"No Salvation outside the Catholic Church"

[jimmy]

This is what the Roman Catechism says about those who are not part of the Church.

The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.

…

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

It says this about the Church.

This Church was founded not by man, but by the immortal God Himself, who built her upon a most solid rock. The Highest himself, says the Prophet, hath founded her. Hence, she is called the inheritance of God, the people of God. The power which she possesses is not from man but from God.

Since this power, therefore, cannot be of human origin, divine faith can alone enable us to understand that the keys of the. kingdom of heaven are deposited with the Church, that to her has been confided the power of remitting sins," of denouncing excommunication, and of consecrating the real body of Christ; and t}tat her children have not here a permanent dwelling, but look for one above.

The Church is also clear on outside the Church there is no salvation. For those quotes you can see USMC’s posts which were very well done. The only way someone can recieve salvation from outside the Church is to have invincible ignorance, and I guess vincible ignorance would work on some occasions according to St. Thomas.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

This explicitely says that protestants do not belong to the Church even though there is some mystical bond between them and the Church. The only reason why it does not mention invincible ignorance in reference to the protestants though is because it does not deal with their salvation. It is very clear that protestants are not part of the Church when it says things like.

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."

When the Catechism of St. Pius X says the below it is very clear that protestants are not part of the Church.

**9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church? **

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

**12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ? **

A: No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

But this does deal with their slavation (and the Church is never disengenous: she knows full well that there are few if any committed, but non-Catholic Christians who are not aware of the Catholic Church, so invincible ignorance still cannot contextually be applied to them from the CCC):

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

They are indeed seperate (sorry if I wasn’t clear), but the sin of BEING seperate cannot be laid to their charge. They still have to persist in a state of grace, die in that state, etc.(just because one believes in “once saved, always saved” doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen, no matter how sincere you are, just as no one is saved by “solo fide,” no matter how much they believe in it). Moreover, those who are saved owe their salvation to the Catholic Church’s mediation of that salvation, because it was to the Catholic Church that Jesus intrusted the mediation of that salvation. I always rather imagine Purgatory has got lots of faithful, Christ-loving Protestants taking remedial classes in “Mary: Why You Should Have Mentioned Her More Often Than At Christmas,” and “Body and Blood: How Could He Have Been Any Plainer?” and “The Papacy: Because Someone Has to Draw the Line Somewhere.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jimmy:

…When the Catechism of St. Pius X says the below it is very clear that protestants are not part of the Church.

Look at what else St. Pius X states in the same Catechism…

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X:

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Let’s break down and explain this assertion by St. Pius X…

“through no fault of his” = invincibly ignorant, as such ignorance is the only form that is non-culpable.

“if he is in good faith.” “Good faith” means, “the mental and moral state of honest, even if objectively unfounded, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition…One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless…This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Good Faith). So, just as St. Thomas asserts, they may honestly hold to erroneous convictions, but may be guitless in doing so.

**"received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism" **this means that the desire for baptism need not be explicit, such as that of a Catechumen, but can be merely implicit. Pius XII describes this as “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

"he sincerely seeks the truth," ie. lacks obstinacy and negligence.

**"does God’s will as best he can", **ie. bound to live in accord with the doctrines of faith and morals as he understands them

**"united to the soul of the Church" **this affirms they are saved in the unity of the “ark of salvation,” just as St. Augustine asserted: “it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39)

*"consequently is on the way of salvation" *ie.,are within the same ark of salvation as those joined in body and soul to the Church, but have no more assurance of final perseverence than Catholics.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The only way someone can recieve salvation from outside the Church is to have invincible ignorance, and I guess vincible ignorance would work on some occasions according to St. Thomas.

Yes, but as USMC and I have asserted, ignorance alone, even invincible ignorance is not salvific. One must have been given the gift of supernatural faith, hope, and charity. Which brings us back to the issue we differ on… what kind of faith is the necessary condition for salvation? Explicit, implicit, or both?

