Sermon: No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

[Ultima_Ratio]

I don’t think Rome does allow anyone to hold that position. Fr. Feeney rejected the possibility of salvation for anyone who isn’t explicitly within the visible Catholic Church. However, at the Council of Trent, Baptism of Desire was dogmatically defined.

Most people don’t know it, but the Church does allow them to hold to their position. I’m in agreement with you that they are wrong, and I argue with them against their position using the quote you provided and many others, but Rome does allow them to hold their position. You should be able to find the documentation by doing a google search. If not, let me know and I’ll post it.
Lief Erikson:

This depends on how you’re defining what it means to be in the Church. I see you’re defining it as Pius X was, as “full communion.”

Here’s from our present Catechism …

Those who are baptized deserve the name Christian and are members of the Body of Christ, or the Church. This Catechism isn’t negating our holy Pius X’s. It agrees with him as far as concepts go but is using different language. Whereas Pius X only described as members of the Church those who are in full communion, he did not deny that there is partial communion with many outside the Church. The Catechism today is using language differently but is talking about the same ideas. We all agree that Protestants aren’t in full communion, but the language of the present Catechism **might suggest **they are in the Church through baptism but not fully in it because they lack the fullness of faith and submission. If they weren’t members of the Body of Christ, I don’t see how Pope Benedict XVI could talk about the “wounds” their disunity rends in the Body.

There are various ways a person can be united to the Church, if not the body of the Church, at least the *soul *of the Church. For example, according to St. Robert Bellarmine a catechumen is united to the soul of the Church by faith, and the body of the Church by desire. A baptized person outside the visible boundaries of the Church, who is in good faith, is also united to the soul of the Church by faith, and possibly by grace if they have not committed a mortal sin. They might also be united to the body of the Church by implicit desire. I would agree that all of these are in some kind of imperfect union with the Church.

But a formal heretic, schismatic, apostate, and excommunicated person are not united to the soul or body of the Church. That is why Pope Pius X could say without qualification that they are outside the Church.

The only way they can be considered part of the Church is, to use Thomistic terms, in potentiality. Such people are united to the Church in the exact same way that Bishop Fellay of the SSPX is the duly elected Pope. Now, an average person would respond to that comment by saying “Bishop Fellay is not the Pope”, and they would be correct. But he is the Pope potentially. Formal heretics, schismatics, etc. are members of the Church in potentiality only. Their membership will remain in a state of potency unless and until they return to it. Prior to that, they are completely outside the Church, being united neither to the body or the soul.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

By the way, Ultima, I think you said somewhere that the Church has dogmatically defined that many people are in Hell? Is that true, and if so, where has it been established?

I think what you are referring to is a quote from Pope Piux II in 1459. He condemned the proposition that “all Christians are to be saved” (Denz. No. 717).

 

[SavedbyHisBlood]

**27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church? **

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

Please correct me if i misunderstood, but do you mean that all Orthodox and Protestant Christains are doomed to hell? Is this a teaching of the Catholic Church?? I was under the impression that we were all ‘Brothers in Christ’ and that all Christian’s were on ‘the path to heaven’, even if they were different paths. If this is an official Catholic teaching can you cite the Catachism or some official Church document that i may research?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Part of the point I’m trying to make is that how much of the truth is made known to the intellect has an impact on culpability, the background of the person receiving the truth, his or her life experiences, training, etc., make an impact on culpability, and whether the truth is presented by a nasty person or in a nasty way or at a bad time of day makes a difference on culpability, etc. etc. All these things impact how people respond and whether they give what you say a second thought. Your perspective seems to assume that the truth is given in a vacuum and everyone has the same background and receptivity, etc. There are so many things that make a difference.

My only point is that once the truth has been made known to the intellect, they are no longer ignorant of it. I understand what you are saying about life experiences etc, but a non-believer is either ignorant of the truth or they are not ignorant of the truth. I’m not presuming to judge anyone’s guilt. I am only saying that once the truth has entered the intellect, they can no longer claim ignorance of it.

