Salvation & Hope

[Joysong]

MTD,

But these quoted by Joysong are way off:

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.” 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.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

I think you should qualify that statement as being your own erroneous belief, for those quotes are solemn teachings of the Church, both being found in the CCC, and in quoting #847 takes it from V-II’s Lumen Gentium.

It is difficult for me to understand how you could distort and disregard these teachings and worse, propose them to others for belief. In the Catechism of Pius X, we read: (And the only reason I use this one is because some traditionists do not accept the current Catechism.)

58 Q. What sin would a man commit who should refuse to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope?
A. He who refuses to accept the solemn definitions of the Pope, or who even doubts them, sins against faith; and should he remain obstinate in this unbelief, he would no longer be a Catholic, but a heretic.

ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM#Apostles%20Creed

As I requested in an earlier post, please do not hesitate to put these “doubts” to rest through recourse to Rome, if need be, to settle the issue. I realize my words and the CCC and V-II will carry little weight with some people. And as Jesus did when the Jews did not receive His teaching, He let them walk away in their unbelief. If the Truth is not so important that one prefers their own interpretation, then so be it.

God bless.

 

[Joysong]

Genesis 315:

The teaching of Florence is not abjured. One must be united to the Church in some way to be saved.

That is true, Genesis. Lumen Gentium teaches solemnly that those of other faiths are linked with the Church, though not in fullness, and the grace flows from Christ’s sacrifice.

**15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. **

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits.

**Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. **Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end.

The entire document is helpful in understanding their link with us, but I realize many reject this teaching. It is a stumbling block for some traditionists.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would note that when the Council of Florence says “heretics and schismatics,” it is referring to true heretics and schismatics; that is, formal heretics and schismatics. I’m not too well versed on what constitutes formal schism, but I do know what constitutes formal heresy: wrong belief and pertinacity. And pertinacity, in the sense used to describe formal heresy, does not necessarily refer to obstinacy or intentional malice. It essentially refers to knowledge that the wrong belief held is contrary to Church teaching. It does not matter if the person honestly thinks that he’s right and that he holds the correct position on a particular doctrine; what matters is that he knows that what he holds is contrary to doctrine held by the Church as divinely revealed. (I do think this is an important distinction to make because I think many people tend to think that if a person holds a belief he knows to be contrary to Church teaching but honestly thinks the Church is mistaken, he is acting in good faith. Not so. He is defying Christ when he acts thus, for Christ promised infallibility to the Church.)

I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to point out with this one; I don’t see too much of a problem with it. My understanding is that the Church has always worked, prayed, and sacrificed for the salvation of all souls. That’s actually quite different from saying that all will be saved or that salvation is possible outside the Church.

Again, this one is not too far off.

But these quoted by Joysong are way off:

The simple fact of the matter is, an upright moral life and invincible ignorance cannot save. No one can be saved without supernatural faith and Baptism. Baptism of Desire is impossible without supernatural faith and charity. And the supernatural faith spoken of cannot be merely a capacity to believe the truths of faith; it must be explicit as to certain dogmas, of which most theologians are agreed on are: God’s existence, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation.

Thus I think those paragraphs from the Catechism are very misleading, to say the least. They completely leave out the element of faith that is necessary for salvation. Of course, this is somewhat made up for in no. 161; nevertheless, someone who did not make the connection could easily be fooled into believing that someone can be saved without faith in the Incarnation, provided he is in invincible ignorance. But such is not the case.

Exactly. But dogma is immutable; it cannot be done away with by invincible ignorance or mere hope. Invincible ignorance may excuse the breach of law, but it never supplants dogma.

Maria

So, really, Maria, taking Paramedic Girl’s thread title (I found it striking), there really IS no hope for those of us who converted from other Christian faiths for our non-Catholic, but devoutly Christian family members(I realize to some that sounds oxymoronic, but it isn’t, either practically or according to the Catechism), is there? Esp. if they have to believe what the Church teaches with divine faith, even if they believe and were raised to believe the Church was wrong? Our dead parents and grandparents are really pretty much in hell, aren’t they?

 

[St_Benedict]

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself that are easily misunderstood, especially in the modern atmosphere of pluralism and ecumenism. Among these claims, the most fundamental is the doctrine of the Church’s necessity for salvation. Not unlike other dogmas of the faith, this one has seen some remarkable development, and the dogmatic progress has been especially marked since the definition of papal infallibility. It seems that as the Church further clarified her own identity as regards the papacy and collegiality, she also deepened (without changing) her self-understanding as the mediator of salvation to mankind.