If there’s a magisterial text which clearly addresses this question and decides the issue, I have not found it yet. The only reference from a pope that I have found is by John Paul II in a non-magisterial text… “**In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” **(John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope). Implicit faith is the necessary condition for salvific faith. Can one be saved by faith alone? NO. Thus implicit faith is not sufficient for salvation, but it is THE necessary condition pertaining to supernatural faith.

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

But this does deal with their slavation (and the Church is never disengenous: she knows full well that there are few if any committed, but non-Catholic Christians who are not aware of the Catholic Church, so invincible ignorance still cannot contextually be applied to them from the CCC):

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

They are indeed seperate (sorry if I wasn’t clear), but the sin of BEING seperate cannot be laid to their charge. They still have to persist in a state of grace, die in that state, etc.(just because one believes in “once saved, always saved” doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen, no matter how sincere you are, just as no one is saved by “solo fide,” no matter how much they believe in it). Moreover, those who are saved owe their salvation to the Catholic Church’s mediation of that salvation, because it was to the Catholic Church that Jesus intrusted the mediation of that salvation. I always rather imagine Purgatory has got lots of faithful, Christ-loving Protestants taking remedial classes in “Mary: Why You Should Have Mentioned Her More Often Than At Christmas,” and “Body and Blood: How Could He Have Been Any Plainer?” and “The Papacy: Because Someone Has to Draw the Line Somewhere.”

When the catechism says that

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers

The assumption is that they are seperated due to no fault of their own, hence invincible ignorance. If you are somehow not invincibly ignorant of your current situation you are preventing union with the body of Christ. They can’t be charged with abandoning the truth because they did not have it but they could definately be charged with rejecting the truth due to their prejudice or what ever. As itsjustdave posted above there may be some factors though that may decrease their culpability. There verywell may be many protestants saved, but it is through there ignorance of the truth.

Christ uses these communities as means of salvation in the same way He would use a Bhuddist community for salvation. It will lead them to a greater truth in which their salvation is found. These churches are not means seperate from the Church. They are means in that they are united with the Church. There is a great bond between protestants and the Church so it is certainly possible that a protestant will recieve salvation. But an obstinate protestant who persists in his error because of his own fault is commiting a grave act.

 

[jimmy]

itsjustdave1988:

Look at what else St. Pius X states in the same Catechism…

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X:

Let’s break down and explain this assertion by St. Pius X…

“through no fault of his” = invincibly ignorant, as such ignorance is the only form that is non-culpable.

“if he is in good faith.” “Good faith” means, “the mental and moral state of honest, even if objectively unfounded, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition…One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless…This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Good Faith). So, just as St. Thomas asserts, they may honestly hold to erroneous convictions, but may be guitless in doing so.

"received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism" this means that the desire for baptism need not be explicit, such as that of a Catechumen, but can be merely implicit. Pius XII describes this as “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

“he sincerely seeks the truth,” ie. lacks obstinacy and negligence.

"does God’s will as best he can", ie. bound to live in accord with the doctrines of faith and morals as he understands them

"united to the soul of the Church" this affirms they are saved in the unity of the “ark of salvation,” just as St. Augustine asserted: “it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39)

"consequently is on the way of salvation" ie.,are within the same ark of salvation as those joined in body and soul to the Church, but have no more assurance of final perseverence than Catholics.

itsjustdave, wow. You are good with your sources. I was looking for that quote because I have used it before in opposition to feeneyism but I could not find it.

I acknowledge that quote.

 

[jimmy]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but as USMC and I have asserted, ignorance alone, even invincible ignorance is not salvific. One must have been given the gift of supernatural faith, hope, and charity. Which brings us back to the issue we differ on… what kind of faith is the necessary condition for salvation? Explicit, implicit, or both?

If there’s a magisterial text which clearly addresses this question and decides the issue, I have not found it yet. The only reference from a pope that I have found is by John Paul II in a non-magisterial text… “In the very search for faith an implicit faith is already present, and therefore the necessary condition for salvation is already satisfied.” (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope). Implicit faith is the necessary condition for salvific faith. Can one be saved by faith alone? NO. Thus implicit faith is not sufficient for salvation, but it is THE necessary condition pertaining to supernatural faith.

