Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[RedBert]

Red Bert

Learns nothing.

Has unreasonably denied the clear affirmation of Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95): “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.”

He has unreasonably denied the fact that the Church has condemned the interpretation he holds (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).
[BTW, this is from the *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine

, Our Sunday Visitor, by Msgr Cormac Burke who is a prelate of Opus Dei and has been a judge of the Roman Rota – the Church’s court in Rome].

He has unreasonably denied the meaning of the Latin as understood by Christ’s Church: that we cannot be saved without His Church. [Extra = without: Msgr Cormac Burke as above].

He has denied that the Sacred Scriptures show that Peter has been given Christ’s authority to teach infallibly.

He has denied that the Sacred Scriptures of the N.T. have been given to us by the Church’s members (including Paul and Christ’s apostles) and the whole canon carefully protected and transcribed and printed and declared infallibly to be the Word of God by Christ’s Church.

He learns nothing.

thats me alright : can’t be learnin’ nothin’

alone with 600 million other Protestants and 300 million Orthodox Christians

 

[RedBert]

The ex cathedra quotes you recently posted came from a time when it was believed that everybody knew the gospel

what an outrageously untrue statement

 

[Sherry_G]

This is a very self-serving statement don’t you think? Don’t you wonder how this looks like, especially to non-Catholics? It just seems totally absurd. I hope the RCC could come up with a better explanation/defense than this.

Let’s see, now…I have heard that the UMC has elected officials to decide what to believe. Matters such as being “politically correct” and changing their beliefs at will. I cannot understand how “protestants” can justify that they are really truly following Jesus Christ. I am quite sure that Jesus appointed twelve apostles and no women were among them. Jesus directed the apostles to go forth and teach all nations, yet your UMC has appointed or elected women to the ministry??? You are throwing lots of stones, claiming to be practicing the truth of the faith. Jesus did not write a book…he started a Church - history shows that the one true catholic and apostolic church began at the direction of Jesus and as guided by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. To study history is to cease to be protestant! Taking a snippet here and there out of the Bible to prove points never seems to spill over into the Gospel of John, does it?

 

[XBaptist]

Some people have wished to understand this saying as: that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. **The Church has condemned such an interpretation **(cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

Are you talking about Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”? I’m guessing that he probably wrote something else.

I have this book (the Sources…), and the paragraph numbers stop at 2333, but then appendix 1 starts with 5000. Where did 2334 - 4999 go? It must be in some other Denzinger book, which I don’t have.

I’m dying to read 3870-3873 though…!

 

[Saved_Lady]

So Baptists never get confused about scripture-never ask their pastors questions, and he never gives any answers? OK!

Sounds to me like you are being sarcastic about my post. God has the answers, not man, end of discussion. May God lead you in your quests.

 

[davidv]

Sounds to me like you are being sarcastic about my post. God has the answers, not man, end of discussion. May God lead you in your quests.

Yes God has answers. However, more often than not, He delivers them through men (and women).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I think I am having this trouble because of the forceful language that is used to define and defend this dogma in the pre-Vatican II Church. It doesn’t seem that the current teaching of the Church is a “development” of the dogma, but rather a renunciation of it. As in the words of my priest: “They don’t believe that anymore.” Seems my priest believes that the dogma is actually reversed, and he’s fine with that.

Dear XBaptist,

Sorry for joining the thread late. I haven’t read all of the responses but I’ve read your posts in it. I want to make a few brief points:

1. Even the Church Fathers who expressed the ‘literal’ view of “No Salvation Outside the Church” allowed for exceptions. These exceptions included “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire”.
2. The principle that God does not punish people for things that are not their fault, has always been an un-stated assumption behind everything that the Church Fathers said.
3. Before modern psychology, people tended to assume that people were completely responsible for their beliefs. Modern psychology has shown that our beliefs are often not the ideal rational choice that was assumed in previous times.
4. Combining 2 and 3 has made modern theologians suspect that the “loopholes” in 1 may be much larger than previously assumed. In fact the loopholes might be so big as to make the statement “no salvation outside the church” misleading without qualifying it.
5. Priests have to dumb things down for us. If the priest says “people who don’t join the church will go to hell”, the dumber members of the congregation could go out and start harassing non-Catholics in inappropriate ways, pressuring them to convert. They have to keep the message simple.
6. There are modernist elements in the church who no longer believe in infallibility. These people actually think its okay to change a dogma. These are the people who say things like “we don’t believe in that dogma anymore”. They’re wrong.

