Salvation doctrine clarified

[McCall1981]

His words:
If all Catholics believed something to be doctrinally true at a time and was taught in the church, can it be claimed later to be wrong? Yes, if the belief is incorrect. There are many things that people believe to be doctrine that are disciplines, theological statements, or commentaries on a doctrine. Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. Very often, these writings are about an infallible belief,but what is being said about the belief can be a development of the thought, not necessarily another infallible statement. …] However, these explanations cannot contract the doctrine. They can simply be insufficient or unclear.

You may want to read the works of St. Boniface. He speaks very clearly on the authority of the pope over councils, even those of the past and over previous popes. To paraphrase him, no pope is bound by any decree of any council or any previous pope unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation.

No pope is bound by any doctor of the church, any saint or any miracle or an private apparition. All revelation comes from Christ. All law comes from Christ and it is written in the heart of the pope. That’s it in a nutshell. It’s a very long statement, which you may be able to find online.

You should re-read this, he’s saying exactly what I’m saying.

Popes are bound to the Deposit of Faith, to Church doctrine, to infallible doctrine. They are not bound to other teaching like canon law, statements that aren’t infalliable etc.

In the first paragraph, Br. JR points out that people often mistakenly think everything the Pope or Church says is infalliable. Often Popes comment on infallible teaching, but their commentary is not infallible. He then states that their commentary cannot contradict doctrine.

In the second paragraph he points out that Popes are not bound to doctors, saints, private miracles etc. Popes are not bound to previous Popes “unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation” (his quote). Divine revelation is Church doctrine. So Popes are not bound to other Popes unless what that other Pope said is part of divine revelation (Church doctrine), then they are bound, as Br. JR says.

He’s saying exactly what I’m saying. Popes are bound to Church doctrine, and not bound to other things. Teachings on salvation are Church doctrine, all Popes are bound to those teachings, and bound to what previous Popes have said infallibly about it.

What we’re arguing about here isn’t debatable, this is simply Catholic theology, and Br. JR has said it here better than I was.

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.”
Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: “It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.”
Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: “Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Encyclical Humani Generis, August 12, 1950: “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”
Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): “By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.”
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

 

[Sirach2]

Daniel, very impressive — in fact, I think you missed a few. My list is more extensive, but this listing must be understood in light of the Church’s understanding, not as we read them in virtual literalness. If I can muster up some patience, since this subject has been debated to death, I’ll try to compile some of the many posts that explain the why behind the what. I seldom answer these threads nowadays, because people will generally prefer to misunderstand and hold to their own ideas of this truth.

 

[Sirach2]

You should re-read this, he’s saying exactly what I’m saying.

Popes are bound to the Deposit of Faith, to Church doctrine, to infallible doctrine. They are not bound to other teaching like canon law, statements that aren’t infalliable etc.

In the first paragraph, Br. JR points out that people often mistakenly think everything the Pope or Church says is infalliable. Often Popes comment on infallible teaching, but their commentary is not infallible. He then states that their commentary cannot contradict doctrine.

I did read it again, but we are on different plateaus of understanding.
Brother JR:

Often, people think that everything that a pope writes or a council writes is a doctrine or that **everything that is in an encyclical is infallible. **

This is the problem in threads such as this, where many folks will cite the encyclical written in Councils, such as that of Florence quoted herein, and that it is infallible for all time, without another Pope or Council having the authority to understand it in deeper clarity of truth or development. Then they will quote Vatican I that says no development may take place, etc. Yet Dei Verbum (V-II) states that development may and does validly occur under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Which Council is in error, pray tell? Isn’t it rather that the person doing the reading is binding their personal intelligence to a virtual linguistic translation?

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

I have been reading the boards, and it seems that many Traditional Catholics hold to the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church as it was strictly understood, for example, by Pope Eugene IV:

*Cantate Domino (1441): “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.” *

The Church does not interpret the doctrine so severely in modern times, and I never could understand how a Traditional Catholic could defend the earlier understanding and believe in a just and loving God. I understand that a Fr. Feeney held and was condemned by the Church for his keeping with the earlier, narrow interpretation of the doctrine. I have no doubt in my mind and in my conscience that the Lord will not condemn an innocent person to hell, and I personally do not want to be associated as a Traditional Catholic with those who hold this position.

