Pagans need not convert: Can someone help me understand?

[johnnyc176]

I have a simple question. Why is it so difficult to understand that

a. Muslims and Jews are not pagans.

b. On this point the document is not speaking about the duties of the individual, but on the mercy of God

c. That salvation is always through the Church; therefore, EENS

d. That the Church can and does extend her embrace beyond her physical boundaries.

and

e. That the duties of the non-Catholic are addressed in another part of the document; therefore, one has to read the entire document?

I have never understood why people get caught up on this one paragraph. It’s like getting caught up on “Romeo Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo.” To do so, one would then misunderstand and believe that Juliet was

a. blind

b. lost

c. both a and b

When one sees or read the entire play, the sentence is a part of a bigger statement that Shakespeare is making. It’s a social commentary that is missed, if we limit ourselves to one line.

The same thing happens with this statement by the Church. It’s a comment on the nature of the Church, not on the duties of man.

Does not seem so simple a question(s) Bro. In fact your question(s) seem just as complicated as the answer you tried to give me when I asked you directly about this very teaching which I guess I still misunderstand. The Op is experiencing the same thing. What I would like to know is why when people do question this teaching they are seemingly automatically assumed to be against the Church or narrow minded.(and now I read I should be ashamed of myself). I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. Do I understand it? No. Especially how to apply it in evangelizing. We are also called to evangelize. There is a popular quote attributed to St. Francis…spread the gospel and if necessary use words (yes, I realize he may never have actually said this). Well sometimes words are necessary. The OP is, in fact, evangelizing with words trying to teach the faith. It would seem the Church’s teaching on salvation outside the Church makes it hard to answer a ‘why’ question which I’m sure the OP is getting with that age group. Why do I need to go to Mass? Why do I need the Sacraments? Indeed…why do I need to be Catholic?

For me…my own questions are these. Fullness of truth is not necessary for salvation but fullness of faith is? And in reading CCC 846 it says this…

How are we to understand this affirmation (Outside the Church there is no salvation) often repeated by the Church Fathers?**Re-formulated positively ** it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body:

How are we to understand that? The Church Fathers were too harsh in their teaching?

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

The teachings from the Popes from long ago seem very clear to me. The teachings from your book sound like they come from a completely different religion from the one spoken about by the quotes from the Popes in the past. I wonder what those Popes would have said about the teachings in your teaching manuals.

This was actually my thought, Hudson. That’s why I wanted to engage the public with it because it doesn’t sound like Catholicism to me either.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

I’m interested to read what folks say: I struggle with this issue too. My heart tells me you can’t go to heaven without knowing Jesus and being a member of the True Faith. How would a person be able to die in a state of grace with out the Sacraments? But there’s all this information saying that “if someone trys to live a ‘good life’ according to his conscience” he’ll go to heaven too. If that’s the case, we might as well leave pagans, Jews, and Muslims alone since it’s encouraging them to become Catholic will just make it harder for them. Did all those Pope’s misunderstood the nature of what it takes to get to Heaven? Did they understand but the layity misunderstood what they said? I can see how some people say the Church has changed it’s teaching. Certainly the Church has the right to do so since it has the “keys to Heaven” but why does it say no teaching has changed?

Is the Church’s statement that non Catholics may go to Heaven infallible?

Hi LINVS, I wanted to touch on a few things you said above.
The first is that I agree. The entire necessity of missionary work goes out the window and seems to even make somewhat of a mockery of the lives of the great martyrs of the Church. St. Francis of Assisi didn’t go to talk to the Sultan about what they had in common to mutually enrich each other’s faith, he went to tell him he must convert to the true faith of God.
Now, I have read Redemptoris Missio before anyone points that out. But John Paull II even states in that encyclical that anyone can “be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established”…
Again, I would like clarification on how that statement reconciles specifically with the ones I listed above from former ecumenical councils especially.

The note on the right of the Church having the right to change her teaching is actually not true. The Church can never change her doctrines or dogmas, this is not her responsibility nor the right of even the Pope. Her mission is to faithfully safeguard the faith and to preserve even if meaning to die for it. But she does not have the right to change it. I have some quotes on this saved at home if you would like it (I am at work on a break right now). But the idea that the Church can change things is actually part of what was explicitly condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors as well as St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis on Modernism.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Yes, Jesus can still save non-Catholics. Note the word “can.”

