Michael Voris leaves out crucial information in "Vortex" episode

[TheLittleLady]

A bishop does have authority in the Church over souls in his diocese but he does not have authority over a person to tell them to stop working.

We need to define “working”.

If by working you mean clocking in at a factory, selling widgets, being a lawyer or doctor or candlemaker, working at a secular job, that is one thing.

If by “working” you mean presenting yourself as approved by the Bishop to be a Catholic leader, then the Bishop absolutely has that authority.

Just as I can be a real estate agent, but, unless I have permission from the Corporate HQ I cannot call my company “Century 21 Realtors”.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

We need to define “working”.

If by working you mean clocking in at a factory, selling widgets, being a lawyer or doctor or candlemaker, working at a secular job, that is one thing.

If by “working” you mean presenting yourself as approved by the Bishop to be a Catholic leader, then the Bishop absolutely has that authority.

This exactly.

Their “chances” of seeing the Lord might be better than mine despite my Catholicity.
And yes, when we are all together in paradise, we will be part of the one holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

It appears as though you are saying that they have a better chance of getting to heaven because it seems to you that they love Christ and are obeying Christ better than you. I do not know you nor your friends but we can not judge who will or will not be saved, nor can we judge another person’s heart. That is up to God and God alone. You do not know how much they know about the Catholic church and what or where they have said no to God. I am a revert myself, knew a lot of the Catholic faith but said no to the Church, left and thought I was faithfully serving God in the protestant churches. No one would know what battle I was wrestling with inside.

Christ never said to become part of the Church when you get to heaven, but here while we are on Earth.

Our responsibility is to be in Christ’s Church because that is where He says is the truth. We need to obey it’s precepts, and persevere in the faith and witness the truth to others.

It is true that many saints have said that many Catholics themselves do not enter heaven but that isn’t because salvation is found somewhere else. It is because many Catholics themselves are not following Christ and His Church and are not in a state of grace.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Here is a relevant quote from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

The problem is the part you quoted is almost always the only part that gets quoted and much of that quote gets ignored. .

The words “can be saved” in Lumen Gentium does not mean there is salvation any where else but that there is a possibility those outside the Church may attain salvation, not that they will, but again their salvation is due to what they know because of the Catholic church.

Lumen Gentium also says, “through no fault of their own”. The word “no” meaning not in any degree or manner, not at all. On Catholic Answers Live an apologist once stated that no fault of their own is a very rare instance, especially today with all the knowledge we have. Which is why when we confess to God our sins, we confess that it is through our fault that we have sinned. We acknowledge our choices and actions as being our own fault.

The part you quoted also says “seek God” and “moved by grace”. God’s grace will always lead someone to the one truth and there is apparently a need to be seeking God to be saved.

One thing, also, Lumen Gentium still clearly states is that outside the Church there is no salvation:

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. 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.

No where did Christ say those who do not believe in Me will be saved. No where did He say you do not have to be baptized. No where did He say you do not need the Church. Quite the opposite. Christ stated clearly that you must believe and be baptized and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

This is probably one of the most difficult teachings of the Church to accept because we all have loved ones outside the Church or maybe we ourselves are outside the Church and we want to believe we are good enough to get to heaven. We also do not want to believe that God is a mean God and would not let good people into heaven. We are not saved by being good. We are saved by grace combined with our cooperating daily in our lives with that grace.

 

[Wampa]

I do recall that an employee and/or follower of Voris used to post here. This would have been near the time I joined, so maybe 8-10 years ago?

You’re probably thinking of @lizaanne, who used to post as an employee. She is suspended and last posted in 2013.

There must have been some other employees, too, because in the 2010 Voris moratorium thread, someone mentioned that people could PM lizaanne or “anyone with the RCTV signature” for more information about Voris.

 

[TMC]

The problem is the part you quoted is almost always the only part that gets quoted and much of that quote gets ignored. .

The words “can be saved” in Lumen Gentium does not mean there is salvation any where else but that there is a possibility those outside the Church may attain salvation, not that they will, but again their salvation is due to what they know because of the Catholic church.

Lumen Gentium also says, “through no fault of their own”. The word “no” meaning not in any degree or manner, not at all. On Catholic Answers Live an apologist once stated that no fault of their own is a very rare instance, especially today with all the knowledge we have. Which is why when we confess to God our sins, we confess that it is through our fault that we have sinned. We acknowledge our choices and actions as being our own fault.

