Salvation outside Catholicism

[Pattylt]

Odd that the Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptisms as valid if done under a trinitarian construct. Roman Catholics accepting a sacrament by the damned?

While I question the use of the word damned, I found the Catholic understanding of baptism and who is performing it really interesting. Even a complete non believer can baptize in emergencies IF their intention is correctly aligned with the Church. If they use the correct formula and are sincere in doing it, it is considered valid.

This is why, for example, a Mormon baptism is not valid as the Mormon understanding makes for a wrong intention. Correct me if I still don’t quite get it!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

While suffering inside a concentration camp. I’m sure most Jews weren’t thinking about Baptism if they even knew what it was, and far less likely desiring it.

Hey, but Hitler was Baptized !

Jim

 

[Bataar]

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

Vatican II drastically changed the church’s teaching on ecumenism, religious liberty and, as we’re discussing here, salvation. By not making these new teachings infallible, they left it vague as to what the true teaching is. Again, this thread shows that this confusion exists.

For example, prior to Vatican II, the church taught that the Catholic church IS the church of Christ. After Vatican II, this changed (not infallibly) to say that the church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic the church. This is absolutely a different teaching, not just a new expression of the same teaching. After all, if the church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic church, it can subsist in other churches too, which is absolutely heretical.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The teaching on Ecumenism was not infallible and much of pre-vatican II was left over from the religious wars since the Reformation.

I have not seen any Vatican II document denying that the Church is not the Church of Christ.

Please provide the document if you can.

Jim

 

[steve-b]

Steve - from what I can tell, that section of the Catechism is taken almost directly from “Gaudium Et Spes” (“GS”),

[snip for space]

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?

Don’t over read into that.

Re: ignorance, and this is for everyone

Invincible ignorance = no matter the effort one takes to understand the subject, they can’t understand the subject. Let’s face it, some subjects are going to be stumpers

It therefore, automatically suggests good efforts to understand has been made by the individual without success.

So I have to ask, given that

What is sooooooo invincibly tough, about understanding simple history, scriptural and Tradition, of the Church, to understand who started the Church and when it was started, and the consequences mentioned in scripture and Tradition for ignoring or disobeying what is taught there.?

OTOH

unintentional ignorance = simply not having, or can’t get , the information to begin with. One therefore, is innocent of that ignorance… until of course, when/if the information is made available… right?

That said,

An example, true story.

while buying groceries one day, I noticed a young lady and young man about mid 20’s not able to find what they were looking for. So I offered to help, and was immediately spoken to by another woman who was off to the side, and told me that these 2 individuals were her students. I noticed They were completely unable to understand simple directions to find the isle for jam even when told the exact isle to go down.

So I asked the teacher, are their IQ’s 50 or below? She said yes.

Those 2 put massive effort into their task and couldn’t accomplish that simple task of finding the jam. So Parents of children like this need to know their children aren’t responsible like everyone else who are without that deficit of intellect.

So in this example, their ignorance is invincible.

 

[TULIPed]

Yeah - you’re right. The “damned” was hyperbole on my part. Apologies for that.

 

[steve-b]

Vatican II drastically changed the church’s teaching on ecumenism, religious liberty and, as we’re discussing here, salvation. By not making these new teachings infallible, they left it vague as to what the true teaching is. Again, this thread shows that this confusion exists.

Hopefully this clears up the confusion

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

From Vat II, LumenGentium

BTW,

Re: “persevering in charity”. Separating from or refusing to be fully incorporated in the Church = sin against charity. IOW baptism alone won’t do it.

Bataar:

prior to Vatican II, the church taught that the Catholic church IS the church of Christ. After Vatican II, this changed (not infallibly) to say that the church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic the church.

Re: “subsists in” see HERE

 

[CRV]

For example, prior to Vatican II, the church taught that the Catholic church IS the church of Christ. After Vatican II, this changed (not infallibly) to say that the church of Christ merely subsists in the Catholic the church. This is absolutely a different teaching, not just a new expression of the same teaching. After all, if the church of Christ only subsists in the Catholic church, it can subsist in other churches too, which is absolutely heretical.

With regards to this “subsists in” - the Vatican Website has this → CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH - the first 3 Q & R explain this well.

 

[Delphinus]

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

As a protestant convert I hope I can offer insight. The Catholic Church is the fullness of faith. It holds within it’s histories and in the writings of the Saint all that is known of Christ. Then, there is the Eucharist. The source and summit of Worship.

I am charismatic. I carry that over in my conversion. Do you know what it is like to participate in Charismatic worship in the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle? it’s far above and beyond what my protestant brethren know where they are. As a protestant, I felt starved for the truth. In the Catholic church I was filled to bursting.

