Salvation outside Catholicism

[poche]

From the Baltimore Catechism;

Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

1.(1) Has been validly baptized;

2.(2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and

3.(3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Lesson 11: On the Church

 

[newconvertcatholic]

With that being said, why are some Catholics so insistent that Protestants, or non Catholic Christians, convert?

For their own good and to make salvation easier for them.

Strictly speaking, a baptized Christian who for no fault of his own never becomes Catholic, never commits mortal sin and follows dutifully the commandments of Jesus, will be saved.

But think about this, who here can claim to have never committed a mortal sin or never committed a sin of omission. The greatest saints have needed the sacraments to sanctify them.

Moreover we’re in communion with all the Baptized so by our prayers and works, we do indirectly pray for the salvation of our non-Catholic Christian brothers. But salvation is a choice and God respects the liberty of each soul.

What Vatican II says is that it is strictly speaking, possible to be saved but that doesn’t mean that salvation is assured.

Any person is aware of the existence and teaching of the Catholic Church is morally obliged to be a Catholic. Which is why it is our duty to explain the Catholic teaching to protestants. If we don’t do it, the fault is ours, not theirs. It is also just as important to live a Catholic life. Remember we don’t proselytize, we are called to live a life in such away that others are drawn to it.

 

[steve-b]

The second Vatican council stated on their decree on ecumenism:

“…though we believe them[non-Catholic Christian churches] to be deficient in some respects, [they] have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”- UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO chapter 1 section 3 verse 23

A very reasonable question.

Bottom line, said simply, AND all the ecumenical speak doesn’t deny,

THAT

Scripture condemns division from the Church Jesus established.

Where is that taught in scripture?

These warnings don’t go outta style for those who won’t come into the Catholic Church or remain in it.

Romans 16:17-20 & Galatians 5:19-21 both use the same Greek word διχοστασίαι, for dissension / division And the consequence for that sin if one won’t return? Paul says “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”. [Gal 5:21] IOW they go to hell when they die

What Church is the only Church that is there from the beginning, that Jesus builds on Peter and those in complete union with him and his successors? The Catholic Church.

Once someone is made aware of this truth and doesn’t enter it or remain in it, that’s where Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” comes from in scripture.

 

[sunandstars]

My evangelical friend is very attracted to the Catholic Church. He wants to “join.”

But when I began to talk to him about our beliefs, he stated that he doesn’t need to believe in anything other than the Creed. And since both groups profess the Creed, he’s all ready to convert. He says Jesus wants all to be saved and he is sure that He will do so whatever their beliefs. “I truly believe that all will be saved no matter what. Jesus is all about love, right???”

He balked at the idea of apostolic succession, confession and some other things.
He only needs to believe in the Creed, according to him, and all Christians believe in that. So…when can he join up?

Needless to say he hasn’t found a priest to receive him as yet, although he is shopping.

He seems to think that Catholics, and me in particular, are mean because they insist on
“No salvation without the Church” however it is interpreted.
Just the phrase put him off. He couldn’t get to the nuance, his mind stopped working at the words themselves

Almost did my head in.

 

[steve-b]

My evangelical friend is very attracted to the Catholic Church. He wants to “join.”

But when I began to talk to him about our beliefs, he stated that he doesn’t need to believe in anything other than the Creed. And since both groups profess the Creed, he’s all ready to convert. He says Jesus wants all to be saved and he is sure that He will do so whatever their beliefs. “I truly believe that all will be saved no matter what. Jesus is all about love, right???”

He balked at the idea of apostolic succession, confession and some other things.
He only needs to believe in the Creed, according to him, and all Christians believe in that. So…when can he join up?

Needless to say he hasn’t found a priest to receive him as yet, although he is shopping.

He seems to think that Catholics, and me in particular, are mean because they insist on
“No salvation without the Church” however it is interpreted.
Just the phrase put him off. He couldn’t get to the nuance, his mind stopped working at the words themselves

Almost did my head in.​

I hear ya.

 

[steve-b]

Episcopalian:

With that being said, why are some Catholics so insistent that Protestants, or non Catholic Christians, convert?

I’m a Catholic and I believe, the Catholic Theology is the best teachings on salvation.

For this reason, I wish everyone convert to be Catholic and to know very well Catholic Theology.

On top of that, if other churches do have the tools for salvation, and the Magisterium states it, how does that jive with the whole thought process: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?

The CCC answers the question:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence 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.
.
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.
.
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
.
God bless

One Catechism passage that almost never gets mentioned in this context

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Thom18]

It’s important to convert because protestants have false theologies. The Vatican document isn’t suggesting that protestants can remain where they are, only that they have the possibility of being saved. If Heaven is the Kingdom, then protestants are those who have left the Kingdom and formed their own cities. God can (and does) call them back through His messengers (us), but whether they decide to turn back is up to them.

 

[Michael16]

I agree, thom. Maybe that’s the whole point of Vatican II’s ecumenical calls? That we reach out to where the Protestants are already at and help them, gently; into the Church. Not so much an agree to disagree detente kind of thing; eh?

