Judging salvation

[CMatt25]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

If the Catholic Church is truly not judging, shouldn’t number 14 read something like “might not be saved” or even “likely won’t be”? But “could not”?

How is saying A) only God judges but then saying B) a baptized believer in Christ can not be saved whose conscience moves them in a different direction on some details and they as a result either don’t enter or don’t remain fully accepting, not judging and not 2 completely polar opposite statements? Aren’t Catholics judging a fellow baptized believer in Christ to hell by saying they can not then be saved unless they do x, y, and z or else repent accordingly in the Catholic Sacramental manner?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

If the Catholic Church is truly not judging, shouldn’t number 14 read something like “might not be saved” or even “likely won’t be”? But “could not”?

How is saying A) only God judges but then saying B) a baptized believer in Christ can not be saved whose conscience moves them in a different direction on some details and they as a result either don’t enter or don’t remain fully accepting, not judging and not 2 completely polar opposite statements? Aren’t Catholics judging a fellow baptized believer in Christ to hell by saying they can not then be saved unless they do x, y, and z or else repent accordingly in the Catholic Sacramental manner?

i think you might be confused about the meaning of ‘judging’.

for example, water has a property of being ‘wet.’ it is not judgmental to insist that water must, by its nature, be wet.

only God ‘judges’ but God has to make His requirements known, right? how would people know what God required if He didn’t reveal them to us?

and if He has revealed His requirement then it is certainly not ‘judging’ to state His word/decision/teaching, is it?

 

[CMatt25]

i think you might be confused about the meaning of ‘judging’.

for example, water has a property of being ‘wet.’ it is not judgmental to insist that water must, by its nature, be wet.

only God ‘judges’ but God has to make His requirements known, right? how would people know what God required if He didn’t reveal them to us?

and if He has revealed His requirement then it is certainly not ‘judging’ to state His word/decision/teaching, is it?

It might not be judging to spell out things. But if we are truly leaving final judgment in His hands, then maybe we should say you very likely are in jeopardy, but not go so far as to say can not.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It might not be judging to spell out things. But if we are truly leaving final judgment in His hands, then maybe we should say you very likely are in jeopardy, but not go so far as to say can not.

.

OK, here is something simple.

I’m walking with a toddler who climbs up onto a wall. I say, “Get down this minute or you WILL HURT YOURSELF” and I say this because the child is literally one step away from falling.

There simply is no chance the child will NOT hurt himself if he does not get down and do what I say. No ‘he MAY be all right’ --he will DEFINITELY fall and hurt himself if he does not obey.

THAT is the meaning and that is why we cannot say, "oh you MAY be damned. . .but you may not because it’s all ‘God’s choice’. God has already ‘seen’ the only choice–the person WILL, absolutely and without fail, ‘fall’ if he does not stop. . .

And God doesn’t go around and change the rules. He doesn’t say, "Well, I know that I said no sin, but this person just couldn’t help himself. Sure, he’s not SORRY for the sin but I just HATE to see people go to hell so I’ll ‘bend the rules’.

 

[CMatt25]

.

OK, here is something simple.

I’m walking with a toddler who climbs up onto a wall. I say, “Get down this minute or you WILL HURT YOURSELF” and I say this because the child is literally one step away from falling.

There simply is no chance the child will NOT hurt himself if he does not get down and do what I say. No ‘he MAY be all right’ --he will DEFINITELY fall and hurt himself if he does not obey.

THAT is the meaning and that is why we cannot say, "oh you MAY be damned. . .but you may not because it’s all ‘God’s choice’. God has already ‘seen’ the only choice–the person WILL, absolutely and without fail, ‘fall’ if he does not stop. . .

And God doesn’t go around and change the rules. He doesn’t say, "Well, I know that I said no sin, but this person just couldn’t help himself. Sure, he’s not SORRY for the sin but I just HATE to see people go to hell so I’ll ‘bend the rules’.

Tantum, I don’t know why the “EEK face”. I truly hope you know I did not mean “you” Tantum are in jeopardy. You seem to like comparing God to earthly examples but I do know the points you are trying to make. Peace.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

If the Catholic Church is truly not judging, shouldn’t number 14 read something like “might not be saved” or even “likely won’t be”? But “could not”?

