Salvation for non-Catholics prior to Vatican ll?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See paragraphs 14-22 here on the various separated “Churches” and “Ecclesial communities”:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

On “Churches”:
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.
Click to expand...
An excerpt from a part which only addresses “eccleisal communities”
Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord’s Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory. Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
Quote from the Ecumenical Council please…not an interpretative brief from a lesser arm of fallible Vatican bureaucracy.
Click to expand...
Sophie, the answer in the post above from Genesis whichb states the CC position that without a priest there can be no church. Tie that thought over to your post on the other thread where you mentioned that a CC existed secretly without priests for a couple hundred years. It is that possibility that intrigues me.
 
Ok.
But really, all I see here is a preference for calling other Churches that do not recognise Papal authority “Ecclesial Communities”.
Given that Ecclesial means “Church” I really dont see any great point of theological significance here. Sure, these other Churches dont accept Papal authority, but we already know that dont we! If some Catholics want to just call them ECs instead go for it. Imposing an alternative definition not universally accepted doesnt seem to advance theological understanding, dialogue or unity one iota and I still cannot see the point in saying these communities are not Churches simply because their leadership is not papal like or in communion with that of the Roman Rite Ecclesial Community.
 
Last edited:
If the person’s ignorance is invincible, then it would be the same.
 
guanophore said:
Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus to discuss His upcoming departure.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what Jesus, Moses and Elijah discussed or did during Jesus visit with them on the Mountain, watched on by Peter , James and John. Luke tells us they were speaking of Jesus Exodus which he was about to accomplish in Jerusalem. The interpretation of this has been quite a subject up and down the centuries.
All we know is Peter said “its good that we are here” amongst other things.

We know the point was God saying this is my Son, listen to Him.
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross said:
We have no idea what Jesus, Moses and Elijah discussed or did during Jesus visit with them on the Mountain,
Click to expand...
We know what has come down to us through Divine Revelation. We know that the gates of heaven were still closed at the time (Jesus had not yet ascended), but Moses and Elijah were quite aware of events occurring on earth, and were able to have conversation with Jesus about that. I think this verse is one of the best evidences of the Communion of Saints, and the ability that God allows for all those in Christ to communicate with one another.

On another thread there is a denial in progress that there should be any attempt to communicate with the saints who have gone on before us in faith. But it seems to me if this practice is good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!
 
Are you saying the Transfiguration is about the Communion of Saints?
 
Sophie111 said:
But really, all I see here is a preference for calling other Churches that do not recognise Papal authority “Ecclesial Communities”.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The point is that groups with valid bishops in apostolic succession, like the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, are valid Churches. They have all seven valid sacraments. Whether they are in communion with the Bishop of Rome is not the point.
 
Ok please provide a quote from Vat2 that distinguishes between ECs and Churches?
Though my observation still stands, it seems unhelpful that certain Catholic sectors believe that not calling well organised mainstream, international Protestant Churches Churches but ECs is helpful in establishing unity
 
Last edited:
So still nothing quotable from the Vat2 Council on this matter…only the somewhat impenetrable interpretations of minor functionaries from the CDF much later who themselves admit this is a new and rapidly developing area of theology?
 
PaulfromIowa said:
This is not some new teaching of Vatican II. There is an organic difference between Churches with valid bishops and all seven sacraments; and Protestant groups with only two sacraments.

See the 2000 Declaration “DOMINUS IESUS” from then Cardinal Ratzinger, if he is not too much of a minor functionary.
Click to expand...
Yet still no source definition from the Council?
Nevermind, I noticed DI based its interpretations on VIIs UnRed, 22. Which reads:
Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless … Therefore the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, the other sacraments, worship, the ministry of the Church, must be the subject of the dialogue.
Click to expand...
This VatII paragraph seems a far cry from some of the b&w or more extreme assertions I see re this topic on CAF.

More dialogue seems to be the order of the day.
Nor do I believe defining what the english word “Church” means is within the domain of Cath infallibility.
 
Last edited:
Of course non Catholics can be saved…if they convert to Catholicism and live and die with the Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of all.
 
Or not if God does not lead them there.
The non baptised regularly enter heaven without sacramental baptism.
 
We clearly believe in different Gods 🙂.
The Church teaches sacramental baptism is not always necessary for a person to enter heaven.
Why would you disagree with that?
 
Oh please.
Read the Catechism…
1260“SinceChristdiedforall,andsinceallmenareinfactcalledtooneandthesamedestiny,whichisdivine,wemustholdthattheHolySpiritofferstoallthepossibilityofbeingmadepartakers,inawayknowntoGod,ofthePaschalmystery.”[62]EverymanwhoisignorantoftheGospelofChristandofhisChurch,butseeksthetruthanddoesthewillofGodinaccordancewithhisunderstandingofit,canbesaved.ItmaybesupposedthatsuchpersonswouldhavedesiredBaptismexplicitlyiftheyhadknownitsnecessity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Baptism of Desire is a theological opinion. It has never at any point in history been a teaching of the Catholic Church (including today). Prior to Vatican II, even the idea of BoD was never considered a worthy theological opinion. There is nothing wrong with hoping that God will save someone outside the Church, but to assume it happens as an every day sort of thing? That is misleading and runs contrary to Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top