If some Protestant has just lost a loved one and is grieving for her mother, and then an arrogant Catholic comes to the door trying to spread the faith and tells her, "Outside of the Church is no salvation and without having received the sacraments, your mother has very little chance of receiving salvation.

I agree that saying such a thing at that time would be imprudent and almost certainly produce no good fruits.

I disagree. While they might have “head knowledge” of the truth they might still be spiritually ignorant of it, and so invincibly ignorant of it. Where the heart goes, the mind will follow.

But the head, or intellect, is where knowledge resides. Knowledge doesn’t reside in the heart. When the Bible uses the word heart, it is referring to the will. The function of the will is to desire (love) and to choose. When the Bible speaks of the heart, it is referring to what we love, or desire. The heart is the same as the will, and it is the source of all sin.

Here’s a passage that seems to me to reflect what I’m talking about.

Mark 7:20-23

20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’ "

What comes out of the heart, according to Jesus, is what makes a man unclean. Evil thoughts such as heresies in the heart, because the heart is the throne from which souls are ruled. Not the mind.

I understand what you are saying and it is true that the will, or “heart”, is the source of sin; *but it is not the source of knowledge. * The reason evil comes from the heart (or will) is because the will is what *chooses *the evil. The will does not “think”; its only functions are to love and choose. The intellect proposes the tuth or the error, whichever the case may be, and the will chooses to embrace or reject it. Similarly, the devil might give us a temptation, but if the will does not correspond there is no sin. Sin is always rooted in the will (or heart), but not knowledge.

When the Bible says evil thoughts come from the heart, it means evil thoughts are willed by the heart. An evil thought, such as a temptation, that is not willed is not a sin. The only sinful thoughts are those that are willed.

A person commits a sin when the will chooses to embace what is evil. Prior to that there is no sin. All sin is rooted in love. It is a disordered love. We sin when we love and choose what we should not. We might see a pretty girl and be tempted, but we only sin if we will the evil desire. The exact same is true with heresy. The “pretty girl” would be an error, or a truth It is presented to the will, not by the eyes as the girl was, but rather by the intellect, since it is through the intellect that knowledge is made known to the will.

It is not on what is proposed to the mind that people are judged, but on what is proposed to the heart.

Yes, but how is a truth proposed to the “heart”, or will? It is proposed by the intellect.

Again the heart, or will, does not think. It only chooses. It is dependent upon the intellect to present the truth to it. It doesn’t require the intellect to desire a pretty girl (since it is aware of her through the eyes), but it does require the intellect to propose a doctrinal proposition. The truth is made known to the intellect (by a missionary, for example); the intellect then proposes it to the will, and the will either chooses to accept it or reject it. You are correct when you say that sin is rooted in the will, but truth and error are made known to the will by the intellect. And once the intellect is made aware of the truth, the person is no longer ignorant of it.

 

[pnewton]

I think what you are referring to is a quote from Pope Piux II in 1459. He condemned the proposition that “all Christians are to be saved” (Denz. No. 717).

It makes sense. It is also reasonable to say all Catholics are not going to be saved.

 

[pnewton]

It’s important to say that non-Catholics who are saved get saved despite of their religion, not because of it. Any truth that their Church holds actually comes from the Holy Catholic Church. Whatever non-Catholic doctrines their religion holds are all false.

Anyway, it’s more prudent for Catholics to have the attitude of erring on the side of caution with regard to EENS by assuming that invincible ignorance is very unlikely in most instances. We ought to be willing to do all we can to convert as many as possible to Catholicism through evangelization, as opposed to pandering to other world religions through false ecumenism. Because even if individuals are invincibly ignorant, mortal sin can only be forgiven through the Sacrament of Confession, for which one needs to be a Catholic or else by perfect contrition, which is very rare.

Yes, yes and yes, except that totally rare part at the end. I do not know if the Church has ever commented on that, especially as related to the end of life. I also would rather say that they will be saved in spite of the errors of their religion. If a person is taught a profound love of God, sorrow for sin, repentence, etc., this might well serve to make perfect contrition for sin easier. Your basic logic here is very sound and I agree. We may disagree on the most prudent way of gaining conversion, but it should always be our goal. The JW style does not work with those who are already active in their faith. Nothing works if charity is not first and obvious.

