No Salvation Outside The Church?

[cathdoki]

It’s a terrible horrific death that Jesus went through for just a few select people that think they’re special. Some Catholics here sound more like Calvinists. As a matter of fact, they have the same mind. Limited atonement for those that subscribe to THEIR beliefs only. The rest of the Christian body of Christ is condemned to eternal flames because of the prouncements of humans. What a shame. What a sham.

 

[AnneElliot]

It’s a terrible horrific death that Jesus went through for just a few select people that think they’re special. Some Catholics here sound more like Calvinists. As a matter of fact, they have the same mind. Limited atonement for those that subscribe to THEIR beliefs only. The rest of the Christian body of Christ is condemned to eternal flames because of the prouncements of humans. What a shame. What a sham.

Calvinists thought only some could attain Heaven (the predestined elect, and all others, no matter what, were damned). The Catholic Church says ANYONE who wants to can find salvation. It’s right here. Walk on in. Sign up for RCIA! Celebrate with us at Easter!

It would be one thing, if the Church put her own limits on membership (God instituted the Sacraments, not the Church), but this is not the case. And don’t falsely pretend that it is. ANYONE can be Catholic. ANYONE can enter the Church. The Church preaches in order to draw men to herself so that through her, they can find Jesus. They can find eternal life. Salvation.

Conversion has always been a requirement. What do you think Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom was about?

 

[itinerant1]

This is contradictory. How can a man be saved outside of God’s will? It is God’s will that all men become members of His Church, yet you claim there is salvation outside membership in the Church, and thus, outside of the will of God.

I did not say that one can be saved outside of God’s will. Hence, there is no contradiction.

I did say that God wills all to be members of his Church. However, not everyone can be a “formal” member of the Church for any of a number of reasons such as, for example, the Gospel was never preached to them. Yet those who have never heard of the Gospel can be saved by following the dictates of the Natural Law:

“For the ones that God will justify are not those who have heard the Law but those who have kept the Law. So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defence . . . on the day when, according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judges all human secrets, Romans 2:13-16.”

Now, are such persons who will be saved by following the law “engraved on their hearts” members of the Church? Perhaps we can speak of them as “implicit” members rather than “formal” as their disposition is such that they would accept the Church if they knew about it. By analogy, it is not neccessary in every circumstance to be formally baptized to be saved. The Church Fathers taught the efficacy of the “baptism of desire.” Also, martyrdom can suffice for baptism.

So… are you suggesting that it is God’s will that some people remain ignorant of the Faith?

Not at all. The context of my statement is important. I said no one is called to be a Protestant, or at least to remain a Protestant. Protestants, Jews, and so on, are to continue their spiritual journey on to the Catholic Church. This is God’s will. Does this mean God’s will prevails in every situation?

Because, all people are called to become members of His Church. Yet, some people have not heard the Gospel message… couldn’t God send them a missionary?

He could, but things do not always work out. Once God sent a missionary to a tribe of cannibals and gave them their first taste of religion.

Is Divine Providence in control, or not?

The answer depends on how the statement is meant. Providence respects free will. People are allowed to make choices that defy God’s will. That much should be obvious, as Aquinas said “unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.” Note also, Aquinas makes a distinction between the active and passive will of God.

Also, in some cases, God predestines certain ones so that their co-operation and salvation is infallibly procured, and this is done so without prejudice to free will. The Virgin Mary is the primary example of this.

People who are ignorant of the Gospel may be saved, yes, but only because God will send them a missionary or reveal to them through internal inspiration what must be believed for salvation. God does not deny the graces necessary for salvation to anyone. It is necessary that a man be a member of the Church for salvation. It is necessary that a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit (Baptism) in order to wash away Original Sin and become a member of the Church. God, in His Divine Providence, who prepared the open heart of some ignorant person, will not leave them without saving knowledge because desires not only that all men be saved, but that they come to knowledge of the Truth. Providence, which rules all, would send that man a missionary or reveal to him in some other way that which is necessary for salvation.

The foregoing quote from St. Paul to the Romans regarding the Natural Moral Law answers the concerns about those who have not heard the Gospel message.

 

[AnneElliot]

St. Paul does not say that they can be saved without being members of the Church. Just because God does not hold an ignorant man accountable for the sin of infidelity to a faith which he knew nothing about, does not mean that man is thereby saved. His other sins are still upon him, even if it is only the stain of Original Sin.

