"no salvation except that within the Church"

[steve_b]

Another germane quotation from Cardinal De Lugo, responding to objections to baptism by implicit desire based on a faulty reading of Unam Sanctam:

“…It would follow that a Jew or other non-Christian could be saved; for he could have a supernatural faith in the one God, and be invincibly ignorant about Christ…The possibility of salvation for such a person is not ruled out…moreover, such a person should not be called a ‘non-Christian’, because, even through he has not been visibly joined to the church, still, interiorly he has the virtue of habitual and actual faith in common with the church, and in the sight of God he will be reckoned with the Christians…”

• Cardinal Juan de Lugo (1583-1660), De Libro hominis arbitrio et divina libri X

These theological arguments are very old. Anyone who thinks that the Council Fathers at Vatican II or some hippy-clappy, modernist theologian dreamed them ought to do some more study (a gentle nudge…).

St. Pope John Paul’s statements in various encyclicals in the '80s are practically lifted, almost verbatim, from Cardinal De Lugo thoughts and ideas in the 16th-17th centuries.

Ignorance, providing it is innocent, is the potential escape hatch. Ignorance however, is not always innocent

1791

 

[johnnyc176]

it is not having the right belief that gets us into Heaven but having the right kind of love.

Really? We can believe any old thing? Well there are many protestants who profess to loving Jesus but believe in contraception, homosexual marriage and even abortion. Jesus founded the Catholic Church in order to pass His teachings on. I think He was pretty concerned with what we believe.

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Love requires obedience.

 

[Gorgias]

Really? We can believe any old thing?

No, of course not.

The full teaching has been quoted here already; the standards vary by one’s situation in life. For a Catholic, that ‘love’ includes holding to the fullness of the truth that he’s been living within; for a non-Catholic Christian, that ‘love’ is still required, but they don’t have the fullness of the truth (so, implicitly, would one still require adherence to all the things that they don’t know to be true?); for a non-Christian, that is love as found in the ways that God has revealed Himself to them, even if not through the Gospel of Jesus.

Well there are many protestants who profess to loving Jesus but believe in contraception, homosexual marriage and even abortion.

And for these, the question is whether their ignorance is invincible.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes however it is written that Christ taught those in prison during the time Jesus was in the tomb. So they did have an opportunity to know Christ.

Judgement comes at death. But before Christ there was no judgement until after Christ’s death and resurrection.

That doesn’t imply that these people got a ‘free pass’ to convert after their death, though.

Your logic doesn’t hold up; and, in fact, it’s quite horrifying, when you consider the implications! Suppose there are two brothers, born in the densest part of the densest jungle in the world. Let’s further suppose that they’re good men – they don’t know anything about Judaism or Christianity, of course, but they try to follow the Good. The elder brother dies just as, coincidentally, the Last Supper is taking place. The younger brother dies a week later. By your logic, the elder brother was “taught in prison”, and had “an opportunity to know Christ”, and therefore, we presume, you mean to say that he was saved. The younger brother, however, died after Christ’s resurrection, and therefore, since there was already ‘judgment’, he went through the Particular Judgment, seeing Christ when he died and learning his fate.

By the way you wrote up your assertion, it seems that you’re saying that the younger brother – not knowing Christ and not being ‘taught in prison’ – is subject to a different judgment than his brother. Not only does that fly in the face of Catholic teaching, it’s horrifying to suggest that God is capricious (in this case, vis-a-vis time itself).

No, that’s not the teaching of the Church: rather, those who die without knowledge of Christ are judged on how well they sought out God in the ways that He was made known to them – whether they lived before Jesus’ earthly ministry or after.

 

[Gorgias]

Richard White:

In regard to today’s world, the fact of the matter is that, unless someone is invincibly ignorant (through no fault of their own do not know of Jesus and His Catholic Church), there is no way to be saved except through belief in Jesus and this is through the Catholic Church

I’ll never not believe that Muslims can make it to Heaven but Protestants cannot. That to me seems incredibly absurd.

