The good samaritan and no salvation oustide the church

[notredame_999]

Is the story told by Jesus Chirst of the good samaritan evidence that a non-catholic can go to heaven? I just have a hard time believing a russian orthodox who was persecuted for his faith under communism will go to hell because he wasnt baptized roman catholic. Thats not to say that I believe baptism isn’t important, because Christ said it was necessary for salvation, but couldn’t he also break his own rules anytime he wants?

My mother has a very hard time with this. She doesn’t like the church I go to because it uses the baltimore catechism which says those who are not baptized catholic will go to hell.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is the story told by Jesus Chirst of the good samaritan evidence that a non-catholic can go to heaven? I just have a hard time believing a russian orthodox who was persecuted for his faith under communism will go to hell because he wasnt baptized roman catholic. Thats not to say that I believe baptism isn’t important, because Christ said it was necessary for salvation, but couldn’t he also break his own rules anytime he wants?

My mother has a very hard time with this. She doesn’t like the church I go to because it uses the baltimore catechism which says those who are not baptized catholic will go to hell.

A Samaritan from a Jewish standpoint is equivalent to an Orthodox from a Catholic standpoint. Samaritans are Jews, they are decendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The only issue with them is that they do not worship in the temple, like the Orthodox refuse to recognize Papal authority. They’re very much very orthodox and very traditional Jews who wanted to keep their old way of worshiping God on the mountain (forgot the name of the mountain). Samaritans are not pagans.

Anyone who is validly baptized is considered a baptized Catholic in the technical sense. Since there is indeed only one true Church, a valid baptism in any denomination brings that person into the Church, albeit they have an imperfect communion with the Church because of their beliefs. So the Catholic Church in fact has many “unofficial” members. Just like anyone born in America will be American, whether they want to be American or not.

I suggest visiting the seciont of the CCC that deals with “no salvation outside the Church” to better understand this teaching. I’ve quoted it below:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[Scoobyshme]

Is the story told by Jesus Chirst of the good samaritan evidence that a non-catholic can go to heaven? I just have a hard time believing a russian orthodox who was persecuted for his faith under communism will go to hell because he wasnt baptized roman catholic. Thats not to say that I believe baptism isn’t important, because Christ said it was necessary for salvation, but couldn’t he also break his own rules anytime he wants?

My mother has a very hard time with this. She doesn’t like the church I go to because it uses the baltimore catechism which says those who are not baptized catholic will go to hell.

A better translation would have been “Apart from the Church, there is no salvation.” Since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, ALL who are saved are saved THROUGH the Church. The Church is Christ’s instrument of salvation on earth.

That being said, the Church also teaches that there may be some, who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ or His Church, BUT live according to the truths of Christ written on every man’s heart, MAY yet be saved. In other words, if someone is invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church, but they live according to the good they know, they might be saved. This would include Russian Orthodox, Baptists, atheists, pagans, etc., who through NO fault of their own, do not know that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, but live according to the truth they DO know, they still have a shot. Only God can judge whether they’re truly invincibly ignorant, or if they lived according to the truth they did know.

 

[Barbkw]

There is no salvation for a Catholic outside the Church.

The sentence applies to baptized and confirmed Catholics who have full knowledge that the Catholic Church is the one true Church which Jesus founded.

If these Catholics, willfully give up the Church for another religion or no religion, then those words apply to them.

These words particularly apply to my condition. Althou, I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, it wasn’t until my middle years that I reverted to the faith and relearned that Catholicism was the Church that Jesus founded.

Now that I know, should I give up the practice of my faith again, I know that there is no salvation for my soul outside the practice of Catholicism.

 

[chypmonk]

This is a tricky area. The question comes down to culpable or non culpable and when does one lose membership in the Church, because Baptism is the first necessity and True Faith being the second, the question ultimately can only be answered by God for any particular baptized person.

St Augustine expressed it his way:
St. Augustine: Sermon VIII, PL 46:838; SS vol.IV, p.254 ff.:
“Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church, for many heretics also possess this Sacrament, but not the fruits of salvation. **Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, **as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic church.”

Pope Leo expressed the importance of True Faith :

POPE LEO XIII, ENCYCLICAL SATIS COGNITUM, JUNE 29, 1896, par. #9 :

“The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. **‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’ **(Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

“…If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ‘Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all’ (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. ‘In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them’ ” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19).” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is a tricky area. The question comes down to culpable or non culpable and when does one lose membership in the Church, because Baptism is the first necessity and True Faith being the second, the question ultimately can only be answered by God for any particular baptized person.