But the question is not which belief is true, but how does a Catholic defend the doctrine that Church teaching does not change when it did change on this vital issue. I’ve read other posts where people say it did not change but developed, so it will not be helpful to my understanding if similar comments are made here or if subsequent documents introducing the notion of invincible ignorance are quoted as I do not think a doctrine can develop into a reversal. It will also not be helpful to be told to accept both conflicting teachings out of respect for the Magisterium. I assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I do not know what this means when the old and the new are in conflict. I suppose what I am hoping for is a “loophole” that would support the notion that the older teaching was not infallible or that if it was, it was only considered so to a particular audience at a particular time. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know how to be an apologist for papal infallibility or for the doctrine that Church teaching does not change.

Not only is it important to me to make sense of this issue personally, but as an apologist for the faith, it is necessary to be able to defend it.

You unfortunately make several errors in your examination of both church doctrine, and the role of the magisterium in the church:

Firstly, the church cannot change its interpretation of a doctrine. It is incapable of doing so. It can more clearly DEFINE certain doctrines and dogmas, such as with the immaculate conception and papal infallibility, but can in no way have the power to dim down, water down, weaken, interpret less strongly a teaching which has already been clearly defined by the magisterium at a earlier time.

Secondly, do you truly believe that you know better than the almighty! God knows all, God loves all. Do not judge, nor presume upon Gods mercy, doing so is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, God offers us all THE path to salvation, NOT A path to salvation, there is a difference, for Christ is the way the truth and the life, and no man can get to the father except through him. (John Ch 14) What about the protestants who claim to believe in Christ then. Christ said very clearly, that if you reject the church you reject me, and if you reject me you reject the one who sent me. (Luke Ch 10)

Finally, my friend, can you please tell me where the church has dimmed down upon this issue. The Church simply clarified that THAT teaching is not directed to those, who through NO FAULT of THEIR OWN, do not know Christ nor his Church. It DID NOT say that people who hear of the church but do not accept it can still be saved.

 

[McCall1981]

I did read it again, but we are on different plateaus of understanding.

Apparently we are. He’s clearly stating exactly what I and most other people in this thread are stating, because it’s a basic belief of the Catholic Church.

This is the problem in threads such as this, where many folks will cite the encyclical written in Councils, such as that of Florence quoted herein, and that it is infallible for all time, without another Pope or Council having the authority to understand it in deeper clarity of truth or development. Then they will quote Vatican I that says no development may take place, etc. Yet Dei Verbum (V-II) states that development may and does validly occur under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Which Council is in error, pray tell? Isn’t it rather that the person doing the reading is binding their personal intelligence to a virtual linguistic translation?

An infalliable statement is infallible for all time, that is part of the definition of infallible. Not everything that is said by a Pope or the Church is infalliable, but the things that are infallible, are infallible forever. As the post below yours states, doctrine can be more clearly defined, but never contradicted or interpreted differently. Not by a Pope, not by anybody. No doctrine has ever changed, because doctrine cannot change by definiton.

If you don’t believe that, I don’t know what else to tell you other than that this is a basic belief of the Church.

 

[jwinch2]

You should re-read this, he’s saying exactly what I’m saying.

Popes are bound to the Deposit of Faith, to Church doctrine, to infallible doctrine. They are not bound to other teaching like canon law, statements that aren’t infalliable etc.

In the first paragraph, Br. JR points out that people often mistakenly think everything the Pope or Church says is infalliable. Often Popes comment on infallible teaching, but their commentary is not infallible. He then states that their commentary cannot contradict doctrine.

In the second paragraph he points out that Popes are not bound to doctors, saints, private miracles etc. Popes are not bound to previous Popes “unless that which is decreed is explicitly contained in divine revelation” (his quote). Divine revelation is Church doctrine. So Popes are not bound to other Popes unless what that other Pope said is part of divine revelation (Church doctrine), then they are bound, as Br. JR says.

He’s saying exactly what I’m saying. Popes are bound to Church doctrine, and not bound to other things. Teachings on salvation are Church doctrine, all Popes are bound to those teachings, and bound to what previous Popes have said infallibly about it.

What we’re arguing about here isn’t debatable, this is basic Catholic theology, and Br. JR has said it here better than I was.

Well put in my view.