You’ve got it right, StR! Richard is conflating “knowledge of the existence of the Catholic Church” with “knowledge that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth”. It’s the latter – not the former! – that is relevant here.

That means that those who originally left the Church (the Reformers and their contemporaries) are the ones upon whom the ‘anathemae’ of Trent are directed; and rightly so, since they left the fullness of the truth – which they had believed – in favor of doctrines which they developed on their own. However, their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren, who were raised in the context of the denominations their ancestors founded, may fall under the provisions of ‘invincible ignorance’: they know that the Catholic Church exists, but they’ve been raised to reject the Church. For them – who may be, as you point out, very loving people who believe in Christ – the culpability of their ignorance might not be imputed to them, and therefore, we’d never say that they (by definition) go to hell because they’ve lived in a context in which they misunderstand true doctrine.

The only way for a good man to go to hell is for him to become a Protestant?

It’s not as simple as that, though, right? What if the ‘good man’ was a Catholic, and knows the teachings of the Church, and believes in them? And then, later, decides to leave the Catholic Church for a Protestant denomination? In that case, we would say that he puts his immortal soul in peril… :sad_yes:

 

[johnnyc176]

No, of course not.

The full teaching has been quoted here already; the standards vary by one’s situation in life. For a Catholic, that ‘love’ includes holding to the fullness of the truth that he’s been living within; for a non-Catholic Christian, that ‘love’ is still required, but they don’t have the fullness of the truth (so, implicitly, would one still require adherence to all the things that they don’t know to be true?); for a non-Christian, that is love as found in the ways that God has revealed Himself to them, even if not through the Gospel of Jesus.

Oh I understand and assent to Jesus’ and His Church’s teaching on the matter but I do think that some Catholics take that teaching to the point that you wonder if they believe as the protestants do that being a member of the Church that Jesus founded isn’t necessary. The teaching is still no salvation outside the Church. As mentioned it has been written in a more positive light but the normal and best chance for a person to be saved is to be in the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church. Just as Noah was saved by listening to God and remaining in the Ark.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh I understand and assent to Jesus’ and His Church’s teaching on the matter but I do think that some Catholics take that teaching to the point that you wonder if they believe … that being a member of the Church that Jesus founded isn’t necessary.

I agree: some Catholics do not understand Church teaching.

you wonder if … protestants do [believe] that being a member of the Church that Jesus founded isn’t necessary

The question, really, isn’t whether people can be wrong, but whether they are culpable for that error and it keeps them from salvation. For (some? many?) Protestants, it would seem that the answer is ‘no’ – that is, that ‘invincible ignorance’ applies.

The teaching is still no salvation outside the Church. As mentioned it has been written in a more positive light but the normal and best chance for a person to be saved is to be in the Church that Jesus founded, the Catholic Church.

Yes, visible membership in the Catholic Church is the normative way that salvation is attained. Yet, that doesn’t mean that a lack of visible membership in the Catholic Church implies that one is not or can not be saved. (I get the sense that you and I are saying the same things, but in different ways…)

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church has never taught implicit faith brings about salvation immediately. Perhaps implicit faith is simply enough to latter bring about explicit faith through a miracle.

 

[Vouthon]

Ignorance, providing it is innocent, is the potential escape hatch. Ignorance however, is not always innocent

True.

I believe it is important, nevertheless, to understand precisely what the Church means by “ignorance” that is “invincible” (non-culpable). It is not as simple as never having heard of Christ and the Church (although this is possible for distant tribes).

At a certain level of awareness, a moral obligation develops impelling one to admit oneself to the fullness of Truth - this is for definite. Yet it is impossible for us to determine, from the exterior, how this plays out in individual circumstances, as Blessed Pope Pius IX explained:

“…It is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..”

- Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854

We are being judgemental if we think that we can set our own personal “limit” or “scope” to invincible ignorance. This is not some kind of liberal “any religion goes” heresy; rather it is a recognition of the complexity and deeply ingrained nature of the beliefs with which many people are brought up, or the psychological experiences they endure, that reduce or even annul their culpability in not coming to a full awareness of the Truth.