Of course. I was not trying to imply that just anyone who is invincibly ignorant is automatically saved. I was simply implying that you must pursue the truth as you see it. If you are creating obstacles between yourself and the truth in the physical world you are also doing it in the spiritual realm as well.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

When the catechism says that

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers

The assumption is that they are seperated due to no fault of their own, hence invincible ignorance. **I do not see that as the assumption at all. If they are aware of the Catholic Church (which they would be, because they want to know what the Catholic Church teaches about THEM), then they aren’t ignorant. So there is no “hence” to invincible ignorance. **

Christ uses these communities as means of salvation in the same way He would use a Bhuddist community for salvation.
**Not at all!!! The Catechism is very specific, what is salvific in these communities is what they derive or have in common with the Catholic Church (ie, belief in the Trinity, the salvific nature of Christ’s death, the Hypostatic Union, etc., baptism). **
It will lead them to a greater truth in which their salvation is found. That is what the Catechism hopes, certainly (all of these things are “calls to unity” in the Catholic Church), however, look at that again: "Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, ie, something with the ability to save. These churches are not means seperate from the Church. **I agree. **They are means in that they are united with the Church. They aren’t VISIBLY united to the Church and many of them would be offended at the notion that they are united in any way, except insofar as they believe that there are SOME Catholics who are saved. They are “means” insofar as they are derived FROM the Catholic Church. There is a great bond between protestants and the Church so it is certainly possible that a protestant will recieve salvation. But an obstinate protestant who persists in his error because of his own fault is commiting a grave act.

I don’t believe our obstinate protestant will stand condemned unless in his heart/mind he truly does believe that Catholicism is correct and he then fails to act on that belief, either out of pride or fear. If he genuinely seeks to follow Christ, in faith, in obedience, in love, like Dr. Grahmn, or CS Lewis (a good friend of JRR Tolkien, who urged him to convert to Catholicism), or Dietrich Bonhoffer, or Lottie Moon, etc, I don’t despair much for their salvation, though there is obviously no absolute certainty (that’s what I meant when I said earlier, in the end, Jesus will know His own). I’m not being an indifferentist, I’m simply saying that in the CCC, invincible ignorance doesn’t apply to our protestant brothers and sisters in the passages that deal with them and I don’t think you’ve made a case for the “assumption” of invincible ignorance on the part of the CCC.

 

[hurst]

jimmy:

If you are creating obstacles between yourself and the truth in the physical world you are also doing it in the spiritual realm as well.

This stands to reason, and even reminded me of a scripture passage:

John 3:12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?

hurst

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t believe our obstinate protestant will stand condemned unless in his heart/mind he truly does believe that Catholicism is correct and he then fails to act on that belief, either out of pride or fear. If he genuinely seeks to follow Christ, in faith, in obedience, in love, like Dr. Grahmn, or CS Lewis (a good friend of JRR Tolkien, who urged him to convert to Catholicism),

So now are we including those who are not invincibly ignorant, and who obstinately reject the Church? CS Lewis rejected the Catholic Church. Unless he renounces his error (and we have no reason to think he did), he is in the depths of hell as we speak.

Do you see where this leads? Now every sincere person will be saved, even if they have heard and “obstinately” rejected the Catholic Church.

This is reducing the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church to a meaningless formula.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

USMC:

So now are we including those who are not invincibly ignorant, and who obstinately reject the Church? CS Lewis rejected the Catholic Church. Unless he renounces his error (and we have no reason to think he did), he is in the depths of hell as we speak.

Do you see where this leads? Now every sincere person will be saved, even if they have heard and “obstinately” rejected the Catholic Church.

This is reducing the doctrine of no salvation outside the Church to a meaningless formula.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950: “Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation”.

