To Be in Heaven, You Must Be Catholic

[bzkoss236]

From a different thread, does this accurately reflect Catholic teaching?

Jon

To an extent, I would say yes, because Jesus said something similar (IMO) about such things:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 26:24[/BIBLEDRB]

This can be related to say that it would be better to never have known the truth, than to come to know the truth and reject it. Again, this knowing is meant as the full knowing and understanding it as truth, but then rejecting it. Like a parent that finds out their “sweet little boy” (who is an adult) has murdered someone. The police may provide enough evidence to prove his guilt, but that doesn’t stop some parents from still outright denying it simply because that isn’t how they saw him.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Are you suggesting some non-Cats really desire to be Catholic but are restricted?

Quite possibly. A person may be attracted to the Catholic Church, wish that Catholicism was true, and want to be able to embrace it wholeheartedly. At the same time, he might be sincerely perplexed, in 100% good faith, on important points of Catholic doctrine that a person of integrity can’t simply let slide unresolved.

In the face of such strong and sincere doubts that the Catholic Church can really be what it claims, a well-meaning person might reasonably stay outside the Church unless/until some combination of argument & grace enables him to take such a step in good faith, and for the right reasons.

 

[Zachary]

I think the OP has a point.
Out of the infinite mercy of God,a place called Purgatory exists for those souls who were unable to die in a state of perfect communion with God, but were still saved anyway.Perfect holiness IMHO is attained through living a fulfilled sacramental life and submitting to all the teachings of the Catholic church.This sacramental life is provided only by the Catholic and Orthodox churches as far as i know(the eucharist being the focus).
Now,if through the mercy of God,a soul is led to purgatory for purification this soul will be in communion with the saints in heaven and the believers here on earth under one church ( which is the catholic church)

The same thing crossed my mind, too.

 

[Zachary]

Quite possibly. A person may be attracted to the Catholic Church, wish that Catholicism was true, and want to be able to embrace it wholeheartedly. At the same time, he might be sincerely perplexed, in 100% good faith, on important points of Catholic doctrine that a person of integrity can’t simply let slide unresolved.

In the face of such strong and sincere doubts that the Catholic Church can really be what it claims, a well-meaning person might reasonably stay outside the Church unless/until some combination of argument & grace enables him to take such a step in good faith, and for the right reasons.

Faith isn’t about converting the Church, it’s about changing yourself.

Ask yourself why you don’t agree with a certain doctrine and seek a path to acceptance. It’s up to each on his own to accept God’s grace and truth and to fully accept.

 

[Jozefo]

Quite possibly. A person may be attracted to the Catholic Church, wish that Catholicism was true, and want to be able to embrace it wholeheartedly. At the same time, he might be sincerely perplexed, in 100% good faith, on important points of Catholic doctrine that a person of integrity can’t simply let slide unresolved.

In the face of such strong and sincere doubts that the Catholic Church can really be what it claims, a well-meaning person might reasonably stay outside the Church unless/until some combination of argument & grace enables him to take such a step in good faith, and for the right reasons.

I felt the same way for many years. It came to a head when I simply chose to accept Matthew 16:18 as pointing to Peter. I realized that to think Christ was pointing to himself rather than to Peter - when he said, “on this rock I will build my church” - was a bit of a stretch. For me, the problem balanced on a knife’s edge until one day I accepted that Christ appointed Peter.

But that kind of decision relies on Christian freedom, and I think it’s only polite for people to honor the right of conscience.

 

[Gorgias]

From a different thread, does this accurately reflect Catholic teaching?

I would have to respond, “it depends.” That is, it depends on what ‘rejection’ means in this context. If it means “I’ve heard what the Church teaches and I reject it as false” (whether in full or in part), it would seem that it isn’t necessarily a ticket to damnation. On the other hand, if it means “I’ve heard what the Church teaches, and although I think it’s the truth, I reject it because I refuse to follow it” (for whatever reason), then it would seem to preclude salvation. The standard is that a person, knowing that the Catholic Church is the sole means of salvation, and refusing to enter or remain in it, imperils his salvation. Those who do not ‘know’ this – that is, those who haven’t assented to it, as opposed to those who simply haven’t heard it mentioned – would seem not to be covered by its effects.