Only God can judge!!! He sees not as we see.

Here are two factors, among many innumerable ones, that the Church recognizes as “qualifying” for invincible ignorance:

1) Being raised in a non-Christian religion

“…It it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions…”

- St. Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990)

“…If I were born a Muslim, I believe that I would have always stayed a good Muslim, faithful to my religion…”

- St. Pope John XXIII (1881 – 1963)

**Radio Replies (1938, 1940, 1942) **

“Good non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have never known the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and who die sincerely repentant of such sins as they have committed, will save their souls.”

**179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?
**

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43.

**2) Being brought up with or exposed to gross prejudices against the faith **

“…Moreover, atheism results not rarely from a violent protest against the evil in this world, or from the absolute character with which certain human values are unduly invested, and which thereby already accords them the stature of God. Modern civilization itself often complicates the approach to God not for any essential reason but because it is so heavily engrossed in earthly affairs…believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion…”

- Gaudium et Spes (PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD), 1965

“…The barbarians are not bound to believe from the first announcement of the Christian faith, in the sense of sinning mortally by not believing due to this alone: because it is merely announced and proposed to them that the true religion is Christian, and that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the world, without miracles or any other proofs or arguments…it is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has thus far been proposed and announced to the barbarians so as to obligate them to believe it… It does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them suitably and piously, so as to obligate acquiescence…”

***- Francisco de Vitoria (ca. 1492-1546), De Indis (On the Indies), 1539

---

“…The invincibly ignorant are not obliged to believe unless the faith is fully presented and explained to them by suitable ministers. A great many unbelievers are excused from accepting the faith for a long time and perhaps for their whole lifetime, no matter how long it lasts, so long as they see the extremely corrupt and detestable conduct of the Christians…”

***- Bartolomé de las Casas (c. 1484–1566) Catholic Bishop, abolitionist and theologian ***

 

[simspt]

This is something that I have always had a terrible time with. The, “Christ is the only way” statement. First I’ll tell you what I believe and why I believe it, and then I would be interested to hear your views on the matter.

My opinion. I am a serious Christian, don’t let my “religion” listed on my profile confuse you. I may have a lot of confusion regarding the branches of Christiantity, but to me, Christ is the way to salvation. But I also believe that a Muslim can make it into Heaven, provided he is a great and loving person who loves all around him, including his God. I believe that if he makes it to Heaven, that he will make it there because Christ (through His death and resurrection) has made that possible for Him. Now, “no way but through Christ” could mean a number of things (to me). He could work things out after his death, maybe a purgatory type deal etc, I don’t know.

I also believe that people who were born before Christ can also make it into Heaven. This is a real tough reality here guys, for those of you who believe that you must be a professed Christian to make it into Heaven. In order to take a real stance on this doctorine you have to be ready to admit that all of the human beings who were born before Christ were created, born, and made to go to Hell. Essentially predestined. There is no way around it. They had no opportunity to know Christ ON EARTH DURING THEIR MORTAL STATE.

Ive actually heard some people remedy this by saying something like, “well, he made a special provision for those people.” Well great, I agree. But then you are saying that God, apparently, makes special provisions to the “must be a Christian” rule. If you believe that He has made this ruling in the past, why are you certain He no longer does?

Even today, there are groups of people on this Earth who have never even heard of Jesus. I absolutely cannot believe that our Lord would create people and totally leave them out there cut and dry with no opportunity whatsoever for salvation, and that despite how wonderful they be, they are simply going to hell.

I would love to hear your opinions on the matter, and your opinions on my opinions. Thanks!

here is a good source to become familiar with re your topic…
amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/1592440088/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436542578&sr=1-3

another good resource
Pope Benedict’s writings such as Spe Salvi (English: Saved in Hope)
amazon.com/Saved-Hope-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/1586172514/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436542878&sr=8-1&keywords=Spe+Salvi

 

[steve_b]

True.