You know, truly, I’ve no idea. I have an emotional investment in this and it torments me. I’ve taken great hope in how I’ve read the Catechism (cited by me above) and if it isn’t true, then I don’t know what I will do.

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

I don’t believe our obstinate protestant will stand condemned unless in his heart/mind he truly does believe that Catholicism is correct and he then fails to act on that belief, either out of pride or fear. If he genuinely seeks to follow Christ, in faith, in obedience, in love, like Dr. Grahmn, or CS Lewis (a good friend of JRR Tolkien, who urged him to convert to Catholicism), or Dietrich Bonhoffer, or Lottie Moon, etc, I don’t despair much for their salvation, though there is obviously no absolute certainty (that’s what I meant when I said earlier, in the end, Jesus will know His own). I’m not being an indifferentist, I’m simply saying that in the CCC, invincible ignorance doesn’t apply to our protestant brothers and sisters in the passages that deal with them and I don’t think you’ve made a case for the “assumption” of invincible ignorance on the part of the CCC.

If they are obstinately against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then they are not sincere in their faith. They are two contradictory states of mind. I don’t know the states of the hearts of any of the people you mention but if they were unwilling to accept the truth of the Church out of fear how can you say they would accept the truth of God? To reject Christs Church is the same as to reject Christ. Christ specifically told His apostles this. It is very clear.

 

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

You know, truly, I’ve no idea. I have an emotional investment in this and it torments me. I’ve taken great hope in how I’ve read the Catechism (cited by me above) and if it isn’t true, then I don’t know what I will do.

If you have an emotional investment just hope and pray that God enlightens that person who you fear for. If God grants them the charity to accept the truth in their heart they will be saved. We really have no knowledge of the state of a persons heart. That is only the knowledge of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JKirkLVNV:

You know, truly, I’ve no idea. I have an emotional investment in this and it torments me. I’ve taken great hope in how I’ve read the Catechism (cited by me above) and if it isn’t true, then I don’t know what I will do.

I believe obstinancy is culpable since it is contrary to honestly seeking to know the truth.

With that said, I know of many non-Catholics who may *appear *to be obstinant, but I think that they may be God-fearing believers just like Cornelius and perhaps my message about the Holy Catholic Church to them is not as effective as was St. Peter’s message to Cornelius. This doesn’t always prove obstinancy on their part as much as it proves that my ability to evangelize is deficient.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

jimmy:

If they are obstinately against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church then they are not sincere in their faith. They are two contradictory states of mind. I don’t know the states of the hearts of any of the people you mention but if they were unwilling to accept the truth of the Church out of fear how can you say they would accept the truth of God? To reject Christs Church is the same as to reject Christ. Christ specifically told His apostles this. It is very clear.

No, no, no, it’s isn’t at contradictory at all, not de facto, not in real, practical life. One can be perfectly sincere in their faith in Jesus (as they were raised to express that faith) and reject the Catholic Church (which virtually all of them view as being, at best, just another denomination and at worst, the Great Whore of Babylon). I’ve known many faithful protestants who lived lives of obedient, loving charity. They may be heading for hell, but I would stand up to anyone who said they weren’t sincere. I’ve always known “sincerity” wasn’t a replacement for error (these self-same protestants told me the same thing, “it doesn’t matter if you’re sincere, if you don’t know Jesus, etc…”). I just thought the CCC said something else, ie, “they were in” insofar as they derived salvific means from the CC, but still they had to persevere in a state of grace (for want of a better phrase), etc., something that didn’t worry me, since the one’s I knew lived lives of heroic charity.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe obstinancy is culpable since it is contrary to honestly seeking to know the truth.

With that said, I know of many non-Catholics who may appear to be obstinant, but I think that they may be God-fearing believers just like Cornelius and perhaps my message about the Holy Catholic Church to them is not as effective as was St. Peter’s message to Cornelius. This doesn’t always prove obstinancy on their part as much as it proves that my ability to evangelize is deficient.

