No Salvation Outside The Church?

[LittleSoldier]

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.

That is not true. Jesus made His supreme sacrifice for all people, not just those who were lucky enough to know of Him. Jesus, who is the Church, is the Savior of all, even those who have not taken Him as their Lord and Savior. That is what dying for everyone means!! What of the millions of people who were born in the last 2,000 years that never heard of Jesus? Did they all go to hell, even if they lived good lives and treated their fellow humans with kindness and compassion? Certainly radio, TV, and the Internet have not been around for 2,000 years!

And what of those who died before Jesus was born? Did they have no chance of salvation? What kind of a God would be so cruel as to create people with no chance, no matter what, no matter what kind of life they led, of going to heaven? Where would righteous people go? Hell? Limbo? Spend eternity in Purgatory?

May I remind you of what Jesus said of the sheep and the goats? It’s probably already been posted in this thread but I believe it bears repeating:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’

Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’

He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

[Matthew 25:31-46, NAB, bolding & underlining is added]

It is true that nobody can be saved without the Church for the Church is the body of Christ. But one does not have to be a member of the Church to receive salvation. When one is kind to another person, he/she is being kind to Jesus. When one is cruel to another person, he/she is being cruel to Jesus. That is one reason why good works are so important.

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church, of which I am a minister in accordance with God’s stewardship given to me to bring to completion for you the word of God, the mystery hidden from ages and from generations past.”

[Collosians 1:24-26, NAB, bolding & underlining is added]

 

[James224]

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 disagree. The main point missing is this: It’s said those who REJECT or DENY the teachings on the Trinity, etc. are condemned. This means those who HEARD the true gospel and rejected it. They are culpable. We know historically that all those named in this Papal Bull were approached by the true gospel - the Church. They had discussions so these people are condemned IF, in their heart, they refused the truth and didn’t change before they died. The Bull also means to proclaim this very precise list of truths so others will hopefully look at it and be saved . This makes things crystal clear. This Bull cannot be condemning those who HAVE NOT HEARD THIS GOSPEL because they cannot reject it.

 

[sidbrown]

Sorry, but you are still making the very same interpretive error as those who apply a rigorist reading to “no salvation outside the Church.” .

This is a general umbrella opinion, but I don;t see where it is supported by a simple analysis of the papal statements quoted above, which indicate an entirely different teaching than what is taught today.
I don;t see where you have examined in detail and precisely the words, phrases and declarations of the three specific and detailed papal statements mentioned above.
A simple reading and analysis of what was declared in the past compared to what is being taught now, can easily lead one to the conclusion that there has been a radical change in the teaching as I have pointed out above.

 

[James224]

One more thing: In no way would the Church ever condemn any PARTICULAR person to hell. Even the names of the heretics listed in the Cantate Domino would not absolutely be condemned in any document because, as it says, they could still repent before death. EVEN if they didn’t, they may not be condemned because we cannot know absolutely what’s in someone’s heart. There could be other reasons why a person rejects the truth that would make them not culpable. The chances are much greater for those who reject the gospel of going to hell though. As the Church teaches, we cannot know absolutely who will go to heaven or hell. ( 1 Cor 4:4-5) Paul says he doesn’t even know absolutely. This is why they call it THE JUDGEMENT when we die. We are then judged to heaven or hell - not before.(Heb 9:27) The Church warns and asserts things - this is charity.

 

[sidbrown]

One more thing: In no way would the Church ever condemn any PARTICULAR person to hell.

What is meant by the declarations of anathema and anathema maranatha?

Weren’t there declarations to the effect that if you do not believe ****, then you are subject to anathema or anathema maranatha?

 

[AnneElliot]

show, if you can, that you understand what invincible ignorance is, and what St. Paul meant about the gentiles and natural law.

I ask you a question, you tell me I don’t understand the terms, refuse to answer the question, and then tell me to define the term(s) that you claim I don’t understand in the first place… Why don’t you just answer the question and define the terms as you mean them/as you think I ought to understand them? Wouldn’t that be more productive to discussion?

What is invincible ignorance? (what do you mean when you use that term?)
You said earlier (post #921) that “Christians receive their initial justification through faith”… can you elaborate on this more? (And answer the questions I posed above)… What do you mean by this? What kind of faith? Does this only apply to Christians? How are the “invincibly ignorant” justified?

 

[James224]

What is meant by the declarations of anathema and anathema maranatha?

Weren’t there declarations to the effect that if you do not believe ****, then you are subject to anathema or anathema maranatha?

It means this is a warning to those who believe false teachings AFTER having had the true faith. It’s all about the heart. There’s no way we can know any particular person went to heaven absolutely with the exception of someone who is declared a saint by the Pope or who will go to hell absolutely. These are warnings to those who have or may REJECT the faith they have. You have to be culpable or obstinate in rejecting the faith you had in order to be under this warning and possible condemnation.

 

[AnneElliot]

It means this is a warning to those who believe false teachings AFTER having had the true faith. It’s all about the heart. There’s no way we can know any particular person went to heaven absolutely with the exception of someone who is declared a saint by the Pope or who will go to hell absolutely. These are warnings to those who have or may REJECT the faith they have. You have to be culpable or obstinate in rejecting the faith you had in order to be under this warning and possible condemnation.

James,

Are you suggesting that the anathemas only apply to those whom have “had the true faith”? Are the anathemas relative?