The Church does not teach that they will be saved, only that they can be.

Thanks, Paul.
I wonder if you might address specifically the following from the Council of Florence in the context of “can.”
What I am really hoping for is for someone to take some of the specific verses from the older ecumenical councils and explain how they can be read differently / any other way than the strict wording which they seem to convey.

*Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442 (Infallible)
*It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Does not seem so simple a question(s) Bro. In fact your question(s) seem just as complicated as the answer you tried to give me when I asked you directly about this very teaching which I guess I still misunderstand. The Op is experiencing the same thing. What I would like to know is why when people do question this teaching they are seemingly automatically assumed to be against the Church or narrow minded.(and now I read I should be ashamed of myself). I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. Do I understand it? No. Especially how to apply it in evangelizing. We are also called to evangelize. There is a popular quote attributed to St. Francis…spread the gospel and if necessary use words (yes, I realize he may never have actually said this). Well sometimes words are necessary. The OP is, in fact, evangelizing with words trying to teach the faith. It would seem the Church’s teaching on salvation outside the Church makes it hard to answer a ‘why’ question which I’m sure the OP is getting with that age group. **Why do I need to go to Mass? Why do I need the Sacraments? Indeed…why do I need to be Catholic? **
For me…my own questions are these. Fullness of truth is not necessary for salvation but fullness of faith is? And in reading CCC 846 it says this…

How are we to understand that? The Church Fathers were too harsh in their teaching?

The catch is that those children are already Catholic. That means they have responsibilities,but they also have great benefits. They have confession for when they mess up, they have the Eucharist for strength, they are confirmed in the Holy Spirit (or soon will be). Non-Christians and non-Catholics do not have these wonderful benefits.

The church teaching that those physically outside the Church may still be saved does not give those people a free pass. They still have to follow the narrow path, but without the assistance we derive from the Church.

We also have a responsibility to evangalize. People convert specifically because within the Church there are so many aids to salvation and because the Church has both the fullness of Truth and the fullness of Faith.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

From my blog:

*"A big issue that sedevacantists have is with certain Vatican II documents, namely the documents on religious liberty/freedom. Namely, the idea that there are elements of Truth in other religions (but not the Fullness of Truth). They cling to the “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” notion, however their perception and view of what is the Catholic Church is very small. They also lack knowledge of metaphysics and how God is not bound by our perceptions of time, and refuse to acknowledge the teaching of Baptism of Desire.

Typically at this point when talking to sede’s, I mention something that I call “The Lewis Dilemma”. Is CS Lewis in Heaven? His works certainly merit such. He never converted publicly to Catholicism. Yet as several documents state, everyone in Heaven is Catholic, so there is an apparent disconnect there.

Or is there?

Is it not possible that ten milliseconds before his death, he had a “Baptism of Desire”, so to speak? Is it possible he was so close to Catholicism, without knowing, and Christ gave him that chance to say “yes” to Catholicism? To Christ, ten milliseconds is an eternity. Being Catholic is the Absolute Truth, and better equips us to make that final “yes”, that I will not deny. But perhaps, the Divine Mercy of Christ allows for some to say “yes” in those final moments, in a “Baptism of Desire”. In essence; Catholicism gives you a better chance to say “yes” before you die since you’re already Catholic, but that does not exclude the chance that others could say yes in the moments before their death.

The paragraph above shows no conflict with Church teaching; what I described clearly shows that everyone in heaven is Catholic. What it does do is leave room for the Mercy of God, while also still showcasing the need to spread the Faith and why people should consider converting to Catholicism; we want people in Heaven. We want them to know the Truth. Why should we deny them this?

This is how you can reconcile Vatican II with other Councils in this regard. Yes, everyone in Heaven is Catholic. It’s a question of when they convert, and in some cases they may convert before death."*

Thanks for your insights, Melchior. But I wonder if you could possibly provide some papal writing, canonical support, etc. to back this position.
Preferably something both from before Vatican II and after Vatican II because that is in fact also at the core of this discussion. You are very astutely pointing out the sedevacantist position which comes into play (and any variation of “Traditionalist” questioning). But that is why I am hoping for more than conjecture (please don’t take that the wrong way, don’t mean it condescendingly or vindictively) but actual proof of asserted statements.