Also, in answer to the previous question – whether we should avoid evangelizing so as to increase the chances of invincible ignorance – the response is clearly ‘no!’ We have an obligation to spread the faith; what people do with that knowledge is up to them. Failing to attempt to spread the truth robs people of the opportunity to obtain salvation through the means that we know God has given us (baptism, sacramental life in the Church, etc), and relegates them purely to the mercy of God (in which we trust, but the mechanics of which we know absolutely nothing!) It would be equivalent to refusing to tell our friends and neighbors about an approaching hurricane and the mandatory evacuation order – after all, we don’t know that they’d actually listen to the order, right? Better that they stay put and pray for God’s mercy in the fury of the storm than get fined for disobeying the evacuation order, right?

 

[Lormar]

Provocative title, eh?

I hoped to get your attention, because I’m floating this argument which I put together this morning.

1. Jesus only has one body.
2. To be in heaven, one must be a member of the body of Christ
3. The body of Christ is the Church.
4. The Church instituted by Christ has a name – the Catholic Church.
   Therefore, to be in heaven, one must be a member of the Catholic Church.

I anticipate some possible objection to 1 and much rejection to 4, but let’s see how it unfolds.

I look forward to reading your thoughts for and against.

I will tell you what a priest said to me one time. So, if there are objections to what I am about to post, please do not take it up with me. I am merely repeating what I was told.

Everyone in Heaven is Catholic. Why? Because no matter what you are when you die, when you do die and are at your Particular Judgment, you will know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. This does not mean that those who were not actual members of the Church will be excluded from Heaven.

How that will all pan out, I do not know. But, one thing I do know for certain. We will all one day find out. Be ready!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good point about formal membership. IOW, is my Baptism sufficient to claim a membership in the Church Catholic (this name to make a distinction the universal Church and the institutional Catholic Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or more familiarly the RCC)? Or, do I need to be confirmed into the RCC?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322** Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church**.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”324 (818, 1271, 1399)

So, not only formal membership, but one could ask about the degree of said formal membership.

Jon

Yes. I do wonder if you may have “crossed the line” regarding invincible ignorance, but that’s between you and God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But when Paul speaks of the body in 1 Cor 12, the context is spiritual gifts and how no one should think their gift (prophecy, teaching, etc) superior to another’s. The whole thing is an admonition against pride. And the language he uses starts with "For as the body is one…" which shows it’s a simile Paul’s employing. The language is metaphorical. The CCC even states this at one point in paragraph 789: "the comparison of the Church with the body… Of course, later it makes the leap to Mystical Body and membership, but it’s unclear how.

And when Christ speaks of His body, it’s at the Last Supper, in reference to the bread. A Catholic can use it to make the case for Transubstantiation, a Protestant can claim metaphor (or something in between), but in either case, membership isn’t the subject of Christ’s words.

Membership never seemed to be a focus of His. Learning to love God and neighbor and learning to be loved by God and neighbor seems to be the heart of it so far as I can tell…

How many bodies does Jesus have?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dominus Iesus

*IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

1. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67*

I often post these same paragraphs.

Thanks for putting them up in this thread.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would one reject something they know and believe to be the truth?

Jon

Here are some possible examples of that behavior:

I know smoking cigarettes is bad for me, but I’m going to ignore that information.

I know sleeping with my neighbor’s wife is wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.

I know the Catholicism is true, but I don’t want to lose my family (friends, job, etc.).

 

[Jozefo]

For what it’s worth, without a valid Eucharist, all the other churches are trading in counterfeit christs. His body and blood, soul and divinity is the only authentic currency that God recognizes as lawful. When we eat of it, we partake in the heavenly communion.

 

[JonNC]

For what it’s worth, without a valid Eucharist, all the other churches are trading in counterfeit christs. His body and blood, soul and divinity is the only authentic currency that God recognizes as lawful. When we eat of it, we partake in the heavenly communion.

While Lutherans are certain in the validity of our orders and sacraments,

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger -
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now we are back to formal membership. What about Catholic by desire?

