Pre-Vatican II teaching on salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew_11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mosher:
This is when we ask the question: why do they reject Christ? It is because they are truly rejecting him or is there a cultural or family bias or do they not really understand. Of course it is a true knowing and a true rejecting there is no hope of salvation but I think that in practical application it can be said that God will know the true nature of their intellect and will and he cannot be decieved. Thus, while we must say that objectively that we must take great care to help conversion because of love we can also say in the subjecive that God will act as He deems in accord with His plans of slavation, justice and mercy.
As I understand, Jews reject Christ on the theory that he cannot be the Messiah becaus the Messiah never came. The Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet, a highly placed prophet and that his mother had ben foretold of his birth by the angels and that she was blessed. They however say that Allah would NEVER become as a man and in particular find the idea of the conception of Jesus to be abhorrent and blasphemous.

In fact Islam actually sounds a lot like some of the early church heresies, which also denied that Jesus was divine or even the same person as God.
 
40.png
palmas85:
In fact Islam actually sounds a lot like some of the early church heresies, which also denied that Jesus was divine or even the same person as God.
There were also heresies which denied the humanity of Jesus, that He was always and only Spirit.
 
40.png
palmas85:
As I understand, Jews reject Christ on the theory that he cannot be the Messiah becaus the Messiah never came. The Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet, a highly placed prophet and that his mother had ben foretold of his birth by the angels and that she was blessed. They however say that Allah would NEVER become as a man and in particular find the idea of the conception of Jesus to be abhorrent and blasphemous.

In fact Islam actually sounds a lot like some of the early church heresies, which also denied that Jesus was divine or even the same person as God./QUOTE]​

You know palmas85, your right, Islam does sound like the early church heresies, that denied Our Lords divinity.

I just thank Our Lord that thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit, these heresies were suppressed.
 
40.png
palmas85:
As I understand, Jews reject Christ on the theory that he cannot be the Messiah becaus the Messiah never came. The Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet, a highly placed prophet and that his mother had ben foretold of his birth by the angels and that she was blessed. They however say that Allah would NEVER become as a man and in particular find the idea of the conception of Jesus to be abhorrent and blasphemous.

In fact Islam actually sounds a lot like some of the early church heresies, which also denied that Jesus was divine or even the same person as God.
It has been a theory of mine that Islam is the child of Arianism. But, even if they are a heterodox form of Christianity as Yoga or Buddhism are both heterodox forms of Hinduism then the issue remains the same for the follows of Islam. The same principle would apply to all non-Nicene Christians.
 
Really old thread, I know.

“Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me.”

“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

God told us very directly that baptism is necessary for salvation AND that we can NOT go to heaven if we reject Jesus.

The muslims reject the divinity of Christ, therefore I would presume they would not be getting into heaven unless there was some miracle on God’s part. God made the law, I am willing to bet that he is not in the habit of breaking his own law.

As to invincible ignorance and baptism of desire, baptism of desire would REQUIRE an informed conscience that would be desiring to join the Catholic Church in some way. Wiithout know OF the Church the chances of anyone getting to heaven is remotely slim as GOD told us what is REQUIRED to get to heaven.

The modern catechism would lead us to believe that “Well those poor people don’t know about the original sin and all that stuff, their pretty good people so they get a pass and God will let them into heaven. After all they were following their conscience.”

I am sure there are incans who were preforming ritual human sacrifice to false Gods. I am sure some them were convinced that killing their neighbor was the “right” thing to do. This argument can lead us to all sorts of wierd conclusions.

Simple, we don’t know WHAT provisions God is his mercy may choose to make. We DO KNOW what he told us directly and that is that Baptism by water is necessary and no one gets to the father except through Jesus.

Is it possible for a protestant to get to heaven? Maybe, he is baptised and knows Jesus as God, but can a protestant make it his WHOLE life without committing a mortal sin? His often is perfect contrition possible at the moment of death?

The modern catechsim blurs God’s words to the point that all Christians, all good people even are going to heaven. This is just not the case and God told us so.

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 13), Aug. 15, 1832: “With the admonition of the apostle,
that ‘there is one God, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), may those fear who contrive
the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion
whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that ‘those who are not
with Christ are against Him,’ (Lk. 11:23) and that they disperse unhappily who do not
gather with Him. Therefore, ‘without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they
hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate’ (Athanasian Creed).
 
The modern catechism is absolutely RIGHT.
The rejection of Jesus must be knowing and formal and
with the full light of the Holy Spirit, a complete rejection, consciously, enlightened.