The part you quoted also says “seek God” and “moved by grace”. God’s grace will always lead someone to the one truth and there is apparently a need to be seeking God to be saved.

[Sorry, had to cut the rest because of character limit}

I’m sorry, but I do not see your interpretation of this teaching as consistent with the Church’s teaching. It may be your view, but it does not correspond with the Church’s view.

In particular “no fault” does not mean, as you seem to imply, that a person must not have ever heard of the Church or Christ. It means that they legitimately do not believe or understand that the Church is the one true faith. Lumen Gentium says that, as you quote, one cannot be saved if “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it.” That is not a rare position to be in, today or in any age. That does not mean that the Church teaches that a person that does not know that the Church was made necessary by Christ will be saved. But it does mean that the Church teaches that such a person can be saved. This is why Pope Francis famously said that atheists can go to heaven, and even that it is better to be a good atheist than a bad Christian.

 

[goout]

Illustrates the problem with fundamentalist interpretations of anything.

To 20th century moderns, the word “know” equates to CNN-type journalistic head knowledge. That is not the sense of the word “know” we are talking about.

As I said earlier, I know many holy protestants and evangelicals who are closer to God than I. To think they will forfeit salvation because they did not join my Catholic parish is the height of silliness. These people were raised faithful in their own traditions, and to leave their congregations would be infidelity for them, according to their conscience. They may have knowledge of what the Church teaches, but that is not how they know Christ.

And at the same time, when we are together in paradise, we will all be of one body in the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

That is what the Church teaches: not all in heaven were explicitly Catholic in their temporal life, but all in heaven are Catholic.
For some reason that proves difficult to comprehend.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m aware of Lumen Gentium and other documents that are often cited for proof of salvation for non-Catholics and even atheists.

Do you feel it is a possibility they will be saved or more of a probability?

 

[Genesis315]

Here is a relevant quote from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium:

One persevering in atheism cannot be saved because without faith it is impossible to please God. And to have faith, you have to first believe God exists (since faith is believing what He reveals). See my earlier post 51 with all post-Vatican II authorities. The quote from Lumen Gentium says God “does not deny the helps necessary for salvation” to those who do not “yet” believe in God. That is, he will help lead them to faith (more on this in my next post). Faith is absolutely necessary to please God.

The footnote in that quote from Lumen Gentium is “19 Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston” which reads:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrew 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap 8): Faith is the beginning of a man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 80l).

Again, see my earlier post, the CDF (well after Vatican II) said non-Christian belief cannot be considered faith (" the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held." (Dominus Iesus 7)) because faith is “a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed” (CCC 150).

So how does this relate to the Lumen Gentium quote about those ignorant of the Gospel following their conscience? They are brought to salvation by being brought to faith as Vatican II itself teaches: “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him” (Ad Gentes 7).

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

St. Robert Bellarmine explains how those who are properly disposed are led to faith, against Protestants that denied that the existence of non-Christians proved salvation is not offered to all ( De Gratis et Libero Arbitrio, lib. 2, cap. 8):

This argument only proves that not all people receive the help they need to believe and be converted immediately. It does not, however, prove that some people are deprived, absolutely speaking, of sufficient help for salvation. For the pagans to whom the Gospel has not yet been preached, can know from His creatures that God exists; then they can be stimulated by God, through His preventing grace, to believe in God, that He exists and that He is the rewarder of those who seek Him: and from such faith, they can be inspired, under the guidance and help of God, to pray and give alms and in this way obtain from God a still greater light of faith, which God will communicate to them, either by Himself or through angels or through men.

Pope Francis teaches the same thing in his first encyclical:

Lumen Fidei

Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith…Any-one who sets off on the path of doing good to others is already drawing near to God, is already sustained by his help, for it is characteristic of the divine light to brighten our eyes whenever we walk towards the fullness of love.

There is a phrase in St. John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio that can be easily misread as denying the need for faith in Christ, but he clarified that in a subsequent address. After quoting that phrase, he says:

General Audience May 31, 1995

What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation”.

As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree on Missionary Activity Ad gentes, we believe that “in ways known to himself, God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (Ad gentes, n. 7).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I’m sorry, but I do not see your interpretation of this teaching as consistent with the Church’s teaching. It may be your view, but it does not correspond with the Church’s view.