How is saying A) only God judges but then saying B) a baptized believer in Christ can not be saved whose conscience moves them in a different direction on some details and they as a result either don’t enter or don’t remain fully accepting, not judging and not 2 completely polar opposite statements? Aren’t Catholics judging a fellow baptized believer in Christ to hell by saying they can not then be saved unless they do x, y, and z or else repent accordingly in the Catholic Sacramental manner?

Hi CMatt,

The passage to which you apparently refer is from Lumen Gentium 14: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

The Church here is not pointing at anyone who has left the Church or never entered and accusing them of having this knowledge. The Church has carefully refrained if I am not mistaken from teaching that any individual, with the possible exception of Judas Iscariot, is in hell.

Nobody in the Church is saying that Luther, Calvin, Billy Graham, my brother, or your friends and relatives are guilty of having this knowledge. The Church is not pretending to have insight into anyone’s interior disposition. But God has revealed His law and it is for the Church to proclaim what God has revealed. Without pretending to know a single heart, the Church says to all that what is described in LG #14 would be a serious sin that would be an impediment to salvation. Is the Church not permitted and even obligated to define for the faithful what is and isn’t a mortal sin?

Rory

 

[SSTeacher]

Tantum ergo;6569077:

i think you might be confused about the meaning of ‘judging’.

for example, water has a property of being ‘wet.’ it is not judgmental to insist that water must, by its nature, be wet.

only God ‘judges’ but God has to make His requirements known, right? how would people know what God required if He didn’t reveal them to us?

and if He has revealed His requirement then it is certainly not ‘judging’ to state His word/decision/teaching, is it?

It might not be judging to spell out things. But if we are truly leaving final judgment in His hands, then maybe we should say you very likely are in jeopardy, but not go so far as to say can not.

Interesting thought.

The Bull Unam Sanctum seems to be to spell out the Catholic position without any ambiguity. It concludes with this pronouncement by the pope:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I understand that some Catholics believe this to be an ex cathedra statement. If they are right then according to the Catholic Church all Non–Catholics are damned. If it isn’t then according to the Catholic Church we Non–Catholics might still be in with a chance.

Here’s the problem for we Non–Catholics (who aren’t necessarily Anti–Catholics). All Catholics endorse their arguments either by a) referring to a specific document published under the auspices of the Catholic Church, or b) appealing to the “constant teaching of the Catholic Church.”

But how can we Non–Catholics figure out whom to believe when Catholics don’t agree with each other because the teaching of the church appears to be equivocal? Fallible Catholics telling us that Catholic teaching isn’t ambiguous, which is the usual routine, hardly helps us.

Personally, I prefer the last sentence of Unam Sanctum. It’s crystal clear and tells me, as a Non–Catholic, exactly where I stand apropos the Catholic Church. Vatican II, on the other hand, appears to have produced 16 documents full of waffle (no disrespect intended) that leave me not knowing one way or the other where I stand as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.

Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church? Let your yes be yes and your no be no (cf. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12).

Cordially,
Mick

 

[PRmerger]

Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church? Let your yes be yes and your no be no (cf. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12).

Cordially,
Mick

The answer is: we don’t know. But, if you are saved, you are saved in the same way that Catholics are: through saying Yes! to the Divine Marriage Proposal.

To quote from Peter Kreeft, Catholic philosopher at Boston College, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” does not mean that Protestants and others are not saved, because this formula is not an answer to the mind’s curiousity about the populations of heaven and hell, but an answer to the sincerely seeking heart’s question “Where is salvation? Where is the road? What has God done to show me how to be saved?” Similarly, Christ’s words to his disciples about “many” choosing the “wide” road to destruction and only “few” finding the “narrow” road to life (Mt 7;14) are not the words of statistician spoken to a census taker, but the words of a loving heavenly Father to his beloved children, warning them of danger. (from his book Catholic Christianity) (bold mine)

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6569388:

Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church? Let your yes be yes and your no be no (cf. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12).

