Michael Voris leaves out crucial information in "Vortex" episode

[Crusader13]

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.

I understand what you’re saying. It presents a myriad of problems however, because if someone is taught that there is no afterlife, then the necessity of joining any church, let alone the Catholic Church, would be meaningless to that person. Yet, simply refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ because you do not believe in Him or his message wouldn’t qualify as being incapable of knowing the truth.

Ralph Martin speaks on this in his article Doctrinal Clarity for the New Evangelization: The Importance of Lumen Gentium 16 (Published in the Fall 2011 edition of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Quarterly) in it he quotes from a Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston:

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‖ (Heb. 11: 6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): ―Faith is the beginning of 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‖ (DS 1532).14

Ralph Martin explains his thoughts on the passage and in my own opinion, I think he sums it up perfectly and to a degree that allows the Church teaching on the matter to be better understood.

Since supernatural faith and charity are necessary for salvation it is clear that not just any metaphysical or vague acknowledgement of God or ―religion‖ or ―morality‖ is sufficient in itself for salvation. Some kind of personal response to grace that involves a surrender in obedience to God who reveals himself, with an accompanying measure of the conforming of one‘s life (charity) to his will as he makes it known and as he gives grace to live in harmony with it, and persevere in it to the end, is essential for salvation.

 

[goout]

You don’t understand the bishop’s comments.

 

[TMC]

Yet, simply refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ because you do not believe in Him or his message wouldn’t qualify as being incapable of knowing the truth.

I actually think this is exactly what invincible ignorance means, and that such a person is the kind of person that the Pope is talking about when he says that good atheists can be saved.

As to Mr. Martin’s comments, to the extent he is saying that baptism of desire requires a belief in God, I think that contradicts the plain language of LG, which pretty clearly says the opposite.

 

[Crusader13]

Would that same ignorance apply to those of other faith’s that outright deny the divinity of Christ? For example, many JW’s are very knowledgeable about scripture, even if their views and interpretations have been shown to be contrary to what many would label, orthodox Christianity. If someone is taught to seek God, but in seeking him they are taught to deny his Son, I’m not sure if they are free from any culpability, merely because they were lead to deny the truth.

I’m not saying that I would want to condemn anyone who denies Christ, but I don’t think I’d be doing them any favors, by telling them “well Catholicism and belief in Jesus Christ is merely the privileged way of salvation, but since you don’t believe in Christ, you’re still probably going to be saved because you’re seeking truth about God based upon what you were taught.”

I’m not implying that I know for a fact that everyone, without exception, who isn’t a faithful Catholic, will be going to Hell. I just don’t want to tell people that they are safe in their ignorance. I feel that we have been given a great gift of faith and not just as holders of partial truth or revelation, but as members of the one true faith and of the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ himself. If we are called to evangelize and to go forth and teach others about the saving power of baptism and faith, then why tell the world that they are probably safe without it.

 

[Crusader13]

You don’t understand the bishop’s comments.

I took his comment to mean exactly what he was saying. He said we need to acknowledge the existence of hell as a real possibility. I just can’t square that statement with what scripture states about the existence of hell as being a certainty. And an eternal one at that.

 

[Joe_5859]

Yeah, I don’t think that’s Voris.

CAF user Church Militant is not Michael Voris. He had that user name long before Real Catholic TV changed their name to Church Militant.

 

[TMC]

Would that same ignorance apply to those of other faith’s that outright deny the divinity of Christ?

Yes. Again, I think this is the very point of the doctrine. If someone knows that Christ is divine and has established a Church that all must join, but obstinately refuses to do so, that person’s guilt for that act is plain. But if someone does not know those things, where is the source of his guilt? He would have accidentally condemned himself to Hell, despite doing what he firmly believed was right and just. That would mean that accidents of birth and upbringing play a larger role, a much larger role, in salvation than how a person lives their life. That makes no sense to me. More important to this discussion, I do not believe it is consistent with Catholic teaching.

 

[TMC]

I took his comment to mean exactly what he was saying. He said we need to acknowledge the existence of hell as a real possibility . I just can’t square that statement with what scripture states about the existence of hell as being a certainty. And an eternal one at that.

I find scripture to be unclear and somewhat ambivalent on the nature of Hell. But I agree that the Church teaches that Hell exists - but does not require that we believe that anyone is in Hell. (Of course, if Hell exists it seems to me that it exists for a purpose, but it remains my understanding that the Church has not definitively held that any particular person is in Hell, or that we must believe that anyone is damned.) So it would seem that teaching the Hell possibly exists would contradict that teaching, but teaching that it is possible that some people are in Hell does not.

 

[Crusader13]

But if someone does not know those things, where is the source of his guilt?

