No Salvation Outside The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
itinerant,

It sounds like you are saying that some (i.e., whom you term “invincibly ignorant”) can be saved by their works (i.e., following the natural law), without faith (since they are “invincibly ignorant”). Is this what you intend to imply?
 
Just don’t claim that Jehovah Witnesses can be saved. 😛

So, the question becomes to whom does the requirement of sacramental baptism apply? Do we think it applies to people, for instance, who have never heard of, and will never hear of Christ or Christianity? If we think that, as did Fr. Feeney, then the millions upon millions of people in question cannot be saved.

But that view sounds like a contradiction to the saying that “God…wants everyone to be saved and reach full knowledge of the truth.” (1Tim. 2:4)

If God wills the salvation of all men, then there must exist the possibility for anyone to saved, otherwise God’s will that all should be saved would be pointless.

Evangelization and missionary work is one way to further realize God’s will in the world; preaching the Gospel and baptizing as many people as believe. But that still leaves a very large percentage of people who never hear the Gospel. So, we must still consider matter further, in regard to the gentiles who never hear the Gospel message.

We find an answer in St. Paul’s letter to the Church at Rome:

"There is no favouritism with God. All those who have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law; and those under the Law who have sinned will be judged by the 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.”

The gentiles, then, can be saved if they follow the dictates of the natural moral law. The Apostle calls it the “Law engraved on their hearts.” The natural law is the same for all men, in all places, at all times throughout history. The Ten Commandments are actually a Divine revelation of certain precepts of the natural law, one that are otherwise naturally known to man. For instance, all societies have prohibited murder. They know the precept “Thou shalt not kill”. Errors come into play though, when there is disagreement as to just which acts constitute murder.

St. Paul is not contradicting the requirement for sacramental Baptism. The requirement just needs to be correctly interpreted, and St. Paul’s teachings have helped with that interpretation.
Sorry there are very few people or countries that have never heard of Jesus Christ. If Michael Jackson had world wide recognition, I find it hard to believe that there many people who have never heard of Jesus.

I am sorry to say that your theological perspective forces no one to make a choice or even pray to be saved by Jesus Christ.

We are not saved by good works (that would be Pelagianism) but by the Grace of being incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.

No one, before Jesus came, was saved that was not unified in some way with the Hebrews. The Church honors saints of the old testament but never Plato or Socrates or Budda or any other “holy” people in other religions.

Without taking Jesus as your Lord and Savior one can not be saved this is dogma.
 
…No one, before Jesus came, was saved that was not unified in some way with the Hebrews. …
"I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me— Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush — and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’ " (Psalm 87:4)
 
itinerant,

It sounds like you are saying that some (i.e., whom you term “invincibly ignorant”) can be saved by their works (i.e., following the natural law), without faith (since they are “invincibly ignorant”). Is this what you intend to imply?
First, I cannot answer your question in its entirety, that is, especially in regard to invincible ignorance, since your previous posts, as far as I can determine, show that you do correctly grasp the concept. Specifically, you end up turning invinciple ignorance into vincible ignorance. So, if I were to address here the notion of invincible ignorance, I am concerned that it would not be correctly interpreted.

Second, the distinction of faith and works is not the matter in which I was addressing in my previous post. Following the moral law is required of Christians as it is of gentiles. Christians receive initial justification through faith. Secondary justification, or the increase in justification, comes from good works. Neither Catholic nor gentile can hope to be saved if they fail to follow the dictates of the moral law.

Third, the real question is what does St. Paul say. Briefly, it is that the gentiles who do not have Revelation will be judged according to their conscience, as it accuses or defends in regard to the following of the natural law. So, you can ask St. Paul whether he is saying they can be saved by their works, without faith. But that is to overlook much of what was discussed about implicit faith.

Fourth, I am not sure you understand what the natural law is, as your early comment, many posts back, on this particular passage from St. Paul, misconstrued what the Apostle was saying.

In regard to natural law and the teaching of St. Paul, St. Augustine says, “What else are the laws of God written in our hearts but the very presence of the Holy Spirit.” (Concerning the Spirit and the Letter). And as St. Thomas says, “The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.” (STh 1-2, 94,5)

Do you consider gentiles following natural moral law, the law of God implanted in their hearts, the very presence of the Holy Spirit, to be “works” without faith, and thus of no avail to their eternal destiny?