If God’s will does not prevail (or, to put it better) if God allows the mis-use of man’s free will, such a person cannot be saved. God calls all men to the Church. If they honestly seek God, they will have the opportunity to enter the Church.

The necessity of baptism and the theories of ‘baptism of desire/baptism of blood’ are for another thread.

 

[davidv]

St. Paul does not say that they can be saved without being members of the Church. Just because God does not hold an ignorant man accountable for the sin of infidelity to a faith which he knew nothing about, does not mean that man is thereby saved. His other sins are still upon him, even if it is only the stain of Original Sin.

If God’s will does not prevail (or, to put it better) if God allows the mis-use of man’s free will, such a person cannot be saved. God calls all men to the Church. If they honestly seek God, they will have the opportunity to enter the Church.

The necessity of baptism and the theories of ‘baptism of desire/baptism of blood’ are for another thread.

The Church doesn not say that they can be saved with being members of the the Church. The problem is that you are using a different definition for what is meant by “member of the Church”.

 

[AnneElliot]

The Church doesn not say that they can be saved with being members of the the Church. The problem is that you are using a different definition for what is meant by “member of the Church”.

And what definition is that? What makes a man a member of the Church?

 

[guanophore]

I have already addressed the state of those after baptism.

If you have evidence that there is remission of sin outside of the Church, then please produce it.

I don’t know what to tell you, Anne. If you reject what the scriptures and the catechism have to say, there is no other evidence that seems to be of value.

If you need to believe this way for yourself, who am I to try to change your mind?

Can you demonstrate the actuality of this through a statement from the Church’s teaching office?

I consider the catechism to be a “sure norm” , produced by the Magesterium. Since you do not, I think it is most prudent to commend you to your course.

 But you cannot provide any evidence to demonstrate your point. No Saints who are not members of the Catholic Church, etc.

You are missing my point, Anne. You appear to wish to cling to your belief that no non-Catholics are in heaven.

 Ah, but you miss the point. The Eastern Catholics ARE in union with the Roman Church. ;)

The 22 other Rites being in unity with the successor of Peter does not make the Church “Roman”. It makes it Catholic!

You accuse me of judgment, yet here you are claiming intimate knowledge of a high number (i.e., “most”) of souls.

I don’t think I accused you of judgment. Bigotry, maybe.

I do have a personal knowledge of a very high number of non-Catholic Christians, and their attitudes and beliefs about Catholics. However, I recognize that my experience does not qualify as a statement from the Teaching Authority of the Church, so it has no value to you.’

Does God desire that all men come to knowledge of Himself?

There are many non-Catholic Christians who respond to God’s grace, come to know Him, then stop. They are content to remain in the embrace of their truncated ecclesial communities. They have responded to grace. they have not found the Catholic faith.

Mystical does not mean invisible. Is there a spiritual element to the Church? Of course. But membership in the Church IS visible. If you are aware of a Magisterial statement that says otherwise, please produce it.

Are you saying that everyone who is saved is a visible Catholic, and everyone who is not a visible Catholic is not saved? If this is the case, there is really nothing more to produce, or to say.

If this were truly the teaching of the Church, I would be happy to affirm it. However, it’s hogwash.

Ok.

In this thread I am speaking to Catholics, about Catholic Dogma. Of course I am going to resort to the Magisterium to prove a point. If I were talking to non-Catholics my approach is not to shove a Papal Bull in their face which they care nothing about.

Well, this remains to be seen.

Fair enough, however, you still miss the point. They are separated. That separation means something. Just because we may not fault them for causing it, doesn’t mean that they won’t suffer the ill effects of it without remedy.

Perhaps you can remedy their situation by smashing them repeatedly and soundly over the head with a few dozen papal bulls?

Again, this discussion has been amongst Catholics. This is not my apologetical approach for non-Catholics. However, I don’t lie to them either. If they ask, “do I have to be Catholic to be saved?” the answer is unashamedly, “YES!”

Ok.

In discussions with non-Catholics, you have to show them that there is only one Church, founded by Christ. That Church is authoritative. And that a particular level of authority was handed on to Peter (the office of steward).

