Salvation outside the church

[NorthTexan88]

Why is it so hard to believe?

Maybe the teachings of our Holy Mother Church have evolved through time, but what did our beloved Lord say?

See? The Lord, as He always does, goes straight to the heart of God’s infinite love and shows that salvation is truly catholic, that is, truly universal

More extensively He states:

And what did God speak through the prophets of old?

If a person in another religion feels close to God and loves Him - though he does not know Him - and loves his neighbor, would it be fair and fit of an infinitely just and infinitely merciful Lord to deny him salvation? Moreover, if that person truly knew Christ, would he or she reject Him?

The Church does not believe so, and has been stating it more clearly nowadays. But we always knew through the sacred scriptures that salvation is truly universal through Christ, either visibly or mystically.

“Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned.”

Thanks for this

I guess the “Outside the Church there is no salvation” that confuses me is who does it actually pertain to that can’t be saved?

If Muslims and Buddhist and pagans and Protestant all can be saved…is it basically just Catholics who have knowingly left the Church that can’t be saved?

Seems like a wide margin that can be saved, so who exactly is outside the Church if everyone can claim invinsible ignorance?

 

[R_C]

NorthTexan88:
You are welcome, and I love your questions!

Yes, in a way us Catholics (and Christians as a whole) have a greater responsibility for we are endowed in Baptism with the sanctifying grace. In a way, a Christian could mystically say: it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me

I would argue about the knowingly…I honestly believe that only Christ will truly know if we “knew” what we were doing…and if there was even a small margin by which our consent was not deliberate, I think (but it’s my personal view) that Christ Himself will pledge for our forgiveness to the Father with those very words He said on the Cross…

I think that it seems that indeed a very wide margin can be saved - salvation ought to be universal. It is truly a mystery why “many are those going to the way leading to destruction”… I think the Lord gave a nice but slightly mysterious description of who is not saved: “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.”

Note that the Church itself has a very delicate standpoint…the Pope’s words were (emphases mine):

salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having* a mysterious relationship to the Church*, *does not make them **formally ***part of the Church but enlightens them

So the boundary between inside and outside of the Church is not clearly defined, and it’s certainly not as easy as “if you are not Catholic, you are out”… But I think it’s very fitting of Christ’s glory that - despite popular belief - salvation is much more widespread than it appears…

 

[Jehannette]

Thanks for this

I guess the “Outside the Church there is no salvation” that confuses me is who does it actually pertain to that can’t be saved?

If Muslims and Buddhist and pagans and Protestant all can be saved…is it basically just Catholics who have knowingly left the Church that can’t be saved?

Seems like a wide margin that can be saved, so who exactly is outside the Church if everyone can claim invinsible ignorance?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the existence of Hell:

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

The references for this paragraph cite original sin, also:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. (Council of Florence)

The CCC affirms the existence of original sin:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

So, infants go to Hell, if they die with original sin on their souls; the same would be true of adults. Only Baptism can free one from original sin, barring some extraordinary grace on the part of the Triune God:

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

Saint Thomas discusses this possibility does not assume that it always happens (an error of the modernists of today):

“Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.” (Summa Theologica IIIa, q.68, a.11, ad 1)

To sum-up, everyone is born in a state of original sin and needs Baptism or at least the grace of Baptism to be saved, and in Baptism, one becomes a member of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. As discussed elsewhere, not everyone will be saved:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

So, we’re talking a lot of “theological hypotheticals” here.

 

[R_C]

So, infants go to Hell, if they die with original sin on their souls; the same would be true of adults.

So, to sum-up, everyone is born in a state of original sin and needs Baptism or at least the grace of Baptism to be saved

Unlike the second one, yout first statement contradicts the teaching of the Church:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 …] 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.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

Also, I don’t think we are born in a state of original sin…rather, because of the original sin we are born in the absence of the sanctifying grace.

 

[Jehannette]

Unlike the second one, yout first statement contradicts the teaching of the Church:

Also, I don’t think we are born in a state of original sin…rather, because of the original sin we are born in the absence of the sanctifying grace.