Yes, that’s well and good, Dave, but one that I’m concerned about is my dead grandmother, who I would have said was a sweet and loving saint of God, but who is obviously in hell, because when I told her I was converting, she said to me that was fine, as long as I understood that SHE didn’t believe in what the Catholic Church taught. That’s a fairly firm rejection, all sentiment (I loved her more than anything else in the world) aside. Also, my nearly 90 year old Southern Baptist deacon of a grandfather (a godly and upright man who never lied in his life) will never convert to Catholicism. I don’t doubt that I shall be in Hell as well, since I will have failed to warn him (I don’t think I can really sit him down and say,“Pawpaw, you’re wrong, you’ve been wrong, here’s why, according to the Bible and all the Popes back to Peter, and if you don’t want to join Bobo in Hell, then let’s get down to Saint Martin’s and have a chat with Fr. Mackey.”).

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

You know, truly, I’ve no idea. I have an emotional investment in this and it torments me. I’ve taken great hope in how I’ve read the Catechism (cited by me above) and if it isn’t true, then I don’t know what I will do.

Do you want to discuss this?

 

[USMC]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, that’s well and good, Dave, but one that I’m concerned about is my dead grandmother, who I would have said was a sweet and loving saint of God, but who is obviously in hell, because when I told her I was converting, she said to me that was fine, as long as I understood that SHE didn’t believe in what the Catholic Church taught.

For your own emotional well being, this is the way I would deal with it. For one, your grandmother may have heard false stories about what the Catholic Church teaches. She may have truly believed, for example, that Catholics worship Mary, and it may have actually been a straw man that she rejected.

I will tell you what I personally do. I am the only Catholic in my family. All the rest are Protestants. My prayer is that all will die as Catholics. Before last month, only two relatives had died. One was my Aunt, who converted and received the sacraments on her death bed no less; and the other was my grandmother, who died wearing a scapular as I was praying the Divine Mercy chaplet over her bed. I firmly believe that I received a very miraculous (and unintended) sign from God that she indeed saved her soul.

However, my grandfather died a few weeks ago, and I wasn’t there. It happed quick. I actually don’t think I found out until just about the exact time he was dying.

Unlike my other two relatives, I have less of a reason to believe that my grandfather was saved. But he was an extremely good person. He was one of those old people who grew up duirng the depression came out of it very responsible and good.

Now, this is what I do for my grandfather, and what I will suggest you do for your grandmother. Since God is outside of time (and since I wasn’t there to pray for my grandfather as he was dying), I try to pray often for my grandfather, and ask that the prayer be applied to him at the moment of his death. This is certainly possible for God. It just may be that the prayers and sacrifices I offer up on his behalf, and which I ask to be applied at the moment of his dead, may result in God giving him the light necessary for his eternal salvation. I don’t my grandfather would reject the truth if it was given to him at that time; therefore, I pray that God gives it to him at that moment.

That is what I would suggest you do for your grandmother.

Regarding your grandfather, if it was me I would be actively seeking to convert him. Send him things to read from time to time, and pray that God enlightens him to the truth.

And never be ashamed of the truth. The truth is that there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. My own mother, who is the best person you would ever meet, is a Protestant. As much as I would like to think she is on the road to salvation, my faith will not allow it; and I refuse to question what the Church teaches just because it might make me “feel” better.

Instead, I ask that my fidelity to the truth - a truth which is very politically incorrect in our day - will help my mother to gain the grace from God to recognize the truth of the Catholic Church. Therefore when the question came up, I told my mom directly that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Then I was fortunate enough to be able to have a meeting with her Anglican Priest, and I told him the same thing. His eyes got a little big, but I didn’t back down.

Non Catholics don’t like that doctrine, but it sometimes makes them think, and leaves them wondering, especially when you can make solid arguments that they are unable to answer.