I think that the position of “baptism by desire,” as another member pointed out, has become far too promoted these days. It is rare as was written over the centuries. And a side bar is that we are called to live our lives to prove our love for God and to merit - through Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary - salvation. The idea that there must be people daily falling over in heart attacks who have lived non-Catholic lives suddenly having a great epiphany/revelation that they shouldn’t have done that and having a great change of heart just doesn’t seem correct.

 

[Melchior_1]

Thanks for your insights, Melchior. But I wonder if you could possibly provide some papal writing, canonical support, etc. to back this position.
Preferably something both from before Vatican II and after Vatican II because that is in fact also at the core of this discussion. You are very astutely pointing out the sedevacantist position which comes into play (and any variation of “Traditionalist” questioning). But that is why I am hoping for more than conjecture (please don’t take that the wrong way, don’t mean it condescendingly or vindictively) but actual proof of asserted statements.

I think that the position of “baptism by desire,” as another member pointed out, has become far too promoted these days. It is rare as was written over the centuries. And a side bar is that we are called to live our lives to prove our love for God and to merit - through Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary - salvation. The idea that there must be people daily falling over in heart attacks who have lived non-Catholic lives suddenly having a great epiphany/revelation that they shouldn’t have done that and having a great change of heart just doesn’t seem correct.

"A person outside the Church by his own fault, and who dies without perfect contrition, will not be saved. But he who finds himself outside without fault of his own, and who lives a good life, can be saved by the love called charity, which unites unto God, and in a spiritual way also to the Church, that is, to the soul of the Church." Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Christian Doctrine

***“The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.” *Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Sacraments - Baptism, Necessity of Baptism and Obligations of the Baptized "

"We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep. Ixxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Baptism, Baptism of Desire

As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fullness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, “He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,” a gloss says: “He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism. Yet catechumens who die without baptism can be saved but only as through fire. That is, they are absolved of eternal punishment, not temporal punishment.” - the Summa, Thomas Aquinas.

The above are examples of Baptism of Desire, which my writing essentially extrapolates on. We all have a choice, every one of us, to say “yes” to Christ. Baptism as an infant pre-disposes us to say “yes”, as does the Truth. Yet in the case of holy innocents, they will never have that baptism. They are technically outside of the Church in that regard. Are they not given a choice? Are we all not given a choice to say “yes”?

Each time we say “Amen” we mean to say “I Believe”. Every time. During Mass we even have the “Great Amen”. Through the Divine Mercy of Christ, in my humble opinion He gives everyone one more chance to say AMEN.

 

[Genesis315]

Thanks, Paul.
I wonder if you might address specifically the following from the Council of Florence in the context of “can.”
What I am really hoping for is for someone to take some of the specific verses from the older ecumenical councils and explain how they can be read differently / any other way than the strict wording which they seem to convey.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442 (Infallible)
It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the 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 his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

The key clause is “unless they are joined to the Catholic Church.” Being a formal member or fully incorporated into the Church is not the only way of being joined to it.

 

[Melchior_1]

The key clause is “unless they are joined to the Catholic Church.” Being a formal member or fully incorporated into the Church is not the only way of being joined to it.

Exactly, that’s how we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents

 

[hudson]

Can someone explain to me how if we are not supposed to prothlesize Jews or Muslims how did the early church gained Jewish converts? Did they just sit there quietly and hope they would join or did they actively try to tell them the truth of the Catholic faith? I believe they actively tried to convert them and if someone could provide me evidence to the contrary I would appreciate it.

If someone also could explain Matthew 7:13 where it is stated 13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”. I hear so many now days speak of how easy it is for Catholics or non Catholics to be saved. What I take from this verse is that there are few that make it to Heaven. If there are few Catholics with the entire truth as God has revealed it that enter Heaven, how many followers of other incorrect religions are able to get there?

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

Hello Clem,
Just a few questions to your post.

I’ve always liked the ferry or boat analogy…But just because some who have a ticket don’t make it, doesn’t mean the ferry is not the only way. There is no other way, but the ticket is not a guarantee you will get there.