Remember, the Faithful Israelites knew nothing of a man named Jesus Christ
or of a 2nd person of the Holy Trinity or anything like that, yet for centuries faithful
Israelites walked with God and had his approval. Yet Jesus IS God and always was.
The Jews were worshipping a Trinity without knowing God was and is a Trinity.
Yet the spirit of Jesus Christ, who had not been explicitly revealed yet, was still in them,
for God is one and the same FROM forever past TO forever FUTURE.

This ignorance of theirs of the Trinity and of Jesus was INVINCIBLE, for it had not been explicitly revealed to them, or anybody else, and would not be for many, many centuries.
In the same way, billions of people are being led by the Spirit of God to repent and worship, without knowing that it is a person called “The Holy Spirit” who is leading them, because the Gospel has not been revealed to them, or sufficiently explained to them.

God is not in the habit of breaking his own Law. He is ABOVE his own laws and is perfectly free to show mercy over justice any time he pleases, and often does just that.
Murder, adultery, fornication, etc. etc. are always, always, always Death Penalty Offenses according to God’s Law, yet God very frequently dispense from these temporal penalties and allows repentance and conversion and penance instead of the sentence
– namely EXECUTION – that His Law explicitly calls for, for all these sins. Many are the liars, fraudsters, adulterers, violent bandits, murderers and mass-murderers to whom God has granted repentance and forgiveness and even restoration and prosperity. King Manasseh, King David, Moses – all these men committed murder. Isaac’s son Jacob was a lying fraudster who became a great hero of God’s Word. Under modern civil law, all these men would be considered felons for those things. Yet they are God’s spirit-filled biblical heroes. Rahab, who won God’s favor for helping the Israelites, was a prostitute, a Whore. She is a heroine of the scriptures. There are many, many more examples. And if God enforced His Laws all the time, all of those people would have been brutally executed for those things. God shows abundant mercy, all the time.
On the other hand, Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead, suddenly, for their
planned fraud against the Church. So we must not presume and must always strive to be repentant.
 
With the availability of the Internet, libraries, etc, ignorance In my opinion isn’t much of an excuse any more. It makes sense long ago for this to be the case when there was no printing press or Internet. I believe there will be a lot more people in hell than is commonly thought. The ultimate decision comes from God not any of us. What we do know is the surest way to Heaven is through the Catholic Church.
 
**What we do know is the surest way to Heaven is through the Catholic Church. **

Amen to that. There are many more “helps to salvation” available thru the Catholic Church than anywhere else.

But the Internet and all that, has nothing to do with the issue of invincible ignorance.
Most people are indoctrinated in a non-Catholic religion from childhood,
and, barring stupendous miracles from God through the Catholic Church,
such as occured in Israel when Jesus and the Apostles were performing stupendous miracles all over the place, barring THAT, it is fair to say that MOST PEOPLE have
no reasonable reason to even SUSPECT that the religion they were raised in might be wrong and that they should, in particular, investigate the Catholic Church to see if it might be the true religion. And, in general, Catholics do not actively EVANGELIZE people to try to teach them about the Catholic faith, either. That is where Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons definitely have the right idea. They go door to door, passing out their religion’s doctrinal literature and explanations, talk with people on the streets actively, engaging them in apologetical discussions of their own religions, etc. There is almost none of this done by Catholics. In all my 50 years of life, I have never had a Catholic come up and hand me a witnessing tract explaining the basics of the Catholic faith. Not Once.
 
I respectfully disagree with you. I think a lot of people take universal ignorance to a point it almost becomes universalism. At that point in thought the only people damned to hell are Catholics that turned away from their faith. I think the availability of information definitely limits the amount of ignorance a person has.
 
It doesn’t seem confusing:

CCC 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
So, how does this cannon apply to, let’s say a Southern Baptist? Of course they baptize “believers” but they believe that baptism does not hold salvific grace, and is only a sign that a person is a believer, and they are never confirmed. If a group of “christians” denies that the sacraments hold salvific grace, or that they are even sacraments at all, are the sacraments still effectual for their salvation?:confused:

The Sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
 
The position was that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. If someone had never heard of the Catholic faith, through no fault of his own, salvation was Possible, but not guaranteed. If someone expressly rejected the Catholic faith, knowing full well what they were doing, BYE BYE. That would have effectively done away with salvation for most Jews, Muslims, Hindus Buddhists, Orthodox etc, as well as most if not all Protestants.