Soft selling!!

 

[TULIPed]

Steve - from what I can tell, that section of the Catechism is taken almost directly from “Gaudium Et Spes” (“GS”), the context of which would seem to suggest that that 1791 is aimed at those other than baptized non-Catholic Christians. Here’s the direct citation:

“In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”

This is part of the close:

“Our hearts embrace also those brothers and communities not yet living with us in full communion; to them we are linked nonetheless by our profession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and by the bond of charity. We do not forget that the unity of Christians is today awaited and desired by many, too, who do not believe in Christ; for the farther it advances toward truth and love under the powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, the more this unity will be a harbinger of unity and peace for the world at large.”

Are baptized, professing non-Catholics the object of 1791? The way I read it (especially with the discussion of atheism which follows), there are bigger fish to fry, no?

 

[meltzerboy2]

Why are none of the Vatican II documents infallible?

 

[Fauken]

Why are none of the Vatican II documents infallible?

I’m warning you, @meltzerboy2, you may have opened up a can of worms…

 

[meltzerboy2]

I realize that now.

 

[Bataar]

Why are none of the Vatican II documents infallible?

Because when Paul VI closed Vatican II, he explicitly said that they did not make any of the documents Infallible.

 

[Dovekin]

Why are none of the Vatican II documents infallible?

The Council opens many new horizons to biblical, theological and humanistic studies, invites us to seek out and deepen the religious sciences but does not deprive Christian thought of its speculative rigor, and does not allow the entry into the Church in the philosophical, theological and scriptural school of the Church arbitrariness, uncertainty, servility, desolation, which characterize many forms of modern religious thought, when it lacks the assistance of the ecclesiastical magisterium.

There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, that the Council wanted to attribute to its teachings, knowing that it avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And the answer is known to those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided uttering dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nonetheless provided its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which ordinary and thus manifestly authentic magisterium must be accepted docilely and sincerely by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council about the nature and aims of the individual documents.

We must enter into the spirit of these basic criteria of the ecclesiastical magisterium, and increase in our minds the confidence in the guidance of the Church on the sure paths of faith and Christian life. If this is done by good Catholics, good children of the Church and especially scholars, theologians, teachers, speakers of the Word of God, not that the students and the researchers themselves of the authentic doctrine born from the Gospel and professed by the Church, is from hope that the faith and with it the Christian life and also the civil life will have great refreshment, the one that derives from the truth that saves. Because the “Spirit of the Council” really wants to be the Spirit of truth.
Paul VI. 12 Jan 1966

This is a google translation, looks accurate from my quick scan of it.

 

[buffalo]

If one finds themselves in heaven, they will be Catholic and it will have come through the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, Jesus founded for that very reason.

 

[chessnerd321]

For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church

One could even argue that this passage just means that we have a better chance of being convinced to convert if we started out Christian than if we didn’t. That seems pretty true in my own conversion and those around me.

The church has stepped back from saying when people go to hell, which is a good thing. However it is certainly harder to be a faithful Christian without the sacraments.

We do believe it’s in some sense harder to be a Protestant. For example, since they can’t go to confession, Protestants must have perfect contrition for their sins to be forgiven. They’re also missing out on “Unless you eat if the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you.” I don’t want no life in me. It’s the difference between crossing a river on a bridge or trying to walk across on a thin sheet of ice. Most people will NEED the church to succeed.

 

[EXdrinker]

He seems to think that Catholics, and me in particular, are mean because they insist on
“No salvation without the Church” however it is interpreted.
Just the phrase put him off. He couldn’t get to the nuance, his mind stopped working at the words themselves

When I run across someone like this I explain that the Church believes that it is the body of Christ. When you substitute it in most phrases it will allow protestants to agree. “Outside of the body of Christ there is no salvation” is okay to them where, “Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation,” is not. They then can at least “see” what the Church is saying. It then comes down to “what is the body of Christ?”. The answer to that question then moves into history and Cardinal Newman told us how that ends up for those who look into it deeply.

 

[TULIPed]

Odd that the Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms as valid if done under a trinitarian construct. Roman Catholics accepting a sacrament by the damned? Not even the Baptist’s do that. I’m a Reformed Protestant, and if I wanted to join a Baptist church, I’d have to be dunked.

Which, by the way, reminds me that nothing, and I mean nothing, gets me more emotional than adult baptisms (which don’t happen very often in Reformed churches sadly). I lose it every time.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That’s because those that were infallible had been made so before Vatican II

Vatican II did not change any Doctrines of the Church, but expressed them in more understandable language for the time.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

1.(1) Has been validly baptized;

According to Catholic teaching, if a person repents sincerely prior to their death, they will be saved

So, Adolf Hitler, realizes his error before drawing his last breath, and asks God for forgiveness. According to Church teaching, he will be saved.

However, according to the Baltimore Catechism, the Jews he murdered who were not Baptized, too bad, they’re all went to hell.

Is there any wonder why people reject the Church with such teaching about a merciless and hopeless God ?

Jim