Thankfully, the captain is a generous and good hearted fellow, and he takes pity on the desperate masses who through no fault of their own did not get a ticket, but they still desire passage…

Have you had a chance to read Unam Sanctam by Boniface VIII?
From the encyclical:
“Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,’ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.”

This is the example with which I am most familiar, that of the ark (while I can appreciate your example, it tends to conjure up more of a Greco-historical River Styx image than the Biblical Ark; to each his own I suppose).

When the great deluge came, only those inside the ark were saved. No exceptions. Those who didn’t make it aboard - we must imagine - did not because of their own errors or else God would have saved them (just as he saved Lot and his family before destroying S&G).

I would follow up by asking what we are to believe when our Lord says in Matthew 7:7:
Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

Our Lord said that if we are truly seeking, we shall find. It would seem this means that anyone truly following his conscience/natural law would ultimately find out about their Messiah and be baptized. I know I read it somewhere, it was either St. Augustine or Aquinas (maybe both agreed?), but the belief was that if even a tribe in the most remote part of the world were truly seeking God, He would send them a missionary in his mercy and generosity and providence. If no missionary is there, they are not truly seeking.

The Haydock explanation is as follows:
The reasons why so many do not obtain the effects of their prayers, are,—1st. Because they ask for what is evil; and he that makes such a request, offers the Almighty an intolerable injury by wishing to make him, as it were, the author of evil: 2nd. Although what they ask be not evil, they seek it for an evil end. (St. James iv.): 3rd. Because they who pray, are themselves wicked; (St. John ix.) for God doth not hear sinners: 4th. Because they ask with no faith, or with faith weak and wavering: (St. James i.) 5th. Because although what we ask be good in itself, yet the Almighty refuses it, in order to grant us a greater good: 6th. Because God wishes us to persevere, as he declares in the parable of the friend asking bread, Luke, ch. ii.; and that we may esteem his gifts the more: 7th. We do not always receive what we beg, because, according to St. Augustine, (lib. ii, de Serm. Dom. et epis. 34, ad Paulinum) God often does not grant us what we petition for, that he may grant us something more useful and profitable. (Maldonatus)

I think the third point is important because of a few other things I have listed on other comments.
We are only able to resist evil and temptation by the grace of God. Now actual grace is certainly available to everyone who seeks God and to follow natural law with an open heart. However, it is by the sacraments that this grace is made truly and readily available to us.

If we require sanctifying grace in order to enter heaven (must be cleansed of original sin and mortal sin), at what point does an unbaptized individual receive that necessary grace in order to be saved if he never had the opportunity in life? At the very last moment of death?
What is also quite relevant to ask, I might wonder, is what consists of someone having been able or not able to know about Christ?
If a missionary has come to a Hindu village, and they reject the missionary and push him away, are they still able to be saved or have they not rejected God?

I would relate this to the presence of John Paul II at Ghandi’s funeral proclaiming him a hero of humanity and that he may live forever.
Ghandi obviously had ample opportunity to convert and was very familiar with Christianity but he never did convert.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[JReducation]

Can someone explain to me how if we are not supposed to prothlesize Jews or Muslims how did the early church gained Jewish converts?

The first Christians were Jews. They did not convert away from Judaism. They continued to attend temple worship and practice the Jewish faith. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, not the antithesis. They had no conflict with Judaism. Their conflict was with the laws that had been created to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. Those were no longer needed. But the law of prayer, charity, faith, hope, the commandments, the wisdom of the prophets, the Liturgy of the Hours, the fasts and abstinence were not new to them. They were part of Jewish life. They are still part of Orthodox Judaism.

The Gentiles came attracted by the teaching of the Christian community and by its exemplary life. If you notice, the epistles are not written to non Christians. They were written to Christians. There were very few times in the Acts of the Apostles where we see the Apostles preaching to non-Christians. What they delivered to their Jewish brethren was their experience.

If we look at Peter’s discourse in Acts, he is speaking to those around him about what he knows. He is not telling them to become Christians. His entire speech is a Christological sermon. Paul’s letters as well as the Catholic Letters were written to Christians. They were the primitive forms of catechesis, Canon Law, and exegesis all rolled into one.

The letters written by the Church Fathers during the first 300 years were written to other Christians. Many of these were disciplinary letters and others were correcting heresies.