We have a tendency in the Church, and I most certainly include myself in this, to be lazy. We cannot be bothered to track down original sources. And if we do bother, we only find snippets of them to help us in whatever argument we are trying to win before we move on. When I teach my graduate students how to do research, we start with a literature review so that we can find out where the gaps in the data are on a given topic which are worthy of study. One of the issues is I come across consistently, is that they never want to go back to the primary source and start from there, they want to go to a text book and work backwards, or just use that to write their lit review without ever tracking down primary sources. This leads to major misunderstandings of the scientific literature and a lousy literature review. In our understanding of Church teaching, we should go back to when the doctrines were declared and read those documents in their entirety. In addition, the sources which are cited in the deceleration of those documents should be read in their entirety. Then, we can move forward in history to see how the Church has understood those teachings.

There is a reason that I have never put “traditional Catholic” in my profile here or anywhere else. And that reason is because being Catholic implies acceptance and reverence to all of Sacred Tradition. The idea that one can be legitimately Catholic and not accept all of Sacred Tradition is a falsehood. To paraphrase Pope Benedict in his discussion of Summorum Pontificum, what was considered sacred before cannot be considered harmful now. Well, that has to go for Church doctrine as well, not just the Mass, though that is certainly important. In addition, Pope Benedict specifically stated that the understanding of Vatican II as some sort of “super-council” which altered that which came before it is entirely incorrect.

The basic question that a Catholic must ask themselves is do they believe that Church doctrine can change. If not, then we can move on to question two, which is can the sense or understanding of doctrine change. If no, then we are good to go. If a Catholic answers either one of these questions with a yes, then that person has an improper understanding of Catholicism. As I am sure you know, to understand this it is important to realize that a doctrine can indeed be brought to a fuller understanding. However, this fuller understanding can never alter the original sense or meaning of that which was proclaimed by the Church, when it was proclaimed by the Church.

Put in practical terms, do we believe that Pope Francis could come along and overturn or change the understanding of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Or, is he bound, as the caretaker and steward of all that has been passed on to him, to present and teach the doctrine in the manner in which it was proclaimed? Not that we have to worry about such things with His Holiness, but obviously only the second scenario is consistent with Church teaching in this area.

 

[Sirach2]

An infalliable statement is infallible for all time, that is part of the definition of infallible. Not everything that is said by a Pope or the Church is infallible, but the things that are infallible, are infallible forever. As the post below yours states, doctrine can be more clearly defined, but never contradicted or interpreted differently. Not by a Pope, not by anybody. No doctrine has ever changed, because doctrine cannot change by definiton.

If you don’t believe that, I don’t know what else to tell you other than that this is a basic belief of the Church.

Of course I understand, but I think you are not understanding ME. My point was that Cantate Domino, while it is infallible, is wronglly interpreted by lay persons who read it in light of their understanding, rather than the context in which the Church defined it in that century with certain cultural circumstances that were radically different than our century. Reformation had not occurred, remember? I’m not at all saying what you imply. What is properly known as Revelation cannot be changed EVER, nor can a Motu Proprio such as I.C. or Assumption - never. We have to look at the nature of the teaching, whether it is of Revelation, discipline, or doctrine, and whether or not it is under the umbrella that it may change.

I just listened to CA Live Radio where this was discussed at 6:40 minutes, if you want to listen to the podcast later. NO lay person can ever put themselves in the position of being fully able to understand the hundreds of deliberations of an Ecumenical Council or to know in their finite minds the true reality that was intended by the Pontiffs or Council Fathers. We listen, rather, to their teachings as best we can understand them. If there are ‘seeming’ contradictions, then guess who failed to understand? Certainly, not the Council, nor the Pope.

The end result is a mish-mash of controversy based solely upon this or that lay man’s private interpretation, and each of them saying, “My truth is the right one!” De fide! We gossip behind the scenes when anyone disagrees with our view and become vehicles of anger or hatred toward a brother in Christ, simply because they will not accept our particular version. THAT, my friend, is sin – full blown.

We kneel before Christ to receive him on our tongues after villifying our neighbor with that same tongue, and think we are on the high road to salvation… (I’m speaking generally, for I have seen how ugly these types of threads can be.)

 

[Megan7]

You are most welcome Megan, but too kind by half. God bless you. You’re a regular ray of sunshine on this forum for me.