The position now is rather nebulous. As near as I can figure the Church says that the Holy Spirit can subsist in other churches as well as the Catholic Church, and that they too can be saved. There is supposed to be some sort of relation to or connection with the Catholic Chuch in order for this to happen, but I have never understood exactly what that means… The whole thing is really kind of confusing these days…
Interesting! The Orthodox Church held (and traditionalists still do) this same view. The view, in my unerstanding, comes from the belief that the Church is Christ’s Body, and that Christ has only one body, therefore He established one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church so those outside that Church are outside the body of Christ and can not be saved. Also, Christ asked the Father that “they may be one, as You and I are one.” (A little off the subject, but the Father and the Son are one in Nature not in Persons. I gather from this that the one-ness of the Catholic (universal) Church (obviously) does not refer to one group who forms a parish-church, but to the unity of belief (nature) between the different parish-chuches (persons).
So, why the sudden change in position on both sides (Latin and Orthodox Catholic)? Was this something that came about with the ecumenical movement? If so, are we straying from the tradtion of the Catholic (universal) Faith by embracing this new view? This “branch theory”? I would love any feedback on this!

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
 
This is very much what happened. It is apostasy to think that people are saved outside the Church.

Baptism is REQUIRED to go to heaven. What is being argued is how far baptism of desire goes. Traditionally, in the latin rite, one had to know of heaven in order to desire it. A child who had not reached the age of reason, was not murdered for the Catholic faith and was not baptised had NO possibility of going to heaven. Why? Original Sin.

The modern Church MAY still believe this, but what she teaches would lead men to believe that ANYONE can go to heaven if he just lives a good life.

Many people wonder why seminaries and religious orders are dying out due to lack of new members. Why join when they are told it is no longer necessary?

This is just ONE of many many reasons why there is such a strong growth in the traditional Catholic movement. A movement which rejects these fundamental changes to Church teaching.

Take a look at what just a FEW of the pre-conciliar Popes have declared EX CATHEDRA. If the modern Church says salvation outside the Church is possible, then they essentially declare that EX-CATHERDRA proclamations by their predecessors were in error, i.e. the Holy Spirit does NOT prevent error in EX CATHEDRA statements.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
  1. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]
  2. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
— Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
 
Interesting! The Orthodox Church held (and traditionalists still do) this same view. The view, in my unerstanding, comes from the belief that the Church is Christ’s Body, and that Christ has only one body, therefore He established one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church so those outside that Church are outside the body of Christ and can not be saved. Also, Christ asked the Father that “they may be one, as You and I are one.” (A little off the subject, but the Father and the Son are one in Nature not in Persons. I gather from this that the one-ness of the Catholic (universal) Church (obviously) does not refer to one group who forms a parish-church, but to the unity of belief (nature) between the different parish-chuches (persons).
So, why the sudden change in position on both sides (Latin and Orthodox Catholic)? Was this something that came about with the ecumenical movement? If so, are we straying from the tradtion of the Catholic (universal) Faith by embracing this new view? This “branch theory”? I would love any feedback on this!

The sinner,
Josh
Most Holy Mother of God save us!
The issue is not new or novel in any way. Rather, it goes back to a Patristic question about the Salvation of those who could not receive Baptism. The clearest example are those who were in the “Limbo of the Fathers” when Christ descended there to bring the righteous into glory. The icon of the raising of Adam and Eve comes most readily to mind. But the problem arrises that as a result of this action of Christ it is shown that there are some instances when Baptism is not absolutely necessary.

The Council of Trent had to take this question very seriously for a number of reason but mostly because of the great amount of people found in the Americas. Thus, to partially settle the Patristic question the Council defined that there are two ways that we know of by which a person can attain to Salvation apart from the Sacraments:
  1. Baptism by Blood: Martyrdom for the faith though the person has not be Sacramentally Baptized.
  2. Baptism by Desire: One who desires Baptism but dies before he is able to receive it.
Both of these “exceptions” are based upon two doctrines:
  1. God’s justice
  2. Dispensatio (or as it is called in the East: Economia)
The legalistic understanding of Salvation has been consistently condemned as heresy throughout the history of the Church. The most recent example is the heresy of Feenyism [sic] which held to a strict interpretation of the necessity of Baptism for salvation contrary to the definitions made at Trent.

The Vatican II council simply reaffirmed the doctrine of Trent. There is further speculation about the 2nd exception defined at Trent. The definition is actually much broader than it seems at first read. More work needs to be done to see how far Baptism of desire goes and to what extent it is predicated upon the active use of the faculty of reason or not.