 

[XBaptist]

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

-----------------------vs.---------------------

‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

---

and Catholics claim that is just a clarification?

I think RedBert’s post very reflected ***exactly *** my struggle. Very well put! Thank you!

For the past 3 years, I have been trying with all my heart to get to know the Catholic Church. This issue is intensely frustrating to me. I’ve been collecting pre-V2 quotes (by saints, popes, councils, etc) about “No Salvation Outside…” and have over 70 pages that sound very literal and dogmatic like the Pope Eugene IV quote above. Granted, only a small number of them are ex-cathedra (including Eugene IV), but even so, you can’t tell me that the pre-Vatican II Church had the same interpretation of dogma as the post-Vatican II church. It’s not a development - it’s at best a major deviation, and almost a total reversal. I desperately want to believe the post-V2 understanding, but I just can’t with such a vast library of opposing pre-V2 statements.

As I understand it, ex cathedra pronouncements are binding on the Church and must be believed. So… just like Catholics must believe in the deity of Christ and the Trinity (which were defined ex cathdra very early in the Church age), they also ***must ***believe Eugene IV’s 1441 ex cathedra pronouncement as it was intended (since it is dogma, and this is how dogma must be understood). Same thing with Pope Pius IX’s 1870 ex-cathedra statement referred to in post #4. (which was made after Protestantism was already well-established, after the America’s were found, in times similar to today.) Pius IX in fact, warned us in Vatican I about times like today, where this “No Salvation…” dogma would be “muddied” to the point of near-nonsense.

This debate reminds me of my Baptist days when we would read a passage and then say “What this really means is…” before totally contradicting the passage in question. That’s why I left the Baptist Church. So, are we going to explain away ALL the pre-Vatican II EENS statements due to extenuating circumstances?

Well, this would present another problem: Pre V2 Ex Cathedra statements are still protected by the Holy Spirit, right? Eugene IV’s ex cathedra quote was made in 1441 - before Columbus discovered the America’s - and found many un-reached American Indians. Eugene IV obviously didn’t know about the America’s, but I’ll bet the Holy Spirit did (!!), and still allowed Eugene IV to make this dogmatic pronouncement. To “excuse” Eugene IV’s dogmatic pronouncement because they hadn’t discovered America yet is to deny the diety and omniscience of the Holy Spirit, isn’t it?

There are some (not anywhere near as many…) pre-Vatican II quotes that cite “invincible ignorance” but it’s obvious that the meaning of “invincible ignorance” has changed drastically. Before Vatican II, it literally meant INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE - in other words, you hadn’t heard (ignorant), and had no way of knowing (invincible) or finding the truth. Today, invincible ignorance has been twisted to include almost every excuse under the sun - which actually is preventing many potential converts from joining the Church… they don’t feel it’s necessay anymore - and Catholics aren’t giving the impression that it’s all that important.

If someone knows of the “invincible ignorance” clause, are they really invincibly ignorant? Jesus actually called it “unbelief” - not invincible ignorance.

The new understandings of both “Invincible Ignorance” and “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” seem (to me, at least) to be heavily influenced by Protestant thinking, which for the most part loves God, but doesn’t fear Him. Also, they acknowledge no risk or fear of hell, since they believe they are “saved” from it. I was drawn to the Catholic Church because I am scared to death of hell, and I thought the Catholic Church was, too. But it seems that post-V2, this is not so much the case anymore. Most post V2 Catholics don’t fear hell enough to even go to confession anymore or attend Church regularly. This was not the case pre-V2. See what I mean?

At this point, I still can’t make any sense of these contradictions. I’ve read all the posts, and all the other articles linked, and have tried to keep as open of a mind as possible, but these 70 pages of pre-V2 pronouncements are screaming in my ear the whole time. I just can’t reconcile them to today’s more liberal belief of EENS. So I’m still very stuck. I can see why there are so many sedevacantists today - it seems the Church has been derailed.