Jon

Jon-

My own opinion (and I could be completely wrong) is that in heaven, everyone will be “Catholic” - that is to say ROMAN Catholic - because Jesus established one Church and left Peter in charge just as a king leaves a royal steward in charge when he travels to a foreign land.

Of course, in heaven, it won’t be any big deal to be “Catholic” since EVERYONE will be Catholic. (Distinctions of this type only matter down here.)

However, and this is key, no one will be there who was not in some form of communion with the Catholic Church. Not a soul.

Some “Catholics” won’t get in; some pagans will. Lots of Protestants will be there with stunned looks on their faces (coming through purgatory does that, you know).

The only real question for us in this life is how completely (or formally) we are in communion with that Church built by Jesus beginning with Peter, the rock, BECAUSE I suspect there are levels of heaven or degrees of reward for how we live…and this may be affected by what we choose down here.

If you want a good seat, Jon, you need to buy a ticket and stop peeking under the fence!

 

[Jozefo]

While Lutherans are certain in the validity of our orders and sacraments,

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger -
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.

Jon

Yes, but the Eucharist can only be confected legitamtely by proper authority. My point was not to say that people cannot be saved outside the Church. Rather, the Church is the only legitimate agency authorized to issue the currency. All the others are counterfeit if they purport to be legitimate, or at least not counted as lawful.

I’m not drawing a mere analogy between the Eucharist and money. I’m actually saying that the Eucharist is the currency God has authorized in the Divine Economy. It may sound profane, but it fits the model perfectly.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, this is the weakness of our fallen condition, even for the regenerate? For some reason I see this as different than what we are talking about. If I am Lutheran, and come to recognize or discern that the RCC is the fullness of truth, but because of mitigating factors, I decide to remain Lutheran, I don’t see that as the same as the sin we commit because of our sinful state.

Jon

This is probably true, Jon, but it still troubles me. The wound caused by schism is severe, and I suspect that many, many souls are lost due to the scandal that our “denominational” differences create.

Your formal conversion to Catholicism would help to heal that wound, and who knows? maybe someone else might be saved as a result.

The Butterfly Effect and all that.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, but the Eucharist can only be confected legitamtely by proper authority. My point was not to say that people cannot be saved outside the Church. Rather, the Church is the only legitimate agency authorized to issue the currency. All the others are counterfeit if they purport to be legitimate, or at least not counted as lawful.

I’m not drawing a mere analogy between the Eucharist and money. I’m actually saying that the Eucharist is the currency God has authorized in the Divine Economy. It may sound profane, but it fits the model perfectly.

I don’t think we’d disagree regarding the importance of the Eucharist.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

While Lutherans are certain in the validity of our orders and sacraments,

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger -
I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.

Jon

Jon-

Again you quote a Catholic authority to support your non-“Roman” Catholic position?

Seriously, man…do you hear yourself?

You do know you can simply become a formal member of the Church and put an end to your doubts, right?

 

[JonNC]

Jon-

Again you quote a Catholic authority to support your non-“Roman” Catholic position?

Seriously, man…do you hear yourself?

Actually, Randy, I am offering to a Catholic poster the position of said “Roman” Catholic authority, the position of one who became the pope. I don’t do it for me, which is why I said at the top we are certain of our orders and sacraments. In the reverse, I have on occasion used the words of Luther and other reformers to contradict the thought by a fellow Lutheran that the Catholic Church is not part of the Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

This is probably true, Jon, but it still troubles me. The wound caused by schism is severe, and I suspect that many, many souls are lost due to the scandal that our “denominational” differences create.

Your formal conversion to Catholicism would help to heal that wound, and who knows? maybe someone else might be saved as a result.

The Butterfly Effect and all that.

Far more effective, ISTM, is for Lutherans such as myself, who are strongly desirous of unity, to stay where I am and push for continued actions and prayers for dialogue to lead to unity. The biggest problem I see with a possible Lutheran Ordinariate is that it would draw away from Lutheranism those who could do the most good in encouraging continued dialogue, leaving behind only those opposed to unity and those who are disinterested. I see that as a potentially greater wounding.

Further, the issue of universal jurisdiction weighs heavy on me, and I would not be a Cafeteria Catholic.

Jon