The Catholic Church does not have a history of going out to get new recruits until much later when the missionaries go out to the East and to the Americas. Even then, there was always a conflict between the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits and the laity. The Catholic laity wanted to proselytize. The religious wanted to teach. Their approach was very different, to the point that at different times there were major breaks and wars between the Catholic laity and the religious. The religious often had to ask the Crown to intervene in defense of the local people. People respond to kindness with trust, respect, affection and attention.

We see this today in America. The urban centers where the white European Catholics settled are much less Catholic than the small towns and villages where they did not go. The lay faithful wanted to bring a piece of home to the new world. They built churches and cities that replicated Europe. They imposed European culture on the local people, including European Catholicism.

The more remote areas were protected from that. The missionaries there did not transplant European Catholicism. Instead, they christianized the local culture. As St. Francis Xavier wrote to St. Ignatius. The issue was not to make the people more European Catholic, but to make Catholicism more Chinese (in his case). The Dominicans and Franciscans did the same thing in the Americas. They tried very hard to make Catholicism more American (not USA), but real American. This brought people to them.

If you have a faithful Jew or a faithful Muslim, you’re already starting with a person who believes in the same God you do. His understanding of the nature of God is not as complete as your own, but he knows the one true God. The issue becomes a moral one.

The devout Jew or devout Muslim is going to be as concerned with observing the law of God as you are. He’s not going to buy into our faith, just because we say so and the Church does not expect them to do so, nor does she demand that of them. She hopes that they will listen, pray over it, and truly try to find the truth in their faith that leads them to the fullness of truth that subsists in the Catholic Church.

If we approach with the message that we have truth and they don’t, we blow it. First of all, they do have pieces of the truth. Secondly, they are very devout and are concerned about fidelity to God. Their understanding of sin is different from our own. But they do understand right and wrong. Much of what we have to say just sounds wrong to them. They’re going to reject it not because they’re evil, but because they’re good people who don’t what to embrace what they believe is wrong, just as you and I don’t want to embrace what we believe is wrong. This makes the approach very complicated and very delicate.

 

[JReducation]

The Vatican does not trust the Catholic layman to do this right. It doesn’t trust most of the Catholic clergy and religious either. The Vatican actually handpicks the missionaries that go into the Muslim and Jewish territories. So far, the only ones who have blanket permission to go there are: Dominicans, Jesuits, and Carmelites, provided that they submit to the authority and guidance of the Franciscan Custos. The Franciscans have the custody or to put it another way, they are the custodian of the sacred sites and the custodians of the Latin Catholic presence.

The other group to whom the Church entrusts the mission to the Jews and the Muslims is to the Eastern Churches, especially the Chaldeans, Maronites, Syriac and Malankar Catholics. We, Latin Catholics tend to be too European. Now, I would say that we’re too Western, to include the Americas as well. We’re not on the same page as the Semitic people. We want to go into a Jewish home or community and conquer it for Christ. The idea of conquering is the beginning of disaster.

The Dominicans and Jesuits impress the Semite mind, because of their eloquence and scholarship. The Franciscans impress them because of their fidelity to the pope and their laid back manner. Another group that is making many converts are the Missionaries of Charity and their lay volunteers, because of their universal charity toward all people. This impresses the Muslims, because they tend to be a very closed society. It impresses the Jews, because for the Jews, the first Mitzvah is charity. It impresses the Hindus, because for the Hindus, the contemplative life is very important. Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity are kind, do not discriminate in their charity and are contemplatives. Heck, most of that congregation is made up of former Hindus.

Among the Capuchin Franciscans, the largest group of friars were once the Italians. Today, they are the Indian friars. They were won over from Hinduism by the contemplative life of the Capuchins.

When you do the right thing, you attract attention. When you treat people in a non-threatening way, you win their trust. When you answer their questions, you encourage them to ask more. When you respect their request that you stay back, you win their respect. These are cultures that place a high value on honor.

We do a great deal to bring the Catholic faith to non-Christians, but we do it very cautiously and very calmly.

Imagine a Catholic walking in and telling a Muslim or a Jew that the God they worship is a false God. That would be enough to bring down the house on both sides of the road. They would be horrified and the Vatican would probably excommunicate you for heresy. If we pay close attention on these boards, there are many people who want to take that approach. It’s offensive. It’s not practical and it is a lie. We already know that the only God is the God of Abraham, whos is the God of Jesus Christ. They do worship the God of Abraham.