I think this is where the issue comes from in terms of culpability. If one religion teaches their follows that Christ is not divine and worship of Him is not merely unnecessary, but prohibited; then that is a freely given choice to believe something that is not true. In most cases, adults are free to choose what they wish to believe, especially here in the US in terms of religion and faith. So if said person is presented with TRUTHS that pertain to the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ; and they willfully choose not to believe them, how are they free from guilt?

To say, well they may not have known it was true, does not exempt them from having to follow God’s plan of salvation. Why? Because God, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have given us the means of passing on these truths, truths that do not change over time. And when in history others have exchanged these truths for a lie, as in the case of Martin Luther, they have chosen to willfully stop following what is true. Their mental reasoning of saying “well I don’t believe that is true”, does not make said truth, any less foundational. We can’t compromise what we know to be true simply because others do not wish to believe it.

That is why throughout the ages the Catholic Church has been so unwilling to concede that anyone can be saved, simply because they choose not believe in the truths that the Catholic Church is sharing. There are absolutes that Jesus speaks about in scripture such as, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you; Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, I am the way, the TRUTH and the life. These cannot be placed aside simply because someone does not think these statements are necessary for their salvation.

 

[TMC]

I think this is where the issue comes from in terms of culpability. If one religion teaches their follows that Christ is not divine and worship of Him is not merely unnecessary, but prohibited; then that is a freely given choice to believe something that is not true. In most cases, adults are free to choose what they wish to believe, especially here in the US in terms of religion and faith. So if said person is presented with TRUTHS that pertain to the Catholic faith and Jesus Christ; and they willfully choose not to believe them, how are they free from guilt?

To say, well they may not have known it was true, does not exempt them from having to follow God’s plan of salvation. Why? Because God, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have given us the means of passing on these truths, truths that do not change over time. And when in history others have exchanged these truths for a lie, as in the case of Martin Luther, they have chosen to willfully stop following what is true. Their mental reasoning of saying “well I don’t believe that is true”, does not make said truth, any less foundational. We can’t compromise what we know to be true simply because others do not wish to believe it.

That is why throughout the ages the Catholic Church has been so unwilling to concede that anyone can be saved, simply because they choose not believe in the truths that the Catholic Church is sharing. There are absolutes that Jesus speaks about in scripture such as, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you; Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, I am the way, the TRUTH and the life . These cannot be placed aside simply because someone does not think these statements are necessary for their salvation.

Frankly, I think that this is a more or less accurate summary of what the Church has taught at some points in history, but it is not what the Church teaches now. At least that is the way I read LG and the CC, and based on their statements, the way the leadership of the Church reads it. So one can argue that the current Church teaching is wrong, and should give way to the teaching from one of those earlier periods, but I don’t see how what you wrote lines up with what the Church teaches today. As just one obvious example, how would you reconcile the Church’s clear teaching that Jews may be saved without accepting Christ as the Messiah?

 

[goout]

Here it is. Anyone can listen to it.

You. do. not. understand. what. he. is. saying.

 

[Crusader13]

No, I pretty much understand exactly what he’s trying to infer. I’ve watched this video before and I watched it again for good measure. He’s not saying that Universalism is a certainty, but a possibility, a reasonable possibility that we can all hope for. I don’t think that it is reasonable or even a possibility. The realities of hell are not merely metaphors or a state of being in one’s mind.

But if you feel that I’m wrong in my understanding, then perhaps you can shed some light onto what he is trying to say. You keep pointing out that I do not understand what he is saying, but you haven’t actually stated to me what his words mean. Because according to you, what he is saying, isn’t actually what he is saying.

 

[Crusader13]

As just one obvious example, how would you reconcile the Church’s clear teaching that Jews may be saved without accepting Christ as the Messiah?

In reference to the Jews possibly being saved without accepting Christ, I’m not sure which specific Church document you are referring to. If you’re referencing LG, where it speaks of Jews and Muslims being related to the Catholic Church, this relatedness is not salvific. Meaning, they aren’t saved merely because they are Jews or Muslims.

To summarize my understanding of the salvation of non-Catholics and I use that term to signify all non-Christians as well and how it relates to such documents as LG, is this.

I personally believe that modern theologians and lay Catholics as well, have taken LG to mean that non-Catholics are saved apart from the Catholic Church and without even a basic belief in God or more specifically Jesus Christ. Why? Because at times it is seen as uncharitable and disrespectful to other religions, to say that they are in danger of eternal damnation because of their misguided and at times heretical views about the Church, Jesus, the Trinity, so on and so forth. So instead we extend olive branches of ecumenical peace by implying that the Catholic Church is the privileged way of salvation, but there are other ways as well and their salvation is no longer a possibility, but more of a probability; and at times even a certainty.