…

Those who are privileged to share in the fullness of the Church’s riches of revealed wisdom, sacramental power, divinely assured guidance, and blessings of community life cannot pride themselves on having deserved what they possess. Rather they should humbly recognize their chosen position and gratefully live up to the covenant to which they have been called. Otherwise what began as a sign of God’s special favor on earth may end as a witness to his justice in the life to come.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/on-salvation-outside-catholic-church.html

 

[St_Benedict]

And so it is with the theological slogan, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Latin for “outside the Church, no salvation”). This is a doctrine of the Catholic Church, one that’s found in every age of Catholic history, and it’s held to by the Church’s best and most influential minds. Understood properly, its dogmatic truth is beyond question. The problem arises, however, when this slogan is given a life of its own. And so it was in the 1940s with Fr. Leonard Feeney.

envoymagazine.com/backissues/2.5/coverstory.html

 

[MTD]

Maria, what about the invincibly ignorant who obeys the natural law of God, not knowing anything about faith? Do you believe that God will, at some point in his life, enlighten him with the grace to make an act of Divine faith?

Yes, I believe that a person who faithfully obeys the natural law and is invincibly ignorant concerning the true religion will, at some point, be granted supernatural faith. This is in accord with what Pope Pius IX teaches in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

“7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

Of course, if he doesn’t make good use of this inspiration to firmly believe what God has revealed to him, he would be missing out on the further graces with which he could make acts of hope, repentance and charity which would gain him sanctifying grace to save his soul.

Yes, that is true.

Isn’t this what the Church teaches in regards to the invincibly ignorant?

Yes.

But those quotes from the CCC omitted the fact that it is not the invincible ignorance and moral uprightness that save a person but the faith that is granted to someone who is in invincible ignorance and moral uprightness that saves that person. In other words, those quotes make invincible ignorance and moral uprightness to be sanctifying; they are not. It is the supernatural faith and charity that are granted to someone in invincible ignorance and moral uprightness that are sanctifying. And that is a real difference.

Maria

 

[MTD]

I think you should qualify that statement as being your own erroneous belief, for those quotes are solemn teachings of the Church, both being found in the CCC, and in quoting #847 takes it from V-II’s Lumen Gentium.

The CCC and the documents of VII cannot be understood outside the context of the constant teaching of the Church for the last 2000 years. I do not believe I stated anything contrary to the perennial teaching of the Church. If you believe I did, kindly show me where.

(And the only reason I use this one is because some traditionists do not accept the current Catechism.)

I am not a traditionalist; at least I don’t exclusively attend the TLM.

If the Truth is not so important that one prefers their own interpretation, then so be it.

Before you imply that I am preferring my own interpretation to the truth, perhaps you could p(name removed by moderator)oint where exactly I have deviated from the teaching of the Church and am preferring my own interpretation.

Maria

 

[MTD]

So, really, Maria, taking Paramedic Girl’s thread title (I found it striking), there really IS no hope for those of us who converted from other Christian faiths for our non-Catholic, but devoutly Christian family members(I realize to some that sounds oxymoronic, but it isn’t, either practically or according to the Catechism), is there? Esp. if they have to believe what the Church teaches with divine faith, even if they believe and were raised to believe the Church was wrong? Our dead parents and grandparents are really pretty much in hell, aren’t they?

JKirk,

I’m at a loss to figure out how what I said implies what you describe. A formal heretic denies a teaching he knows to be taught by the Church instituted by Christ as divinely revealed. A Protestant who never doubts his own Church as the true Church of Christ (and thus is invincibly ignorant) and has been baptized validly is hardly a formal heretic, is he? He explicitly believes in the existence of God, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation, does he not? Thus, if he manages to be free from grave sin at the moment of his death, he is saved.

But how many Protestants actually manage to remain free from grave sin? And of those who have committed grave sin, how many manage to make an act of perfect contrition? How many Protestants are truly invincibly ignorant of the the true religion (remember that invincible means unconquerable)? Of course, we don’t know the answers, but I think these questions serve to illustrate how difficult it actually is for an adult Protestant to be saved. He lacks access to so many important graces we Catholics have so abundantly through the sacraments.