Cordially,
Mick

The answer is: we don’t know. But, if you are saved, you are saved in the same way that Catholics are: through saying Yes! to the Divine Marriage Proposal.

To quote from Peter Kreeft, Catholic philosopher at Boston College, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” does not mean that Protestants and others are not saved, because this formula is not an answer to the mind’s curiousity about the populations of heaven and hell, but an answer to the sincerely seeking heart’s question “Where is salvation? Where is the road? What has God done to show me how to be saved?” Similarly, Christ’s words to his disciples about “many” choosing the “wide” road to destruction and only “few” finding the “narrow” road to life (Mt 7;14) are not the words of statistician spoken to a census taker, but the words of a loving heavenly Father to his beloved children, warning them of danger. (from his book Catholic Christianity) (bold mine)

You are evading the question (very articulately, admittedly, but you’re evading it nevertheless).

Which person or persons are you including in the “we” that you are suggesting don’t know and how does the last sentence of Unam Sanctum fit in with your thought process? I’ve read some of Peter Kreeft’s stuff and I think he’s smart. But he isn’t the pope and I’m submitting a statement by a pope for consideration.

So please consider.

Affably,
Mick

 

[Hiskid1973]

I always wondered how all these pronouncements could override sacred scripture…Like all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved…The Philippian jailer heard" believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…Peter preached believing on Jesus and three thousand entered the church that day…No special ceremonies/programs…The church at Rome wasn’t even there…People drawn by the Holy Spirit found Christ daily whether at Jerusalem, Antioch, and to the uttermost parts of the earth. To their children and their children’s children even to those far off…Let the scriptures tell us who are His…It begs the question, “what is the church?”
Who is the church? Is it just a physical building ? Is it living stones? Does it matter what name is on the building or where people are gathered in His name who have the Holy Spirit residing in them…What do the scriptures say?

 

[PRmerger]

You are evading the question (very articulately, admittedly, but you’re evading it nevertheless).

I don’t think I was. I said the answer is: we don’t know. We don’t know if you’re going to go to heaven or go to hell. The CC does not provide the answer to that.

There is an excellent article that addresses Pope Boniface’s decree Unum Sanctum here, that you might be interested in.

Which person or persons are you including in the “we” that you are suggesting don’t know

We as in “the Catholic Church”. There has never been any statement from the CC about who populates hell.

and how does the last sentence of Unam Sanctum fit in with your thought process?

I think the article I cited above answers that quite nicely.

I’ve read some of Peter Kreeft’s stuff and I think he’s smart. But he isn’t the pope and I’m submitting a statement by a pope for consideration

If he’s saying something that contradicts a pope then your statement above would be applicable. But since he’s only re-affirming the CC’s teaching “outside the Church there is no salvation”, then it’s irrelevant whether he’s the pope or just a smart Catholic professor–they’re both saying the same thing!

 

[PRmerger]

I always wondered how all these pronouncements could override sacred scripture…Like all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved…

Firstly, there are no pronouncements which override Sacred Scripture.

“All who call on the name of the Lord” has to be understood in light of all Scripture.

For does not Scripture also say “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.”

And does not Scripture say:

We are saved…

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

By eating his flesh (John 6)

 

[Hiskid1973]

I have no problem believing there is no salvation outside the church…I just don’t believe that church is just your Catholic one.

 

[CMatt25]

Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church? Let your yes be yes and your no be no (cf. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12).

Cordially,
Mick

Well Mick, as I read things you are in much better shape :yup: than a Catholic who has a “change of heart”. So I say the Church says yes! You can be saved as long as you do not know, understand, and accept that the Catholic Church is a must.

On the otherhand if you know this and believe the teachings and still do not enter or if someone was baptized, raised in the faith, confirmed, catechized, the whole ball of wax, was practicing but then later on had their conscience lead them in another direction, then no you nor they can be saved according to the Catholic Church without Sacramental repentance.

And are toast according to the Catholic Church.

 

[CMatt25]

Is the Church not permitted and even obligated to define for the faithful what is and isn’t a mortal sin?