Not at all; it comes straight from Saint Thomas:

“As stated above (1, ad 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, ‘He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,’ a gloss says: ‘He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.’” (Summa Theologica, III, q.69, a.4)

The CCC affirms this, also:

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. . . . Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "

The CCC affirms the existence of original sin:

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

 

[thistle]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the existence of Hell:

The references for this paragraph cite original sin, also:

The CCC affirms the existence of original sin:

So, infants go to Hell, if they die with original sin on their souls; the same would be true of adults. Only Baptism can free one from original sin, barring some extraordinary grace on the part of the Triune God:

Saint Thomas discusses this possibility does not assume that it always happens (an error of the modernists of today):

To sum-up, everyone is born in a state of original sin and needs Baptism or at least the grace of Baptism to be saved, and in Baptism, one becomes a member of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ. As discussed elsewhere, not everyone will be saved:

So, we’re talking a lot of “theological hypotheticals” here.

The Church does NOT teach unbaptised infants go to Hell. The Church does not know what happens to unbaptised infants which is why the teaching is that we trust in God and leave such infants to his mercy.
I wish people would stop saying that unbaptised infants go to Hell because that contradicts Church teachings on this.

 

[R_C]

Also, I don’t think we are born in a state of original sin

I take this one back…while my statement on sanctifying grace is not incorrect, the Church also teaches that Adam’s sin is transmitted by descent, and the state of original sin is indeed defined as the state in which man is deprived of sanctifying grace…so we can say it both ways, I guess.

The Church does NOT teach unbaptised infants go to Hell.

…and even before we used to talk of a hypotetical limbus puerorum, not of the eternal rejection from God’s presence…

…the latter would never be even conceivable, for even onto our judgment it is evidently unfair for those innocents…

This document from 2007 talks about “the hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized” and it states the following:

We believe that, in the development of doctrine, the solution in terms of Limbo can be surpassed in view of a greater theological hope.

 

[johndoe100]

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:28-30 NIV84)

 

[Jehannette]

I take this one back…while my statement on sanctifying grace is not incorrect, the Church also teaches that Adam’s sin is transmitted by descent, and the state of original sin is indeed defined as the state in which man is deprived of sanctifying grace…so we can say it both ways, I guess.

…and even before we used to talk of a hypotetical limbus puerorum, not of the eternal rejection from God’s presence…

…the latter would never be even conceivable, for even onto our judgment it is evidently unfair for those innocents…

This document from 2007 talks about “the hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized” and it states the following:

Pope Sixtus V, in his Papal bull Effraenatam (which the above 38-page report does not even mention), stated the following:

Noticing that frequently by various Apostolic Constitutions the audacity and daring of most profligate men, who know no restraint, of sinning with license against the commandment “do not kill” was repressed; We who are placed by the Lord in the supreme throne of justice, being counseled by a most just reason, are in part renewing old laws and in part extending them in order to restrain with just punishment the monstrous and atrocious brutality of those who have no fear to kill most cruelly fetuses still hiding in the maternal viscera. Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls? Who will not condemn to a most grave punishment the impiety of him who will exclude a soul created in the image of God and for which Our Lord Jesus Christ has shed His precious Blood, and which is capable of eternal happiness and is destined to be in the company of angels, from the blessed vision of God, and who has impeded as much as he could the filling up of heavenly mansions, and has taken away the service to God by His creature?

iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

 

[thistle]

Pope Sixtus V, in his Papal bull Effraenatam (which the above 38-page report does not even mention), stated the following:

iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to Hell.

This is the Church teaching:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Jehannette]

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to Hell.

This is the Church teaching:

CCC 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

If infants who die without Baptism have the assurance of Heaven, why, then, “all the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”? What are the Church’s reason(s) for “urgency”?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If infants who die without Baptism have the assurance of Heaven, why, then, “all the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”? What are the Church’s reason(s) for “urgency”?

To bring the children into the New Covenant.

It is not our place to call common what the Lord has made clean. Likewise, it is not for us to say who goes and doesn’t go to hell.

 

[Jehannette]

To bring the children into the New Covenant.

It is not our place to call common what the Lord has made clean. Likewise, it is not for us to say who goes and doesn’t go to hell.

I agree, however, it is the Church who teaches:

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Consider what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, said:

“The faith, as such, is always the same. Therefore, St. Pius X’s catechism always retains its value, … There can be persons or groups that feel more comfortable with St. Pius X’s catechism. … that Catechism stemmed from a text that was prepared by the Pope himself [Pius X] when he was Bishop of Mantua. The text was the fruit of the personal catechetical experience of Giuseppe Sarto, whose characteristics were simplicity of exposition and depth of content. Also because of this, St. Pius X’s catechism might have friends in the future.”

In his catechism, Saint Pope Pius X stated:

11 Q. When should infants be brought to the Church to be baptized?

A. Infants should be brought to the Church to be baptized as soon as possible.

12 Q. Why such anxiety to have infants receive Baptism?

A. There should be the greatest anxiety to have infants baptized because, on account of their tender age, they are exposed to many dangers of death, and cannot be saved without Baptism.