I believe it is important, nevertheless, to understand precisely what the Church means by “ignorance” that is “invincible” (non-culpable). It is not as simple as never having heard of Christ and the Church (although this is possible for distant tribes).

At a certain level of awareness, a moral obligation develops impelling one to admit oneself to the fullness of Truth - this is for definite. Yet it is impossible for us to determine, from the exterior, how this plays out in individual circumstances, as Blessed Pope Pius IX explained:

Agreed.
V:

We are being judgemental if we think that we can set our own personal “limit” or “scope” to invincible ignorance. This is not some kind of liberal “any religion goes” heresy; rather it is a recognition of the complexity and deeply ingrained nature of the beliefs with which many people are brought up, or the psychological experiences they endure, that reduce or even annul their culpability in not coming to a full awareness of the Truth.

Again, I agree.

However,

We can’t get ourselves wrapped around the following axels either.

Following From http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

We obviously need to be aware of what WE know and are to pass onto others for their own good.
V:

Only God can judge!!! He sees not as we see.

Here are two factors, among many innumerable ones, that the Church recognizes as “qualifying” for invincible ignorance:

The mitigating factor always comes back to “through no fault of their own”

IOW, their ignorance is innocent. They don’t cause, nor have their own fingerprints all over the factors causing their own ignorance.

 

[thinkandmull]

No Catholic denies that a pagan in good faith will be led by God to heaven, if that pagan perseveres. Some believe explicit faith is necessary for justification though

 

[steve_b]

No Catholic denies that a pagan in good faith will be led by God to heaven, if that pagan perseveres. Some believe explicit faith is necessary for justification though

I just selected a few of the errors in thinking mentioned in this encyclical

Taken From http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

 

[ericc]

I am just a tad concern about folks thinking “invincible ignorance” is a gate pass to salvation.

"Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources. "

In the past people because of time or geographical inaccessibility may avail themselves of invincible ignorance. However, current times would make it difficult for people to claim invincible ignorance when information is so readily available. If churches are teaching another gospel which is different from one that is taught by Christ, and reasonable diligence would be able to get you the correct answer, to remain in those churches and claiming invincible ignorance in my POV is clinging on to false hopes that it is available to them. Your conscience will tell you that it is not available although the legal mind might want to argue it otherwise.

 

[fbl9]

That doesn’t imply that these people got a ‘free pass’ to convert after their death, though.

Your logic doesn’t hold up; and, in fact, it’s quite horrifying, when you consider the implications! Suppose there are two brothers, born in the densest part of the densest jungle in the world. Let’s further suppose that they’re good men – they don’t know anything about Judaism or Christianity, of course, but they try to follow the Good. The elder brother dies just as, coincidentally, the Last Supper is taking place. The younger brother dies a week later. By your logic, the elder brother was “taught in prison”, and had “an opportunity to know Christ”, and therefore, we presume, you mean to say that he was saved. The younger brother, however, died after Christ’s resurrection, and therefore, since there was already ‘judgment’, he went through the Particular Judgment, seeing Christ when he died and learning his fate.

By the way you wrote up your assertion, it seems that you’re saying that the younger brother – not knowing Christ and not being ‘taught in prison’ – is subject to a different judgment than his brother. Not only does that fly in the face of Catholic teaching, it’s horrifying to suggest that God is capricious (in this case, vis-a-vis time itself).

No, that’s not the teaching of the Church: rather, those who die without knowledge of Christ are judged on how well they sought out God in the ways that He was made known to them – whether they lived before Jesus’ earthly ministry or after.

never said a word about one being saved, but your choice:shrug:.
and the one whom went through particular judgment would be judged on what? You answered that in the last of your post.

 

[Gorgias]

"Ignorance is invincible if a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer. Ignorance is vincible if a person could remove it by applying reasonable diligence. Reasonable diligence, in turn, is that diligence that a conscientious person would display in seeking the correct answer to a question given (a) the gravity of the question and (b) his particular resources. "

The question, of course, is what “his particular resources” means.