 

[EDWARDJL]

XBaptist,

You were the one with the original question. However, it seem like you came up with the best answer. I have been reverting back to the Catholic church from the Baptist church. Like you, I want to believe all of the dogma. I was thrilled to hear Bishops talk about our “separated brethren” and that they that have been baptized and follow Christ are equal brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, in pre Vatican II, it is blatantly obvious and explicitly stated that to be physically outside the bounds of the Catholic church was a heresy and that there was no chance of salvation. These two views appear to be quite contradictory. If both views have been stated ex cathedra, then they are infallible. How can two views that are contradictory both be infallible.

Most of the Catholic apologists that converts, such as Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, etc. do not credit the Catholic church for their salvation. They beilieve they were Christians before converting. Converting to the Catholic faith did not invalidate their previous church denominations. They felt that the Catholic church was the “fullness of the truth”.

The pre Vatican II view seemed to be stated very clearly. You had to acknowledge the Pope as the supreme leader of the church. What is confusing to me, is that the Eastern Orthodox church is considered valid by the Roman Catholic church. They are even considered to have a valid Eucharist, because they have Apostolic Succession. However, the Eastern church does not acknowledge the Pope as the supreme leader of the church. They do not acknowledge papal infallibility. My understanding of this may be wrong. I hope it is.

However, based on my understanding, there would seem to be an inconsistency in the way the the Roman Catholic Church treats the Eastern church verses the way they treat Protestant churches.

 

[XBaptist]

XBaptist,

You were the one with the original question. However, it seem like you came up with the best answer. I have been reverting back to the Catholic church from the Baptist church. Like you, I want to believe all of the dogma. I was thrilled to hear Bishops talk about our “separated brethren” and that they that have been baptized and follow Christ are equal brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, in pre Vatican II, it is blatantly obvious and explicitly stated that to be physically outside the bounds of the Catholic church was a heresy and that there was no chance of salvation. These two views appear to be quite contradictory. If both views have been stated ex cathedra, then they are infallible. How can two views that are contradictory both be infallible.

Most of the Catholic apologists that converts, such as Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, etc. do not credit the Catholic church for their salvation. They beilieve they were Christians before converting. Converting to the Catholic faith did not invalidate their previous church denominations. They felt that the Catholic church was the “fullness of the truth”.

The pre Vatican II view seemed to be stated very clearly. You had to acknowledge the Pope as the supreme leader of the church. What is confusing to me, is that the Eastern Orthodox church is considered valid by the Roman Catholic church. They are even considered to have a valid Eucharist, because they have Apostolic Succession. However, the Eastern church does not acknowledge the Pope as the supreme leader of the church. They do not acknowledge papal infallibility. My understanding of this may be wrong. I hope it is.

However, based on my understanding, there would seem to be an inconsistency in the way the the Roman Catholic Church treats the Eastern church verses the way they treat Protestant churches.

Hi EDWARDJL,

In reading related posts, I just found these from October 2009 - which really make sense to me. See if they help you, too. This is the only way that I can reconcile the pre and post V2 writings (and possibly save my sanity!):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5865485&postcount=25
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5865490&postcount=26

He explains his position very well, I think.

 

[XBaptist]

continued from above –

Regarding the bizarre statements from the Catechism (regarding salvation of Muslims, etc), I dunno - I think I am going to have a hard time trusting the Catechism. I’ve heard that there have been some corrections (at least 1 that I know for sure, and a few other rumored ones) based on doctrinal errors, so it’s obviously fallible. Since it’s not ex cathedra, we are not obligated to believe it, so the Catechism certainly is not in the same category as the ex cathedra writings.

I don’t want to get too critical of Vatican 2 writings, but they seems to be among the most widely misinterpreted documents in all of history. I’ve read it myself and have not been confused, but it seems that today’s theologians (NOT to be confused with the magisteria) are very liberal and have gotten a totally different message from V2 writings. Anyway, I’m going to ignore them (modern theologians) and read the stuff that I’m sure about (pre-vatican 2).

