Salvation through RCC?

[Greg27]

Not being a Catholic, maybe someone could help me. As I understand it, a protestant may enter heaven if s/he’s been baptized, etc. The extension is even to many others via baptism by desire. Please correct me if I’m off.

How does that complement the following ex cathedra?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“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” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

Thanks,
A Pac

Personally I find formulation 3) absolutely repulsive. To suggest to be that Buddha, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are at this moment, burning in hell (along with Plotinus, Shakespeare, Einstein, Kant, as well as all Protestants who ever lived and all Orthodox Christians living after the schism, all Jews and Muslims, etc) in eternal torment is absolutely disgusting, to my reason, my will, my conscience, and my sense of morality. If the CC formulated the dogma of salvation today in these terms, I would immediately leave the church.

Formulation 1) in my understanding is the one adopted by Vatican II, and is understood that all salvation comes through Christ, including any salvation for pagans, those who lived before Christ, and unbaptised infants. I find the idea virtuous pagans, those who lived before Christ, and the unbaptised are automatically sent to hell as disgusting and repulsive, both from a philosophical and theological viewpoint, simply because they did not belong to the right ‘club.’ But a more positive understanding of salvation, in that salvation occurs through the church and sacraments but God is not bound to the sacraments alone, and his mercy and love and wisdom reaches people in other ways (as in my view looking at Greek philosophy and philosophers, especially in the form of their beautiful forms of wisdom and seeing beauty in things and the prescence of the divine) is much better and acceptable.

Formulation 2) in my view is to be understood the fullness of truth and salvation is found in the Catholic Church, led by the successor of Peter. It is not to be understood in the sense the Pope is himself God or Jesus incarnate, but rather he is the visible head of the Church who represents its unity to and in Christ.

 

[A_Pac]

I leatherman,

Are the souls in paradise unsaved?

Give me your definition of being “saved,” then I can tell you that judgment isn’t mine but Gods. All the same, I think they’re righteous souls.

Greg27,

If the CC formulated the dogma of salvation today in these terms, I would immediately leave the church.

These quotes fit the criteria for ex cathedra, so the dogma DOES stand today.

I find the idea virtuous pagans, those who lived before Christ, and the unbaptised are automatically sent to hell as disgusting and repulsive, both from a philosophical and theological viewpoint, simply because they did not belong to the right ‘club.’

Well said. Now the only problem is getting the necessary baptism BY water that Christ said they MUST receive.

God is not bound to the sacraments alone…

1. God is bound by His word. If He goes back on it, He’s a liar.
2. God’s not a respecter of persons. The scriptures are clear about this. To say God is not bound to follow His sacraments concerning one but not another is simply wrong.

(Edited by Moderator)

A Pac

 

[I_Leatherman]

I leatherman,

Give me your definition of being “saved,” then I can tell you that judgment isn’t mine but Gods. All the same, I think they’re righteous souls.

If you’re not happy answering this question, thats fine, just say that.

Righteous souls in paradise are not saved?

You don’t need to be cautious about judging imaginary people.

 

[A_Pac]

First, I didn’t say they were imaginary.

Second, I asked for clarification. I’m not going to use terminology to clarify my position if I don’t know how you consider it.

If you’re not happy answering this question, thats fine, just say that.

No. I’m not happy answering it. In fact, I break out into tears just thinking about it. With all the grief in the world, nothing brings me more sadness than to even think of answering your question. It agonizes my soul.

A Pac

 

[I_Leatherman]

First, I didn’t say they were imaginary.

Second, I asked for clarification. I’m not going to use terminology to clarify my position if I don’t know how you consider it.

No. I’m not happy answering it. In fact, I break out into tears just thinking about it. With all the grief in the world, nothing brings me more sadness than to even think of answering your question. It agonizes my soul.

A Pac

I’m sorry you agonize so much over this question.
You use whatever terminology that makes you happy. I just want to know if you think a soul in paradise is whatever-you-consider-the-correct-equivalent-terminology-of ‘saved’ ?

 

[A_Pac]

Then no, for someone is not “saved” until after the final judgment which hadn’t happened yet. For if one is saved, what perhaps is there in the judgment?

A Pac

 

[I_Leatherman]

Then no, for someone is not “saved” until after the final judgment which hadn’t happened yet. For if one is saved, what perhaps is there in the judgment?

A Pac

Confirmation?

Ok, someone with Christ in paradise may end up in hell after the last judgement??

 

[A_Pac]

Confirmation?

Ok, someone with Christ in paradise may end up in hell after the last judgement??

I’m surprised you believe such a stupid thing. That is moronic to utter extremes. Why would you say such a dismally ridiculous thing?

Oh…you’re creating yet another Strawman! I keep forgetting that you lack the ability of piecing together clear and concise arguments, and are more interested in making up malicious absurdium to misrepresent people. You know…on second thought, if you’re not smart enough to figure out your own question, I’m not inclined to give you an answer.

A Pac

P.S. Don’t you think that an imbecile would would confuse ‘one who has yet been saved,’ and ‘one going to hell?’ I can’t believe there are people that actually conflate the two! How about you?

 

[I_Leatherman]

I’m surprised you believe such a stupid thing. That is moronic to utter extremes. Why would you say such a dismally ridiculous thing?