Catholics wish to bring protestants in for many reasons:

1. The fullness of faith.
2. Eucharist and what it brings.
3. The ability to see God more fully.

As a charismatic Catholic who was one protestant…I beg and plead this. Never give up on our protestant brethren. There is a beauty and truth in the Catholic church that will only make things all the sweeter. All the better. We ALL NEED THAT! I truly came home when I was confirmed and welcomed home into the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood - exactly as He commanded - and it was a command. The Sacraments are channels of God’s grace. That is guaranteed. Can He distribute grace elsewhere? Of course, or no one would seek the truth.

Speaking of which, if one desires Christian truth, there is but one place to have all of the above and all of revealed truth.

That’s why.

 

[Michael16]

My question to you is: Since we possess the fullness of the Faith; why shouldn’t we encourage those outside to come in and share? Otherwise; it’d be like allowing someone go through life with half standard equipment and half a chance to do the job.

 

[Gorgias]

If someone never had the opportunity to join or never heard of the church, they can be saved due to God’s mercy.

Ahh… then it all comes down to how you define “never had the opportunity to join”, then, doesn’t it?

where those people will end up who never had the possibility to join to the Catholic Church?

That’s different than asserting ‘universalism’, which is what @Fauken seems to be saying you’ve espoused around here. Do you believe that “all men will be saved”?

Scripture condemns division from the Church Jesus established .

You probably will want to pay attention to next Sunday’s Gospel reading: “Jesus said, ‘Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.’”

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

Almost. It’s not “when someone is made aware of this, but…”, but rather “when someone believes that this is true, but…”.

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.

Would he believe “no salvation outside Christ”? After all, EENS just means “no salvation outside the Church that Christ founded”…

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

…

By not making these new teachings infallible, they left it vague as to what the true teaching is.

Not really. As @Dovekin points out, the Council “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”. So… do you ‘docilely and sincerely accept’ the teachings of the supreme ordinary magisterium of the Church?

Roman Catholics accepting a sacrament by the damned?

In a very real sense, it’s Christ who baptizes. So, it doesn’t matter whose hand pours the water or whose vocal chords voice the trinitarian formula. (Of course, for Catholics, there is also canon law about how a baptism should be celebrated, but non-Catholics aren’t bound by Catholic canon law.)

If they use the correct formula and are sincere in doing it, it is considered valid.

This is why, for example, a Mormon baptism is not valid as the Mormon understanding makes for a wrong intention.

Mormons are sincere, though, in baptizing. So, it’s not “sincerity” that’s in play.

 

[Pattylt]

Mormons are sincere, though, in baptizing. So, it’s not “sincerity” that’s in play.

I agree, sincere isn’t the right word. Correct understanding? Help me here. What’s a proper word! Thanks.

 

[TULIPed]

You are the #quotemaster. Bravo!

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Mormons are sincere, though, in baptizing. So, it’s not “sincerity” that’s in play.

I agree, sincere isn’t the right word. Correct understanding? Help me here. What’s a proper word! Thanks.

I think that you’re correct when you frame it up as “intention” – Mormons don’t do what the Church intends with baptism. We baptize in the name of a Triune God, who is eternal, uncreated, and the creator of the entire universe. Their conception of who ‘God the Father’ and ‘Jesus’ is… well, it’s completely different – and therefore, even if they use the same words, they’re doing something different than the Catholic Church does in the baptismal ceremony.

You are the #quotemaster. Bravo!

LOL!

 

[TULIPed]

Almost. It’s not “when someone is made aware of this, but…”, but rather “when someone believes that this is true, but…”.

This would (in my unlearned opinion) seem to dovetail nicely with the focus on “conscience” that’s in both the RCC and the GS.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

This has already been declared a heresy. There’s nothing more that need be said on the matter.

 

[YourNameHere]

As a Catholic, I would like to see non-Catholics convert, because Catholicism is wonderful. I want to share the joy I feel with my brothers and sister who are not practicing Catholics.

 

[steve-b]

Scripture condemns division from the Church Jesus established .

Gorgias:

You probably will want to pay attention to next Sunday’s Gospel reading: "Jesus said, ‘Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.’"

context context context…

Jesus prayer

Jn 17: 20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. "

THIS is what I was referring to.

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

Gorgias:

Almost. It’s not “when someone is made aware of this, but…”, but rather “when someone believes that this is true, but…”.

Re: (aware and know ) = https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/aware ,

To. use a powerful phrase from scripture,

If one sins “after receiving knowledge of the truth”… [Heb 10:26]

in that case, after one receives knowledge of truth and sins anyway…what happens?

 

[lonegreywolf20]

I am with you OP!

I am a cradle Catholic and wish that I wasn’t. Catholicism is not the church I would have chosen for myself at all. Had I been given the choice I would have went Lutheran or like yourself Episcopalian.