13 Q. Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?

A. Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it.

 

[R_C]

Jehannette, we have repeatedly quoted the current teaching of the Church, and the Catechism of S. Pius X is no longer the official Catechism of the Church, whose teachings and sacred tradition grows in the centuries under the light of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jehannette]

Jehannette, we have repeatedly quoted the current teaching of the Church, and the Catechism of S. Pius X is no longer the official Catechism of the Church, whose teachings and sacred tradition grows in the centuries under the light of the Holy Spirit.

This is what the present Catechism has to say about its predecessor, which it references extensively:

9 “The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. The Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching. . . .” The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.

This is what the Roman Catechism had to say:

“The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.” (Catechism of Trent)

If one takes the Catechism seriously, then one must also take seriously the following:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

If the above is true, then what Pope Sixtus V taught in his Papal bull Effraenatam must also be true.

 

[R_C]

By virtue of obedience we humbly follow the teachings of our Mother, the mystical Bride of Christ. If the Magisterium - that never stated that children without baptism would end in hell - has now clarified the theological argument of the limbus pueri with a greater theological hope of salvation, we ought to simply acknowledge this teaching, rather than trying to compare it with previous ones…the sacred tradition is constantly growing in strength and wisdom.

Of course we still ought to baptize, and it is especially important to baptize infants in order that they receive the indispensable sanctifying grace…yet we know - for instance, from the Doctor Angelicus - that Deus non alligatur sacramentis, and to presume that salvation of anyone is tied to the Sacraments is to presume that God is not truly omnipotent…He gave his Bride the seven Sacraments as gifts of sanctification, but He is not tied to them. We ought to follow His commands and follow the Sacraments, but He does not (which is one of the many consequences of His being God).

 

[Jehannette]

By virtue of obedience we humbly follow the teachings of our Mother, the mystical Bride of Christ. If the Magisterium - that never stated that children without baptism would end in hell - has now clarified the theological argument of the limbus pueri with a greater theological hope of salvation, we ought to simply acknowledge this teaching, rather than trying to compare it with previous ones…the sacred tradition is constantly growing in strength and wisdom.

Of course we still ought to baptize, and it is especially important to baptize infants in order that they receive the indispensable sanctifying grace…yet we know - for instance, from the Doctor Angelicus - that Deus non alligatur sacramentis, and to presume that salvation of anyone is tied to the Sacraments is to presume that God is not truly omnipotent…He gave his Bride the seven Sacraments as gifts of sanctification, but He is not tied to them. We ought to follow His commands and follow the Sacraments, but He does not (which is one of the many consequences of His being God).

Please note, however, that the document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized" is not a Magisterial document. Also note that #1261 in the CCC is referenced in the Index under “Limbo” and not “Heaven,” “Hell,” etc.

 

[benjammin]

I’ve always wondered how this applies in our modern era. I understand that some people will never hear the gospel (i.e muslims in certain middle east countries, or pagans in the jungle or things like that), but how does this work in more modern countries. For example, even if you live in the heavily baptist southern us and are part of a very anti catholic church, and never hear anything about it (or at least anything good), you can still go online and look up good catholic websites. I mean it isn’t hard to find a site like catholic answers. I just wonder if this means more people in the modern era outside of the church aren’t saved since it is easy to find out about the church

 

[R_C]

That’s a good point, but what if someone is brought up into a different religion or community, and he is taught since little that the Catholic church is wrong or bad or whatever else the world loves to say to us…that person may in good faith ignore the truth about the Church…it’s a little bit like Saul believing that Christians were wrong…it would be wonderful if just reading some good Catholic websites - or going over the Catechism - would make others immediately realize that the truth shines through them…but we know that people did not react in such a way even when the Lord Himself spoke to them during His ministry…

 

[thistle]

If infants who die without Baptism have the assurance of Heaven, why, then, “all the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism”? What are the Church’s reason(s) for “urgency”?

Where did I state that unbaptised infants have assurance of Heaven. I said the Church does NOT KNOW what happens to them which is why the Church teaching is that they are entrusted to God’s mercy.
They may go to Hell or they may be saved. We don’t know and the Church does not know.

The reason to get infants baptised quickly is that baptism is the means given to the Church by God to ensure their salvation should they die before the age of reason.
If they die unbaptised their destination is unknown.

Personally, I believe they are saved.