Thank you so much for your kind words. I am truly humbled by them.

I meant every word. Your students are blessed to have you as a Professor.

It pains me to see how much effort, research, patience you put into your posts,
“in this valley of tears”… All for the Glory of God.
But, you Sir are a real Gentleman & a wonderful Christian :tiphat: We are Blessed to have you on this forum. Thank you for your dedication & patience…
I hope that people coming here for the first time will take the time & read your posts.

I am learning a lot from your posts

You have my prayers

Pax,

Megan

 

[DJLake]

OP, this subject arises at least twice a month, with the same old arguments ad nauseum put forth by traditionists who fail to understand the teaching according to the mind of the Church, as She understands it, and they distort it completely according to their literal understanding as they interpret it.

The beginning of the Bull anethematizes a long list of heretical sects, and closes with the words that most trads take out of context with the entire meaning of Pope Eugene. Let’s read.
Quote:
Pope Eugene IV, the Bull
Cantate Domino, 1441
All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ. 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.

We find therefore, the mention of various heresies and heretics who have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic Faith. All of these heretics mentioned in the Bull had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact.

Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who** shed their blood for Christ, **will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed can not be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have NOT heard the gospel. The ones to whom these decrees are addressed are those that have heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church. It is true that these cannot be saved.

Notice that this decree does not say, “If those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict ‘No Salvation’ view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. If, after hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

Conclusion: The assumptions behind the rigorist ‘No Salvation’ doctrine as certain trads understand it, are false.

1. In this decree there was no mention of those who have not heard the message. Nor of those who through no fault of their own, were born into noncatholic communities many years after the Reformation, which had not happened yet at the writing of this Bull in 1441. It addressed primarily heretics who chose to leave the Church.
2. The magisterium’s position (as stated in CCC 846-847, and which quotes Lumen Gentium) has thus not departed from the truths of the this decree.

You’re making some good arguments here in terms of the particular audience addressed and at a particular time.

 

[jwinch2]

Thank you so much for your kind words. I am truly humbled by them.

I meant every word. Your students are blessed to have you as a Professor.

It pains me to see how much effort, research, patience you put into your posts,
“in this valley of tears”… All for the Glory of God.
But, you Sir are a real Gentleman & a wonderful Christian :tiphat: We are Blessed to have you on this forum. Thank you for your dedication & patience…
I hope that people coming here for the first time will take the time & read your posts.

I am learning a lot from your posts

You have my prayers

Pax,

Megan

OK, now I’m starting to blush.

God bless Megan.

 

[DJLake]

Something came to my mind which I’d like to propose.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Would the criteria for mortal sin possibly apply to those outside of the Church, such as the schismatic in good faith? Perhaps, this is the “legalistic” loophole I hoped to find.

Thanks, once again, for your posts and the reading suggestions which I hope to get to soon.

 

[jwinch2]

Something came to my mind which I’d like to propose.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Would the criteria for mortal sin possibly apply to those outside of the Church, such as the schismatic in good faith? Perhaps, this is the “legalistic” loophole I hoped to find.

Thanks, once again, for your posts and the reading suggestions which I hope to get to soon.

I would suggest taking a look this area, but related to the natural law. Aquinas and Augustine both wrote about those who are outside the Church and have violated the natural law.

The other thing which I would suggest is that you look into what the Church has traditionally taught regarding those who have the chance of God showing them the truth of the Catholic Faith when outside of the Church, and the necessity for them to be seeking God and His will with a sincere heart.

 

[BCH]

Consider the Life of Mother Teresa
She fulfilled a calling from God to care for the poorest of the poor - people sick, dying, rejected or just cast aside like garbage. She did not reach out with church doctrine and rules but with Love found in the heart of the church, the life of Jesus himself.

I cannot reconcile in my heart that God would call Mother Teresa to show mercy and compassion to these poor humble people just to consign these same people to eternal suffering, after death.

Can anyone that has experienced the burning love and mercy of our Lord believe that the He would just let these people slip through His holy hands.

 

[Lucky7]

OK, so here is my dilemma on this whole topic.