Anyway, those are a few words of advice from USMC. Take them for what they are worth.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JKirkLVNV:

… That’s a fairly firm rejection…

Her rejection may have been based upon vincible ignorance and not necessarily affected (voluntary) ignorance. You see, there are many impediments to voluntariness. It is a grave sin to obstinantly refuse to be joined body and soul to the Catholic Church. Yet, impediments to full advertence and perfect consent can affect voluntariness, and diminish guilt. I recommend praying for her soul.

I also recommend a book from Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar, *Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved? *Cardinal Avery Dulles says of Balthasar’s thesis…

Balthasar incorporates a long quotation from Edith Stein, now Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, who defends a position very like Balthasar’s. Since God’s all-merciful love, she says, descends upon everyone, it is probable that this love produces transforming effects in their lives. To the extent that people open themselves to that love, they enter into the realm of redemption. On this ground Stein finds it possible to hope that God’s omnipotent love finds ways of, so to speak, outwitting human resistance. Balthasar says that he agrees with Stein.
This position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox.

[Cardinal Avery Dulles, *The Population of Hell,

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/dulles.html ]

I agree with St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross and believe that it is possible to hope that God’s omnipotent love finds ways of outwitting human resistance.

Perhaps these words from Archbishop Fulton Sheen may also help…

**Living the Present Moment **

All our anxieties relate to time. A human being is the only time-conscious creature. Humans alone can bring the past to mind, so that it weighs on the present moment with its accumulated heritage; and they can also bring the future into the present, so as to imagine its occurrences as happening now. No animal ever says: “I have suffered this pain for six years, and it will last until I die.” But because a human being can unite the past to the present by memory, and the future to the present by imagination, it is often necessary to distract him in his sufferings - to break up the continuity of misery. All unhappiness (when there is no immediate cause for sorrow) comes from excessive concentration on the past or from extreme preoccupation with the future. The major problems of psychiatry revolve around an analysis of the despair, pessimism, melancholy, and complexes that are the inheritances of what has been or with the fears, anxieties, worries, that are the imaginings of what will be.

In addition to cases of true insanity and mental aberration - when scientific psychiatry is essential - there are many others for whom this unhappy preoccupation with the past and future has a moral basis. A conscience burdened with the guilt of past sins is fearful of divine judgment. But God in His mercy has given us two remedies for such an unhappiness. One is the Sacrament of Penance, which blots out the past by remission of our sins and lightens the future by our hope for divine mercy through continued repentance and amendment of our lives. Nothing in human experience is as efficacious in curing the memory and imagination as confession; it cleanses us of guilt, and if we follow the admonitions of Our Lord, we shall put completely out of mind our confessed sins: “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk 9:62). Confession also heals the imagination, eliminating its anxiety for the future; for now, with Paul, the soul cries out: “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13).

The second remedy for the ills that come to us from thinking about time is what might be called the sanctification of the moment - or the Now. Our Lord laid down the rule for us in these words: “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today” (Mt 6:34). This means that each day has its own trials; we are not to borrow troubles from tomorrow, because that day too will have its cross. We are to leave the past to divine mercy and to trust the future, whatever its trials, to God’s loving providence. Each minute of life has its peculiar duty - regardless of the appearance that minute may take. The Now-moment is the moment of salvation. Each complaint against it is a defeat; each act of resignation to it is a victory.

(excerpt from “From the Angel’s Blackboard”)​

You are in my prayers.

 

[bekalc]

I have friends who are non Catholic, tons of them. Honestly a lot of them, don’t hate the Catholic Church. But they don’t think its necessary to be Catholic. They really don’t. They think that the Catholics are wrong in some areas, and that God doesn’t really care what Church they belong to.

My feeling about them is this, I know they love Jesus. And I know they are doing their best to follow Jesus. I can tell them about Catholicism, but there’s stil l a point where they don’t agree one hundred percent and you can push people to much as well. I don’t know why God convinced me of the truth of Catholicism and not them.

But I don’t think they are goig to Hell, and I believe they are truly part of the Church. In the end, I think following Christ is the most important thing, and I know a lot of these people truly believe they are doing this. Let’s not judge people, we don’t know why they are where they are at.