Salvation for Non-Christians?

[Damascene]

amarischuk:

Wherever RSiscoe copy and pasted this list from (try googling: insane ultra-traditionalist Catholic babble) it is wrong. Origen was a well know universalist: he believed in universal salvation as all things proceeded, so they shall return.

Incorrect. The Catholic Encyclopedia says (“Hell”): “Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher” and Cardinal Dulles says (FT May 2003, “The Population of Hell”): “Even in his lifetime, however, Origen claimed that his adversaries had misunderstood or misrepresented him. A number of distinguished scholars down through the centuries have defended his orthodoxy on the fate of the damned.”

As for the authenticity of the quotation itself, Fr. William Most, S.J., a well respected Catholic scholar, says (“Is There Salvation Outside the Church?”, Appendix to Our Father’s Plan):

Clement’s great pupil, Origen, also gives us both kinds of statements. Strongest is that from his Homily on Jesu Nave:

If anyone of that people wishes to be saved, let him come to this house, so that he can attain salvation, to this house in which the blood of Christ is a sign of redemption. . . . Therefore let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved: for if anyone goes outside, he becomes guilty of his own death.9

Origen is allegorizing the house of Rahab in Jericho. But it seems that those who went outside did so by their own fault.

9 Origen, Homily on Jesu Nave 3. 5. PG 12. 841. Cf. also idem in Rom 2. 9-10.

 

[Damascene]

alfredo:

This declaration seems to rule out Baptism of Blood. I thought that Baptism of Blood was a teaching that was found in the older Baltimore catechisms. Has the teaching of the Catholic Church changed on the question of Baptism of Blood?

No, it has not. Baptism of Blood has always been held by the Church; you can go straight back to Tertullian’s De Baptismo, and Cyprian and Augustine prove it directly from the Scriptures. There is quite simply a unanimous testimony of the Fathers for it.

Actually that specific quote from Florence is, except for the defining formula (“firmly believes,” etc.) a straight quote from St. Fulgentius of Ruspe’s De Fide Ad Petrum: the same work explicitly teaches baptism of blood. “[W]ithin the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” means being joined to the Church by the bond of charity.

I now prove that this is the clear doctrine of St. Thomas, in Sup. q. 21 a. 1. Now there he teaches that by excommunication, including unjust excommunication, “the Church severs a man from the whole body of the faithful”, that is, makes him no longer actually a member of the Church. But an unjust excommunication “cannot deprive a man of charity”, “which unites all the faithful, making them one in God”. Therefore it is proved that a man can be united to the faithful, without being a member of the Church.

The Council plainly declares: “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”. This is a clear explanation which shows that “the unity of this ecclesiastical body” is precisely the unity of charity. For St. Thomas clearly teaches that all those who are justified and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (and hence have faith, hope, and charity) can merit eternal life condignly.

For he states (II-I, q. 114 a. 3): “a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting . . . is meritorious of life everlasting condignly” and that this is because “the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God”. Now this is plainly sanctifying grace, which results in the infusion of charity and hope, according to Rom. 5:6.

Therefore we conclude: one can only merit eternal life condignly if he is within the unity of the ecclesiastical body. But anyone with sanctifying grace can merit eternal life condignly, and all men sanctified by grace are joined to the Church at least through the unity of charity, but not always by the unity of the communion of the faithful (i.e., actual membership in the Church. Hence the unjustly excommunicated man can be saved if he dies in that state). Therefore: the unity of the ecclesiastical body is the unity of charity, which one can have without being an actual member of the Church. Catechumens martyred for the faith do have this unity of charity, by Baptism of Blood, and hence are within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

“even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ” does not refer to Catholic martyrs, but to heretical ‘martyrs’ who do not belong to the Church: i.e., schismatics and heretics, who, because of their willful sins against Faith or Charity, lack the unity of charity which connects one to the Church.

 

[alfredo]

Thank you for this detailed explanation.
I am not sure about proving something by St. Thomas, since I heard that he was in error with reference to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Also, I heard that he held that women were inferior to men?
In any case, consider the following:

“even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ” does not refer to Catholic martyrs, but to heretical ‘martyrs’ who do not belong to the Church: i.e., schismatics and heretics, who, because of their willful sins against Faith or Charity, lack the unity of charity which connects one to the Church.