 

[HisWill777]

Because now mankind has “put on Christ.” I’ll elaborate on what that means below.

You know, I recommend thinking about this in the same way as thinking about “outside the Church is no salvation,” thinking about it in terms of the unity between Christ and His Church. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” Because He and His Body are one, the Church too is the “way, the truth and the life.” Because Christ is the Truth, His Body will never fall into error. Because He is the Way, His Body will never stop being the Way. Because He is the Life, the Church will never stop filling its members with His Life through the sacraments, which bring perfect unity with Christ to all devout souls.

Truly, Jesus is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. The Foundation is the deepest part of something. It cannot be riven. It cannot fall into error without everything built on it becoming unstable. As Jesus said in Luke 6:47-49, the one who builds on His words is on a firm foundation. Jesus, the Word of God, is infallible, Truth itself, the deepest Foundation.

The Church, through its unity with Jesus, is also the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15 says, “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” The foundation, the deepest part of the house, the part that cannot be riven without everything being rendered untrustworthy.

The Gates of Hell strove against Jesus. Satan tempted Him in the desert, tried to sway Him from His mission as the Way, Truth and Life for humanity, but Satan could not resist Him. Satan tempted Him again at Gethsemane, but in every trial, Jesus triumphed. In the same way, His Body always has and always will triumph, because it is one with the Head and derives its life and nature from its Head. As Galatians 3:27 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” We are clothed in Christ, filled with Christ, living the life of Christ as the fruit lives off the vine.

Individual members of the Body can fail, just as Jesus took blows to His Body during His life on Earth, as people tore His Flesh in the Passion and beat and buffeted Him in the town square. But Jesus Himself triumphed. Consequently the Church will triumph. Jesus never failed. Consequently the Church will never fail. Its members might, just as the members of Jesus’ Body were torn off as His Flesh was lacerated for our sake, but it itself must survive. The Church must survive, must always be true, always pure and always godly as Christ was.

The Gates of Hell strove against Jesus and failed. They have striven against the Church again and again for 2,000 years and always have failed, and they always will. They will test the Church’s character and mission and teachings again and again and will fail, as they failed against Christ.

The unity of Christ and His Body ensures His Body is reliable, trustworthy, and glorious. It is the “household of God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” Consequently it will never, when protected in the charism of infallibility, teach its members anything false. You can trust the Church Christ founded because it is one with Him.

I agree with much of your post. I guess my biggest struggle is with infallibility. Not that God couldn’t grant it. I’m thinking of attending a local parish Mass this wkend, maybe I’ll learn more. Thanks

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima, I’m planning to respond to your post, but I’m busy with other things for now. I know we don’t have any massive disagreement here, so I don’t feel in any rush .

I agree with much of your post. I guess my biggest struggle is with infallibility. Not that God couldn’t grant it.

Indeed, why wouldn’t God grant it?

God be praised, infallibility is such an incredible gift to give His Church! Even if you don’t believe in it, though Christians throughout history did until the Reformation, and they still do throughout 3/4 of all Christianity, don’t you agree that having an infallible Church would be amazingly wonderful if it did exist?

Now I’ll try showing you from Scripture that it’s infallible, if you don’t mind .

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, it has to be infallible, for the foundation is what everything else is built on. If what everything is built on is fallible, the foundation is bad and needs to be replaced. Therefore for the Church to be the foundation of truth, the pillar on which the rest stands, it has to be infallible. As 2 Timothy 2:19 says, “God’s solid foundation stands firm.”

Jesus’ voice was infallible, and since His Body is one with Him, its voice too will be infallible. Here’s the teaching on the unity between His perfect voice and the Church:

Luke 10:16, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me.”

The passage identifies Jesus’ voice and the Church’s voice, making them one and the same. And here’s an incident where we see that in action, in the first ecumenical council of the Church. Acts 15:28, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements . . .”

The word of the council was the word of the Holy Spirit. What seemed good to the council seemed good to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit inspired the council. “He who hears you hears me.” Infallible .

I’m thinking of attending a local parish Mass this wkend, maybe I’ll learn more. Thanks

Should be an interesting experience for you. Mass is a wonderful place to go .

