Salvation Outside of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Mom_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pere i Pau:
Exactly Tim. This goes back to the whole invincible ignorance argument we have been hearing in Catholic circles and OBOB. We all respect the superficial layer of IV, but I feel it has been spread too thick. Much like "extra"ordinary ministers have become ordinary, so IV appears to have a broad definition, though intended for limited instances. Surely God judges, but to paint a broad stroke and claim a lack “knowledge” in the full faith allows that window of opportunity to creep in is bound to be divisive.

What is knowledge? Who has evidence, as only a limited amount of people had evidence historically like St. Paul, so is one accountable if he leaves the Church? Is a Muslim handicapped, even if he has the right resources to discover the truth? Does being a part of something an acknowledgment of truth or is one accountable because he is persuaded otherwise? Seems like everyone is going to Heaven with the current definition and thought on this issue.

I think this is the flaw in proponents of IV’s new interpretation.
Last Year on another board there was a discussion on whether Fred Rogers was saved or not. Sure he was a great guy, but he also was a protestant minister and his seminary formation surely touched on those people who left the Catholic Church in the reformation. I really think people like him are in deep water.

-Ted
 
Here it is … its that last point Catholics generally disagree with each other on. My question would be, why take any chances? I would, as a Catholic, assume the stricter interpretation until otherwise proclaimed doctrine. This certainly gives us a stronger mandate to share the faith with Protestants rather than assuming the best about their salvation. We don’t know.
… I think that the following is a safe assessment of things:
Catholics are required to hold that only members of the Catholic Church will be saved.
Catholics are required to hold that a form of membership in the Catholic Church is membership through baptism, whether by water, blood, or desire.
Catholics are required to hold that only God’s mercy allows salvation and that no human being can know with infallible certainty whether or not God has extended that mercy to any particular human being unless a particular human being has been properly canonized.
Catholics may speculate that baptism by blood or desire can be obtained by those who have no explicit knowledge of the Church, and such individuals may include those who have an utterly distorted knowledge of the Church.
 
40.png
weunice:
Here it is … its that last point Catholics generally disagree with each other on. My question would be, why take any chances? I would, as a Catholic, assume the stricter interpretation until otherwise proclaimed doctrine. This certainly gives us a stronger mandate to share the faith with Protestants rather than assuming the best about their salvation. We don’t know.
Regarding the last point…
Catholics may speculate that baptism by blood or desire can be obtained by those who have no explicit knowledge of the Church, and such individuals may include those who have an utterly distorted knowledge of the Church.
Invincible Ignorance means that the ignorance can not be overcome via instructions or simply study.

If someone is raised in an anti-catholic home and this warps them so badly that they just can’t figure the truth out, despite it being explained correctly, then they are invincibly ignorant.
 
I would appreciate some help in getting my children who have left the church to return.The SFO fraternity is going to start a Holy Hour for them. Everyone seems to have children who no longer practice their faith. Any other ideas? They don’t like to even talk about it. They call me TOO RELIGOUS!
I would appreciate any suggestions. They wouldn’t even start reading a book as big as the Cathecism. Are they afraid of hearing the truth?? Are they caught in the materialism of the world? How have you gotten your children and grandchildren turn around?
Thanks,
In the love of Francis,
Marleia
 
40.png
Marleia:
I would appreciate some help in getting my children who have left the church to return.The SFO fraternity is going to start a Holy Hour for them. Everyone seems to have children who no longer practice their faith. Any other ideas? They don’t like to even talk about it. They call me TOO RELIGOUS!
I would appreciate any suggestions. They wouldn’t even start reading a book as big as the Cathecism. Are they afraid of hearing the truth?? Are they caught in the materialism of the world? How have you gotten your children and grandchildren turn around?
Thanks,
In the love of Francis,
Marleia
I feel for you, that must be hard. My kids are only 2 and 1 years old, but I’d hate to be trying to deal with that situation.

I suppose locking them in the house and deprogramming them wouldn’t be an option? 😉
 
Fundamental of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, P 312-313.
  1. The Necessity for Membership of the Church
Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.)

