Sermon: No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima, I think you are accidentally undermining the sovereignty of God when you talk about people always being obligated to adhere to the truth revealed to their minds by men, as though God is obligated to reveal His truth to people through us, simply because we choose to spread the head knowledge of it. I think you’re also oversimplifying the soul and understanding.

When I talk about the Spirit speaking to a person, I’m not talking about epiphany. To explain what I’m talking about, it’s easiest for me to use a couple examples from my own life.

When I was maybe eleven or twelve years old, I was reading a history book that talked some about the history of Catholicism in Europe. As I read about Joan of Arc’s experiences with saints and thought about the statues and religion, a spiritual sense of beauty touched my soul. I forgot it pretty quickly, but it was there, and I believe it was the Spirit’s voice. It wasn’t any huge thing. Just an impression on my soul of beauty.

Then another time, when I was a lot older, I prayed to God that I might receive the true understanding of the Eucharist. I was probably nineteen or twenty at the time and already a pretty experienced Protestant apologist through many, many debates with non-Christians online, and I had thought a lot about my faith already. So I asked God what the true meaning of Eucharist was. Immediately God put a Catholic apologist across my path and we had an epic debate about the Eucharist. I was blind to the way God was openly using that apologist to answer my prayer. Finally, after a month or two of massive debating, I received some strong spiritual experiences which were not from God, but which I thought were, which drew me to a wrong understanding of Eucharist and for me concluded the debate. I closed it down.

I was definitely culpable for rejecting the Spirit at that time. Because I refused to listen to the voice of Jesus, He allowed a lying spirit to come and lead me into a relativistic delusion, thinking that all Eucharistic beliefs were true and valid ways of approaching God. It was a just punishment that because I refused to believe truth, I should instead believe a lie and grow skillful in false knowledge, which happened after that.

I’d heard things about Catholicism at other times, but I don’t feel I was culpable for ignoring Catholicism’s teachings. I never had the truth presented to me strongly and forcefully, through the Holy Spirit, as I did at that time when I debated with Christ and said no to His teaching. It wasn’t simple knowledge that made me culpable for sin. It was the fact that it was the Spirit I was ignorantly rejecting. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s about head knowledge but about the Spirit’s voice.

As you can see, in the experience above where I am certain I was culpable, the only “epiphany” moment was at the end when I received the evil spirit’s lies through spiritual revelations and ended the debate. But God was definitely speaking and I definitely said no to Him, without realizing I was. I believe the action of the Spirit on a heart is something subtle and not something any good theologian can generate by his correct words. And people are punished for rejecting God, not for rejecting man.

Continued in the next post.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I hear many people give a bad presentation of Catholicism here on CAF, not bad in the sense that anything they say is untrue, but they say it in a cruel or unkind way and consequently make no headway, even if the soul they’re speaking to is open. The light of Christ is not shining through such evangelists, even though their doctrine is correct, and people generally won’t be judged for letting their words bounce off them. Other times Christ might be really acting strongly through a person, but He might simply not help them touch the lives of certain people, for His own reasons, perhaps because it would generate pride in the good evangelists if they did reach these people, or for other purposes. Christ is at liberty to speak to people through whosoever He pleases, in whatever way He pleases, and He is not obligated to bless our efforts by speaking through them to people’s hearts or minds. We may have the true message, but that doesn’t mean Christ always chooses to act through us and give people a real choice between Him and damnation through our words. It’s not about “head knowledge,” but whether or not we are open to the Spirit’s voice.

To elaborate on my point, another example of a time when I rejected the Spirit’s voice was when He spoke was in France a few years ago, when I went into a Marian church as a tourist and started looking at the sculptures and artwork. I believe Mary was in the church building waiting for me, especially considering all that came after this incident (this was the moment that started me on the path toward Catholicism, though I had no idea of it at all at the time). As I looked at the sculptures of Mary and saw all the veneration and devotion, I heard a voice in my head saying, “this is a perspective of Christianity you’ve never thought about before, something very ancient and very different. It would be worth thinking about.” Now that I recall it again, I remember a sense of soft, spiritual beauty in that voice as well.

But I pridefully raised up my upbringing against the voice, made what seemed to me a good Scripture argument against Marian devotion, and left the church. I fought Mary, and over the next eight to nine months she crushed me for it. Fighting Mary is a bad move. And she brought me into Catholicism kicking and screaming.