As the Franciscan Custos once told a Catholic who asked a similar question, “Leave the Jews and Muslims to us and work on converting Catholics to Christianity.”

The narrow gate is not a reference to the Catholic Church. It’s a reference to the life of detachment. Scripture scholars have established a link between the two metaphors: the narrow gate and the eye of the needle. Actually, I believe it may have been St. Anthony of Padua who first made the connection. He was a Doctor of Sacred Scripture, one of the best in the Church’s history. Even Aquinas was not as good as he was in this area.

Aquinas was the scholastic and Anthony the Evangelist. Aquinas comes to God through reason. Anthony comes to God through historical exegesis. In his sermons he constantly refers to the narrow gate in the context of detachment from everything that stands between man and God. If one is to detach from what stands between us and God, it’s quite a sacrifice. It often requires that we make great sacrifices.

For example, we have a brother in our community who cannot speak to his family, because they go on the attack. In order to follow Christ along the path of St. Francis, he has had to do exactly what Francis did. He has had to break with his family That’s hard and painful. That’s the narrow gate or the eye of the needle.

 

[hudson]

When you do the right thing, you attract attention. When you treat people in a non-threatening way, you win their trust. When you answer their questions, you encourage them to ask more. When you respect their request that you stay back, you win their respect. These are cultures that place a high value on honor.

We do a great deal to bring the Catholic faith to non-Christians, but we do it very cautiously and very calmly.

Thanks for the information. How can you justify what you say is doing good and making progress when we see stories like these
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9762745/Christianity-close-to-extinction-in-Middle-East.html
If it was working so well wouldn’t we be seeing the opposite progress. Instead we see these 2 groups standing as firm as ever as we lose ground. Did Jesus not teach the Jews in his time the truth of what would become our Catholic religion? I know you are passionate about this subject, but I see it the opposite of how you do. I see us losing ground throughout Europe and the Middle East and something will have to change to stop it.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks for the information. How can you justify what you say is doing good and making progress when we see stories like these
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9762745/Christianity-close-to-extinction-in-Middle-East.html
If it was working so well wouldn’t we be seeing the opposite progress. Instead we see these 2 groups standing as firm as ever as we lose ground. Did Jesus not teach the Jews in his time the truth of what would become our Catholic religion? I know you are passionate about this subject, but I see it the opposite of how you do. I see us losing ground throughout Europe and the Middle East and something will have to change to stop it.

We’re not at war with Jews and Muslims. The Magisterium has told us this over and over.

You’re right about my passion, but I’m afraid that you’re mistaken about its focus. I’m not passionate about this particular subject. Actually, my area of passion is the Gospel of Life.

But I have an even greater passion, to obey our Holy Father Francis. He commanded both the laity and the religious of his time to obey the pope and follow the Magisterium. If the Magisterium says that we’re not at war and we’re not out to conquer this or that, nor are we out to overthrow the Jews and Muslims, then that’s what I’m passionate about. I’m passionate about the Church and what the Church wants me to think and do.

I vowed to forfeit my immortal soul if I fail to obey the Francis and the Magisterium. The reason for making this vow was to be an example to you and to the faithful of how we are to live our baptismal commitment. We are the light on the hill.

I can’t make you look, nor can I make you see the Church and the Magisterium as it wants to be seen. Only you can do that. All that I can do is be a role model of a passionate, submissive and obedient Catholic. That’s what Christ called us religious to be, salt of the earth and light to the world. But if the world does not want to taste the salt or walk in the light, we cannot do what God cannot do. In other words, we can’t force another person to love and follow the Church as we’re called to do. We can only show you how, by doing it.

I try my best and the rest I leave up to you and grace.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Thanks, Paul.
I wonder if you might address specifically the following from the Council of Florence in the context of “can.”
What I am really hoping for is for someone to take some of the specific verses from the older ecumenical councils and explain how they can be read differently / any other way than the strict wording which they seem to convey.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442 (Infallible)

Where did you copy that from? I am guessing not from a Catholic website. Not that I dispute that this might be from the Council of Florence, but that it is infallible. Everything from every council is not infallible.