But the two important points are the doctrines about God’s nature as supremely just and Dispensatio/Economia. It is impossible to hold these doctrines and at the same time hold to a legalistic relationship between salvation and the Sacrament of Baptism.
 
the issue is not new or novel in any way. Rather, it goes back to a patristic question about the salvation of those who could not receive baptism. The clearest example are those who were in the “limbo of the fathers” when christ descended there to bring the righteous into glory. The icon of the raising of adam and eve comes most readily to mind. But the problem arrises that as a result of this action of christ it is shown that there are some instances when baptism is not absolutely necessary.

The council of trent had to take this question very seriously for a number of reason but mostly because of the great amount of people found in the americas. Thus, to partially settle the patristic question the council defined that there are two ways that we know of by which a person can attain to salvation apart from the sacraments:
  1. Baptism by blood: Martyrdom for the faith though the person has not be sacramentally baptized.
    *******This is interesting to me, because in the orthodox church we also believe that children who are murdered in abortion are “baptized in their own blood”. This is sad, but the mercy of god is so amazing!
  1. Baptism by desire: One who desires baptism but dies before he is able to receive it.
    ******This seems to make sense because god’s love is beyond our comprehension. This does seem to be a supreme example of economia/dispensatioboth of these “exceptions” are based upon two doctrines:
  2. God’s justice
  3. Dispensatio (or as it is called in the east: Economia)
the legalistic understanding of salvation has been consistently condemned as heresy throughout the history of the church. The most recent example is the heresy of feenyism [sic] which held to a strict interpretation of the necessity of baptism for salvation contrary to the definitions made at trent.

The vatican ii council simply reaffirmed the doctrine of trent. There is further speculation about the 2nd exception defined at trent. The definition is actually much broader than it seems at first read. More work needs to be done to see how far baptism of desire goes and to what extent it is predicated upon the active use of the faculty of reason or not.

But the two important points are the doctrines about god’s nature as supremely just and dispensatio/economia. It is impossible to hold these doctrines and at the same time hold to a legalistic relationship between salvation and the sacrament of baptism.
 
This is very much what happened. It is apostasy to think that people are saved outside the Church.

Baptism is REQUIRED to go to heaven. What is being argued is how far baptism of desire goes. Traditionally, in the latin rite, one had to know of heaven in order to desire it. A child who had not reached the age of reason, was not murdered for the Catholic faith and was not baptised had NO possibility of going to heaven. Why? Original Sin.
If we are subject to original sin (which is debatable between the Orthodox, then surely we would have heaped upon us every sin that has ever been committed from Adam’s time to our own. I must say that I reject Augustine’s view of original sin.
The modern Church MAY still believe this, but what she teaches would lead men to believe that ANYONE can go to heaven if he just lives a good life.

Many people wonder why seminaries and religious orders are dying out due to lack of new members. Why join when they are told it is no longer necessary?

This is just ONE of many many reasons why there is such a strong growth in the traditional Catholic movement. A movement which rejects these fundamental changes to Church teaching.

Take a look at what just a FEW of the pre-conciliar Popes have declared EX CATHEDRA. If the modern Church says salvation outside the Church is possible, then they essentially declare that EX-CATHERDRA proclamations by their predecessors were in error, i.e. the Holy Spirit does NOT prevent error in EX CATHEDRA statements.

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
No where, either in cannon law or in the ecclesiastical history has it ever been stated by a Father of the Church that we will be denied salvation if we are not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Talk abou over-stepping his jurisdiction.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
God alone is our judge, not even the sucessor of Peter.
13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]
  1. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
— Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
 
God alone is our judge, not even the sucessor of Peter.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Ultimately, of course, you are right, absolutely-speaking.
But Christ-God delegated the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, alone.
The other apostles/bishops enjoy the power of the keys insofar as they are in full
communion with him.
And in that episcopal apostolic unity, Christ’s words hold true regarding doctrine
AND regarding the forgiveness of sins:
Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven,
whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As for there being nowhere in the patristics any statement that we must be under
the successor of Peter, (the bishop of Rome), that really is just plain common sense and goes without saying. No explicit statements are needed at all. Jesus Himself established the Petrine office, which continues in Peter’s successors. Peter is the rock-mass upon which church unity (on earth) is based. And if Peter, or his successor, is in possession on earth of the Keys, it is necessary to be in communion with Him and to some degree even “subject” to him. It’s just plain common sense based on the teachings of the gospel. I do wish Boniface had been more discreet in his expression of the fact, however. It sounds very bombastic the way it is worded.
 