That was another time where I rejected the Spirit’s voice (The Spirit was speaking through Mary, as He always does). Neither this nor the other example I raised was an epiphany, neither was “understanding,” in the sense you’re using the word, but both were God speaking to me and were times where I could have done God’s will. I was justly punished for rejecting God that time too, though actually the “punishment” was extremely spiritually good for me, though I hated it at the time, so I don’t know if it’s right for me to call it a punishment.

God speaks through human vessels, but He doesn’t always speak through them in the way we might want, even when we’re revealing His truth. He has dominion over the Church and over His Word, and He reveals His truth not on man’s discretion but on His own, and people are responsible for responding to His voice, not for responding to one another’s voices.

 

[Jacafamala]

The quote from Redemptoris missio actually does not contradict what the Church teaches, even though just about everyone will interpret in such a way that it nullifies the dogma in question.

Yes, I’ve heard it that way. I heard it at a local parish here. That the Church no longer claims to be the only true means of salvation.

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

Snowballs chance? I’m afraid that very few will ever fit the last criteria. The children of Fatima saw hell, and how easily the multitudes fall into it, and were terrified.

 

[Adeodatus]

Are you trying to say that JP II is in error? Or are you choosinng to to accept teaching only from those popes your aree with?

Peace,
FAB

Reading comprehension fail. I am agreeing with JP II and calling out our other friend with whom we are having a discussion.

Please read carefully before accusing.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes, I’ve heard it that way. I heard it at a local parish here. That the Church no longer claims to be the only true means of salvation.

That is horrifying. It is blatant heresy. They probably think they’re truly using Vatican II’s teachings, though Vatican II teaches nothing of the sort. It’s a twisting of a twisting of a reading!

Snowballs chance? I’m afraid that very few will ever fit the last criteria. The children of Fatima saw hell, and how easily the multitudes fall into it, and were terrified.

Yes, multitudes fall into Hell, but don’t underestimate how many God can save outside of the visible structure of His Church! He can do a lot with His children scattered afar, and He is overpowering in mercy. His might is stupendous and He does whatever He can for each soul’s salvation.

I think that’s why John Paul II was uncertain anyone would go to Hell. I think believing everyone will be in Heaven is way too optimistic, and contradicts Jesus’ words in the Gospels, though, sadly. 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?

 

[tweetymom]

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.

And it was what I and my husband were taught also.

 

[pnewton]

Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) is a defined doctrine of the Church, to be believed by every Catholic under pain of heresy and excommunication: there is no Salvation outside the Church.

That’s how it is. Now, to go on about “invincible ignorance” serves what purpose? Is it to help us all to feel good? Invincible ignorance, what does the Church actually mean by that?

The early Church would likely be equally at sea to the Mass of the late Middle Ages. So it should be understandable that each generation would be a little lost if teleported to the future.

Now as to your question, I think I can answer. First let me ask rhetorically, why go on about Extra ecclisiam nulla salus? Mentioning it once should be enough. Invincible ignorance was brought up because of the nature of the homily at the OP. If that was not brought up, neither would have this topic. Whether one considers it vague or not, it is a teaching of the Church. It was not mentioned in this person’s homily despite it being a teaching of the Church. The homilist is free to do that, but it is to be expected that the subject would be brought up here in the vacuum created by that omission.

 

[JohnCS]

Ultima,I’d heard things about Catholicism at other times, but I don’t feel I was culpable for ignoring Catholicism’s teachings. I never had the truth presented to me strongly and forcefully, through the Holy Spirit, as I did at that time when I debated with Christ and said no to His teaching. It wasn’t simple knowledge that made me culpable for sin. It was the fact that it was the Spirit I was ignorantly rejecting. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s about head knowledge but about the Spirit’s voice.

Hello Lief,

I have just been following this thread, and I agree with alot of what you are saying; BUT, I have the feeling that you are going dangerously close to predestination. If a person has to hear the Spirits voice to be culpable then why doesn’t everyone hear it? Is God picking and choosing those that He wants to bring into the Church? Or are you saying that every single person in the world at some point in their life is talked to (spiritually) by God? I have no doubt that God answers prayers and speaks to us in the silence of our hearts but I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to say that EVERYONE is prompted by God at some time in there life to explore the Truth of the Church. Everything you have written is wonderfully done and easily understandable, thank you for all of your sharing, I just felt that I had to warn you of the pattern that I thought I was seeing in your posts. God bless,

John

 

[Jacafamala]

The early Church would likely be equally at sea to the Mass of the late Middle Ages. So it should be understandable that each generation would be a little lost if teleported to the future.