This is what I was taught and believe:

“A heretic is a baptized person, still claiming to be a Christian, who knowingly and willfully denies or doubts a revealed truth taught by the Church. While all Protestants are heretics, still one who is born in Protestantism and does not know that the Catholic Church is the only true Church is, on account of his invincible ignorance, a heretic without knowing it. Such a one is called a material heretic, and God will not hold him responsible for his error as long as he knows no better.” (Religion: Doctrine and Practice by Francis B. Cassilly, S.J., 1942)

“Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him? If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. …] If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. …] Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.” (An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921)

Maria

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

I’m at a loss to figure out how what I said implies what you describe. A formal heretic denies a teaching he knows to be taught by the Church instituted by Christ as divinely revealed. A Protestant who never doubts his own Church as the true Church of Christ (and thus is invincibly ignorant) and has been baptized validly is hardly a formal heretic, is he? He explicitly believes in the existence of God, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation, does he not? Thus, if he manages to be free from grave sin at the moment of his death, he is saved.

But how many Protestants actually manage to remain free from grave sin? And of those who have committed grave sin, how many manage to make an act of perfect contrition? How many Protestants are truly invincibly ignorant of the the true religion (remember that invincible means unconquerable)? Of course, we don’t know the answers, but I think these questions serve to illustrate how difficult it actually is for an adult Protestant to be saved. He lacks access to so many important graces we Catholics have so abundantly through the sacraments.

This is what I was taught and believe:“A heretic is a baptized person, still claiming to be a Christian, who knowingly and willfully denies or doubts a revealed truth taught by the Church. While all Protestants are heretics, still one who is born in Protestantism and does not know that the Catholic Church is the only true Church is, on account of his invincible ignorance, a heretic without knowing it. Such a one is called a material heretic, and God will not hold him responsible for his error as long as he knows no better.” (Religion: Doctrine and Practice by Francis B. Cassilly, S.J., 1942)“Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him? If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. …] If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church. …] Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.” (An Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism by Rev. Thomas L. Kinkead, 1891-1921)Maria

Maria: I abosolutely did not intend to sound like a wise mouth!!! It was an honest question, one I struggle with periodically (the dear people who set my feet on the path of following Chirst are not Catholic. Two died formally outside the Church and there is no hope that any could see, but God, that one other will convert at the age of 90 to Catholicism, but I am unable to NOT hope that they may be saved). I’ve been turning over in my head whether or not that was the theological virtue of hope or sort of a self-deception. Sorry, it wasn’t clear to me that you had distinguished between formal and material heresy.

And honestly, where the rubber meets the road, I’ve encountered MANY Protestants who have lived lives of heroic charity (love) for Christ. In the end, I realize that we cannot judge and only God can, and only God can determine what ignorance is and is not invincible.

 

[paramedicgirl]

JKirk,

I’m at a loss to figure out how what I said implies what you describe. A formal heretic denies a teaching he knows to be taught by the Church instituted by Christ as divinely revealed. A Protestant who never doubts his own Church as the true Church of Christ (and thus is invincibly ignorant) and has been baptized validly is hardly a formal heretic, is he? He explicitly believes in the existence of God, an eternal reward, the Trinity, and the Incarnation, does he not? Thus, if he manages to be free from grave sin at the moment of his death, he is saved.

But how many Protestants actually manage to remain free from grave sin? And of those who have committed grave sin, how many manage to make an act of perfect contrition? How many Protestants are truly invincibly ignorant of the the true religion (remember that invincible means unconquerable)? Of course, we don’t know the answers, but I think these questions serve to illustrate how difficult it actually is for an adult Protestant to be saved. He lacks access to so many important graces we Catholics have so abundantly through the sacraments.

Maria

I agree that protestants would be at a great disadvantage, by not having the infallible Church to teach and guide them to their eternal destiny. Their life without the Sacraments, Holy Mass and Holy Communion, along with the other sources of countless graces that the Catholic Church provides for our sanctification would present an obstacle, though not a barrier to eternal salvation. After all, if a baptized Protestant lives his entire life as a practicing Protestant, never doubting that he is in error, and at the moment of death makes a perfect act of contrition, he will die in a state of grace, and will thus be saved.

 

[Hellisreal]

I never really tought about this before and after reading all the posts here I must say I am wondering what to think.

Sometimes I rather not think about it. I always used to feel that only a Protestant who truly knew the Church’s teachings and then rejected them were damned to Hell.

But, as time went on, I see not to many Protestants in real life will ever even delve into the question of whether the Catholic Church teaches the truth or not.

So then I changed my views and decided that they were damned to Hell also for being lazy and not even bothering.

I just dont know now.

But, in the end its not about how I feel. Its what the Church teaches.

But, if the Church teaches all sorts of stuff on it -

I am wondering what is up with that?!

And frankly its excellent material for a Protestant to use against us. We look like false prophets on the surface.