Now, I am a bit confused here.
Suppose that a nonCatholic suffers martyrdom for Christ and that he was mistakenly believed by the tormentor to have been a Catholic. The nonCatholic does not accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, (perhaps having read the argument by St. Thomas) and therefore does not accept Roman Catholicism, but he accepts (schismatic) Greek Orthodoxy. Now according to you, even though he has died a martyr’s death, being mistaken for a Catholic by an atheistic officer, he will not attain eternal salvation according to the statement given at Florence? Or is the statement at Florence in serious error on this point?

 

[CheesusPowerKid]

God is the only judge of any soul…it’s between Him and that person…who are we to judge when we know so little in comparison to Him? Make the Word of God known, bring as many as you can to the faith, but, in the end, leave judgement to God alone.

 

[reen12]

Amen, CheesusPowerKid !

reen12

I pray to the God of Israel and hope that Jesus is
the Messiah.

 

[amarischuk]

Damascene:

Incorrect. The Catholic Encyclopedia says (“Hell”): “Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher”

Nice try. Plead ignorance but you obviously are familiar with the article and choose to take a quote out of context…much like I am certain most of those previous quotes have been taken out of context.

Look at the section on Origen from the CE article “Hell”:

The Universalists teach that in the end all the damned, at least all human souls, will attain beatitude (apokatastasis ton panton, restitutio omnium, according to Origen). This was a tenet of the Origenists and the Misericordes of whom St. Augustine speaks (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xviii, n. 1, in P.L., XLI, 732)…

…It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf. Dickamp, “Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten”, Münster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, “Theologische Zeitfragen”, 2nd series, 190 sqq.).

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

(4) Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration Certain Scriptural texts, e.g., I Cor. xv, 25-28, seem to extend to all rational beings the benefit of the Redemption, and Origen allows himself to be led also by the philosophical principle which he enunciates several times, without ever proving it, that the end is always like the beginning: “We think that the goodness of God, through the mediation of Christ, will bring all creatures to one and the same end” (De princip., I, vi, 1-3). The universal restoration (apokatastasis) follows necessarily from these principles.

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

 

[Damascene]

You said that Origen’s universalism proved that he could not have said anything about people outside the Church being damned: but the article says: “even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher”

 

[Damascene]

alfredo:

Suppose that a nonCatholic suffers martyrdom for Christ and that he was mistakenly believed by the tormentor to have been a Catholic. The nonCatholic does not accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, (perhaps having read the argument by St. Thomas) and therefore does not accept Roman Catholicism, but he accepts (schismatic) Greek Orthodoxy. Now according to you, even though he has died a martyr’s death, being mistaken for a Catholic by an atheistic officer, he will not attain eternal salvation according to the statement given at Florence? Or is the statement at Florence in serious error on this point?

Well, here is what Bl. Pius IX says in his infallible definition of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus):

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare – which God forbid! – to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he thinks in his heart.

No one who “has suffered shipwreck in the faith” can be saved, since “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). I may add that this definition also shows further what the unity of the Church is, outside which no one can be saved:

For the Pope declares: one who thinks otherwise than has been defined “has separated from the unity of the Church”, even if he has not expressed “in words or writing or by any other outward means” the errors which he thinks in his heart. But such a one has not separated from the unity of the communion of the faithful; he is, according to Pius XII, still a member of the Church so long as he outwardly professes the true Faith, even while denying it inwardly: “only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the structure of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi §22). Therefore the “unity of the Church” must be the unity of charity, of which Pope Leo XIII speaks: “as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith … can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths [of Faith] without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?” (Encyclical Satis Cognitum §9).

So the answer is: if he is truly a heretic, by obstinately denying the Immaculate Conception, then he would not be saved by his martyrdom, since he lacks faith, hope, and charity and is not a son of God. However, it is possible that he not be a heretic, even though denying an article of faith like the Immaculate Conception:

Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II q. 5 a. 3)

But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics. Were it not that I believe you to be such, perhaps I would not write to you. (St. Augustine, Letters, 43:1)

So, the statement of Florence is not in error. Anyone who has faith, hope, and charity is united to the Church and will, if he dies in that state, be saved. But true heretics and schismatics, who do not belong to the Church, cannot be saved without repentance.