 

[whatischarity]

Mt 18:20 “For where two or more are gathered together in My name, there I am in the midst of them.”
Mt 10:42 “And whoever gives a cup of water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple - amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.”

If a Christian does a good deed to another, should we judge that they have an evil intention and receive no merit for their good deed because they are not formal members of the Roman Catholic Church? I would rather judge them liberally in hopes that god will judge me likewise.

 

[whatischarity]

Perhaps it would be better to warn the people of the actions which draw them to hellfire instead of stressing “Unless you are a member of my church, you will go to hell.” Catholics and non-catholics can go to hell for choosing adultery, greed, sloth, envy over Jesus. So preach helfire as the end of those things, but not for remaining outside the church. Catholics have more means of grace to practice virtue and overcome vice. Preach that. The goal should primarily be virtuous living and not recruitment. Once a person is living virtuously, recruitment is vastly simplified.

 

[peary1]

What you’re saying is utterly false and contrary to the church’s perennial teaching. It finds absolutely no support in the Conciliar documents.

Outside of the Catholic Church, there is no salvation. If someone is saved while existing outside of the church’s visible structure, it is because they are innocently ignorant of her, yet believe in one God, attempt to do his will, observe the natural law, and desire implicitly to be part of the church. If someone is saved in a Protestant or Orthodox Church, it is because they are baptized, have true faith, are free from grave sin, and have not culpably rejected Catholic doctrine but believe it implicitly. Children below the age of reason would be the most obvious people who fall in this group.

False religions and false doctrines do not save people. Heresy and schism sever one from the Church. Your statement reduces “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” to the sort of meaningless formula which Pius XII warned against.

I guess you don’t recognize Vatican II because in its document *Lumen Gentium *everything is clarified. In that document, it is specifically stated that those outside of the Catholic Church who have received a valid Baptism (meaning the Trinitarian formula) are still recognized in the Body of Christ though they are separated from the Church:

(p.15): 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, **though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15) **They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. *They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16) **They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. *Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

(from p. 16): …the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) **Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(*19) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.

Now, if your argument against Vatican II is that it was merely an “ecumenical” or “pastoral” council that is nonbinding on the Church, then I will know where you are coming from and further postings to you are unnecessary.

 

[ravenonthecross]

Sounds like what I was taught as well back in the days of the early to mid fifties. We were told point blank never to even set foot in a Church of another faith, Christian or otherwise because God would not be found there and we would be putting our souls in danger merely from the proximity to the unbelievers. The apparent current belief that all faiths are equal, valid and pleasing to God is a relatively recent development within the Church. We were taught that those who never knew the faith THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, could be saved, but those who had heard of it and rejected it were doomed.

But what you heard in the fifties IS STILL CATHOLIC BELIEF IT NEVER CHANGED!

 

[ravenonthecross]

Rogerteder;6130407:

I have always found it amusing how even traditional Catholics can’t seem to accept the dogma “Outside the Church There is No salvation.”

BOTTOM LINE:** You must be Catholic to get into heaven. If you die and are outside the Church you won’t make it to heaven./**

QUOTE]
Wow I didn’t realize you had the final say on someone’s soul? How did you get the title of perfect judge?

Sorry buddy, but there is salvation outside the Catholic church, what happens to those who never hear the word of God? An example someone in the deep jungles of the Amazon? 15 year old dies from a bite and never got to know Jesus, is he damned forever? Not sure, that is up to the Father God Almighty, not you! For those who do know the full truth, “no salvation outside the Church” applies to us.
Actually you contradict Catholic Dogma as per the Papal Bull “Cantate Domino:”

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

ONE HAS to become Catholic before Death, whether it’s by a priest, angel, or missionary or by Jesus Christ in some mystical manner; one has to be converted to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith before one dies.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima, I’m planning to respond to your post, but I’m busy with other things for now. I know we don’t have any massive disagreement here, so I don’t feel in any rush .

No hurry. I’ll probably be away from the computer most the day today anyway. I also think I have a reply that will settle our slight disagreement. Actually, let me give you the argument briefly.