More about natural law:

“Thus natural law is a certain quality (vis) planted in mankind by nature, which leads men to do what is good and to avoid what is evil. Natural law consists of three parts, namely commands, prohibitions, and demonstrations. It commands men to do what is useful, as Thou shalt love the Lord Thy God; it forbids that which is harmful, as: *Thou shalt not kill; *and it points out what is expedient, as: a;; things should be held in common, there should be held one liberty for all mankind, and so forth.” (Rufinus: Summa Decretorum, D, I Dict. Grat. ad cap. I)

See also Natural Law from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
 
Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

"10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But 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. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

“For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.””

Pope John Paul II: REDEMPTORIS MISSIO
This is answered by Bill Strom well explained in this article [click here]. You seem to be saying that JPII is opposing the continuity of Faith which is totally untrue. The same encyclical says this:
#47 “**Conversion to Christ is joined to Baptism **not only because of the Church’s practice, but also by the will of Christ himself, who sent the apostles to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them (cf. Mt 28:19). Conversion is also joined to Baptism because of the intrinsic need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ. As Jesus says to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5).”
 
Sorry there are very few people or countries that have never heard of Jesus Christ. If Michael Jackson had world wide recognition, I find it hard to believe that there many people who have never heard of Jesus.
According to you, there has been no human history prior to Michael Jackson.
I am sorry to say that your theological perspective forces no one to make a choice or even pray to be saved by Jesus Christ.
I have no idea how you came up with that one.
We are not saved by good works (that would be Pelagianism) but by the Grace of being incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.
I never claimed we are saved by good works. Not only is your interpretation of my post way off base, your theology is rank. Catholicism does not exclude good works. But Martin Luther did, when he called the Epistle of James an “epistle of straw” and James “raving mad with his zeal for good works”. Did you come from a Lutheran background?
No one, before Jesus came, was saved that was not unified in some way with the Hebrews.
St. Paul would disagree with you. And the most sinless person in the OT, was not even a Jew: Job.
The Church honors saints of the old testament but never Plato or Socrates or Budda or any other “holy” people in other religions.
And the Church does not say Socrates, et al cannot be saved.
Without taking Jesus as your Lord and Savior one can not be saved this is dogma.
I know Church dogma, and judging from your post, you seem to know very little.
 
"I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me— Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush — and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’ " (Psalm 87:4)
Is this your opinion that this diffidently show these people were saved? I see a small word that points to the future not past. Any canonized saints?

Sorry in this discussion I will only accept scripture officially interpretation infallibly defined by the Church not some fallible opinion.
 
This is answered by Bill Strom well explained in this article [click here]. You seem to be saying that JPII is opposing the continuity of Faith which is totally untrue. The same encyclical says this:
#47 “**Conversion to Christ is joined to Baptism **not only because of the Church’s practice, but also by the will of Christ himself, who sent the apostles to make disciples of all nations and to baptize them (cf. Mt 28:19). Conversion is also joined to Baptism because of the intrinsic need to receive the fullness of new life in Christ. As Jesus says to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5).”
LOL!!
I am not opposing the continuity of the faith. How you came up with such a bizarre interpretation, I have no idea. This entire thread I have been defending the continuity and consistency of Tradition against the naysayers. You cannot just jump into the tail end of a thread and pretend you know what is going on. Your arrogance is out of control.
 
Is this your opinion that this diffidently show these people were saved? I see a small word that points to the future not past. Any canonized saints?

Sorry in this discussion I will only accept scripture officially interpretation infallibly defined by the Church not some fallible opinion.
So far, fallible opinion, misinterpretations of posts, and personal arrogance are all you have.
 
Sorry in this discussion I will only accept scripture officially interpretation infallibly defined by the Church not some fallible opinion.
You are not “discussing”. In fact, you have made yourself immdiately unwelcome in this discussion.
 
Okay enough is enough. Anne has been rebuked time and time again. It is therefore time to shake the dust from our sandals and let Anne go her own way. I will request the moderators to close down this thread. Thanks to all the orthodox Catholics who contributed to adefense of the faith against an excommunicated priest and his followers.
I understand your concern, and there is some legitimacy to it. However, if Anne wants to continue taking a beating, that is up to her. She’s not a thin skinned gal. Seriously, though, other posters than Anne are still interested in discussing this subject. So, it would not seem appropriate for you to request a premature closure of this thread.
 