This is when we ask the question: why do they reject Christ? It is because they are truly rejecting him or is there a cultural or family bias or do they not really understand. Of course it is a true knowing and a true rejecting there is no hope of salvation but I think that in practical application it can be said that God will know the true nature of their intellect and will and he cannot be deceived. Thus, while we must say that objectively that we must take great care to help conversion because of love we can also say in the subjective that God will act as He deems in accord with His plans of salvation, justice and mercy.
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
 
It is the authority of the Magisterium that interprets historical documents etc…i

I will let Bl. Pope John Paul II explain the Teaching of the Catholic Church :

PART 1

"However, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the gift of salvation cannot be limited “to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.” And, in admitting that it is concretely impossible for many people to have access to the Gospel message, I added: “Many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions” (RM 10).



What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ “there is no salvation.” As Peter proclaimed before the Sanhedrin at the very start of the apostolic preaching: “There is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For those too who through no fault of their own do not know Christ and are not recognized as Christians, the divine plan has provided a way of salvation. As we read in the Council’s Decree Ad Gentes, we believe that “God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel” to the faith necessary for salvation (AG 7). Certainly, the condition “inculpably ignorant” cannot be verified nor weighed by human evaluation, but must be left to the divine judgment alone. For this reason, the Council states in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes that in the heart of every man of good will, “Grace works in an unseen way… The Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery” (GS 22).

It is important to stress that the way of salvation taken by those who do not know the Gospel is not a way apart from Christ and the Church. The universal salvific will is linked to the one mediation of Christ. “God our Savior…wants all men to be saved and come to know the truth. And the truth is this: God is one. One also is the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:3-6). Peter proclaimed this when he said: “There is no salvation in anyone else” and called Jesus the “cornerstone” (Acts 4:11-12), emphasizing Christ’s necessary role at the basis of the Church.

This affirmation of the Savior’s “uniqueness” derives from the Lord’s own words. He stated that he came “to give his own life in ransom for the many” (Mk 10:45), that is, for humanity, as St. Paul explains when he writes: “One died for all” (2 Cor 5:14; cf. Rom 5:18). Christ won universal salvation with the gift of his own life. No other mediator has been established by God as Savior. The unique value of the sacrifice of the cross must always be acknowledged in the destiny of every man."

see part 2 for the continued explaination from the Pope…
 
Bookcat said:
Part 2 --from Bl. Pope John Paul II:

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"–"outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351). **The axiom means **that for those who are not ignorant of the fact that the Church has been established as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, there is an obligation to enter the Church and remain in her in order to attain salvation (cf. LG 14). For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. It is also mysterious in itself, because it is linked to the saving mystery of grace, which includes an essential reference to the Church the Savior founded.

In order to take effect, saving grace requires acceptance, cooperation, a yes to the divine gift. This acceptance is, at least implicitly, oriented to Christ and the Church. Thus it can also be said that sine ecclesia nulla salus–“without the Church there is no salvation.” Belonging to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, however implicitly and indeed mysteriously, is an essential condition for salvation.

Religions can exercise a positive influence on the destiny of those who belong to them and follow their guidance in a sincere spirit. However, if decisive action for salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit, we must keep in mind that man receives his salvation only from Christ through the Holy Spirit. Salvation already begins during earthly life. This grace, when accepted and responded to, brings forth fruit in the gospel sense for earth and for heaven.

Hence the importance of the Church’s indispensable role. She “is not an end unto herself, but rather is fervently concerned to be completely of Christ, in Christ and for Christ, as well as completely of men, among men and for men.” This role then is not “ecclesiocentric,” as is sometimes said. The Church does not exist nor does she work for herself, but is at the service of a humanity called to divine sonship in Christ (cf. RM 19). She thus exercises an implicit mediation also with regard to those who do not know the Gospel.

What has been said, however, should not lead to the conclusion that her missionary activity is less needed in these situations–quite the contrary. In fact, whoever does not know Christ, even through no fault of his own, is in a state of darkness and spiritual hunger, often with negative repercussions at the cultural and moral level. The Church’s missionary work can provide him with the resources for the full development of Christ’s saving grace, by offering full and conscious adherence to the message of faith and active participation in Church life through the sacraments.

This is the theological approach drawn from Christian tradition. The Church’s Magisterium has followed it in her doctrine and practice as the way indicated by Christ himself for the apostles and for missionaries in every age."
  • Blessed Pope John Paul II
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

The Church explains her teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top