. I did not ask what the RCC teaches.

The underlined portion is most intriguing. I posted paragraphs from the Catechism that actually say what the Catholic Church teaches. But you’ve indicated that you’re not interested in Catholicism telling you what Catholicism teaches, but rather dictating to us - from the outside, no less - what Catholicism teaches.

And I was totally accurate.

There is no salvation outside the Body of Christ.

That is RC teaching no matter how you would like to attack me for actually just repeating back to you.

When a Catholic says that someone can be saved outside the Body of Christ, when that is blatantly against RC teaching, I am sorry if you find it somehow unethical that they be shown the truth.

I guess repeating actual Church teaching on a Catholic forum is offensive if you are a non-Catholic.

Go figure.

I do understand that I can’t win for losing.

I will just drop it. We can move on if you like.

…

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There really is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

That does not preclude those who are not formally members of the Catholic Church regardless of religion of being joined to it if they do not know any better.

The invincibly ignorant have a chance of being saved.

Any person of any religion who dies in a state of maortal sin will go to Hell.

It is possible for non catholics to mortally sin.

As far as we know the only way that a person who mortally sins can be restored to a state of grace absent the sacrament of reconciliation is by perfect contrition.

So yes it would even be possible for someone who had never heard of Jesus to be saved and “Informally Joined” to the Catholic Church if they either never mortaly sinned in trying their best to obey the Natural Law–or if they ever mortally sinned to be restored to a state of grace by being perfectly contrite for their sins.

But make no mistake about this–the Lukewarm of all religions–Catholic inluded will be spewed out of Christ’s mouth and will go to Hell.

And anyone who rejects the Catholic Church after knowing the truth of it or who Resists the Holy Spirit urging them to Inquire into the truth of it will also go to Hell because Resistance of the Holy Spirit all the way to death is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and Jesus said that sin would not be forgiven in this world or the world to come.

Bottom line: It is very difficult to not be formally united to the Catholic Church and still be saved but it is possible to be informally united to it and be saved.

Jesus will judge everyone.

But know this: if you are Protestant–have heard the teachings of the Catholic Church–reject them–and die still holding to that rejection when you Do Know Better–that will be judged by Jesus and Hell will be the result.

If you don’t know better and don’t die in a state of mortal sin you may still be saved because you are joined informally to the Catholic Church by Baptism and if Jesus knows that if you did know better that you would formally join the Catholic Church if given the chance then you will not go to Hell.

Jesus will perfectly judge.

It is very difficult for everyone to escape Hell.

Jesus said “Narrow is the way the leads to eternal life and few there are that find it”.

That is true! Jesus does not lie!

Narrow is not a wide easy road and Few does not mean a majority!

The Catholic Church provides the sacraments which are avenues of grace to avoid Hell.

Non catholics do not have a chance at all these avenues of grace.

If you’re undecided I hope these words ring through your ears until the day you die:

“You have a much better chance at avoiding Hell if you become Catholic!”

 

[Atemi]

if you are Protestant–have heard the teachings of the Catholic Church–reject them–and die still holding to that rejection when you Do Know Better–that will be judged by Jesus and Hell will be the result.

Whew!

Good thing I am invincibly ignorant and do not believe that the RCC was founded by Christ.

If you’re undecided I hope these words ring through your ears until the day you die:

“You have a much better chance at avoiding Hell if you become Catholic!”

The odds are better, huh? That is your prerogative, I guess.

The Scriptures tell us that we are guaranteed to avoid Hell if we repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is it…

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you have a much better chance to be saved…”

…or…

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL be saved?”

I’ll let the second ring through my ears till the day I die, if you don’t mind.

…

 

[rtconstant]

Whew!

Good thing I am invincibly ignorant and do not believe that the RCC was founded by Christ.

As an FYI chosing to not believe doesn’t equal ignorance.

Once again if you spent more time listening and reading less time speaking to what you don’t know or are intentionally misrepresenting you would learn a great deal.

So again I have ask: honestly don’t get it or trolling?

 

[estesbob]

The Scriptures tell us that we are guaranteed to avoid Hell if we repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Is it…

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you have a much better chance to be saved…”
…or…

“Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you WILL be saved?”
I’ll let the second ring through my ears till the day I die, if you don’t mind.

…

The above is true ONLY if we accept your ***personal ***interperation of 12 words of Scipture. Under what authority do you presume to interpert scripture for the rest of us?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The above is true ONLY if we accept your ***personal ***interperation of 12 words of Scipture. Under what authority do you presume to interpert scripture for the rest of us?

I believe that Mr Atemi’s contribution is one-sided. He appears to be singlemindedly promoting an agenda and disrespecting Catholicism (by misrepresenting it) both of which violate the forum rules.

We have posted what the Church teaches for the benefit of lurkers. There does not seem any point to continuing on this thread. I am removing it from my subscription list.

Have a nice day.

 

[estesbob]

I believe that Mr Atemi’s contribution is one-sided. He appears to be singlemindedly promoting an agenda and disrespecting Catholicism (by misrepresenting it) both of which violate the forum rules.

We have posted what the Church teaches for the benefit of lurkers. There does not seem any point to continuing on this thread. I am removing it from my subscription list.

Have a nice day.

Kinda hard to debate with one so arrogant as to believe they are the sole arbitor of how Scriputre should be interperted.

 

[Atemi]

Kinda hard to debate with one so arrogant as to believe they are the sole arbitor of how Scriputre should be interperted.

Why not just stay on topic instead of talking bad about me?

If bad-mouthing me makes you feel superior, then have a go. I don’t mind. Here is the other cheek.

 

[estesbob]

Why not just stay on topic instead of talking bad about me?

If bad-mouthing me makes you feel superior, then have a go. I don’t mind. Here is the other cheek.

Ok-answer this please:

The above is true ONLY if we accept your ***personal ***interperation of 12 words of Scipture. Under what authority do you presume to interpert scripture for the rest of us?

 

[djrakowski]

I guess repeating actual Church teaching on a Catholic forum is offensive if you are a non-Catholic.

Go figure.

I do understand that I can’t win for losing.

I will just drop it. We can move on if you like.

The problem is that you cited Catholic teaching without contextualizing. That’s confusing at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

So you inquired as to the identity of the church indicated by the teaching, and I responded with paragraphs from the Catechism in clarification. You basically told us that it doesn’t matter what the Catechism says when you said this:

Atemi:

I actually cited what the RCC teaches. I did not ask what the RCC teaches.

You’re basically saying that you don’t care what the teaching means, only what you want to force us to say that it means.

So it isn’t offensive that you quoted actual Church teaching. Myself and plenty of my fellow Catholics have done the same, including attempts to properly contextualize it. You’ve deliberately chosen to ignore the explanations of the teaching in favor of what you want to force us to say about it.

It would help if you’d actually interact with the substance of the argument - the paragraphs from the Catechism and Compendium that explain the teaching in context - rather than ignoring and deflecting as you’ve continually done.

Until you address the argument honestly, it does no good to drop it.

Now, to address some more of the substance:

Of course the Church hasn’t changed the dogma of “extra ecclesia nulla salus.” It teaches that there are various ways to be united to Christ’s Church. For example:

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

In other words, God saves whom He chooses to save. The person whom God saves is united with the Catholic Church, regardless of whether a visible unity with that Church exists. God’s Church - as we believe, of course, is the Catholic Church - is the instrument of salvation for all mankind, and thus all salvation - whether of Catholics or non-Catholics - is done my God through the Catholic Church.

If this doesn’t at least provide some small amount of answer to your question, I wonder what will.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Bickering ended. Thread closed.