LOL!!
I am not opposing the continuity of the faith. How you came up with such a bizarre interpretation, I have no idea. This entire thread I have been defending the continuity and consistency of Tradition against the naysayers. You cannot just jump into the tail end of a thread and pretend you know what is going on. Your arrogance is out of control.
Personal attacks are not a defense of a position. You hold there is salvation outside the Church no?
 
You are not “discussing”. In fact, you have made yourself immdiately unwelcome in this discussion.
How have I made myself unwelcome? Have I insulted anyone called anyone arrogant or ignorant of dogma?
 
First, I cannot answer your question in its entirety, that is, especially in regard to invincible ignorance, since your previous posts, as far as I can determine, show that you do [not] correctly grasp the concept.
I am well aware of what you think of my intelligence (or lack of), as we’ve been over it several times in this thread. Buck up, and just answer the question and make your own clarifications/definitions as needed to make yourself clear. It is, after all, a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant. 😉
Second, the distinction of faith and works is not the matter in which I was addressing in my previous post. Following the moral law is required of Christians as it is of gentiles. Christians receive initial justification through faith. Secondary justification, or the increase in justification, comes from good works. Neither Catholic nor gentile can hope to be saved if they fail to follow the dictates of the moral law.
You say that Christians receive initial justification through faith. What kind of faith? Does this not hold true for all people [that justification comes through faith]? Are only some (i.e., Christians) justified by faith? How, in your understanding, are the ignorant justified?
Do you consider gentiles following natural moral law, the law of God implanted in their hearts, the very presence of the Holy Spirit, to be “works” without faith, and thus of no avail to their eternal destiny?
You ask me so many questions (which I do endeavor to answer), yet you won’t answer mine? How does that make for discussion?

Good works do affect a person’s eternal fate, however, they cannot justify a man without [supernatural] faith. A man cannot be justified without supernatural faith (i.e., faith in Jesus Christ). If a man is open, God will lead him to the Truth (which is Jesus Christ, found in His Church).
 
"I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me— Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush — and will say, ‘This one was born in Zion.’ " (Psalm 87:4)
Chypmonk said:
“No one, before Jesus came, was saved that was not unified in some way with the Hebrews”

Rahab (& family) WERE united to the Hebrews… or did you forget the whole scarlet cord thing? Rahab made an explicit profession of faith saying, “I know the LORD has given this land to you: for dread of you has fallen upon us… We have heard that the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea at your going in, when you came out of Egypt: and what things you did to the two kings of the Amorrhites, that were beyond the Jordan: Sehon and Og whom you slew. And hearing these things we were affrighted, and our heart fainted away, neither did there remain any spirit in us at your coming in: for the LORD your God he is God in heaven above, and in the earth beneath.” (Joshua 2:9-11)
 
If God wills the salvation of all men, then there must exist the possibility for anyone to saved, otherwise God’s will that all should be saved would be pointless.
I understand the present teaching of the RCC and I agree with it.
But it looks like the present teaching is a radical change from the previous papal statements which said:
  1. A martyr for Christ will not be saved if he has not persevered within the bosom and unity of the RCC.
  2. In order to be saved, you must be subject to the Pope of Rome.
  3. A jew cannot be saved unless he converts and partakes of the Sacraments and practices of the Christian militia.
    Reference:
  4. Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence,: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
  5. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
    “ Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
  6. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :
    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
 
I understand the present teaching of the RCC and I agree with it.
But it looks like the present teaching is a radical change from the previous papal statements which said:
  1. A martyr for Christ will not be saved if he has not persevered within the bosom and unity of the RCC.
  2. In order to be saved, you must be subject to the Pope of Rome.
  3. A jew cannot be saved unless he converts and partakes of the Sacraments and practices of the Christian militia.
    Reference:
  4. Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino,” Council of Florence,: “No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
  5. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,:
    “ Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
  6. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, :
    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Sorry, but you are still making the very same interpretive error as those who apply a rigorist reading to “no salvation outside the Church.” That maxim is true, when properly interpreted. And I assure you that Pope John Paul II would not agree with your view that his teachings represent any change in Church dogma.
 
I am well aware of what you think of my intelligence (or lack of), as we’ve been over it several times in this thread. Buck up, and just answer the question and make your own clarifications/definitions as needed to make yourself clear. It is, after all, a work of mercy to instruct the ignorant. 😉
You are making a totally false assumption with your comment about what I supposedly think about your intelligence.

Bite the bullet, and don’t evade the issues – show, if you can, that you understand what invincible ignorance is, and what St. Paul meant about the gentiles and natural law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top