Maybe those documents will help ya out?

What most Protestants fail to understand, is that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of Truth. If they understood this, they would stop the “bible-thumping” and start looking for that Church. Which is visible. Which is authoritative. And which is established by Our Lord. The Church (the Catholic Church) gave us the Bible.

You are certainly preachin’ to the choir on this point!

 

[guanophore]

Totally agree. My point is that some of the arguments in this thread **against **this CC teaching logically lead to the question - if I can still be saved, why join the CC?

Because it is so much harder! Some ecclesial communites do not even practice water baptism, which is the normative means by which we are made members of Christ.

It is also very difficult to make a “perfect contrition” for baptismal sin. It is possible, but why take such a risk when absolution is available?

I don’t know if you missed the post above that clarified that all non-Catholic communities lack part of the Apostolic faith, some more than others. Why settle for less than the whole?

 

[AnneElliot]

I don’t know what to tell you, Anne. If you reject what the scriptures and the catechism have to say, there is no other evidence that seems to be of value.

I do not reject the Scriptures nor the Catechism. I reject interpretations that go against the teachings of the Catholic Church, as I am duty bound to do so in deference to the Truth.

I consider the catechism to be a “sure norm” , produced by the Magesterium. Since you do not, I think it is most prudent to commend you to your course.

Please do not assume things I have not stated. You make a rather large and misguided leap here. I have *not *stated that the Catechism is a sure norm for teaching the Faith. It is, as a whole.

You are missing my point, Anne. You appear to wish to cling to your belief that no non-Catholics are in heaven.

There are no non-Catholics in Heaven. Everyone is united in Faith and in Truth… thus, everyone must be Catholic in Heaven. Do you disagree?

I do have a personal knowledge of a very high number of non-Catholic Christians, and their attitudes and beliefs about Catholics. However, I recognize that my experience does not qualify as a statement from the Teaching Authority of the Church, so it has no value to you.’

How many non-Catholic Christians do you think there are in the world? You said earlier that “most bible Christians” are ignorant. Do you know and have intimate knowledge of more than 50% of all of them?

I think you over estimate your personal knowledge. Or else my capacity is clearly diminished. I can barely know my own mind and heart, let alone another’s!

There are many non-Catholic Christians who respond to God’s grace, come to know Him, then stop. They are content to remain in the embrace of their truncated ecclesial communities. They have responded to grace. they have not found the Catholic faith.

They are culpable for their “stop” as you term it. Once you stop responding to God’s grace, you are in trouble.

Are you saying that everyone who is saved is a visible Catholic, and everyone who is not a visible Catholic is not saved? If this is the case, there is really nothing more to produce, or to say.

I’m saying, everyone who is saved is a member of the Catholic Church. They belong to the Church, they submit to the Pope and believe all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches.

This is what the Church teaches, as I’ve demonstrated previously with excerpts from Popes and Councils, etc.

 

[guanophore]

Our disagreement comes with the definition of who or what is the “church”. Your view is more of an organization rather than a body made up of individual believers. You are always waiting for direction from an organization rather than operating on what the bible has already revealed.

No, not "more’. Both things are true. The Church is the body of all believes. But that is only a partial definition of “church”. The Church founded by Christ also has structure and authority. This is clearly revealed in the bible, you just choose to ignore it.

The apostle Paul is a perfect example of what I believe is the way christians should operate. God calls individuals to service and gives His Holy Spirit to facilitate their mission. It is the Holy Spirit that directs the individual to service.

If you really believed this, you would accept what he teaches, which is that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth, and through her, the only true gospel is preserved and maintained.

God does call individuals to service, but never in separation from His Holy Bride, the Church. The HS directs the individual through the Church, who has been given the authority for this purpose. If you really accepted what is written in the Bible, you would believe this.

 

[davidv]

And what definition is that? What makes a man a member of the Church?

Please consult **all **of the links listed under the entry “Church” in the index of the CCC here.

 

[OKAstro]

Because it is so much harder! Some ecclesial communites do not even practice water baptism, which is the normative means by which we are made members of Christ.

It is also very difficult to make a “perfect contrition” for baptismal sin. It is possible, but why take such a risk when absolution is available?

I don’t know if you missed the post above that clarified that all non-Catholic communities lack part of the Apostolic faith, some more than others. Why settle for less than the whole?