 

[Damascene]

alfredo:

I am not sure about proving something by St. Thomas, since I heard that he was in error with reference to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Leo XIII says:

It is known that nearly all the founders and lawgivers of the religious orders commanded their members to study and religiously adhere to the teachings of St. Thomas, fearful least any of them should swerve even in the slightest degree from the footsteps of so great a man. To say nothing of the family of St. Dominic, which rightly claims this great teacher for its own glory, the statutes of the Benedictines, the Carmelites, the Augustinians, the Society of Jesus, and many others all testify that they are bound by this law. … But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull In Ordine; Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull Pretiosus, and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows lustre from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull Mirabilis that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull Verbo Dei, affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: “It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.”(35) Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: “His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”(36) … But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. (Encyclical Letter Aeterni Patris)

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Immaculate Conception”) says: “But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”

Besides, there is magisterial support for the unity of charity, and for the fact that anyone justified can perform meritorious works. These truths are clearly taught in the decrees and constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and in the Decree on Justification issued by the Council of Trent, which states:

Can. 26. If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Now, here it clearly states that the “just” can expect an eternal reward for their good works. Since Florence defines that only one within the unity of the Church can merit an eternal reward, all the just must be within the Church. But an unjust excommunication, although it certainly severs one from the communion of the faithful and hence from membership in the Church (see Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra §10), could not possible make a just man unjust against his will (the very idea is absurd, and contrary to divine Justice), and so he will still be able to merit an eternal reward, and therefore still belongs to the Church, not by the unity of the communion of the faithful but by supernatural charity.

 

[alfredo]

Damascene:

. But true heretics and schismatics, who do not belong to the Church, cannot be saved without repentance.

But aren’t the Greeks obstinate in their denial of the Immaculate Conception. And they don;t repent of this error.
Do Greek Orthodox go to heaven or not, and why does the R. Catholic Church allow Greek Orthodox to receive Holy Communion if what you say is correct. It looks to me like you are in serious error here. I think the Pope himself gave the last rites to a dying E. Orthodox clergyman and he was not required to profess a beleif in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[RSiscoe]

amarischuk:

Wherever RSiscoe copy and pasted this list from (try googling: insane ultra-traditionalist Catholic babble) it is wrong. Origen was a well know universalist: he believed in universal salvation as all things proceeded, so they shall return. Either the quote is wrong, or RSiscoe will not agree with Origen’s defintion of what makes someone belong to the Church (as everyone belongs to the Church by virtue of existence). But I have yet to find any conclusive evidence that Origen ever wrote anything entitled: In Iesu Nave homiliae

“We think that the goodness of God, through the mediation of Christ, will bring all creatures to one and the same end” (De princip., I, vi, 1-3).

newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

Adam

Adam,

I haven’t heard from you in a while? I guess you have been busy lately. I do have a question for you. When we last spoke, you stated publically that you were a self professed heretic. Is that still true? Are you still a self professed heretic? If so, I can understand why you would have a problem with the quotes I provided from the Popes and saints of the Church.

I have thought about you from time to time since our previous conversations. I have actually become angry over your unfortunate situation - angry at those wolves who caused it. If memory serves, you entered the Seminary as a conservative Catholic, and left as a self professed heretic. Although it makes me angry, I am not one bit surprised, since our Seminaries are havens of liberalism and modernism (which Pius X called “the Synthesis of all heresies”). It makes me very angry that these wolves robbed you of your faith through the erroneous non-sense that you were taught. It is indeed a sad shame. “May God reward them according to their works”.

For you, although a re-conversion will be difficult, it is not impossible. I truly hope God leads you back to the faith

 

[reen12]

What utterly curious language, I think.

alfredo:

But aren’t the Greeks obstinate in their denial of the Immaculate Conception. And they don;t repent of this error.

“obstinate” ? “repent” ?

The unfestooned fact is: “The Roman Catholic dogma
of the Immaculate Conception is not accepted by the…”

reen12

I pray to the God of Israel and hope that Jesus
is the Messiah.

 

[MariaG]

I find those who think that since Vatican II things have been watered down, strange. Either the Church teaches the truth, or she doesn’t.

What has happened is not a watering down, but a further understanding of that which has been revealed.

One is saved only through Christ, through the One Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. But just as I can be unconscious, unaware and not even personally know a doctor who saves my life, I can be unaware and not know Christ but still be saved by Him. This is the further understanding of the Church as expressed by the current Pope, as well as explained so well by a previous poster.

Not watered down, not changed, just further understanding of that which has already been revealed.

God Bless,
Maria