So, I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. I realize you think this is my interpretation but I have given you quotes from Popes, papal encyclicals and from Lumen Gentium itself. Others here have also given quotes from Popes, saints and Church Fathers.
I have only seen the one popular quote from Lumen Gentium on your part, and then told what I say is just my opinion despite quoted Church teaching. Plus you stated that many popes have said atheists can be saved.

To which official Church teaching are you referring to in support of such a widespread generalization on the salvation of non-Catholics and atheists?

TMC:

the consistent teaching of the Popes.

I think in order to believe what you are saying I will need to see more Church teaching, Biblical quotations and all that consistent teaching from popes saying that atheists or those who do not believe can be saved.

On the other hand, the Church teaches and has always taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. As Lumen Gentium says the Church is necessary for salvation.

You can not reject God and accept God at the same time.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

As I said earlier, I know many holy protestants and evangelicals who are closer to God than I. To think they will forfeit salvation because they did not join my Catholic parish is the height of silliness. These people were raised faithful in their own traditions, and to leave their congregations would be infidelity for them, according to their conscience. They may have knowledge of what the Church teaches, but that is not how they know Christ.

And at the same time, when we are together in paradise, we will all be of one body in the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

This is a very modernist view, sounds like one that is moved on feelings but not Church teaching. It might sound silly that the Catholic church is needed for salvation but that is what the Church teaches. We are not saved by being good so no matter how good or holy your friends appear to be, that is not how they are saved. It is through the sanctifying grace found in the Catholic Church combined with the cooperation on our part of that grace.(faith, baptism, other sacraments and works of mercy)

The Church isn’t just a parish, it is the pillar and foundation of truth. 1 Timothy 3:15. I would say rather than say your friends are better than you, maybe you could work to grow in your Catholic faith, be a witness and pray for your friends to come to the fullness of truth.

The Church has many converts. If you ever get a chance watch The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi, stories are amazing of how people come home to the Church. I know, I am one.

 

[goout]

you are not understanding what others are saying and making their posts into straw men

 

[TMC]

I’m aware of Lumen Gentium and other documents that are often cited for proof of salvation for non-Catholics and even atheists.

Do you feel it is a possibility they will be saved or more of a probability?

I have been talking about what the Church teaches, not about my opinion. I believe that a fair summary of the Church’s teaching is that it is possibility. I don’t think the Church really comments on how common or rare that may be. Over the centuries, some Church theologians and leaders have seemed to lean almost to universal salvation, others have leaned equally far in the other direction. I don’t think the Church as an institution has a position on that, but the trend seems to be more in the “not rare” direction. Certainly, the circumstances described in LG and the CC do not seem particularly rare.

As to what I think, I don’t usually share my own theological opinions here. That is in part because I think it is important to delineate personal opinion from Church teaching. It is also in part because my personal opinion sometimes deviates from Church teaching, and I don’t like to get in arguments about that.

That said, given all the back and forth on this topic, its fair to ask what I think. I don’t think we can know with any certainly what will happen in the next life, but I think it most likely that we will all share a more or less common experience. I guess that essentially makes me a universalist, although that term is not a perfect fit for my beliefs. One could shoehorn my position into the Church’s teaching – the Church only really requires that one assent to the existence of Hell and the possibility of damnation. But I think it more fair to admit that my mostly universalist position is effectively at odds with what the Church teaches. Which is part of the reason why I am sometimes insistent that posters be clear as to what the Church teaches. People come both to learn what the Church teaches, and to discuss their own beliefs. We should make the two clear. Too often posters reflect their own beliefs onto the Church; I try to avoid that, as best I can with my limited skill set.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

you are not understanding what others are saying

I am sorry if it appears that way but I do understand what is being said. It is a type of universalism. It is popular but it is not what the Church has taught or teaches.

 

[goout]

goout:

you are not understanding what others are saying

It is a type of universalism.

Umm, no it’s not.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Umm, no it’s not.

“Umm”, so go back and read TMC’s latest post.

 

[TMC]

“Umm”, so go back and read TMC’s latest post.

I am not saying that the Church teaches universalism. In fact, I said that the Church does NOT teach universalism. Believing, as the Church teaches, that formal membership in the Church is not a strict prerequisite of salvation is not universalism.