St Augustine expressed it his way:
St. Augustine: Sermon VIII, PL 46:838; SS vol.IV, p.254 ff.:
“Baptism does not profit a man outside unity with the Church, for many heretics also possess this Sacrament, but not the fruits of salvation. **Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, **as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic church.”

Pope Leo expressed the importance of True Faith :

POPE LEO XIII, ENCYCLICAL SATIS COGNITUM, JUNE 29, 1896, par. #9 :

“The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. **‘There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition’ **(Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic’ (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

“…If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ‘Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all’ (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. ‘In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them’ ” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19).” http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm

I am just wonder if these quotes still relevant today. i am under the impression that today’s teachings no longer calls anyone who does not care for the teachings of the Church heretics. that no one needs to be in teh CC any longer to be saved. the impression i get in here from many is that everybody no matter what religion they are part of teh CC. they dont have to accept the teachings of the Church anymore. all they got to do is to be our friends.
so, why even bother to quote the Fathers of the Church, when they are no longer relevant to today’s Church?

 

[Robert_Burns]

Is the story told by Jesus Chirst of the good samaritan evidence that a non-catholic can go to heaven? I just have a hard time believing a russian orthodox who was persecuted for his faith under communism will go to hell because he wasnt baptized roman catholic. Thats not to say that I believe baptism isn’t important, because Christ said it was necessary for salvation, but couldn’t he also break his own rules anytime he wants?

My mother has a very hard time with this. She doesn’t like the church I go to because it uses the baltimore catechism which says those who are not baptized catholic will go to hell.

The Orthodox are in Schism , meaning their sacraments are valid but they are separated because of obstinence and disobedience to lawful authority. So the Orthodox are Baptised. Now whether or not they will go to Heavven depends on a lot of factors - its not outside the realm of possibility that some may qualify under the parameters of Natural law but those who may will be saved within the Catholic religion , and not the Orthodox religion. In addition - there is such a thing as Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire.

It behooves everyone to embrace GOD’s truth once known - but for some - that doesnt occur until they are on their death bed. So to make a blanket condemnation about anyone I believe , misreads what the Supreme Law of the Church is - the Salvation of Souls. With GOD all things are possible. Therefore , you might tell her not to make assumptions about the Catholic religion that arent true. But instead , to investigate in depth the things Holy mother the Church teaches. She just might be surprised on what she finds.

pax

 

[Dan-Man916]

I am just wonder if these quotes still relevant today.

All of these quotes are written in a specific context for a certain time. What does unity mean? Are there degrees of unity? When the word heretic is used, is it only formal heretics, or id it meant to be absolutely anyone who is not a full visible member of the Catholic Church.

It is rather difficult to talk about these things without some real background in Church history and theology. The quotes you are reading are not self-evident by the “plain” meaning of the words becuse, is the plain meaning of the words the same today as they were over a millenium ago?

The question to be asked is, how does the Church understand these in light of the FULL Tradition of the Church.

i am under the impression that today’s teachings no longer calls anyone who does not care for the teachings of the Church heretics.

Heresy is a specific term with a specific meaning. It is the post-baptismal denial of an article of the faith. As such, there are heretics. There are formal heretics, who exist in heresy with full knowledge and consent, and there are material heretics who are those (for instance) who are ignorant of such things.

that no one needs to be in teh CC any longer to be saved.

The answer to this question lies in answering another question; why is the Church necessary for salvation? What is it about the Church that brings salvation? What does it mean to be “in the Church”? Are there degrees of being “in the Church”?

I can certainly agree that one needs to be in the Catholic Church for salvation. However, the degree to which one is “in the Church” is going to vary. The Church has reflected upon this in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio.

the impression i get in here from many is that everybody no matter what religion they are part of teh CC.

That is one extreme interpretation given.

they dont have to accept the teachings of the Church anymore. all they got to do is to be our friends.

This possibility would onlymake sense from a legalistic perspective of faith, which western Catholicism has unfortunately, developed to the detriment of the more wholistic understanding of the Church as a whole. When one looks at the Christian faith and its doctrines in the context of love and communion, whether or not one “needs to accept” the teachings of the Church becomes an absurd.question. It would be like asking if one must love their spouse or not. Certainly, a legalistic model of spousal love makes no sense.

so, why even bother to quote the Fathers of the Church, when they are no longer relevant to today’s Church?

They are relavent, but need to be seen in light of their totality of the Church.