In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D430. This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and Popes Innocent III (D 423) and Bonafice VIII in the Bull “Unam Sanctam” (D 468), Clement VI (D570b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (D 1647, 1677), Leo XIII (D 1955), Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (D 2286, 2288). As against modern religious indifferntism, Pius IX declared: “By faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certain it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord” (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the church can achieve salvation. Cf. D 1677; 796 (votum baptismi).

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely necessity of precept (necessitas praecepti), but also a necessity of means (nec. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or incapability, actual membership of the church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly {explicit} present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfil the will of God (Votum implicitum). In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.

Christ ordained affiliation to the Church by founding the Church as an institution unto salvation for all men. He endowed the Apostles with His authority, gave them a universal mandate to teach and baptise and made eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance of Hi teaching and the reception of Baptism. Luke 10, 16; Mt. 10, 40; 18, 17; 29, 19; Mk. 16, 15 et seq. That those who, in inocent ignorance, do not know the true Church of Christ, but who nevertheless ready to bow to the demands of Divine Will, will not be cast out, springs from the Divine Justice, and from the doctrine of God’s general will of salvation, which is clearly proved in the Scriptures (1 tim. 2. 4). The Apostles teach the necessity of the Church for salvation. Peter confesses before the High Council: “Neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4, 12). Cf. Gal. 1, 8 ; Tit. 3, 10 et seq. ; 2 John 10 et seq.

It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well. St Irenaeus teaches that: “in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where there is the Church and all grace” (Adv. haer. III 24, I). Origen formally declares: “Outside the Church nobody will be saved” (extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur; In Jesu Nave hom. 3, 5); similiarly St. Cyprian; “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Salus extra ecclesiam non est; EP. 73, 21). The Fathers, for example, St. Cyprian, St Jerome, St Augustine, St Fulgentius, regard, as types of the necessity of the Church for salvation, the saving Noah Ark and the House of Rahab (Jos. 2, 18 et seq.). In the primitive Church the conviction of her necessity for salvation found practical expression in her missionary zeal, in the readiness of her children to suffer martyrdom and in her battle against heresy.



Continue bellow
 
My kids are all too young to have left the faith… (they’re all under 7)-- but my heart just breaks for you!! Prayers, sacrifice and fasting… that is all there is to do- besides trying really hard to live a life above reproach, so that you will be the Faith in action for them…

I know my kids will have to grow up and make their own decisions- but this is why we pray the rosary and attend Mass together as close to everyday as possible- and why I pray for their lifelong faith everyday… my path away from the Church was wretched… I pray for their purity, chastity, and that they will never for a moment of their lives turn away from the one true Faith…

Oh-- and of course there is the rosary!! That is how I was returned to the faith-- many, many rosaries said by my mother, brother, and grandmother…
 
In view of the stress laid upon the necessity of membership of the church for salvation it is understandable that the possibility of salvation for those outside the church is mentioned only hesitantly. St Ambrose and St Augustine admit that catechumen who depart this life before the reception of Baptism can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion (St Ambrose, De obitu Val. 51 ; St Augustine De bapt. IV 22, 29). On the other hand, Gennadius of MArseilles denies them this possibility, except in the case of martyrdom (DE eccl. dorm. 74). St Augustine distinguishes also, not indeed using the terminology, between material and formal heretics. Thus he does regard material heretics ashereetics properly so-called (Ep.43, I, I). He seems to estimate thier possibility of salvation otherwise thab he does that of heretics proper.

St thomas, agreeing with Tradition, teaches the general necessity of the Church for salvation. Expos. symb. a.9. On the other hand, he concedes that a person may be saved extrasacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore the possibility of salvation without actual membership of the Church by reason of a desire to be a member of the Church. S. th. III 68, 2.

As against the reproach intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religions, or to all Christian confession (Indiferentism); for there is only one truth. But the church recognises the propriety of civil tolerance, by preaching the comandmend of neighbourly charity towards all men, even those in error. Cf. the prayers of Liturgy on Good Froday.