However, current times would make it difficult for people to claim invincible ignorance when information is so readily available.

You seem to be implying that the presence of the internet, per se, means that sufficient (text) resources exist to most every person. Akin doesn’t say “text resources”, however. In fact, what he does say is:

The particular resources a person has include (a) the ease with which he can obtain the information necessary to determine the answer and (b) the ease with which he can make an accurate evaluation of the evidence once it is in his possession.

In other words, you’re talking about Akin’s point ‘a’, while ignoring his point ‘b’. If a person cannot make an accurate evaluation of the evidence in his possession – perhaps because he was raised in an environment which is biased against the truth of Catholicism – then all the information which is available in the world will not create a context of ‘vincible ignorance’.

 

[Gorgias]

never said a word about one being saved

Umm… no?

fbl9:

St Redemption:

you have to be ready to admit that all of the human beings who were born before Christ were created, born, and made to go to Hell. Essentially predestined. There is no way around it. They had no opportunity to know Christ ON EARTH DURING THEIR MORTAL STATE.

Yes however it is written that Christ taught those in prison during the time Jesus was in the tomb. So they did have an opportunity to know Christ.

StR served up the assertion that those born before Christ were ‘essentially predestined’ ‘to go to Hell’. You mentioned that these ‘had the opportunity to know Christ’ based on being ‘taught in prison.’ In other words, you’re arguing for those who are saved by virtue of being in Sheol prior to the resurrection. You aren’t talking about ‘one being saved’? Your choice.

 

[thinkandmull]

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

This is error because it implies that all the religions are equal before the tribunal of reason

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. – Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

This is error because it implies that someone can reject truth and still be saved by being religions

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

First, it said “all those”. That may be an error. Also, those outside the visible Church who are saved cannot be said to have been “not at all in the true Church”.

1. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. – Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

The truth in the Catholic Church is pleasing to God, which this proposition denies

 

[steve_b]

True.

I believe it is important, nevertheless, to understand precisely what the Church means by “ignorance” that is “invincible” (non-culpable). It is not as simple as never having heard of Christ and the Church (although this is possible for distant tribes).

At a certain level of awareness, a moral obligation develops impelling one to admit oneself to the fullness of Truth - this is for definite. Yet it is impossible for us to determine, from the exterior, how this plays out in individual circumstances, as Blessed Pope Pius IX explained:

We are being judgemental if we think that we can set our own personal “limit” or “scope” to invincible ignorance. This is not some kind of liberal “any religion goes” heresy; rather it is a recognition of the complexity and deeply ingrained nature of the beliefs with which many people are brought up, or the psychological experiences they endure, that reduce or even annul their culpability in not coming to a full awareness of the Truth.

Only God can judge!!! He sees not as we see.

Here are two factors, among many innumerable ones, that the Church recognizes as “qualifying” for invincible ignorance:
1) Being raised in a non-Christian religion

**2) Being brought up with or exposed to gross prejudices against the faith **

I agree, I also think too many people use the term invincible ignorance too quickly as if it is an automatic escape. Here’s the explanation I’ve given in the past on invincible ignorance.

#14

 

[fbl9]

Umm… no?

StR served up the assertion that those born before Christ were ‘essentially predestined’ ‘to go to Hell’. You mentioned that these ‘had the opportunity to know Christ’ based on being ‘taught in prison.’ In other words, you’re arguing for those who are saved by virtue of being in Sheol prior to the resurrection. You aren’t talking about ‘one being saved’? Your choice.

pray tell what was Jesus teaching those in prison.
Now remember the conditions that apply. One was sincerely seeking God. Now if one was sincerely seeking God and upon being taught that God was standing in front of you would one not accept God as He presented Himself?
What virtue is there in being in Sheol, that you some how gleaned from my post. Heaven was closed till after Christ’s resurrection". Where else did they go?

Being taught in hell, gives one an automatic pass. not sure where I stated that.
Being taught in hell, gives one the opportunity to be saved.

Upon being judged by the God, whom one sincerely seeks, also gives one the opportunity to be saved.