The first thing I want to say is that, since our disagreement is pretty slight, I was going to go as far as I could in your direction in an attempt to agree with you. I was going to concede that it might be possible for a person to hear, in passing, the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, yet still remain in a state of invincible ignorant, as long as the person in question was making a sincere effort to find the truth. If the person in question went to a conference where the truth was explained to him clearly, I don’t believe he would be ignorant of the truth any longer (at least regarding the points that were discussed).

Now, regarding the point I have that may settle this: Keep in mind that a person who is ignorant of the truth due to neglect in study, does not fall into the category of invincibly ignorant (I have several quotes to support this). So, for example, when I was in my early 20’s, I was busy with building my company and trying to make a lot of money. I was violating the first commandment by not keeping God first. I was ignorant of the truth at the time, but the fault was mine for not pursuing it. Therefore, although I was indeed ignorant, I was not invincibly ignorant.

When we consider that a simple *lack of effort in searching for the truth * removes the invincibility (non culpability) of the ignorance, I think it shows a slight flaw in your reasoning. If I understand your position correctly, you maintain that a person remains in a state of *invincible *ignorance up to the point when the Holy Ghost begins working within them internally to enlighten them to the truth. * If the truth is explained to them by a missionary, for example, but the Holy Ghost does not work within them in this manner (through actual grace), they would remain in a state of invincible ignorance, even though they had “head knowledge”. I think that is your position.

But when we realize that ignorance resulting from neglect no longer qualifies as invincible, it shows that the person does not have to reject actual graces (the Holy Ghost working within them to enlighten them to the truth) for a person to cease being invincibly ignorant. Simply not pursuing the truth itself excludes the invincibility of their ignorance, since the ignorance is due to their own fault (neglecting to search for the truth).

Let me provide one quote from St. Thomas. I’ve quoted it before on these boards so you may be familiar with it. In this quote, St. Thomas answers the question “Whether ignorance is a sin”. In his reply, he explains what invincible ignornace is.

St. Thomas: "I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm#article2

I included the link above to the section from the Summa. The section deals with exactly what we are discussing. It discusses ignorance and how it diminishes sin. The section is pretty short. If you have time, read through it. Maybe you’ll find something that agrees with a point you are making. If so, include it in your post.

Continue…*

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Continuation

One final point that Shin brought up is that no one is saved through invincible ignorance. To be saved, a person must have supernatural faith. A person who is invincibly ignorant will be damned, not for his ignorance, but for some other sin he committed, since such sins cannot be removed without faith.

St. Thomas: "“Unbelief has a double sense. First, it can be taken purely negatively; thus a man is called an unbeliever solely because he does not possess faith. Secondly, by way of opposition to faith; thus when a man refuses to hear of the faith or even contemns it, according to Isaiah, ‘Who has believed our report?’ This is where the full nature of unbelief, properly speaking is found, and where the sin lies. **If, however, unbelief be taken just negatively, as in those who have heard nothing about the faith, it bears the character, not of fault, but of penalty, because their ignorance of divine things is the result of the sin of our first parents. Those who are unbelievers in this sense are not condemned for the sin of unbelief, but they are condemned on account of other sins, which cannot be forgiven without faith.” **(Summa Theologica 2, 2, 10, 1)

It is de fide that faith is necessary for salvation. What is the minimum requirement for faith? Four things: 1.) Belief in God; 2.) that he rewards the good and punishes the evil; 3.) the Trinity; 4.) the Incarnation (St. Alphonsus).

Most non-Catholics who claim to be Christian do believe in those points. If they are truly invincibly ignorant of the other doctrines that have been divinely revealed, they would have supernatural faith and thus could possibly attain salvation. I personally don’t think it happens too often, but it is theoretically possible.

Once last point: If you are curious what the saints and Fathers of the Church said about the number of people that would be saved, there is an excellent sermon by St. Leonard of Port Maurice, in which he quotes the Bible and many of the Fathers. St. Leonard said this was his favorite sermon to give and the one that gained the most converts. You’ll know why when you read it. Here’s a link: The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved

 

[Jacafamala]

Perhaps it would be better to warn the people of the actions which draw them to hellfire instead of stressing “Unless you are a member of my church, you will go to hell.”