I don’t believe that LG was saying this or even hinting at this in the slightest. I believe this because, there is no official Church document, teaching or Tradition, that I am aware of, that explicitly states that, the Church, baptism and a belief in Jesus Christ as the second person of the Holy Trinity, is not required for salvation. In fact, LG emphasizes the need to continue to evangelize; because the salvation of non-Catholics is not a certainty, nor is it even a probability, but merely a possibility. And a rare possibility at that, because the conditions of invincible ignorance are not common place. It actually states that very often, this is not the case, but instead men are mislead by the Evil One and have exchanged the TRUTH of God for a lie.

So we as Catholics should not be made to feel uncharitable for speaking the truth. Are there possible exceptions to being saved while remaining outside of the Catholic Church, yes. But they are only possibilities and are not guaranteed in any way whatsoever.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

A verse from the reading of today’s daily Mass:

He is the stone rejected by you, the builders,
which has become the cornerstone.
There is no salvation through anyone else,
nor is there any other name under heaven
given to the human race by which we are to be saved."

The following article dates back to 2011 when the missal was being updated. It is very relevant today and written by a very good priest, Father Longenecker, on the dangers of universalism, semiuniversalism and the belief that all will be saved or the hope that all will be saved. He calls it diabolical.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker Addresses the Danger of Universalism - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

Of all the various Hydra heads of modernism, universalism is probably the most insidious and diabolical and destructive The effects of universalism on the church are catastrophic. It's not real ...

www.catholic.org

 

[TMC]

In reference to the Jews possibly being saved without accepting Christ, I’m not sure which specific Church document you are referring to. If you’re referencing LG, where it speaks of Jews and Muslims being related to the Catholic Church, this relatedness is not salvific. Meaning, they aren’t saved merely because they are Jews or Muslims.

No there are Church documents that specifically say that Jews can be saved without conversion (although I also think that is a fair reading of LG). Nostra Aetate is explicit on the topic (I think based on memory), and there was a restatement of Nostra Aetate made on its 50th anniversary that I know was explicit.

I personally believe that modern theologians and lay Catholics as well, have taken LG to mean that non-Catholics are saved apart from the Catholic Church and without even a basic belief in God or more specifically Jesus Christ. Why?

Why? Because that is what LG says. It says so expressly:

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.

Those without an explicit knowledge of God are atheists, and this says they may be saved. Pretty straightforward.

Are there possible exceptions to being saved while remaining outside of the Catholic Church, yes. But they are only possibilities and are not guaranteed in any way whatsoever.

Yes, possibilities are all that anyone has. The Church teaches that salvation is possible for Catholics. The Church also teaches that salvation is possible for non-Catholics. Is it probably for either category? The Church does not say. Is it more probably for Catholics, presumably the Church would say “yes”, but salvation is possible for both, at least according to the Church.

 

[commenter]

The quote from LG includes the phrase “Without blame on their part”.
There is a presumption now that everyone who has a different opinion of some or all of Christianity, is therefore blameless if they choose not to live it.

This puts someone in North America or Europe who has heard the message of Christianity in the same category as someone in certain countries where missionaries have no access, who has no idea what it’s about.

 

[TMC]

The quote from LG includes the phrase “Without blame on their part”.
There is a presumption now that everyone who has a different opinion of some or all of Christianity, is therefore blameless if they choose not to live it.

This puts someone in North America or Europe who has heard the message of Christianity in the same category as someone in certain countries where missionaries have no access, who has no idea what it’s about.

I agree that “without blame” is vague, but it is also broad. Let’s say a person is born in Europe to a Muslim family and raised Muslim. Or even use a Lutheran for that matter. This person firmly and in good faith believes their religion is correct, and lives a good life. Should that person be damned to eternal torment just because he was born into the Muslim, or Lutheran, faith? He did not make that choice - God did.

But LG goes farther than that and explains that the “auto” damnation of EENS only applies when the person knows that joining the Church is necessary for salvation, but nonetheless refuses to do so (as posted above). That is what LG says, and that seems like a fair explanation of what “without blame” should mean - that they do not understand. Otherwise, what does that additional section of LG mean?

 

[goout]

Yo. Heads up.

[1821] We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will.92 In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end"93 and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."94 She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:

It seems the Church is endorsing universalism according to the misunderstandings of some.

 

[commenter]

I wasn’t thinking of the person currently practicing some other religion, but the vast numbers - certainly the majority now in Western Europe, and soon in North America; those effectively secularized, even if they occasionally visit their childhood denominations.

 

[goout]

Christian zeal should not be for the certainty that some are damned. It might give us disordered comfort to entertain that thought, but that is NOT WHAT HOPE IS.
Our Christian zeal should be to broadcast the hope of salvation that Christ offers to everyone.