Pre-Vatican II teaching on salvation

[Bookcat]

Excerpt from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.78

The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80 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. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82

1. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 "

…However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God."

…One understands then that, following the Lord’s command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church “proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6)."

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of June 16, 2000, granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority, ratified and confirmed this Declaration, adopted in Plenary Session and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

 

[fall_fox]

fall fox

As having a BA Theology W/Honors, do you really see anything in this encyclical, that vindicates people of other religious traditions from their own responsibility to unite themselves with the true church. Those other religious traditions had their origin in a heresy, nothing has changed that. All through the Encyclical JPll was saying that salvation was available to all. And it is but it is conditional, they must accept Jesus as their Savior and all that that entails.
The Church does recognize that anything is possible with God’s Divine Justice, but The Church can’t declare that all men will be saved, only that there is a possibility.
I still see nothing that really changed from the way we were taught in Catholic Schools in the 1950’s.

About the BA, no sarcasm intended, just a recognition of your status.

 

[fall_fox]

fall fox

As having a BA Theology W/Honors, do you really see anything in this encyclical, that vindicates people of other religious traditions from their own responsibility to unite themselves with the true church. Those other religious traditions had their origin in a heresy, nothing has changed that. All through the Encyclical JPll was saying that salvation was available to all. And it is but it is conditional, they must accept Jesus as their Savior and all that that entails.
The Church does recognize that anything is possible with God’s Divine Justice, but The Church can’t declare that all men will be saved, only that there is a possibility.
I still see nothing that really changed from the way we were taught in Catholic Schools in the 1950’s.
About the BA, no sarcasm intended, just a recognition of your status.

As for the Jews, I believe that the Covenant still exists between them and the Father. They are in a class of their own.

 

[Bookcat]

fall fox

As having a BA Theology W/Honors, do you really see anything in this encyclical, that vindicates people of other religious traditions from their own responsibility to unite themselves with the true church. Those other religious traditions had their origin in a heresy, nothing has changed that. All through the Encyclical JPll was saying that salvation was available to all. And it is but it is conditional, they must accept Jesus as their Savior and all that that entails.
The Church does recognize that anything is possible with God’s Divine Justice, but The Church can’t declare that all men will be saved, only that there is a possibility.
I still see nothing that really changed from the way we were taught in Catholic Schools in the 1950’s.

About the BA, no sarcasm intended, just a recognition of your status.

It was not an encyclical there quoted… but he does quote his own encyclical. I should have noted such.

A person is by grace yes to repent, have faith in Jesus Christ and be baptized (etc)…and thus begin to know true life in Jesus Christ and his Church. Such is the ordinary and normative way.

A person who believes in Jesus and is baptized outside of “full communion” is in a partial communion with the Catholic Church and that very baptism points towards full communion… they are our brothers already in Christ …and we hope for full communion with them.

In all cases, yes --all have the responsibility…all are called to seek and know and live the Truth…to seek God and respond to his grace. Some will not come though (not by their fault) to an explicit knowledge of Christ or his Church. Some may be very confused or in environments which serve as real impediments etc etc (many factors in life). If they are saved though they will still be saved by the Grace of God. Jesus is still their savior and the Church is still part of this in a mysterious way.

But yes this is a “possibility” not a certainty. But God can work in ways we do not know or see. But man is still free etc.

There is a “normative necessity” to accept Jesus Christ and be baptized and enter into full communion with his Church etc. Such is not an “absolute” necessity. Jesus knows us and loves us and can bring his grace in ways we do not even see…he can take into account the our not hearing of his name etc.

We on the other hand are to evangelize …it is our responsibility and our joy to proclaim Christ to others! To propose him …he is the Way the Truth and the Life.

 

[fall_fox]

It was not an encyclical there quoted… but he does quote his own encyclical. I should have noted such.

A person is by grace yes to repent, have faith in Jesus Christ and be baptized (etc)…and thus begin to know true life in Jesus Christ and his Church. Such is the ordinary and normative way.

A person who believes in Jesus and is baptized outside of “full communion” is in a partial communion with the Catholic Church and that very baptism points towards full communion… they are our brothers already in Christ …and we hope for full communion with them.

In all cases, yes --all have the responsibility…all are called to seek and know and live the Truth…to seek God and respond to his grace. Some will not come though (not by their fault) to an explicit knowledge of Christ or his Church. Some may be very confused or in environments which serve as real impediments etc etc (many factors in life). If they are saved though they will still be saved by the Grace of God. Jesus is still their savior and the Church is still part of this in a mysterious way.

But yes this is a “possibility” not a certainty. But God can work in ways we do not know or see. But man is still free etc.

There is a “normative necessity” to accept Jesus Christ and be baptized and enter into full communion with his Church etc. Such is not an “absolute” necessity. Jesus knows us and loves us and can bring his grace in ways we do not even see…he can take into account the our not hearing of his name etc.