No one can state definitively who is in hell or who will go to hell. Only God knows, we don’t know the state of the soul at death. But we do know that if anyone makes it to heaven, it’s because they’ve accepted the merits gained and the truths revealed by Christ through the Holy Catholic Church. Like I said before, what the Protestants understand correctly, they have because of the Holy Catholic Church. Anything their traditions have come up with outside the Church is all wrong.

Catholics and non-catholics can go to hell for choosing adultery, greed, sloth, envy over Jesus.

Yes.

So preach helfire as the end of those things, but not for remaining outside the church.

It’s a defined doctrine, not something that’s being made up. I think it’s better to give people the truth in humility rather than to omit truth or worse, to sugarcoat lies. They may not like it, but it’s better to tell the truth.

Catholics have more means of grace to practice virtue and overcome vice. Preach that.

Agreed.

The goal should primarily be virtuous living and not recruitment. Once a person is living virtuously, recruitment is vastly simplified.

Mmmm, no. That’s pushing the cart before the horse. I’d rather be a wretched sinner who knows they are in desperate need of the Church than a person who thinks themselves virtuous but in no need of the Church.

 

[Tradycja]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[zodmek]

Sorry, am new to this discussion…

Doesn’t the Bible make it clear what is required for salvation? I don’t recall any particular denomination of Christianity being mentioned.

 

[pnewton]

(…not going to repost the picture.,)

You missed putting a link to this. Is it from the Sisters of Charity themselves?

 

[SeanTom]

There is only one GUARANTEED way for Christians to enter God’s Kingdom., and that way is through our Lord, Christ Jesus as supported by the one true church, the Catholic church. Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 754 states: “The Church is, accordingly, the sole and necessary gateway to which is Christ. It is also the flock of which God himself foretold that he would be the shepherd, and whose sheep, even though governed by human shepherds, are unfailingly nourished and led by Christ himself, the Good Shepherd and Prince of Shepherds, who gave his life for his sheep”. The Catholic Church, the only true church, was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles where they then went forth preaching to and baptizing thousands - a great harvest of souls for the early Church.

All Christians, regardless of their religious faith, will be taken into Heaven IF they believe in our Lord Jesus, follow His teachings and keeps His commandments. To enter God’s Kingdom, one must also be free from grave offenses (mortal sins) against God…

For non-Catholics, there are other ways to attain Heaven for those who do not know Jesus for reasons not of their own doing.

1. There are those who live in isolated areas of our world who never heard of Jesus and have never seen or heard God’s Word as given to us in Scripture. If they live lives worthy of God’s acceptance, they will then come under the merciful judgment of Jesus and will be taken into Heaven, if God so Wills.
2. There are those who call themselves Atheists; but were born into an Atheist’s family and were never permitted to hear of Jesus or His Kingdom; nor were they ever introduced to God or Jesus in any other way. If they didn’t believe in God because they never knew who He was, then God would, in His mercy, judge these people accordingly. We can not second guess how God will handle this, but must leave it up to His compassion and mercy.
3. There are those who call themselves Agnostics. These Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, but sort of live on the rail of the fence. They believe in God only to the extent that they say “just in case there is one, I better not turn my back on Him”. But they are turning their backs on Him if they never seek Him out nor read or listen to His Word. These Agnostics , unless they change their ways, probably will not see God’s Kingdom. There is an exception to this however. If these Agnostics lived a good life, following more or less the teachings of Jesus, even though they were not aware of doing so, God may, in His wisdom, allow them to enter His Kingdom. God will know what is in their hearts and why they opted to remain Agnostic. It could be they were raised in an Agnostic family and were not permitted to even discuss God or any other faith. I don’t know how God will handle this situation, but if they die while still children, I would like to think that the love of God for His special children would show His love and compassion towards them by accepting them into His Kingdom. Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven’” It is my feeling, though, that when one, when reaching the age of reason, professes to be an agnostic, and doesn’t do anything to seek out the truth about Jesus, then he may not ever see the Kingdom of God.

(Continued on next posting)