Is there salvation outside the Catholic church?

[ron77nyc]

Your comments regarding the Church shocked me. I checked your profile and noticed it said Catholic, but I cannot help but think you got these ideas from protestants and perhaps from a fundamentalist history book.

I got these ideas from real life experience. Most Catholics including my friends and family, have never been to a bible study. The Catholic Church never thought it was important. The bible has only had exposure in Catholic schools recently.

The Church did not and does not “suppress the knowledge of the truth;” she embodies it and shares it with the rest of the world in hopes that they too will be converted to the truth and come to share in the Eucharist, which is the summit of our faith and existence.

The sex scandal showed a side of Church authority that is still alive today. Unity will never happen where trust is absent.

The Church has always sent out missionaries. Why? To hide the truth from people? This claim is up there with the fundamentalist accusation that Catholics want to keep people from reading the Bible! On the contrary, the Church gave people the Bible in the first place.

The Church has probably done more good in the world than any other group of people in history. Missionaries bringing the gospel and the eucharist is truly the will of God. The Catholic Church gave us the bible but did not teach us the bible.

Truth is not relative and cannot change as you claimed. It is absolute. What is true one day cannot become error the next. John Paul II’s statements you referenced must be understood and interpreted in light of sacred Tradition. We must also know that he was not speaking infallibly and if he contradicted anything previously defined through the use of infallibility, he was in error. Just because “the Holy Spirit” may be “evident in the writings of non-Catholic religions” does not mean that those non-Catholic religions in and of themselves bring salvation. Such a notion was solemnly condemned by the Church (see below). It can mean instead as the context of that statement demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is moving those religions to the truth and preparing them for salvation (which comes through the Catholic faith!). If someone in another religion is invincibly ignorant of the truth, they can possibly be saved, but not through that religion itself. They are only saved by being incorporated into the Catholic Church.

There is some double talk here. John Paul II apologized for the errors of previous popes.

To hold that truth can change is modernism, which is the heresy of heresies.

To say that one pope disagrees with another but he is really not speaking ex cathedra is double talk. The Church does not clearly define ex cathedra statements from non-ex cathedra so there will always be room for explanation of error.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

 

[jlturner]

Traditionalist Catholics. God loves them too! But thank God that He gave us the wonderful Vatican II. As my father would say, “We are now the Lutherans that Luther wanted us to be!”

 

[una_fides]

I got these ideas from real life experience. Most Catholics including my friends and family, have never been to a bible study. The Catholic Church never thought it was important. The bible has only had exposure in Catholic schools recently…The Catholic Church gave us the bible but did not teach us the bible.

These statements are simply not true. Rather than basing your views of history on your very limited personal experience, I suggest researching and reading up on the subject from the source of the Church herself. The Church has even indulgenced an hour worth of reading the Bible! The Church fathers who gave us the Bible also explained to us the meanings in the passages. They have more commentary on Scripture than any others! Your comments demonstrate that you are basing your opinions on your opinions, feelings, and experiences, rather than on any solid evidence. Please read the book I suggested earlier to you regarding the origins of Scripture and then we can have this conversation. Here’s an entire encyclical on the study of Scripture: papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm
Here’s a link to the Catena Aurea, which is a compilation of the early Church fathers commentaries on each verse in the Gospels: catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php

The sex scandal showed a side of Church authority that is still alive today. Unity will never happen where trust is absent.

Doctrines and morality are two different things. The Church teaches the truth period even though her members don’t always live out that truth they way they are supposed to.

There is some double talk here. John Paul II apologized for the errors of previous popes.

He did not apologize for their doctrines or ever imply doctrinal errors. He apologized for any bad behaviors they may have done, whether it be the condoning of torture or the keeping of mistresses, etc. However, he has never, nor has the Church ever said that previous popes were in error especially concerning infallible declarations.

To say that one pope disagrees with another but he is really not speaking ex cathedra is double talk. The Church does not clearly define ex cathedra statements from non-ex cathedra so there will always be room for explanation of error.

This again is not true. The Church does in fact clearly define ex cathedra statements. Have you read Vatican I by chance? piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined
Furthermore, we know that the teachings on No Salvation Outside the Church to be true based not only on infallible papal declarations but also from an infallible declaration from a General Council:
IV Lateran Council 1215: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html
The Athanasian Creed was also part of that Council and was part of the Church’s liturgy: see my post 33 for the text and links.
Here is another infallible declaration from Vatican I:
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in **the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding **[36].piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined
A question to ask is whether you accept the teachings of the Church in this manner or whether you approach them differently.

 

[una_fides]

Traditionalist Catholics. God loves them too! But thank God that He gave us the wonderful Vatican II. As my father would say, “We are now the Lutherans that Luther wanted us to be!”