 

[sidbrown]

I ask you a question, you tell me I don’t understand the terms, refuse to answer the question, and then tell me to define the term(s) that you claim I don’t understand in the first place… Why don’t you just answer the question and define the terms as you mean them/as you think I ought to understand them? Wouldn’t that be more productive to discussion?

Yes. that is what I have found also about his responses.
He does not go into detail or analysis of the particular papal statements that I have brought up, but rather gives a general all purpose umbrella statement that you are making an interpretative error.

 

[James224]

James,

Are you suggesting that the anathemas only apply to those whom have “had the true faith”? Are the anathemas relative?

Yes with the exception of those who know it but refuse to embrace it (those who haven’t become Catholic yet) because, in this way, are rejecting it. What complicates all this is what’s in someone’s heart - we just don’t know! There could be mitigating reasons for rejecting it.

 

[AnneElliot]

Yes and those who know it but refuse to embrace it because, in this way, are rejecting it.

Are you saying yes the anathemas are relative and not absolute?

Can you show me where the anathemas are only addressed to Catholics (/fallen away Catholics)? They read “If anyone…”

 

[James224]

Are you saying yes the anathemas are relative and not absolute?

Can you show me where the anathemas are only addressed to Catholics (/fallen away Catholics)? They read “If anyone…”

It says “If anyone…” but it also says REJECT. In ordefr to reject you have to have had it.

 

[AnneElliot]

It says “If anyone…” but it also says REJECT. In ordefr to reject you have to have had it.

Not of all them use that language… “reject”

Can you show me where the anathemas are addressed only to Catholics (or any specific group)?

 

[Emerite]

Why don’t we, instead of arguing so much, take a break and try to do some good deeds in the world? I think God would just love this, and He might even reward us in the afterlife. Rather than ruffling my feathers in argument, I’ve chosen to remain silent and calm by listening and reflecting on my tape of Mother Teresa’s general talk and talk to the youth, which I had recorded during her 1980’s visit to New Orleans. I’ve sent copies to others who didn’t have this tape: websites, an archdiocese, Catholic TV station, her Order of nuns, our Pastor, a friend who is ill, and will provide a copy of the transcript and tape to this website, if CAF is interested. Mother Teresa’s talks are so simple, yet full of wisdom and inspiring. A welcome respite!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why don’t we, instead of arguing so much, take a break and try to do some good deeds in the world? I think God would just love this, and He might even reward us in the afterlife. Rather than ruffling my feathers in argument, I’ve chosen to remain silent and calm by listening and reflecting on my tape of Mother Teresa’s general talk and talk to the youth, which I had recorded during her 1980’s visit to New Orleans. I’ve sent copies to others who didn’t have this tape: websites, an archdiocese, Catholic TV station, her Order of nuns, our Pastor, a friend who is ill, and will provide a copy of the transcript and tape to this website, if CAF is interested. Mother Teresa’s talks are so simple, yet full of wisdom and inspiring. A welcome respite!

And in the midst of anger and lack of charity a small but brightly shining star of love appears.

Thank you!!

 

[bluelake]

itinerant,

1. Are you trying to say/imply that there is salvation outside the Church?
2. When you speak of baptism of desire, what do you mean (how would you define it)?
   2.1 Do you mean that faith alone (implicit/explicit) is sufficient to obtain grace (i.e., the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism) in some/any circumstance(s)?
   2.2 What (if anything) is required of the recipient?
   2.3 Is this a frequent occurrence?

We are not to judge another persons salvation. Mt.7:15
Why do folks continue to do this.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Pitcharan]

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 …(Joshua 2:9-11)

I never said that Rahab was not united to the Hebrews but merely quoted from the Psalms to tell that even nations that were considered enemies of the Hebrews and never united to them, would be saved. If Rahab was mentioned along with them, do you expect me drop it and distort the Scriptures? Why are you conveniently evading Babylon and Philistia? Your empty boast is sickening. Nobody is interested in your familiarity with the Bible. We are all aware that many of your likes who pondered over the Scriptures daily, failed to recgonize the Messiah prophesied in the same Scriptures.

 

[sidbrown]

Why don’t we, instead of arguing so much, take a break and try to do some good deeds in the world? …
. Mother Teresa’s talks are so simple, yet full of wisdom and inspiring. A welcome respite!

That is an excellent idea. Charity and good works are so important and so very much needed by many of the unfortunate underprivileged in the world today.

 

[AnneElliot]

We are not to judge another persons salvation. Mt.7:15
Why do folks continue to do this.

I have not judged any particular person. There is still hope for those who are not Catholic to convert and join the Church. Pray for conversions!

 

[twb1621]

Yes, I agree with you that Baptism of desire has been taught as you have outlined it here.
And at the present time, the Catholic Church teaches that Jews, and other nonCatholics can be saved. But was this always the teaching, or has the teaching changed?
Unless I am misreading or mistinterpreting the words, it looks to me like the teaching has changed on this since before we read:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Unam Sanctam
Pope Eugenius IV, A.D. 1431-1447, at Council of Florence: “It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but neither Jews, nor heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

The doctrine has never changed. It has been more clearly defined throughout time. And all dogma must be reflected upon to bring clarity to the forefront which is what the church reflects upon. Can there be sin where someone has no knowledge an act is sin or has no intent to commit sin while living according to the only devout faith and teaching of Christ they know? This would not fit into the teaching of a merciful and just God who wills that all man may be saved. But this doctrine does not suggest anything less than sincere devotion and a contrite heart without bias to learn the truth and in turn become part of the body of Christ would suffice…