Granted, I do not know and have not read everything on the topic (for sure), but from what I have seen it appears to me that the Church has never used the term “invincible ignorance” or allowed for exceptions prior to Pope Pius IX in 1863. I’m also pretty sure that when he did mention this, his statements were not of an infallible nature. So:

(1) Was Pope Pius IX’s comments an innovation? If not, please show me where the Church taught infallibly something similar prior to 1863.

(2) If they were an innovation, how did they suddenly become incorporated into Catholic doctrine after hundreds and hundreds of years?

I certainly understand the idea that, in the end, God and God alone will decide if someone is saved regardless of their standing in the Catholic Church, but where was the teaching that there are exceptions to those Outside of the Catholic Church prior to 1863?

 

[OraLabora]

Consider the Life of Mother Teresa
She fulfilled a calling from God to care for the poorest of the poor - people sick, dying, rejected or just cast aside like garbage. She did not reach out with church doctrine and rules but with Love found in the heart of the church, the life of Jesus himself.

I cannot reconcile in my heart that God would call Mother Teresa to show mercy and compassion to these poor humble people just to consign these same people to eternal suffering, after death.

Can anyone that has experienced the burning love and mercy of our Lord believe that the He would just let these people slip through His holy hands.

You bring up a very important point. First of all, the call to holiness is very personal. We are meant to live our faith, not argue it, and that’s exactly what Mother Teresa did. Secondly, discussing what this or that pope said hundreds or thousands of years ago, addressing a different context and a different time, is waayyyy above our pay grade so to speak.

And lastly, we are all Catholic. I’m not sure what we will achieve by “proving” something unprovable like who is or isn’t saved. We are here because we feel we have found or stumbled on what we are certain is a safe path to communion with God, not because we’re part of an exclusive “club”. Any attempt at saying who is or isn’t saved, is placing limits on what God can or cannot do, and amounts to playing God ourselves. I cannot fathom what the point of doing this may be; I suspect a deep-seated need or desire to prove Vatican II wrong to perhaps reinforce the traditionalist position? Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. I suggest to all of us here that it behooves us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and leave the great theological debates and interpretation of what various popes have said in past times regarding the salvation of non-Catholics to, well, the theologians.

 

[Sirach2]

You bring up a very important point. First of all, the call to holiness is very personal. We are meant to live our faith, not argue it, and that’s exactly what Mother Teresa did. Secondly, discussing what this or that pope said hundreds or thousands of years ago, addressing a different context and a different time, is waayyyy above our pay grade so to speak.

And lastly, we are all Catholic. I’m not sure what we will achieve by “proving” something unprovable like who is or isn’t saved. We are here because we feel we have found or stumbled on what we are certain is a safe path to communion with God, not because we’re part of an exclusive “club”. Any attempt at saying who is or isn’t saved, is placing limits on what God can or cannot do, and amounts to playing God ourselves. I cannot fathom what the point of doing this may be; I suspect a deep-seated need or desire to prove Vatican II wrong to perhaps reinforce the traditionalist position? Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. I suggest to all of us here that it behooves us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and leave the great theological debates and interpretation of what various popes have said in past times regarding the salvation of non-Catholics to, well, the theologians.

Excellent post!!!

 

[Lucky7]

I cannot fathom what the point of doing this may be; I suspect a deep-seated need or desire to prove Vatican II wrong to perhaps reinforce the traditionalist position? Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. I suggest to all of us here that it behooves us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and leave the great theological debates and interpretation of what various popes have said in past times regarding the salvation of non-Catholics to, well, the theologians.

I can’t speak for all, but I am not trying to prove VII wrong. I am trying to understand what appears to be a contradiction. Since the Church can not contradict itself, I need to see that it does not. I find this very unsettling. The fact that so many people scratch their heads over this means at the very least that there is a communication breakdown between our Church leaders and the laity. Do you ever hear our leaders talk about this? If it weren’t for the confusion over the Pope’s recent redemption remarks, I doubt we would have heard anything about what the Church currently teaches about salvation outside of the Church. I NEVER hear this discussed at the parish level. The average homily makes it seem like we’re all the same. Many post VII Catholics even think that all religions go to Heaven.

I have said it a number of times on this site that there is confusion in the Church. I happen to think that this particular teaching is a big part of the confusion for various reasons. There are faithful Catholics who are questioning. …and not all of us would consider ourselves “trad”. This is why this topic comes up over and over…because it never seems to get fully reconciled/resolved.