I take it you have not read Vatican II. Please read it and do so in light of sacred Tradition. Many people attribute so many things to VII or “the spirit of VII” that the council neither said nor intended. Read especially Lumen Gentium #25: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable,** since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.** For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)

 

[ron77nyc]

These statements are simply not true. Rather than basing your views of history
This again is not true. The Church does in fact clearly define ex cathedra statements. Have you read Vatican I by chance? piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#papal%20infallibility%20defined
A question to ask is whether you accept the teachings of the Church in this manner or whether you approach them differently.

Thanks for the link. It’s what I’ve been looking for.

 

[una_fides]

Thanks for the link. It’s what I’ve been looking for.

No problem. Glad I can help.

 

[jlturner]

I have spent hours upon hours reading the second council. I have talked to numerous priests, deacons, theologians, scholars and others as well. We read as humans - as humans we are fallible. And that goes for you as well, “One Faith!” You nor I cannot interpret what we read - no matter how well we think we know it. We are just not capable - we have Papal infallibility - but the rest of us are not so lucky! For you to argue what the VI or VII intended is not up to you - it is up to God. Perhaps if you put as much effort into clothing the naked and feeding the hungry as you do into being an apologetic, we would have more converts to our wonderful and beautiful faith!

Let me ask you these questions - Do you believe that children who are not baptized will not go to heaven? Do you still believe in limbo? Do you believe that a Protestant will not go to heaven because he or she is simply not a Catholic? I can tell you that our current Pope does not. And neither did John Paul II. Perhaps they are wrong too? LOL

We have a beautiful faith. We should be glorifying it! We should be evangelizing it! We should not be discouraging others with archaic teachings - even dogma has evolved over the centuries!

 

[paul_c]

To Una Fides:

The whole “justice” argument is absurd. What is “justice?” Are you saying that “good people” who, just because they aren’t Catholic, will burn for eternity in hell!!! Yeah, that sounds like justice. That sounds like God. Do you hear how ridiculous and un-God-like your arguments are. The more practical example of the justice or “fairness” of God is that he allows reincarnation as a way for us to all experience every possible human situation (thus “fairness”, vs. someone born an aborigine in their ONLY life on earth, and dying at age 5). Remember, we exist for eternity. God is not stupid. He would not just give us one moment of life on earth, as the basis for growth and learning. So “justice” argues against eternal damnation for non-catholics, and argues for reincarnation. (I know you don’t care about my personal communications with God, but He confirms that reincarnation is the standard, and that no one burns in hell; this is absolute truth; someday, soon, all will know this.) Listen to your soul, listen to God, it all makes sense.

4 points.

1. Are you sure your personal communications are with God? The test for whether you are in true communication with God is whether the communications are consistent with previous knowledge from God, because God can not be inconsistent. Remember, we are told that Satan can impersonate the Angels. Your communications, as you describe them here are clearly inconsistent with scriptures . First of all, there are numerous places in scripture stating that there is a Hell. He speaks of it often (Matt 25-31-46 is an example). There also is nothing to suggest re-incarnation anywhere within scripture. Think about it, wouldn’t the Devil be thrilled if everyone believed that they could do anything they wanted with no ramifications, infinite re-dos and no hell. So much easier to tempt someone who believes they have no personal responsibility.

1. You are not thinking of life right, I think. Life is a test to see whether we are willing to do God’s will or not. You do God’s will by following the Great commandment " Love God above all and Love your neighbor as yourself." He gives you everything you need to pass the test. He gives you life, reason, conscience, grace through the sacraments. You need to do your part to cooperate for your salvation, having faith and doing his will, Jesus taught us the basic attitudes necessary to attain life in the beatitudes (Matt 5) and of course the fundamental 10 commandments were outlined in Exodus. God does not need multiple tries to judge us. In fact, he knows before we are born what we will choose but he lets us choose anyway. As for continued learning you propose for follow-on lives, the Catholic church teaches that that purification occurs in Purgatory Catholics.
2. As for salvation for people who are not Catholics, it is surely possible. Let me paraphrase Church teachings a little.

The Catholic Church is the holder of all truth passed on by the Apostles. This is called the Deposit of Faith. All other religions also possess truth wherever they are consistent with Catholic teaching. In the Case of most Protestant religions, most of what they teach is aligned with Catholic teaching, although obvious disconnects exist, so to the extent they follow Catholic teaching, they follow the truth. Even in the cases of non- christian religions, most moral teaching is aligned (don’t kill, don’t commit adultery, don’t steal, don’t lie are pretty standard across humanity). So to the extent that they in fact, are following the Catholic faith, they can be saved. So if this is true, why be Catholic. Well, the answer is simple - you get all the truth here and therefore are not mislead into salvation -losing error by whatever untruths are assumed by the other religions.