Also, I respect the modern popes, yet I think their attempts at presenting an ecumenical message has severely damaged the Church and thrown everyone into confusion. I’m not sure if any of their ecumenical writings have been ‘ex cathedra’ and I’m afraid to find out!

Anyway - read the above posts, and see if they help you, too.

 

[Abu]

XBaptist (#162)
Are you talking about Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”? I’m guessing that he probably wrote something else.

Some people have wished to understand this saying in the most literal sense: that is, that the person who is not formally a practicing Catholic cannot be saved. The Church has condemned such an interpretation (cf. Denzinger-Schönmetzer, 3870-3873).

The reference is from the *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine *(CD), Our Sunday Visitor, and written by Msgr Cormac P Burke, for many years a Judge of the Roman Rota, High Court of the Church, who has a Doctorate in Canon Law; he is a priest of the Prelature of Opus Dei.
Curriculum Vitae | www.cormacburke.or.ke" _http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1

On D.S. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Joseph_Dominicus_Denzinger
The numbering that scholars in recent decades (since 1963) have usually cited for the entries is that introduced in the edition prepared by Adolf Schönmetzer, S.J. This explains the abbreviation “DS” (for “Denzinger-Schönmetzer”) used to specify this numbering, very different from that in earlier editions.

See Without the Church There Is No Salvation, PHILIP C. L. GRAY
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0043.html
The Latin word “extra” is both an adverb and preposition. Depending on its use in a sentence, the word has different meanings. When used to describe spatial relations between objects, the word is translated as “beyond” or “outside of” (e.g., Beyond the creek is a tree; or, James is outside of the room). When used to describe abstract relations between concepts or intangible things, the word is commonly translated “without” (e.g., Without a method, it is difficult to teach). Within the phrase in question, extra is a preposition describing the abstract relationship of the Church to salvation. Considering the Latin nuances of the word, a proper translation would be, “Without the Church there is no salvation.” This translation more accurately reflects the doctrinal meaning of the phrase.

See ewtn.org/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT (Fr William Most)
Socrates: (1)read and believed what the Spirit wrote in his heart; (2) he had confidence in
it; (3) he obeyed it. We see this obedience in the fact that Socrates went so far as to say, as Plato quotes him many times, that the one who seeks the truth must have as little as possible to do with the things of the body.

St. Paul in Romans 3:29 asks: “Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the
gentiles.” It means that if God made salvation depend on knowing and following the law of Moses, He would act as if He cared for no one but Jews. But God does care for all. Paul insists God makes salvation possible by faith for them (cf. Romans chapter 4). Faith in Paul includes the three things we have enumerated which Socrates did.

So in following that Spirit of Christ Socrates was accepting and following the Spirit of Christ, But then, from Romans 8:9 we gather that if one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he “belongs to Christ”. That is, He is a member of Christ, which in Paul’s terms means a member of the Mystical Body, which is the Church. So Socrates then was a member of the Church, but not formally, only substantially. He could not know the Church. So he was saved, not by his false religious beliefs but in spite of them. He was saved by faith, and similarly protestants and others who do not formally join the Church today are saved not as members of e. g. , the Baptist church, which some seem to think is an integral part of the one Church of Christ – no, they are saved as individuals, who make use of the means of sanctification they are able to find even outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.​

It never ceases to amaze me how some people confuse themselves by irrational thinking, usually based on the failure to seek and find the truth from the right sources.

1. They doubt Christ Himself when He gave His authority to Peter and His Church to teach truth without error, and the many truths in Her Sacred Scriptures, e.g. on the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth.
2. They ignore the clear teaching of Pope Clement on the salvation of pagans.
3. They are oblivious to the many that have come home to Christ’s Church, like Scott Hahn who don’t recognise any contradiction and know that Protestants have some of the truths from the Church’s Scriptures known only through Her. Scott Hahn doesn’t have the hang-up about “no salvation” not even for pagans, because he is a logical thinker who seeks facts.

