Non-Catholics saved?

[TMC]

I understand this is YOUR position, but it is not the Church’s position. Do you agree with that? If not, how do you square that with the Church’s many statements to the contrary, as well as the statements of the Popes?

 

[Crusader13]

I disagree. My position is based upon Church teaching.

You’re taking a premise whereby the Church has said that those who are invincibly ignorant have the possibility of being saved and applying it to all those who reject Jesus Christ and the Church as being necessary for salvation. By your argument you are inferring that the Church teaches that someone who knowingly rejects Jesus can still be saved, because they don’t know Jesus is necessary for salvation.

How do you know that Jesus is the Messiah?

 

[TMC]

I disagree. My position is based upon Church teaching.

You’re taking a premise whereby the Church has said that those who are invincibly ignorant have the possibility of being saved and applying it to all those who reject Jesus Christ and the Church as being necessary for salvation. By your argument you are inferring that the Church teaches that someone who knowingly rejects Jesus can still be saved, because they don’t know Jesus is necessary for salvation.

How do you know that Jesus is the Messiah?

I am comfortable that I am correctly presenting Church teaching, and I have backed each of my assertions with the Catechism or Church documents.

You haven’t answered my question about how you square your view of Church teaching with the quotes I have provided from Church documents that say the opposite, let alone the quotes from Popes saying, for example, that atheists can be saved.

 

[Crusader13]

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “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.

If this is the quote you’re referring to there is no reference to those who have rejected a faith in Jesus Christ. This is speaking of those who are not visibly members of the Church. The document is primarily about our ecclesial relationship with Protestants. The passage you cited is about our Protestant brethren and the graces they can receive from Jesus Christ, even though they are not visible members of the one true Church.

It is not dealing with non-Catholic religions who deny a faith in Christ.

It is your understanding of salvation which is it at odds with the Church. You are cherry picking passages from documents and attempting to use them as an umbrella for all non believers that might receive salvation, while still rejecting Jesus.

Bottom line, there is no church document and no Pope has spoken authoritatively by suggesting that non-Catholic religions are salvific.

You can insist that invincible ignorance applies to those who deny Jesus Christ, but the proof is against that belief.

In any case, I pray that you realize how vital and necessary the Church is for salvation. Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven, don’t be fooled into thinking that someone can outright reject this truth and still be ok.

Have a good night. God Bless.

 

[TMC]

It is not dealing with non-Catholic religions who deny a faith in Christ.

It is your understanding of salvation which is it at odds with the Church. You are cherry picking passages from documents and attempting to use them as an umbrella for all non believers that might receive salvation, while still rejecting Jesus.

Bottom line, there is no church document and no Pope has spoken authoritatively by suggesting that non-Catholic religions are salvific.

You obviously have made up your mind and no amount of direct Church statements to the contrary will convince you, even the direct statements by the Popes that Jews, Muslims, atheists and others may (not will, but may) be saved. That is your decision to make.

I would just encourage anyone else who wants to know what the Church ACTUALLY teaches to go to the Catechism and other Church documents and read them for yourselves.

CCC 1260: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm
Lumen Gentium para 16: Lumen gentium

 

[Crusader13]

You obviously have made up your mind and no amount of direct Church statements to the contrary will convince you, even the direct statements by the Popes that Jews, Muslims, atheists and others may (not will, but may) be saved. That is your decision to make.

My views are based upon Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

In the catechism paragraph you cited, that proved what I was saying, especially with regards to the necessity of baptism.

In Lumen Gentium, that section does not say that Judaism nor Islam are salvific. The plan of salvation includes them, meaning they are not prohibited from receiving the sacraments if they choose to accept Jesus and baptism.

My original post was in reference to those who knowingly reject Jesus and the Church as necessary for salvation. I think you were trying to imply that even those who reject Jesus, can still be saved because of invincible ignorance.

My issue is that no document defines exactly what qualifies as invincible ignorance. Too often people attempt to use that term to broadly.

Such as your example when you tried to say that Jews reject Christ because they don’t know Jesus is the messiah. Yet, neither you nor I know He is the Messiah, but we choose to believe He is.

Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
John 20:29.

 

[poche]

From the Baltimore Catechism;

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

1.(1) Has been validly baptized;

2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and

3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the CatholicChurch to be the true Church?

A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Lesson 11: On the Church

 

[Vico]

I’ve been very confused by this recently.

Staples doesn’t really seem to answer the question. Bishop Barron has given a similar response in interviews when asking about salvation. They seem like such wishy-washy answers. I’m aware that invincible ignorance is a thing and I know that God is the only judge, but where are the lines and why does it matter? I would like some clarification on these examples.

A Jew or Muslim raised in the faith and is very aware of the Christian view. Can they be faulted?