1. Get to know your Catholic Faith. It will be absolutely worth your time and as your knowledge increases, so will your faith and with that, peace and joy. Being on this blog is a good start. There are many good people here. get to know scripture and the catechism. For a good jump start, try " the Truth of Catholicism" by George Wiegel. Trust the church more than your own personal insight, because the Church’s insight comes from the apostles, augmented by 2000 years of rich theological study by literally millions of top notch theologians. One brain can not compete with that level of accumulated knowledge.

 

[napad]

It’s an absolute statement that as Pope Pius XI said cannot be reduced to be meaningless. It has absolute meaning and is true. It cannot be defined as an infallible truth if it is not. Here’s what most people miss. If anyone in invincible ignorance is saved who is not a visible member of the visible Catholic Church, they are actually a member of the Catholic Church (through an implicit desire for baptism). Hence, they are actually Catholic. There is no salvation outside the Church, and such a person, if he were to be saved, would be part of the Church. The statement means what it says and says what it means. There is no salvation outside the Church, and anyone who dies outside the Church cannot be saved.

This is making being a member meaningless because everyone already is by their implicit desire. Who doesn’t want to go to heaven? The problem is fulfilling the requirements made by God Himself, one is Faith in Jesus Christ and the other is Baptism

You could have been right, if the Church hadn’t made it clear who a member is. Those who are not baptized are not members of the Catholic Church :

**Papal Teaching:**POPE Pius XII, Mystici Corporis # 22: “In the Church they alone are to be counted as members who have 1.) received the baptism of regeneration and 2.) profess the true faith, who, moreover, 3.) have not had the misfortune to separate themselves from the assembly of the Body, or been excommunicated by the legitimate authority by reason of very grave faults.”

a member of the Catholic Church must:
1 Be baptized
2. Profess the TRUE Faith
Those who have been separated or excommunicated are not members=3

 

[Lionpainter]

I’m sure your private revelation had an impact on you, but you must subject it to the authority of the Catholic Church. Saints have warned against giving into visions and voices because they can lead to deception, and the saints always subject them to the authority of the Church. If anything in any vision contradicts anything defined by the Catholic Church (of which you claim to belong), then it is in error plain and simple. The Church, not private interpretation is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

The Father will glorify the Son…Take heed of my warning. For I do not lie. It is impossible for me to lie of that which I know. For all that I am, all that I know comes from the Father. I am the Lion that roars for it’s pride.

 

[una_fides]

…We read as humans - as humans we are fallible. And that goes for you as well, “One Faith!” **You nor I cannot interpret what we read - no matter how well we think we know it. We are just not capable - we have Papal infallibility - but the rest of us are not so lucky! For you to argue what the VI or VII intended is not up to you - it is up to God. **…

Wow. Well then why are you wasting your time on these forums if you cannot possible interpret what other people or writing or if they can’t possibly interpret what you are writing? To some extent you are correct in that people naturally interpret writings to mean what they might think they mean. We know this fact by looking at the plethora of non-Catholic denominations as well as the new liberals who claim to be Catholic and who are reinterpreting everything the Church has ever taught. Certainly there can be arguments that can be made pertaining to whether a particular statement has one meaning or another, as we are doing right now with our conversation on no salvation outside the Church. What we cannot do is reduce a meaning to be meaningless or interpret it to mean something different. And YES we can know what a document meant or intended. We discover the meaning by reading it within its context and comparing one text with others. Truth cannot contradict truth. So when the Church says infallibly that dogmas must be understood in the same sense that they have always been, what do you interpret that to mean? It means what it says. It is not some “spiritual” writing meant to convey something different than what it says. Just as I’m writing to you now, you are reading, interpreting my statements, and formulating your opinion of them. Granted we are limited in our understandings, but that does not mean that we cannot know the truth. If a friend of yours left you a note that said he ordered you a pizza and that it should arrive shortly, how would you interpret that statement? Would you interpret it to mean that he is going to kill you or that he wants you to go fly a kite with him? C’mon. Words mean what they say, and it’s up to us to determine their meaning within the context in which they are used. If you really think that you can’t interpret anything, then please stop wasting your time trying and confusing others. We have a living magisterium that continues to explain the truth to us. This is why Christ formed his Church. So that we can “know the truth, and the truth will make us free” (John 8:32).

 

[una_fides]

Let me ask you these questions - Do you believe that children who are not baptized will not go to heaven? Do you still believe in limbo? Do you believe that a Protestant will not go to heaven because he or she is simply not a Catholic? I can tell you that our current Pope does not. And neither did John Paul II. Perhaps they are wrong too?