The Church’s understanding of doctrine can develop over time, and that the Mass can evolve slowly over time. But so much was stripped off the faith post VII. When has that ever happened?

Now as to your question, I think I can answer. First let me ask rhetorically, why go on about Extra ecclisiam nulla salus? Mentioning it once should be enough.

What? Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS): there is no Salvation outside the Church is the topic at hand. I’m not sure I really know what you’re saying. The reason for going on about it is to gain a better understanding.

Invincible ignorance was brought up because of the nature of the homily at the OP. If that was not brought up, neither would have this topic. Whether one considers it vague or not, it is a teaching of the Church. It was not mentioned in this person’s homily despite it being a teaching of the Church. The homilist is free to do that, but it is to be expected that the subject would be brought up here in the vacuum created by that omission.

I have no problem with anyone bringing up “Invincible ignorance”, what do you mean? I thought Ultima Ratio gave a pretty good explanation regarding that right here, post #97.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Everything you have written is wonderfully done and easily understandable, thank you for all of your sharing, I just felt that I had to warn you of the pattern that I thought I was seeing in your posts. God bless,

John

Thanks, I greatly appreciate anyone’s correction.

When I talk about the Spirit’s voice, I don’t only mean in the silence of the heart or in answer to prayer. The Spirit can speak through anything or anyone, and He often speaks through evangelists who are spreading the Good News of the Catholic faith.

JohnCS:

Hello Lief,

I have just been following this thread, and I agree with alot of what you are saying; BUT, I have the feeling that you are going dangerously close to predestination. If a person has to hear the Spirits voice to be culpable then why doesn’t everyone hear it? Is God picking and choosing those that He wants to bring into the Church? Or are you saying that every single person in the world at some point in their life is talked to (spiritually) by God? I have no doubt that God answers prayers and speaks to us in the silence of our hearts but I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to say that EVERYONE is prompted by God at some time in there life to explore the Truth of the Church.

I think everyone does hear the Spirit’s voice at various points in their lives, guiding them toward the truth and life of God. But that doesn’t mean everyone feels prompted to explore the WHOLE Truth of the Church. Take a secularist who supports abortion. He might feel prompted by the Spirit to reject abortion, but not feel any real call to the Catholic faith. He might therefore reject abortion based on human rights or something. He might follow the Spirit insofar as the Spirit leads him, from good to good, but the Spirit might never guide him to the full truth of the Catholic Church. Yet if he rejects what the Spirit does speak to his soul, he will be judged for that hardness. What God gives him, it is his duty to use according to God’s will, and what God does not give him, he is not judged for not having.

I don’t think the Spirit discriminates in who he’s interested in talking with. He wants to draw everyone into the Church, whether explicitly or implicitly, and He’s at work on every soul to bring them into deeper unity until the hour of our deaths. He might speak to souls through evangelists, through Guardian Angels, through Mary, through music or art or a great variety of other ways. He can even speak through evil men like Caiaphas (John 11:51) or Balaam’s *** (Num. 22:28).

And He often speaks through human evangelists. He can also speak in the silence of the heart. His voice cascades throughout creation and no one escapes its sound (Rom. 1:20). He might call some people to small heights of devotion and others to great heights, some to small knowledge of God and others to great knowledge (i.e. Thomas Aquinas). St. Therese of Lisieux wrote about this in “The Story of a Soul,” in the scene where she described how the souls are like a garden of flowers and why God gives full knowledge of His truth to some and small knowledge of it to others. She talks about how the variety deepens the beauty of God’s overall Creation and reveals His glory in a multiplicity of ways rather than in only one. Which doesn’t, of course, reduce our responsibility to spread the truth and love of God. We want to save as many souls as possible and the Catholic Church is the only way to do it.

If I’m being confusing, please tell me and I’ll try doing better. I might not be fully enough understanding what you’re saying to answer you properly.

 

[Jacafamala]

His voice cascades throughout creation and no one escapes its sound (Rom. 1:20). He might call some people to small heights of devotion and others to great heights, some to small knowledge of God and others to great knowledge (i.e. Thomas Aquinas).