 

[MTD]

I am wondering what is up with that?!

Well, instead of inciting us to decide the fate of individual Protestants, these doctrines should drive us to work with all our hearts and souls for the return of Protestants to the Catholic Faith. We should not think: “Oh, they’re in invincible ignorance, so God will save them.” Christ instituted the Catholic Church as the way to salvation, and all who are not in full unity with that Church are gravely hindered, though not completely barred, from obtaining salvation through that Church. We ought to be inspired with the zeal of the great missionaries and contemplatives to work, pray, and sacrifice for the salvation of all souls. And historically, this was always done through bringing people into the Church, not emphasizing how it is possible to obtain salvation without formally being a Catholic.

Maria

 

[rescath]

I agree that protestants would be at a great disadvantage, by not having the infallible Church to teach and guide them to their eternal destiny. Their life without the Sacraments, Holy Mass and Holy Communion, along with the other sources of countless graces that the Catholic Church provides for our sanctification would present an obstacle, though not a barrier to eternal salvation. After all, if a baptized Protestant lives his entire life as a practicing Protestant, never doubting that he is in error, and at the moment of death makes a perfect act of contrition, he will die in a state of grace, and will thus be saved.

It’s more than just a disadvantage. Protestants do not have the formal motive of faith; they do not believe what they believe on the authority of the Church – which theologians call the sine qua non of faith.

Even if Protestants do not make any conscious positive act against the faith, the infused theological virtue of faith fades in them once they reach the age of reason – just as if they had been baptized as babies then grew up completely unaware of their baptism, say, as animists in some jungle.

By the age of reason, that infused virtue must be joined with positive intellectual affirmation / assent of the will to the teaching authority of the Church.

From the standpoint of Tradition, I’d love to see a citation from any theologian from more than about 150 years ago who even in speculative theology ever entertained the notion of a non-Catholic being saved. And I’m not talking about baptism of desire, because all the texts I’ve seen from theologians always ask the question: “Can catechumens who die before receiving baptism be saved?” I’ve never seen the question asked: “Can infidels or Protestants living in good faith?” be saved.

As Maria indicated, invincible ignorance cannot be salvific. It can absolve from guilt but provides nothing positive that would merit salvation. People who argue from invincible ignorance typically do so in a manner which effectively subverts the dogma of Original Sin, because then people would be essentially saved by default unless they actively forfeited their salvation rather than lost by default unless they received the free gift of supernatural faith.

Supernatural faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. None of that can be disputed.

Where discussion can happen is in terms of what is necessary to have supernatural faith.

It is not enough to believe that you’re following the will of God. Otherwise, you lead to absurdities such as cases of the Aztec priest who thinks he’s following the will of a god, ripping out people’s hearts, and having that obedience to the perceived will of God be salvific.

Materially, in order to have supernatural faith, one must believe in at least a handful of revealed truths (the exact number of which is disputed by theologians), but the faith must be supernatural, based upon the authority of God revealing. You don’t have to know about every single dogma defined by the Church – even though one could argue it’s a sin not to know at least the vast majority of them. You have to believe the basics and believe them on the authority of the Church. If you have that formal motive of faith, you would simply accept any dogma that you learned was taught be the authority of the Church.

Many modern so-called “caffeteria Catholics”, for example, are not really Catholic, because they reject some teachings they know to be defined by the Church, reserving to themselves the right to accept or reject what THEY believe to be true rather than accepting it on the authority of the Church. Protestants are essentially in the same boat. That’s my opinion.

 

[rescath]

Weren’t there some early Church Fathers who believed that all would be saved?

I believe you’re thinking of Origen, who believed that after the Second Coming, hell would cease to exists and that ultimately everyone, including the devil, would be saved. You’ll notice that Origen is one of the few “Church Fathers” (along with, say, Tertuallian) who doesn’t have a “St.” in front of his name – and that error is the reason.

And didn’t VII in its document Final Restoration of All Things basically maintain that as well? Or am I reading it wrong?

I don’t recall anything in there to that effect – that would be heresy, so I think we would have heard about it in Traditional circles.

So how can EENS be modified to include universal salvation? It would be easy to say it is in the name of ecumenism, but there must be more to it than that.

I believe that ecumenism has driven the desire for a reinterpretation of the dogma.

For myself, anecdotally, I remember in college (when I was still a material heretic on many points) that someone asked me about EENS. I recall feeling that if I just stated uniquivocally that “No, those outside the Church cannot be saved.” I would have closed the door to any discussion, so I started to hem and haw and water it down according to the very interpretations which I know to be incorrect today.