A protestant who has a fantastic relationship with Jesus. Whats the point of trying to convert them if they can still be saved?

A lapsed Catholic. Could it be argued that they actually never heard the gospel since they left the church simply because they don’t get it?

Staples states that knowing rejection is loss of salvation. Because of invincible ignorance there is the possibility of salvation.

Non-Catholic Christians do not have the fullness of the faith so will suffer from that, for example, less access to the sacraments, no indulgences to help remove temporal punishments. Also note that the degree of Beatific Vision in heaven varies based upon merit and the suffering in hell upon demerit.

 

[Gorgias]

Church teaching cannot change. If the current teaching is different, that makes me very suspicious.

So…if your understanding of what the Church teaches is different than what the Church teaches, it’s your understanding that you should be suspicious of…

But nowadays in most parts of the world you really cannot live without coming into some kind of contact with the Church, either you will randomly pick up some book, or see some post on facebook or pass by church and hear singing.

The standard isn’t “did you come into at least temporary contact with an expression of faith”. Rather, it’s “did you know what the Church teaches and come to understand it to be true?” If the answer is “yes”, then you’re responsible for accepting it. If the answer is “no”, though… well, then at least some degree of ‘invincible ignorance’ may apply.

In Unam Sanctum, an infallible document by Pope Boniface VIII, he stated that only those who submit to the Roman Pontiff can be saved.

You realize that Unam sanctam was meant as a response to a secular king who refused to obey the orders of the pope regarding taxation, right? Proof-texting the bull in order to make it say something it isn’t trying to say isn’t a valid approach.

By your argument you are inferring that the Church teaches that someone who knowingly rejects Jesus can still be saved, because they don’t know Jesus is necessary for salvation.

That’s kinda the way it goes.

Let’s suppose you grow up a non-Catholic Christian (or a Mormon) and you learn things that are untrue about Jesus. Then, you reject Jesus because of the false catechesis you received. And, you never learn the fullness of the truth about Jesus. That’s “invincible ignorance”, as long as you honestly never learned the truth (and aren’t responsible for having not learned it).

Bottom line, there is no church document and no Pope has spoken authoritatively by suggesting that non-Catholic religions are salvific.

Not on their own merits. Of course not. However, that doesn’t mean that the non-Catholic adherents to these religions cannot be saved.

don’t be fooled into thinking that someone can outright reject this truth and still be ok.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that someone who outright rejects something that’s close, but not quite this truth can’t still be ok.

My views are based upon Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

Perhaps, but “your views” are mistaken, to an extent. To that extent, they conflict with Scripture and the teachings of the Church.

I am not aware the Beatific Vision is variable. Can you cite a source?

It isn’t. Our experience of it may be, though.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Also note that the degree of Beatific Vision in heaven varies based upon merit and the suffering in hell upon demerit.

I am not aware the Beatific Vision is variable. Can you cite a source?

See “and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another” below, from the Council of Florence.

Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma:

Council of Florence, from the Bull “Laetentur coeli,” July 6, 1439
693 [ De novissimis ] It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

 

[Ignatius]

Perhaps some examples will help. Abraham, Boaz, Moses, David, etc. were not Catholic.

 

[Crusader13]

Let’s suppose you grow up a non-Catholic Christian (or a Mormon) and you learn things that are untrue about Jesus. Then, you reject Jesus because of the false catechesis you received. And, you never learn the fullness of the truth about Jesus. That’s “invincible ignorance”, as long as you honestly never learned the truth (and aren’t responsible for having not learned it).

This example is based upon a persons ability to never learn the truth. The truth is out there and at one point the Catholic Church was on the offensive by combating errors and Hersey. Especially with regards to salvation.

It doesn’t look good when you have religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons out there doing door-to-door missionary work and picking off poorly catechized Catholics and non-Catholics and leading them into error.

We should be just as zealous for the love of truth as they are about their falsehoods. Instead too many Catholics are content leaving non-Catholics in ignorance because they believe it’s too offensive to tell them they are wrong. Instead they focus on ecumenical ways to tell them we all worship the same God and they too can still be saved.

If a Mormon is raised to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that same Mormon is in their 30s and has never bothered to look into the claims of the Catholic Church themselves, that’s not invincible ignorance; that is their choice to be content with what they have been shown.

 

[Crusader13]

Im sorry but those arguments where people use that example don’t hold up as a general way to prove that a rejection of Jesus can still lead to Salvation.

I’m sure there are many people on these forms that have friends and family members of other faiths and religions. I for one have in-laws that are Jehovah’s Witnesses and they have never hesitated trying to share their faith with me. I have studied with them and I have read every piece of literature that they have given me. However they absolutely refuse to read, listen to or watch any material I give them.