 

[Abu]

XBaptist
Regarding the bizarre statements from the Catechism (regarding salvation of Muslims, etc), I dunno - I think I am going to have a hard time trusting the Catechism. I’ve heard that there have been some corrections (at least 1 that I know for sure, and a few other rumored ones) based on doctrinal errors, so it’s obviously fallible. Since it’s not ex cathedra, we are not obligated to believe it, so the Catechism certainly is not in the same category as the ex cathedra writings.

You need to think and act with Christ’s Church, before you come home – you have much to do.
We would welcome you when you do.

First: The CCC was issued by Pope John Paul II through an Apostolic Constitution – the highest level of decree issued by a Pope.The Pope affirms that it is “a sure an authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.” (#3 The Doctrinal Value of the Text). There have been a few clarifications. Doctrine itself can develop without contradiction as convert John Henry Cardinal Newman explained in his famous essay.

So, if you think “it’s obviously fallible” – you need to rethink. CCC #841 on Muslims is fact, and comes under the heading of non-Christians. They are in first place for believing in a Creator God through the faith of Abraham, unlike Buddhists or Hindus, hardly a bizarre fact.

today’s theologians (NOT to be confused with the magisteria) are very liberal and have gotten a totally different message from V2 writings. Anyway, I’m going to ignore them (modern theologians)

That would be very Catholic – to reject the dissenting theologians. There are many faithful theologians today – you will find them at EWTN Q&A and many other places.
You need to be very sure that the documents of Vatican II are faithful to Christ, as they are, including the teaching on ecumenism. Study the documents themselves.

These may be helpful:
outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/search/label/Salvation
catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp

You seem to have great difficulty in knowing what is “ex cathedra”. I shall explain the solution to the problem in another post.

 

[EDWARDJL]

What is the criteria for invincible ignorance? If someone believes that the Catholic church is the one true church, why would they be a member of a protestant denomination? You would certainly want to be in the Catholic church.

What about the Protestant that has studied Catholic teachings and reject the authority of the church, but believe in and follow Christ? Are they still invincibly ignorant?

The dogma states that there is no salvation outside the visible church. The invincible ignorance part is an exception to the rule. Even at that, they are saying that there is a chance for salvation for those beilievers outside the actual church. Even their invincible ignorance may not save them.

They still define the Catholic church as the visible church. Modern day apologists seem to change the definition of the “Catholic church” to include people outside the visible church to actually be part of the church by way of desire. Even if they don’t know this is what they desire.

The dogma does not seem to distinguish between Protestant Christians who believe and follow Christ from Muslims, Budhists, Atheists, etc. However, todays Catholic apologists refer to Protestants as our “separated brethren”, giving them a higher status than these other groups that are outside the visible church. There just seems to be conflicting teaching of this doctrine among the various organizations and conflicting interpretation of pre Vatican II vs. post Vatican II. Since this is a dogma, there seems to be very sloppy teaching on this matter.

 

[Des]

What is the criteria for invincible ignorance? If someone believes that the Catholic church is the one true church, why would they be a member of a protestant denomination? You would certainly want to be in the Catholic church.

Pride and Hate are a couple of reasons. One can be so blinded by his hatred for the Church to receive the Graces needed to open his eyes to the truth. A good possible example would be Jack Chick and those flaming booklets he gets his diciples to hand out.

Another possible example would be the American Natives who lived for hundreds of years without hearing one word of the Gospel of Christ but obeyed the natural law the best they could by listening to their God given conscience. So not being visibly part of the Church is beyond those individual’s control.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

What about the Protestant that has studied Catholic teachings and reject the authority of the church, but believe in and follow Christ? Are they still invincibly ignorant?

Only God knows. Sometimes sin has blinded them so much where they can’t see yet it doesn’t make them any less accountable for their ignorance.

They still define the Catholic church as the visible church. Modern day apologists seem to change the definition of the “Catholic church” to include people outside the visible church to actually be part of the church by way of desire. Even if they don’t know this is what they desire.

The Church isn’t some visible structure. You have the Church Triumphant, the Church Suffering and the Church Militant. Those who are invincibly ignorant are still mysteriously saved by the Mystical Body through which the Salvic Graces of Christ constantly flow.