Rory

Hi Rory, perhaps as long as what they define as mortal sin doesn’t depart from what Scripture says it is. For instance, holding someone up at gunpoint and murdering them, sure, I think we’d agree clearly sin. Not obeying a bishop who says you must attend Mass on a weekday Holy Day of Obligation or else you are committing **mortal **sin and face hell for that, I’m not as certain.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi Rory, perhaps as long as what they define as mortal sin doesn’t depart from what Scripture says it is. For instance, holding someone up at gunpoint and murdering them, sure, I think we’d agree clearly sin. Not obeying a bishop who says you must attend Mass on a weekday Holy Day of Obligation or else you are committing **mortal **sin and face hell for that, I’m not as certain.

Hi again CMatt,

You were entertaining the idea that the Church was guilty of “judging salvation”, a harsh, and in my opinion, seriously mistaken notion that needs to be addressed. Before we could move on to discuss in what ways you question the teachings of the Catholic Church, can you see how it should be a relief to your initial concerns that the Church has never professed to identify who has violated the teaching you cited from Lumen Gentium #14? Do you now see that the Church has not pretended to take the place of God in judging the hearts of men?

If the very presuppositional operations of the Church proceed from such a false premise as you suggest with the opening post, who could care if the teachings are accurate?

 

[Izdaari]

Judging the salvation of anyone is not my job. It is, as they say, “above my pay grade”, reserved for God alone, who knows all circumstances and all hearts. I don’t know that the RCC does that, but if they do, they are wrong to do so.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6569388:

Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church? Let your yes be yes and your no be no (cf. Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12).

Cordially,
Mick

Well Mick, as I read things you are in much better shape :yup: than a Catholic who has a “change of heart”. So I say the Church says yes! You can be saved as long as you do not know, understand, and accept that the Catholic Church is a must.

On the otherhand if you know this and believe the teachings and still do not enter or if someone was baptized, raised in the faith, confirmed, catechized, the whole ball of wax, was practicing but then later on had their conscience lead them in another direction, then no you nor they can be saved according to the Catholic Church without Sacramental repentance.

And are toast according to the Catholic Church.

Hi Matt,

As you can see from reading the posts on this thread I’m being given the run around. Since you’re the Original Poster let me allow you the opportunity to answer a straight question. Is Unam Sanctum an infallible ex cathedra statement? And I will accept “I don’t know” as an answer. So if you’re up to answering my question here are your options:

a) Yes, Unam Sanctum is an infallible ex cathedra statement.
b) No, Unam Sanctum is not an infallible ex cathedra statement.
c) I don’t know if Unam Sanctum is an infallible ex cathedra statement.

This is not a trick question. It is just a question. Please answer it. All you need to do is highlight one of the three options and copy and paste it into your post. Many thanks.

Appreciatively,
Mick

 

[Reuben_J]

Never in her History and her existence that the Catholic Church has declared that someone is in Hell. We have many saints who by their earthly lives may be accorded heaven; even if they went through purgatory their destination is heaven for certain. But the Church can never know who are sent to Hell and will not make that declaration. God is a merciful and a forgiving God; all sins can be forgiven and we can never know what is in a person’s heart. Sure there are some who will be destined to Hell except that we do not know; it is for God alone to judge, as have been said here.

So maybe that helps to answer the question of the thread.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Matt,

As you can see from reading the posts on this thread I’m being given the run around. Is Unam Sanctum an infallible ex cathedra statement? And I will accept “I don’t know” as an answer. So if you’re up to answering my question here are your options:

a) Yes, Unam Sanctum is an infallible ex cathedra statement.
b) No, Unam Sanctum is not an infallible ex cathedra statement.
c) I don’t know if Unam Sanctum is an infallible ex cathedra statement.

Is (c) attributed to me, Mick?
Just so we’re clear, I did not know the question was, “Is Unam Sanctum an infallible ex cathedra statement?”

You asked:

Originally Posted by SSTeacher
Question: Are we Non–Catholics saved or damned according to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church?

And my response was: we don’t know.

There has been no Divine Revelation as to the population of hell.

Since I’m a late-comer to this thread perhaps I misunderstood your question–but it really did seem like you were asking if non-Catholics are saved or damned.