Pope Boniface VIII, 1294-1303, Bulla Unam Sanctam:

"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one Catholic Church, and that one apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. Thus the spouse proclaims in the Canticle, “One is my dove: my perfect one is but one. She is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her” (Cant. 6:8). Now this chosen one represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, and Christ’s head is God. In her there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). For at the time of the deluge there existed only one ark, the figure of the one Church. This ark received its final touch by one cubit’s provision and had but one pilot and captain, that is Noe. And we read that all things existing upon the earth outside this ark perished. We honour this Church as the one and ony Church, as the Lord says by his prophet, “Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword: my only one from the hand of the dog” (Ps. 21:21). The Lord was praying for his soul, that is, for himself as head, and at the same time for his body which he called his only one, that is, his Church, because of the oneness of his spouse, the Church, in faith, in the sacraments, and in charity. This Church is the seamless robe of the Lord (See John 19:23), which was not cut but for which lots were cast. Therefore, the one and only Church has one body, one head (not two heads, like a monster); namely, Christ and his Vicar Peter, and the successor of peter; for the Lord said th Peter himself, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). My, says Christ, and this universally, not singling out “these” or “those”. By this expression it is clearly understood that He entrusted to him all without exception. If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, as the Lord says in John that there is one fold and one shepherd (see John 10:16)

Further, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
 
"OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION" [from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]
  1. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [cf. St. Cyprian, Ep 73:21; PL 3:1169; De Unit PL 4:509-536] 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." [Vatican II LG 14]
  2. 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.” [Vatican II LG 16]
 
_Christopher_:
Regarding the last point…

Invincible Ignorance means that the ignorance can not be overcome via instructions or simply study.

If someone is raised in an anti-catholic home and this warps them so badly that they just can’t figure the truth out, despite it being explained correctly, then they are invincibly ignorant.
I agree with this … and I want to clear up my “siding towards the stricter interpretation” meaning …

The stricter interpretation doesn’t jive as much with my understanding of God’s mercy, but my understanding of infinite is certainly finite, especially when coupled with the idea of God being infinitely just. I would present something akin to the short post that I made to a Protestant. It covers the Church stance without the bias of what I personally believe on the matter. It is not merciful on our part to tend towards indifferentism, nor is it to tend towards utter and total damnation of all Protestants. We have to carefully balance that act to ensure that the truth is what is presented.

We, as Catholics, have no excuse to be flippant on this manner because we do not know whether or not someone qualifies as being in the Church by one of those other methods, nor can we know with any certainty that they are truly ignorant. I prefer to assume one, being outside the Church, has an obstacle to salvation, because I don’t know the details.

I think it is more comfortable for a convert like myself to believe a more indifferentist version at first. Later on though, the necessity of being Catholic becomes clearer. This has been a hard thing for me to accept because it reveals to me the necessity of defending the faith to my Protestant friends and family which opens me to ridicule, which is painful… I have to admit that I am concerned because I don’t really know.
 
40.png
weunice:
I agree with this … and I want to clear up my “siding towards the stricter interpretation” meaning …

The stricter interpretation doesn’t jive as much with my understanding of God’s mercy, but my understanding of infinite is certainly finite, especially when coupled with the idea of God being infinitely just. I would present something akin to the short post that I made to a Protestant. It covers the Church stance without the bias of what I personally believe on the matter. It is not merciful on our part to tend towards indifferentism, nor is it to tend towards utter and total damnation of all Protestants. We have to carefully balance that act to ensure that the truth is what is presented.

We, as Catholics, have no excuse to be flippant on this manner because we do not know whether or not someone qualifies as being in the Church by one of those other methods, nor can we know with any certainty that they are truly ignorant. I prefer to assume one, being outside the Church, has an obstacle to salvation, because I don’t know the details.