And quite honestly, the continuous remarks by others about how we should be worrying about our own salvation is insulting. Just because we are talking about this doctrine does not mean we are not also working out our own salvation in fear and trembling.

 

[Sirach2]

For newcomers to this topic who have been subject to lengthly theological treatises above your understanding, here are a couple points that may be helpful.

Romans 8:32 is pretty clear. Christ’s death was an unconditional offering for the entire human race. Note the wording below: “we ought.” The Church suggests we ought to approach the question of salvation with confidence, even if we can’t see a logical path for the Holy Spirit to work.
All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all (people) of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men (cf. Rom. 8:31-33) and since the ultimate vocation of (the human person) is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every (person) the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (GS 22:5)

1260 (Catechism) “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.” 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.
Finally, we understand from the great St. Paul in Romans 2:11-18 that pagans/gentiles who don’t know about Christ but live the law according to their conscience, demonstrate that the law is written in their hearts. God Himself is their judge, and not men. IOW, they are invincibly ignorant about Christ and His Church, but not ignorant according to natural law that is written in the heart of every man.

It is explicitly clear in Acts 10:34-35 that “God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation he who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” These words are from our first Pope, St. Peter, who learned a very valuable lesson after God sent him the vision three times, due to the importance of what God wanted him to understand.

Those who look for loopholes need go no further than these very early scriptures and the Church’s teaching.

 

[jwinch2]

You bring up a very important point. First of all, the call to holiness is very personal. We are meant to live our faith, not argue it, and that’s exactly what Mother Teresa did. Secondly, discussing what this or that pope said hundreds or thousands of years ago, addressing a different context and a different time, is waayyyy above our pay grade so to speak.

And lastly, we are all Catholic. I’m not sure what we will achieve by “proving” something unprovable like who is or isn’t saved. We are here because we feel we have found or stumbled on what we are certain is a safe path to communion with God, not because we’re part of an exclusive “club”. Any attempt at saying who is or isn’t saved, is placing limits on what God can or cannot do, and amounts to playing God ourselves. I cannot fathom what the point of doing this may be; I suspect a deep-seated need or desire to prove Vatican II wrong to perhaps reinforce the traditionalist position? Maybe I’m wrong. I hope I’m wrong. I suggest to all of us here that it behooves us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling and leave the great theological debates and interpretation of what various popes have said in past times regarding the salvation of non-Catholics to, well, the theologians.

There is a stark difference between interpreting Vatican II wrong, and saying that the documents are wrong. There is a stark difference between telling someone to not read the documents, and suggesting that they follow the directions of Pope Benedict and read them in the light of all of Sacred Tradition. There is a stark difference between noting what Benedict XVI, and others have noted, which is that Vatican II proclaimed no new doctrine, or as John XXIII noted, was not intended to change or alter doctrine in anyway, and saying that Vatican II was not a valid council. One does not need an intent to prove the council wrong to follow the guidance of our Popes on what the council is supposed to be.

Secondly, this is a discussion forum with the express goal of explaining and defending the Faith. The OP asked a question about the doctrine, and sources were provided. This particular person is confused on the doctrine and it is causing them to doubt the Church, because he sees discrepancies between what the Church has traditionally taught and what the Church teaches now. Several people jumped in to show that the doctrines have not and cannot change, and also tried to show how the OP’s understanding of the doctrine’s traditional interpretation was incomplete, and did so by providing sources. The OP had an impression of the original doctrine which was much more strict than what the Church has traditionally taught. Then, as often happens, someone else came along claiming the doctrines can change and have changed, and that is where this discussion has gone from there. Those are the points that you say you cannot fathom.

Thirdly, you may or may not have meant this, but I find your accusation that people are placing limits on God or that we believe we are part of some exclusive club to be very regretful. Showing what the Church has always taught so that a person who had a misunderstanding of the doctrine can come to terms with it, and reiterating the position that doctrines did not and cannot change in Vatican II, is not placing limits on God.

If you have not already done so, I encourage to go back and read the thread from the beginning so that you can see the genesis of the discussion. And, if you have concerns, perhaps they should be for those who might be led away from the Church by those who continue to assert that infallibly defined doctrines can be changed or altered,or that our understanding of them can change, despite clear and repeated statements from the Church that they cannot.