That’s fine, as long as His “voice” coincides with what Our Lord has given us through Holy Mother Church. Then we know it is really of Him, or at least not against His holy will. Usually, we learn God’s will through the Creed and through the Ten Commandments. A lot of people have “heard God’s voice” yet what they’ve heard is in opposition to the articles of the Faith, so it’s not really God speaking, but their own desires or their own will.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That’s fine, as long as His “voice” coincides with what Our Lord has given us through Holy Mother Church. Then we know it is really of Him, or at least not against His holy will. Usually, we learn God’s will through the Creed and through the Ten Commandments. A lot of people have “heard God’s voice” yet what they’ve heard is in opposition to the articles of the Faith, so it’s not really God speaking, but their own desires or their own will.

Of course. I’m talking about God’s real voice, not our impressions of what we think is His voice.

 

[Shin]

Moving to hear some of your testimony Lief.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Moving to hear some of your testimony Lief.

God my Savior is wonderful.

 

[Shin]

God my Savior is wonderful.

Yes, yes that He is!

 

[pnewton]

I have no problem with anyone bringing up “Invincible ignorance”, what do you mean? I thought Ultima Ratio gave a pretty good explanation regarding that right here, post #97.

The homily did not mention it, though. I was referring back to the the OP and the specific topic. I was just trying to answer the specific question of why people post on invincible ignorance. As to Ultimate Ratios post, his understanding of such an unlikely exception is an acceptable position, but not the only one. I prefer the Churchs position presented in the Catechism, since my understanding is so limited in comparison to the wisdom of the Church.

 

[lufty]

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.

Could someone point a new RCIA explorer to where this is stated, that specifically only Roman Catholics are eligible for salvation?

If this is true, then I surly hope that Catholics are doing everything in our power to convert every single human being on the planet, and have done so since the inseption of the Church.

Someone please point me to a real literal, Biblical example of this.

 

[yosupman]

I’ll try to make it more simple for you. When a heretic receives a valid baptism, he does not obtain the state of grace. He will receive the character of baptism, but his heresy hinders him from receiving sanctifying grace (which is what saves). A heretic leaves the waters of baptism just as spiritually dead as he entered them.

My next point was that we always hear about the “common baptism” we share with various non-Catholic sects. But if, in addition to the “common baptism”, we don’t also have a common faith (the Catholic faith), the “common baptism” will not benefit them for salvation. In other words, baptism does not save anyone who does not also have the Catholic faith.

Ultima,

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Common baptism implies that the baptism of other christians not fully united with the Catholic Church are truly valid.

What you are saying about a baptism having “character”, but not grace is simply hogwash. A baptism is only a baptism if the conditions are met to be an actual baptism. If a baptism of a heretic is true baptism, which means the heretic is open to the minimal requirements of faith, and receives baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, then its a baptism. If not, its called pouring water on the head, not baptism.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A VALID BAPTISM THAT DOES NOT CONFER GRACE!!! Its not a baptism. Again, its called a shower.

The problem with you Ultima, is that you drink the Jim Jones kool-aid of the extreme tradtionalists. The “Ultima” authority for you is YOU. The ultimate authority for me is the living magiterium. Your problem is you interpret past church teaching in line with the Jim Jones Kool-aid drinkin’ tradtionalists. I interpret the past church teaching in line with the LIVING magisterium of today.

See ya later Jim. Try more sugar, it makes the Kool-aid go down so smooth.

 

[yosupman]

Could someone point a new RCIA explorer to where this is stated, that specifically only Roman Catholics are eligible for salvation?

If this is true, then I surly hope that Catholics are doing everything in our power to convert every single human being on the planet, and have done so since the inseption of the Church.

Someone please point me to a real literal, Biblical example of this.

Lutfy,

There are a lot of kooks on this thread. You don’t have to be a Catholic to be saved. You must be baptized to be saved. There are 3 ways to be baptized.

1.) Baptized by desire, which means you haven’t heard about the Catholic faith, but if you did, you’d want to be baptized.

2.) Baptism by blood. You are an RCIA candidate, but before you are actually baptized, you are mayrtred for the faith.

3.) actual baptism

Its pretty simple. Ultima Ratio loves to make it complicated. That’s because he’s actually out of communion with the church on this topic, and is teaching heresy himself. That’s right, Ultima Ratio is teaching the doctrine of Father Feeny, a heretic.

 

[HisWill777]

Could someone point a new RCIA explorer to where this is stated, that specifically only Roman Catholics are eligible for salvation?

If this is true, then I surly hope that Catholics are doing everything in our power to convert every single human being on the planet, and have done so since the inseption of the Church.

Someone please point me to a real literal, Biblical example of this.

There isn’t any. This is something devised by men in the Church. However, Jesus tells us our true path to salvation, if you believe what is written in the Bible.