I think it is more comfortable for a convert like myself to believe a more indifferentist version at first. Later on though, the necessity of being Catholic becomes clearer. This has been a hard thing for me to accept because it reveals to me the necessity of defending the faith to my Protestant friends and family which opens me to ridicule, which is painful… I have to admit that I am concerned because I don’t really know.
Yes, also remember…

Catholics will be judged more harshly as well…because we have been given more graces! :eek:
 
_Christopher_:
Yes, also remember…

Catholics will be judged more harshly as well…because we have been given more graces! :eek:
Which is why one of the greatest things we can do with this teaching is to pray and sacrifice for all who we meet and see throughout our day- that they will be saved from the fires of Hell. To quote Stan Lee, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” (What can I say, my son is on a Spiderman kick!)
 
:amen:

I’m a little weary of people reducing this dogma into a meaningless formula and I’ve seen plenty of debates on it online.

I agree with you that the best thing we can do for this dogma is to strive and pray for the salvation of souls. As Pope Pius XI said above, there is only so far we can go to speculate and beyond that, it is unlawful to inquire.

Miguel.
 
All of these different answers are much appreciated. However, in reading all of them I am left with the same dilemma I started with. Everyone seems to be able to quote different parts of our faith to support their own point of view on this topic. Where is the Catholic Church on this today? Specifically, what about people born into and educated in faiths that are not remotely Christian? I can’t believe that God damns all of these souls based upon geography. His desire to make us one with him for eternity is too great for that kind of random selection. Lets face it, where you are born on the planet largely determines whether or not you will be Christian. Yes, I know that there are exceptions, but by and large this is true. Does Catholicism really preach that unbaptized Catholics are damned?
 
Well, this depends. Geography is a factor, but not exclusive. Most European countries have a Catholic or Christian in general heritage but no longer instruct or advocate Catholicism. So, the geography argument is getting smaller and smaller. In addition, the geography argument when it pertains to Christianity is flawed in modern times. Many in Christian nations do not believe, even if they are in predominent Christian heritage ones.

I would love to see a clarification on the part of the Magisterium. Unfortunately, many lay Catholics are riding a fine line between a more conservative hard line and universal salvation. We have to be careful not to appear pluralistic.
 
Catholic Mom,

Here is the simplest summaton of the position that I can think of.

The Church recognizes the possibility that those not in perfect union with the Catholic Church in their lives may be saved. The possibility, mind you. But even that is impossible without Christ.

The Church also knows the way that Christ laid down and commissioned His Apostles to teach to us.

Why spend your time theorizing about possible back doors into heaven, when Christ is standing there before us, holding the front gate open wide, waving us in…

Pax,
Matt
 
All of these different answers are much appreciated. However, in reading all of them I am left with the same dilemma I started with. Everyone seems to be able to quote different parts of our faith to support their own point of view on this topic. Where is the Catholic Church on this today? Specifically, what about people born into and educated in faiths that are not remotely Christian? I can’t believe that God damns all of these souls based upon geography. His desire to make us one with him for eternity is too great for that kind of random selection. Lets face it, where you are born on the planet largely determines whether or not you will be Christian. Yes, I know that there are exceptions, but by and large this is true. Does Catholicism really preach that unbaptized Catholics are damned?
Catholicmom,

There’s no doubt that there are many views on this even among Catholics, but ultimately it is what the Church teaches on this that matters. And she teaches, as well as Saints and Popes throughout the whole history of the Church that, “outside the Church there is no salvation.”

As to people who through no fault of their own, do not know the Catholic Church and do not enter it because of either geography or ignorance; then such people are not held guilty for that.

We do not know their ultimate fate and neither should we speculate…Those who are die in ignorance should be left to the mercy of God (just like those infants who die without baptism); since we do not know exactly how God saves such people.

What our part is, is not to speculate, but to pray and work for the advancement of the cause of Christ and salvation of souls. The fate of those who do not know the Church through no fault of their own and who are unbaptized should be left to God’s mercy; knowing, that He will give them a chance in this life for their salvation.

Miguel.
 
Yes, but there is vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. How we define “ignorance”,“fullness”, and “knowledge” is a matter of hot debate. In addition, the reason it is debated is because of the disparity among Catholic leadership. Not just amongst us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top