Perhaps they are wrong. But you wouldn’t know what they believe anyway since you can’t possibly interpret anything they say now can you. The Church has never claimed that the private beliefs of popes are automatically dogma. It is only when a pope defines such ex cathedra that we know it is truth. If popes believe contrary to defined Tradition or to how the Church has always understood or defined a dogma, then the pope is in error as a private theologian.

Btw, JP2 and Benedict have never said that you can know that an unbaptized infant will be saved; they said it’s permissible to hope that they could be! They never did away with the teaching of limbo; they merely said that it’s not necessary to be believed. They never said that protestants go to heaven; they said that they could be saved (and I am saying the same thing btw, but again, you wouldn’t know because you can’t possibly interpret anything that I’m saying). If any protestant is saved, he is not saved as a protestant or because he is protestant; he is saved as an invincibly ignorant Catholic, who does not know that he is Catholic. Both popes have said that unless the person is incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, he or she cannot be saved. Thus, they are only saved by being Catholic either explicitly or implicitly. Modern Church documents are often written in very vague wording and must always be interpreted in light of what the Church has always taught and believed.

 

[napad]

Here is a point that people forget, Jesus came to save us.

But save us from what?

From Hell because the Gates of heaven were closed and all would have gone to hell if not for Him.
The TRAGEDY of Original Sin can not be underestimated. The Council of Florence makes a good point to this effect:

Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “**Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. *And since death entered the universe through the first man, ***‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.” Denzinger 696

 

[una_fides]

We have a beautiful faith. We should be glorifying it! We should be evangelizing it! We should not be discouraging others with archaic teachings - even dogma has evolved over the centuries!

First, how would you know we have a beautiful faith if you cannot possibly interpret it as you previously claimed?

Your statement that dogmas evolved is pure modernism, and was explicitly and solemnly condemned with papal authority. Dogmas do not and cannot evolve (which implies a mutation or change); they can only develop (meaning building one upon another). Popes have warned us not to fall into this trap. We must always be on guard against its manifestations.

Pope Pius X, Oath Against Modernism:
“Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Pope Pius X, Lamentabli Sane, Encyclical Condemning the Errors of the Modernists:
Condemned Modernist Errors:
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
…
His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis
13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. … [The modernists] are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.
2. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ…
3. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. …Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I strongly suggest sincerely reading all three of these documents in their entirety. The Church has warned us about and has condemned modernism. I beg you to please stop spreading these ideas and to strongly consider these solemn papal warnings.

 

[una_fides]

The Father will glorify the Son…Take heed of *** my*** warning. For I do not lie. It is impossible for me to lie of that which I know. For all that I am, all that I know comes from the Father. I am the Lion that roars for it’s pride.

Pride huh… Last time I checked pride was not a virtue but a vice.

 

[codebilly]

Please show a little* tact*. If you want to point out something so sensitive to a person as their religion, “Do unto other as you would have them do to you” . He is at least reading this Forum that is better than a lot of stuff people could be spending their time on the internet.

Thanks for the advice. In general, I agree with you, but I’ve likely been preaching longer than you’ve been alive. That is, I’ve got a lot of experience dealing with souls.

There are some that must be met directly, some gently, and some you walk away from (e.g… “shake the dust from your feet”) and some not at all (" do not cast *your pearls before swine).

Those people confronting Catholics with an accusatory rather than inquisitive spirit have a demon.

I humbly ask you to pray on that.

 

[Lionpainter]

The Church receives its authority from God. It seems you have a problem subjecting yourself to such authority but instead wish to elevate your own self and private opinions above that of the Church.

God made the rules, communicated them through his Church to which he vested with his own authority (Mat 16:18-19; 1 Tim 3:15; etc…). Please read these:
beginningcatholic.com/church-authority.html
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

God is also justice. You cannot say that he is mercy without also acknowledging his justice. To make God void of his justice is to create another god. The reason Christ gave us his Church is so that we can know the truth rather than our own private interpretations of truth. The Church is there as a living organism to settle disputes whenever they arise, and it does so with the authority of the One who established it: Christ, who is God.

I will say no more, but when the day comes that such a storm should be upon this land and it comes soon— all will know that the Son of Man has come. For I bare no false witness to the Father.

 

[napad]

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum #14, May 5, 1824:

“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members**… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”**

 

[napad]

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos par.13, Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle, that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5),** may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor 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,’ (Lk. 11:23) 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 (Athanasian Creed).”

 

[Ghoti]

From the Forum Rules, “Content” section:

1. Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.

I would posit that isn’t restricted to just Medjugorje, but also “God told me personally” or “I had a vision”, etc. And since some of the posters who have had such “revelations” have categorically denied the authority of the Church, I would further posit that such visions have not been and will not be submitted to the Church for approval.