It 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 catholic church before the end of their lives

 

[JReducation]

PaulfromIowa:
Where did you copy that from? I am guessing not from a Catholic website. Not that I dispute that this might be from the Council of Florence, but that it is infallible. Everything from every council is not infallible.

This extreme exclusivity is, to some degree, outside the traditional teaching of the Church.

I am no theologian. I share with you your concern about the very poor and vaguely worded catechetics in the Church

You guys are reading this out of context. The text can only be properly understood as part of the ongoing tradition of the Church. Alone, the citation is not representative of what the Church believes.

To understand it, I would suggest that you read this text along with Nostrae Eatate, the decree on ecumenism by Bl. John Paul II and Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

When read as unit, one understand that the Church at Florence was speaking to the Catholic population about abandoning the Catholic faith. It was not her intent to dictate to those outside of the Church how they are to be saved.

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the statement that now appears in the CCC in which he says that in all faith traditions outside of the Catholic Church one finds shadows of the Church and that the Church in her mercy and her God - given power can and does extend her reach to those beyond her physical boundaries, whom without her would have not access to salvation as was taught by the Council of Florence.

It is not by virtue of being anything other than Catholic that man is saved, as is clearly stated by Florence, but by virtue of Christ’s desire to save and the Church’s desire to extend her reach to those who are not part of the Church. However, even those who are not part of the Church can experience and come to know at least a part of the faith of the Church. If they persevere in their desire to find God through those Catholic truths found in their situation, Christ can and does use that to save.

This does not exempt anyone from their responsibility to continue their search for the fullness of truth which exists only in the Church of Jesus Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church. However, God is not blind nor cold hearted; therefore, he sees this other persons longing for truth and salvation. As Bl. John Paul said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Christ makes possible the way to the Church to all men. However, not all men make it, but many do not reach full communion with the Church through no fault of their own. In that case, Christ who cannot be handcuffed, will save those who are persistent in their search for truth and faithful to that part of the truth which they know.

In other words. There is no salvation outside of the Church. However, the Church is both a physical community bound by space and time as well as a transcendent reality that can and does reach out beyond space and time to bring to Christ all who have at least the desire for God and for salvation. They are not saved by their particular faith community, but rather they are saved in spite of it.

There are three parts here. The first part, which the Council of Florence states that no one who steps outside of the Church can be saved. The second part which is found in Nostra Aetate and in the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, that the Church makes herself present in the lives of those beyond her boundaries so that they can make use of what little they can appreciate. Finally, the third part as Bl. John Paul states in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that those who see even but a glimpse of the Church in their present circumstance and hold on to it in good faith, will eventually arrive at the Church in this lifetime or at the moment of death when through their encounter with Christ, the fullness of the Church will be completely revealed to them and they will have the opportunity to embrace it.

I’ve just made a rather rough summary of the entire tradition, because it’s too long and complicated to fit into one post. But that point being that the teaching on salvation for those who have never been Catholic is much more complex than this one paragraph out of context, even if it is from a Church’s council.

As Pope Benedict likes to say, the councils bu be understood in light of the teachings of the Magisterium which is ongoing, not static. In other words, they must be interpreted as the Holy See interprets them, not as we would read them off the printed page.

On the printed page, all of these statements, taken in isolation would appear to contradict each other, but when explained by the Magisterium as whole, each is actually a piece of a puzzle that can get very hairy and is best left to theologians to understand.

 

[SantaGemmaPrega]

PaulfromIowa:
Where did you copy that from? I am guessing not from a Catholic website. Not that I dispute that this might be from the Council of Florence, but that it is infallible. Everything from every council is not infallible.

The source is from EWTN’s Council of Florence document here.
About 1/3 of the way down the page (do a ctrl+F search for the word “schismatic”)

Everything on matters of faith and morals from an ecumenical council is infallible.
Salvation is certainly a matter of faith and morals.
Please see here for explanation.

It must be infallible by necessity of salvation of souls and by the promise of Jesus that the [infallible] Holy Ghost would guide the Church.

This extreme exclusivity is, to some degree, outside the traditional teaching of the Church.

I provided about three pages worth of quotes spanning 1500 years that show this extreme exclusivity is not outside of the traditional teaching.
Care to elaborate on why you believe it is not the traditional teaching?