We on the other hand are to evangelize …it is our responsibility and our joy to proclaim Christ to others! To propose him …he is the Way the Truth and the Life.

fall fox

The Nuns were quite rigid about the availability of the Catholic Faith, even in the
1950’s. With the advancements in communication by that time, they couldn’t see how anyone could not have available to them the truths of the Catholic Church.
As I mentioned as a kid, it was hard for me to be that rigid, regardless what they said.
I couldn’t conceive of a Jewish kid, with no real contact withThe Church, have the desire to join the Catholic Church, so according to the teachings of the Church, would be condemned.
As far as evangelizing, as a dad and grandfather, I try to give an example for my kids to follow. I’m not sure I am equipped to go door to door to bring people to the faith. I have reached out to neighbors that seemed to need Christ in their families.

 

[Bookcat]

The Nuns were quite rigid about the availability of the Catholic Faith, even in the
1950’s. With the advancements in communication by that time, they couldn’t see how anyone could not have available to them the truths of the Catholic Church.
As I mentioned as a kid, it was hard for me to be that rigid, regardless what they said.
I couldn’t conceive of a Jewish kid, with no real contact withThe Church, have the desire to join the Catholic Church, so according to the teachings of the Church, would be condemned.
As far as evangelizing, as a dad and grandfather, I try to give an example for my kids to follow. I’m not sure I am equipped to go door to door to bring people to the faith. I have reached out to neighbors that seemed to need Christ in their families.

Remember of course that one is speaking of particular Nuns…not the Teaching of the Church per se… sometimes certain aspects were missed perhaps…

Even the old local US Catechism – Baltimore Catechism got into the possibility of salvation of those who were not baptized etc.

Oh by the way here is an important recent document on Evangelization:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html

It is very rich and short.

 

[cepha419]

God said to peter I give your the keys to the gates of heaven. he who is not with me is against me.

He who dose not eat my flesh or drink my blood shall not have eternal life. Protestants reject Jesus in the Eucharist and therefore can not be saved.

If protestants are saved this would cause us to worry only about converting pagans and not protestants. Once this happens, we view ourselves as one christian nation, and accepting the lies of the protestants. We must work just as hard to convert the protestants as the pagans pr heathens.

There is a sect of Catholics who reject the teachings of vatican two but still under authority of the pope. know as the SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS THE TENTH. SSPX.ORG

 

[Bookcat]

Protestants … therefore can not be saved.

Such would not be what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[mosher]

fall fox

The discussion is pre and post Vatican ll, I completely agree with Palmas85, at least about pre Vll, We were taught in the Catholic Schools that it was the duty of all people to discover the true Church and if they didn’t for any reason they would go to hell.
Even as a kid I had a lot of problems with that, maybe that is why I remember it so well. This was during the 1950’s.
Now I’m afraid that the Church is being somewhat politically correct in not beating that drum. But !!! Push to shove I don’t think the truth is far from what was taught in the 1950’s

What you were most likely taught was the simple Catechism answer to a far more complex question that has plagued the finest thinkers in the Church since its earliest days. The emphases usually given to the absolute necessity for salvation through Baptism was from a two-fold approach that was fundamentally flawed. 1) It was based upon a caustic understanding of Salvation, i.e., “If x, then y” and alternately “If not x, then not y”. Fortunately, life (not to mention God) doesn’t work in formalistic ways. 2) A pastoral concern that if one said that baptism wasn’t strictly necessary for salvation then we’d end up with a lot of non-baptized people out there possibly waiting for their dead-bed baptism or simply presuming on the mercy of God. Both of these types of presumption should be rejected. However, the Church has consistently rejected a notion of absolute necessity of baptism for salvation.

Most likely the reason why what you were taught as a child didn’t sit right with you is because it simply isn’t correct. The Church is not saying that you can get to heaven by being a good person (that would be Plagianism). She is not saying that a persons other-than-Catholic religion is a means for their salvation (that would be Modernism via religious indifferentism). She is also not saying that there isn’t an urgency to bring people into the Church through the Sacrament of Baptism for the sake of their eternal salvation (I don’t even know what ‘ism’ that would be). What she is saying is that Baptism is the Ordinary means that Christ instituted by which we are freed from the guilt of Original Sin, the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity are imparted to us in the conferral of an ontological character, and we are actually makes us a new creation, in which we become partakers in the Divine Nature by adoption through the merits Christ won for us in the Paschal Mystery. But, what She is also saying is that due to the nature of God and Divine Revelation there are other means to receive the promise of Salvation that are extraordinary and fall under three categories: 1) Baptism by Blood, 2) Baptism by Intention, and 3) Direct Intervention by God Himself.

To claim more or less than this would be to say too much or too little.