 

[Crusader13]

I too am opposed to the view of universalism and I find that view to be at odds with Church teaching, regardless of how much emphasis others try to place on the mercy of Jesus Christ. I think Lumen Gentium was written as a modern understanding of salvation outside of the Catholic Church. In keeping with the entire pastoral tone of Vatican II, I believe LG was an attempt to soften the often rigid and condemning tone that some accused the Church of having in its relationship with other religions.

I believe that many have taken the words of LG to be more of a probability, rather than a possibility. For example one can look at the comment of Bishop Barron

“We have to accept the possibility of Hell. We have to accept the existence of it as a possibility because of human freedom. But, are any human beings in Hell. We don’t know. We don’t know. The Church has never declared on that subject. And we may pray that all be saved, and may even reasonably hope that all be saved…. It’s a theologically-grounded reasonable hope that all will be saved.”

I find comments such as these to be troubling and not a proper or fair understanding, not just of salvation outside of the Church, but salvation as a whole. There are several scripture verses that point to the existence of Hell as a certainty and not merely a possibility.

You also made the comment:

Certainly, the circumstances described in LG and the CC do not seem particularly rare.

I would suggest that LG does in fact speak to the rarity of invincible ignorance, as a means of salvation.

But very often (at saepius), deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21, 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord‘s command, ‗preach the Gospel to every creature‘ (Mk. 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions.

It would seem that the emphasis is still on evangelization, because those outside of the Church, or more specifically, those without an understanding of God’s plan and those who have rejected truth, are very often decived by the evil one.

So the idea that an atheist, can be saved, as a probability, doesn’t fit within the context of the document or even Church teaching. There is a possibility, based upon their inability and lack of culpability, to discern the truth, but this is not often the case. And the Church merely acknowledges it as a possibility and not a certainty.

I believe that scripture gives a proper understanding of salvation and those that find it.

Make your way in by the narrow gate. It is a broad gate and a wide road that leads on to perdition, and those who go in that way are many indeed; but how small is the gate, how narrow the road that leads on to life, and how few there are that find it! - Matthew 7: 13-14. Knox Bible

 

[TMC]

I would suggest that LG does in fact speak to the rarity of invincible ignorance, as a means of salvation.

I don’t see it that way. LG says that failure to join the Church is a bar to salvation only for those that know that joining the Church is required for salvation. Said another way, failing to join the Church ensures damnation only for those that know that decision will result in damnation. It seems to me it is a rare person who will decline to join the Church knowing that doing so will result in an eternity of unspeakable torment. So I think that the guarantee of damnation to those outside the Church is rare.

Of course, that does not mean that salvation outside the Church is common, merely that it is commonly possible.

 

[goout]

If you don’t have hope that all will be saved, then you simply don’t have the virtue of hope. And you should cultivate hope, practice hope, and attain the virtue of hope.

Christ died for the salvation of everyone. And the Church says what it says about salvation, and all the circular dancing in the world doesn’t change what the Magisterium of the Church says.

If you find yourself at odds with what Bishop Barron or anyone else of authority says, you might want to look at your understanding of it. Maybe your sense of it is right and Bp Barron and other’s sense of it is wrong, but if I were a betting man…(or simply an obedient Catholic…) I’m going with the Bishop.

 

[Crusader13]

I’m well aware that Christ died for everyone and should we pray for the salvation of everyone, absolutely. The only circular dancing that is being done, is by those who insist that everyone will be saved, which is far different then saying everyone can be saved. Maybe I missed the official magisterial teaching on the subject, but where in scripture or Church teaching does it say that we have a reasonable hope that all will be saved?

Again, all can be saved, but not all will be saved.

And my being at odds with Bishop Barron isn’t a matter of disobedience. I just believe him to be mistaken or flat out wrong with his comment. If I quote other Bishops or Cardinals from the past and even the present, who have a different view than Bishop Barron, would you say that he’s being disobedient to his superiors and by default I’m merely being obedient to those above him?

His comment implies that Hell is merely a possibility. That is FALSE!!! There are two places in which we will be spend eternity, Heaven or Hell. The existence of both is and has been a consistent teaching of the Church since Jesus himself spoke of both. Now people with similar views to Bp. Barron are trying to convince us that the existence Hell is merely a possibility??? And yet he elevates the possibility of non-Catholics being saved to a probability. I will not accept his personal interpretation on that matter, because it is not in line with Church teaching.