The dogma does not seem to distinguish between Protestant Christians who believe and follow Christ from Muslims, Budhists, Atheists, etc.

Reread Abu’s post and the Latin word ‘extra’ used in that sentence. Seems the translation differences can change the meaning to help better understand what the Dogma was getting at. It’s not the first time that literary translations from other languages have confused the reader when not interpreted to it’s fullest most precise meaning they were trying to convey in the first place.

At some point in time, even those who cannot at first understand or make sense of Dogmas, must eventually either start trusting in the Church to lead Her flock into all truths or make the decision to leave. Not everything makes sense in Christianity and eventually we all have to just trust in God’s infinite wisdom if we wish to stay.

 

[Hesychios]

1. There are modernist elements in the church who no longer believe in [Papal] infallibility…

Not only modernists, but traditional Catholics as well.

 

[Hesychios]

… What is confusing to me, is that the Eastern Orthodox church is considered valid by the Roman Catholic church. They are even considered to have a valid Eucharist, because they have Apostolic Succession. However, the Eastern church does not acknowledge the Pope as the supreme leader of the church. They do not acknowledge papal infallibility. My understanding of this may be wrong. I hope it is.

No, you are correct.

Just have a hope to always know the facts.

BTW, Orthodox have a standing invitation by the Catholic church to partake of the Eucharist in Catholic churches if they are otherwise properly disposed, but Orthodox bishops say ‘no’.

The bishops take this position because they do not approve of some of the beliefs taught in the Latin Catholic church. They desire to protect the flock.

However, based on my understanding, there would seem to be an inconsistency in the way the the Roman Catholic Church treats the Eastern church verses the way they treat Protestant churches.

There is no comparison between the two.

The acknowledgment by Rome of Holy Orthodoxy as valid in any way is not sought after nor needed by the Orthodox themselves. Romes’ opinion is important for their own purposes, but not for Orthodox purposes.

Frankly, we Orthodox are generally surprised that the Latin Catholic church even cares whether our orders or sacraments are valid. We don’t need them to tell us, we already know. Of course it is flattering, but on the whole irrelevant.

 

[Abu]

Well put, Des.

EDWARDJL
Modern day apologists seem to change the definition of the “Catholic church” to include people outside the visible church to actually be part of the church by way of desire.

Due to sloppy erroneous thinking, blissfully ignoring the facts.

Post #101: “**salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church **but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.” (Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, 1990, 10).

The Council of Trent, 1545-1563, pictured by some dissenters as triumphant and absolutist, defined the dogma of baptism by desire thus on to what Vatican II taught: “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.” (Post #119).

“…they are saved as individuals, who make use of the means of sanctification they are able to find even outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.” (Post #130)
See ewtn.org/library/SCRIPTUR/EXTRAECC.TXT (Fr William Most)

She has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ through His Church. (Post #119).

See Canon 204 #2. Canon 205: “Those baptized are in full communion with the Catholic Church here on earth who are joined with Christ in His visible body, through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.”

There is no contradiction, or “change” in defining Christ’s Church. Dissenters and other sloppy thinkers should not be allowed to cloud our own thinking and beliefs.

 

[chosen_people]

The universal love and compassion of God is a tenet of Judaism not of Catholicism. Most of the people in the world are not Christians. Despite this Christians teach “He who believes in the son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of God” (John 3:36) and “He who does not abide in me is thrown away like a withered branch. Such withered branches are gathered together, cast into the fire and burned” (John 15:6).

Compare this with the universal salvation of Judaism. The Pharisees said in the Talmud "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13) "Any individual, whether Gentile or Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself in accordance with his deeds (Tana Debei Eliahu Rabbah 9).

 

[fms]

Compare this with the universal salvation of Judaism. The Pharisees said in the Talmud "The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13) "Any individual, whether Gentile or Jew, man or woman, servant or maid, can bring the Divine Presence upon himself in accordance with his deeds (Tana Debei Eliahu Rabbah 9).

What happens to that individual when his/her deeds are such that they do not bring Divine Presence upon himself/herself?

What happens to the one who is not righteous?