They don’t have a claim of invincible ignorance, they are choosing to believe what they have been taught. That goes for any other person raised in another faith. If they refuse to accept what a Catholic is trying to show them, I don’t believe they can claim that they are not culpable for their rejection of the truth. Especially if they flat out refuse to look into it for themselves.

 

[Gorgias]

This example is based upon a persons ability to never learn the truth.

Actually, it’s culpability, moreso than ‘ability’.

It doesn’t look good when you have religions like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons out there doing door-to-door missionary work and picking off poorly catechized Catholics and non-Catholics and leading them into error.

Agreed. And yet, each of them has different levels of culpability.

Instead too many Catholics are content leaving non-Catholics in ignorance

However, that’s not what the Church teaches.

If a Mormon is raised to believe that the Catholic Church is wrong, and that same Mormon is in their 30s and has never bothered to look into the claims of the Catholic Church themselves, that’s not invincible ignorance

No, that’s precisely one instance of it!

However they absolutely refuse to read, listen to or watch any material I give them.

They don’t have a claim of invincible ignorance, they are choosing to believe what they have been taught.

They are convinced by the system in which they were raised. Their ability to turn away from it is compromised by their indoctrination into it. This is precisely a discussion of culpability.

If they refuse to accept what a Catholic is trying to show them, I don’t believe they can claim that they are not culpable for their rejection of the truth.

That’s not what the standard is, though. The standard is that, if they do research it and discover it’s true, then they’re responsible for their decision.

 

[Crusader13]

That’s not what the standard is, though. The standard is that, if they do research it and discover it’s true, then they’re responsible for their decision.

By that logic we are doing them a disservice by even telling them about the truth. It’s like that old saying Ignorance is bliss.

If a person is born never knowing about Christ, the Church or salvation, then they’re only held accountable for their behavior based upon what they were taught. That’s not biblical and it’s certainly not what God had intended. He said go forth and make disciples of all nations, those who believe and are baptized will be saved.

In Jesus’s time, the Jews who refused to believe the claims of the apostles and even Jesus Himself, were destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked. There was no third group who were spared because they decided to remain on the sidelines and not get involved.

 

[TULIPed]

They don’t have a claim of invincible ignorance, they are choosing to believe what they have been taught. That goes for any other person raised in another faith. If they refuse to accept what a Catholic is trying to show them, I don’t believe they can claim that they are not culpable for their rejection of the truth. Especially if they flat out refuse to look into it for themselves.

It’s a good point. But how does it work in reverse? What would be your reaction if someone - say a Muslim - tried to convince you of the veracity of their faith? What exactly would keep you from becoming a Muslim?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

They don’t have a claim of invincible ignorance, they are choosing to believe what they have been taught. That goes for any other person raised in another faith. If they refuse to accept what a Catholic is trying to show them, I don’t believe they can claim that they are not culpable for their rejection of the truth. Especially if they flat out refuse to look into it for themselves.

What if they’re told about it by a Catholic who is profoundly unpersuasive? Or just explains things badly? What if they know Catholicism exists but they don’t have sufficient information to know it’s true/they should investigate further?

It’s impossible to have a bright line rule here. God has to judge you how the person responded to the degree of knowledge they have. There’s just too many variables for us to do it for individual cases.

 

[tonyh12]

We come to truth by faith and reason us Catholics can and should evangelise the gospel message but saving faith needs the recipient to pray as faith is a gift from god, if someone is detoured then that can be invincible ignorance but God judges who is saved.

 

[Gorgias]

By that logic we are doing them a disservice by even telling them about the truth. It’s like that old saying Ignorance is bliss .

No, we’re not. You’re missing the point that baptism / the sacraments / living a life of grace actually guarantees salvation, but ‘invincible ignorance’ merely may lead to salvation.

It’s the difference between ‘staying up all night studying for a test’ and ‘watching TV and going to sleep with the text under your pillow’. If you study and learn, you will pass the test; if you don’t, then you might, but there are no guarantees. “Ignorance is bliss” won’t guarantee getting an ‘A’… nor will it guarantee salvation.

If a person is born never knowing about Christ, the Church or salvation, then they’re only held accountable for their behavior based upon what they were taught.

No, you don’t believe that, it seems. What if a person was taught inaccurate things about Christ, the Church, or salvation? In that case, you seem unwilling to accede that “they’re only held accountable for their behavior based upon what they were taught”!

In Jesus’s time, the Jews who refused to believe the claims of the apostles and even Jesus Himself, were destroyed when Jerusalem was sacked. There was no third group who were spared because they decided to remain on the sidelines and not get involved.

Red herring.

 

[Vico]

“God has bound himself to the sacraments. But God is not himself bound by the sacraments.”

That’s from the Catechism. Not a direct quote but from memory.

Catechism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.