I am no theologian. I share with you your concern about the very poor and vaguely worded catechetics in the Church

Yes, it is indeed troubling. Especially when we consider St. Paul’s words:
Acts 20:29 “I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”

 

[clem456]

Hello Clem,
Just a few questions to your post.
…
This is the example with which I am most familiar, that of the ark (while I can appreciate your example, it tends to conjure up more of a Greco-historical River Styx image than the Biblical Ark; to each his own I suppose).

I was making a simple analogy, not trying to provide historically correct images.

When the great deluge came, only those inside the ark were saved. No exceptions. Those who didn’t make it aboard - we must imagine - did not because of their own errors or else God would have saved them (just as he saved Lot and his family before destroying S&G).

I didn’t say anything about universal salvation.
Gotta be on the boat, Christ is clear about His Church being the only way. That doesn’t mean a ticket gets you on the boat. We don’t put limitiations on God. He is God after all. If he wishes to bring non-baptised on board, that is His business, is it not? Salvation **subsists in **the Church, doesn’t consist of membership in it.

I would follow up by asking what we are to believe when our Lord says in Matthew 7:7:
Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.

Our Lord said that if we are truly seeking, we shall find. It would seem this means that anyone truly following his conscience/natural law would ultimately find out about their Messiah and be baptized.

But yet it’s not possible for everyone to hear the Gospel. Seeking God does not mean a given person will hear the Gospel.
"through no fault of their own"

We are only able to resist evil and temptation by the grace of God. Now actual grace is certainly available to everyone who seeks God and to follow natural law with an open heart. However, it is by the sacraments that this grace is made truly and readily available to us.

If we require sanctifying grace in order to enter heaven (must be cleansed of original sin and mortal sin), at what point does an unbaptized individual receive that necessary grace in order to be saved if he never had the opportunity in life? At the very last moment of death?
What is also quite relevant to ask, I might wonder, is what consists of someone having been able or not able to know about Christ?
If a missionary has come to a Hindu village, and they reject the missionary and push him away, are they still able to be saved or have they not rejected God?

You need to ask God these questions. God is not bound by the sacraments.
“How are these mysteries possible?” I ask God this question in prayer often. It’s humbling to try and accept that God will do what He will, when He wills it, with whom He wills it, according to His grace, in ways that no person can fathom or understand.

I would relate this to the presence of John Paul II at Ghandi’s funeral proclaiming him a hero of humanity and that he may live forever.
Ghandi obviously had ample opportunity to convert and was very familiar with Christianity but he never did convert.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

One thought is that God’s economy of salvation is not a zero sum game. If a non-baptized person can go to heaven, that in no way dimishes heaven for me. I often wonder why there is such upset at the thought of “others” getting to heaven.

My thought is, that I am thankful God’s world is not like mine, where if my co-worker receives the promotion, that means I did not get it, and it is an occasion for envy and jealousy. If my neighbor wins the lottery, that means I did not.

Salvation is not like that, thank God. There’s abundance for everyone, including those we absolutely cannot stand in this life, or who offend our religious sensibilities.

 

[john78]

JReducation, i have read all your replies in this thread and really do appreciate it, as i really didn’t understand what Muslims believe in, and I had no idea how the Church selects people from different orders to put around the world for missionary work as you have described.

I know for at least me " Muslim extremists " are the ones throwing me for a loop and perhaps the world … It is hard to draw a line an say all muslims are not this extreme when we hear so little of those who disagree and trying to put an end to that violence, let alone not think there is something wrong when there are snipits of news relating to sharia law being influenced to some degree into American law… So there is this biased image being painted at least for me , to want to dismiss Islam altogether, an then to take a step back and read all that you have posted , is making me at least stop an take off the blinders to see what other information pops up down the road. I can only draw the comparison being Catholic to the scandals that have happened and lumping every priest or catholic in that boat, we know it isn’t true. So why should I or anyone else really be so misguided or judgemental toward Islam / Muslims.

lastly I do not know how you handle all the madness the forums offer, the debating can be fun at times, when you are in the mood for it i suppose, but you are proving to be smarter than the average bear and if you haven’t written any books yet I hope you do soon an announce it in due time.