So I do believe that to have been the motivation.

 

[Hellisreal]

I see your points and I will think about them. I want to re emphasize I never spoke of Invincable ignorance.

Being lazy and not bothering to find the truth is not invincable ignorance its merely ignorance. Borderline willful ignorance.

Or am I again mistaken?

And no I did not state my thoughts to incite a debate about individual protestants as much to explain who and under what circumstances I thought the Church was condemning from my understanding., which I am open to be corrected on. Gently.

Well, instead of inciting us to decide the fate of individual Protestants, these doctrines should drive us to work with all our hearts and souls for the return of Protestants to the Catholic Faith. We should not think: “Oh, they’re in invincible ignorance, so God will save them.” Christ instituted the Catholic Church as the way to salvation, and all who are not in full unity with that Church are gravely hindered, though not completely barred, from obtaining salvation through that Church. We ought to be inspired with the zeal of the great missionaries and contemplatives to work, pray, and sacrifice for the salvation of all souls. And historically, this was always done through bringing people into the Church, not emphasizing how it is possible to obtain salvation without formally being a Catholic.

Maria

 

[paramedicgirl]

I believe you’re thinking of Origen, who believed that after the Second Coming, hell would cease to exists and that ultimately everyone, including the devil, would be saved. You’ll notice that Origen is one of the few “Church Fathers” (along with, say, Tertuallian) who doesn’t have a “St.” in front of his name – and that error is the reason.

Yes, that is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the explanation.

I don’t recall anything in there to that effect – that would be heresy, so I think we would have heard about it in Traditional circles.

I’ll try to find the link, though I didn’t save it.

I believe that ecumenism has driven the desire for a reinterpretation of the dogma.

For myself, anecdotally, I remember in college (when I was still a material heretic on many points) that someone asked me about EENS. I recall feeling that if I just stated uniquivocally that “No, those outside the Church cannot be saved.” I would have closed the door to any discussion, so I started to hem and haw and water it down according to the very interpretations which I know to be incorrect today.

So I do believe that to have been the motivation.

I think ecumenism, improperly applied, has its dangers, and needs to be applied carefully to achieve the proper result, without sacrificing our Catholic faith, truth and beliefs in the process.

 

[rescath]

Another ad absurdum type of problem I have with saying that Protestants in good faith can be saved involves the following.

Most Protestants don’t believe in the concept of mortal sin; consequently, since committing a mortal sin involves full knowledge regarding the gravity of the sin, it would actually be EASIER for Protestants to be saved than for Catholics. For Catholics, you could consent momentarily to one gravely sinful thought, then die, and lose your soul. Consequently, more Protestants than Catholics would be saved, and you would have to say that being Catholic is an impediment to salvation. There are probably some things that Protestants would have at least a vague notion of being gravely sinful and perhaps might be able to commit a mortal sin, but there are many things that wouldn’t bother their consciences at all which would nevertheless cause a Catholic to lose his soul.

 

[rescath]

I think ecumenism, improperly applied, has its dangers, and needs to be applied carefully to achieve the proper result, without sacrificing our Catholic faith, truth and beliefs in the process.

Yes, the goal of true ecumenism is conversion. Unfortunately, you have folks like (Cardinal) Kasper the friendly ecumenist making statements like: “The goal of ecumenism is convergence not conversion.” Of course I hate the term ecumenism. The Catholic Church alone is ecumenical; and ecumenism implies some kind of one world religion that could some how unite religions short of conversion.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Yes, the goal of true ecumenism is conversion. Unfortunately, you have folks like (Cardinal) Kasper the friendly ecumenist making statements like: “The goal of ecumenism is convergence not conversion.” Of course I hate the term ecumenism. The Catholic Church alone is ecumenical; and ecumenism implies some kind of one world religion that could some how unite religions short of conversion.

Yes, I prefer the word “conversion” as well.

 

[rescath]

And historically, this was always done through bringing people into the Church, not emphasizing how it is possible to obtain salvation without formally being a Catholic.

And that’s why the Church never taught dogmatically: “No salvation if formally outside the Church”. Speculating about the salvation of those outside the Church should probably be completely forbidden; nothing good comes of it except the undermining of missionary zeal.

I’d put money on the fact that the North American Martyrs who died horrible deaths attempting to convert the natives never entertained the thought that those people could be saved. Nowadays, most people, even Catholics, just assume that people are saved by default unless they commit some almost surreally horrible crimes – so what would be the motivation to go and suffer like that?