Oh…you’re creating yet another Strawman! I keep forgetting that you lack the ability of piecing together clear and concise arguments, and are more interested in making up malicious absurdium to misrepresent people. You know…on second thought, if you’re not smart enough to figure out your own question, I’m not inclined to give you an answer.

A Pac

P.S. Don’t you think that an imbecile would would confuse ‘one who has yet been saved,’ and ‘one going to hell?’ I can’t believe there are people that actually conflate the two! How about you?

So, I can take it that you believe that a soul in paradise is ‘saved’ ?

What does conflate mean?

 

[A_Pac]

So, I can take it that you believe that a soul in paradise is ‘saved’ ?

What does conflate mean?

Saved is the past tense form of “to save,” and one is not “saved” until the process has finished with the final judgment. I’m not going to go through this ridiculousness again. Figure it out.

And look up “conflate” in the dictionary…

A Pac

 

[I_Leatherman]

And look up “conflate” in the dictionary…

A Pac

Oh… thanks, I did’nt think of that…being an imbecile and everything.

Saved is the past tense form of “to save,” and one is not “saved” until the process has finished with the final judgment. I’m not going to go through this ridiculousness again. Figure it out.

Yes, thanks, … But I really think if a person is ‘being saved’ after death, and if as you seem to think, there being no way at all that the person can ever go to hell, - then you are really saying that the person in paradise is actually guaranteed to be saved, if fact they are ‘saved’ to all intents and purposes. Am I right in thinking you believe that the person in paradise is “saved” ?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer,

So…I’m forced to take your word for it that when it’s all taken into account, it makes sense? Well, thanks for trying!

Of course not ​

All I was trying to explain is that

• **though **it may well seem not to make sense if one looks at the doctrine in a *fragmented *way (as you were doing, like so many, which is all very understandable)
• nonetheless, things do fit together
• **even **though how they do, is not clear
• & never will be clear
• **if **one does not go about putting them together in the right way -
• because, there is a right way, or a right method, of doing so
• • which is theological, doctrinal, & much else.
• in addition to which**,** there is a certain “shape” to Christianity: it is not a pile of bits and pieces, any more than a human body or a living man is.
  The trouble with so many people nowadays, is that they want a simplified Christianity - but it is not simple. It is complex, rich, organic, fertile, living. It cannot be reduced to a few slogans.
• Did I explain how those things were connected ? No - I was not trying to.
• Can they be connected ? Yes.
• Can they be connected without the help of all the other parts of Catholicism ? Not a hope
• Can their connection be shown in a post or two ? Not a hope.

It’s far better to say why their connection cannot be shown in a post or two, than to try giving a woefully incomplete, & necessarily shallow, answer. So I didn’t. For which you should, IMHO, be grateful Since it would be shallow, that would only confuse matters further - whereas you deserve a proper answer. Which you can easily get, by reading the sort of books that explain these
things - such as

• [The Teaching of Christ (http://www.catholiccompany.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=6297) - which is an outstandingly good explanation of Catholicism. There are some very good books that explain our Faith, but that IMO is far & away the best, from every point of view.
  This summary of the Faith should help: papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6credo.htm

It says what the doctrine is, but not what the connections are. ISTM that what you need is an explanation of the latter as well as the former.

I Leatherman,

Umm…that wasn’t a very good answer to my question. Try again.

VociMike

Oh…maybe because it was THE LAST CONVERSATION OF CHRIST BEFORE HE DIED. Didn’t know that was a difficult one. Draw from what he said…Paradise, not heaven. If you don’t understand them in separate terms, it’s frankly evident that you’re missing something.

I Leatherman

No. I don’t plan on dying today. But I’m sure the cops will come after you if I do.

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

I Leartherman,

Oh… thanks, I did’nt think of that…being an imbecile and everything.

So why ask?

Yes, thanks, … But I really think if a person is ‘being saved’ after death, and if as you seem to think, there being no way at all that the person can ever go to hell, - then you are really saying that the person in paradise is actually guaranteed to be saved, if fact they are ‘saved’ to all intents and purposes. Am I right in thinking you believe that the person in paradise is “saved” ?

Your grammar usage was too complex for my simple mind. Dumb it down for us simpletons, please.

Gottle of Geer,

As much as I love bullets, I’ve never seen them used quite like you’ve used them. But…you say that although they fit together, they’re not clear nor never will be clear. And why need I accept that naïve and apathetic view toward salvation? I’ll keep looking elsewhere then, thank you.

The trouble with so many people nowadays, is that they want a simplified Christianity - but it is not simple.

The gospel beautifully simple, and simply beautiful. It’s the working of man that make it complex. That’s why I could never be RCCer.

I do appreciate your sincerity, FYI. I do need to say, however, that you’re at least the 3rd person here to suggest books to understand these ‘complex’ ideas better. The fact is I’ve read many, many books…and the biggest irritation is the author isn’t around to hold honest. I’m not going to read books for creative explanations that twist the scriptures. There are some simple points that I’ve addressed that no “man made” explanation will satiate. I don’t care who it is…God doesn’t lie, and baptism of desire is based on that predicate, period.

A Pac

 

[I_Leatherman]

Your grammar usage was too complex for my simple mind. Dumb it down for us simpletons, please.

The good thief is “saved” according to the Gospel in spite of lack of water.

Or, is it possible to go to hell - when you are in paradise with Christ.

pac:

I’m not inclined to give you an answer.

Is that dumbed down enough.