So - I would join because it’s harder, even though I could be saved staying riight where I am. That makes no sense at all.

I have been following the discourse between you and Anne, and while she has provided quote after quote from the CCC and various Popes to backup her position, you and others who have disagreed have provided zero/zilch/nada in the way of official CC teaching to backup your position.

I am very interested in the Truth regarding this topic, and would appreciate it if you would provide some evidence to backup your positions.

 

[AnneElliot]

Please consult **all **of the links listed under the entry “Church” in the index of the CCC here.

I’m asking you. I’ve read the Catechism, and other relevant documents.

What “definition” am I using?

What makes a person a member of the Church?

 

[AnneElliot]

Hi Anne,
The foundation of truth resides in the believers the body of Christ the “church”. The church in of itself is not truth. Only God can be truth.

The foundation of truth is the Church, correct?

 

[davidv]

I’m asking you. I’ve read the Catechism, and other relevant documents.

What “definition” am I using?

It appears that you are using Church to mean only those formally registered as Catholics in their local parish. Is this correct?

If so, this is not the same as the one the Church using in declaring that “separated brethren” are those who are joined to the Church, though imperfectly.

What makes a person a member of the Church?

Valid baptism.

 

[AnneElliot]

It appears that you are using Church to mean only those formally registered as Catholics in their local parish. Is this correct?

No.

Valid baptism.

And profession of the true faith, right?

 

[Emerite]

I responded in a separate post.

If they do not convert before their death, then yes, anyone who is not Catholic will go to hell.

I cannot agree with Anne Elliot’s saying that anyone who is not Catholic will go to hell.
The1994 Ligouri Catechism of the Catholic Church, with imprimi potest by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict, himself), as Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states, in Part One, The Profession of Faith, in its affirmation (at page 224, Nos. 846), “ … they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?”

However, at No. 847, it further states, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
I believe that cradle non-Catholics who were reared in their faith, convinced that they’re correct and leading a good Christian life, fall under No. 847 of our Catechism. How can these non-Catholics be condemned to hell when they don’t even know the gravity of their convictions?

I’ll present the Catechism and, after confirming that Pope Eugene’s ex cathedra
statement is correct, to our Diocese monseigneur, who studied in Rome and served on the Second Vatican Council, then get back with an answer to this Forum.**

 

[davidv]

No.

Then what do you mean? Am I a mind reader?

And profession of the true faith, right?

Yes and No.
Yes for an adult in formation to be baptised Catholic. No for infants (though for a Catholic infant the profession is made by the parent on behalf of the infant) and any other validly baptised adult.

 

[AnneElliot]

However, at No. 847, it further states, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
I believe that cradle non-Catholics who were reared in their faith, convinced that they’re correct and leading a good Christian life, fall under No. 847 of our Catechism. How can these non-Catholics be condemned to hell when they don’t even know the gravity of their convictions?

CCC 847 is a quote from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium (#16). This is how it ends:
“Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Anyone may be saved… through conversion to the Church. This is why the Church has the sacred duty to evangelize. By following the dictates of their conscience and responding to God’s grace, those who are ignorant will be led to the faith (because God desires that all men should come to knowledge about Him cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

Though it’s been quoted many times in this thread, I present it again:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection- “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies- It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…"

 

[OKAstro]

I cannot agree with Anne Elliot’s saying that anyone who is not Catholic will go to hell.
The1994 Ligouri Catechism of the Catholic Church, with imprimi potest by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict, himself), as Interdicasterial Commission for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states, in Part One, The Profession of Faith, in its affirmation (at page 224, Nos. 846), “ … they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?”

However, at No. 847, it further states, “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church. Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
I believe that cradle non-Catholics who were reared in their faith, convinced that they’re correct and leading a good Christian life, fall under No. 847 of our Catechism. How can these non-Catholics be condemned to hell when they don’t even know the gravity of their convictions?

I’ll present the Catechism and, after confirming that Pope Eugene’s ex cathedra
statement is correct, to our Diocese monseigneur, who studied in Rome and served on the Second Vatican Council, then get back with an answer to this Forum.**

Please do so - I am anxious to know the true position of the CC on this, because no one except Anne has provided official CCC teaching to back up their position