Was St. Isaac Jogues, St. Francis De Sales, etc... wrong?

[Isaac_Jogues]

The church emphatically teaches that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The Church, however, seems, since Vatican II, to use the “rule of thumb” that what is contained in other religions *which has already been revealed as true in our own *can be looked upon as a means of grace that God can use *if He so desires *to offer salvation to them. In other words, *God may choose *to use the elements of true religion prefigured in some religions to lead their followers, not into salvation itself, but to offer them - to give them opportunity - for salvation. That’s a big difference.

I don’t get it.
If the Church teaches that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, then why is there salvation outside the Church. This can’t be a dogma as it is stated because there are so many exceptions.
I’m really struggling here to remain in the Catholic Church, if I am able to achieve salvation outside of it. The Church’s teachings are very hard to follow. I feel that if I can follow an easier means to get to heaven then it would be better to follow that path.

Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”

B16 thinks that it was wrong and fanatical to destroy pagan temples, and it seems by his wording that he thinks that paganism is not idolatry and that it shouldn’t necessarily be eliminated.

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question
altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on thecontrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

B16 thinks that people are saved this way a lot. So wouldn’t it be logical to assume that I can join one of these groups and have a good chance at salvation, possibly better than my chances in the Catholic religion, given the strict rules of the Church.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

God will bring the means to salvation to those who truly desire it–sometimes through “normal” means like such missionary saints, other times through extraordinary ways known only to Himself.

What do you mean by extraordinary means?

 

[Genesis315]

None of us knows exactly who is saved. Benedict provided some hopeful speculation. Pagan places of worship were not only places of idolatry, some evidenced man’s search for God–like the pagans in Acts 17 discovered by St. Paul to worship the same God.

Likewise, you are missing the point. No one is claiming salvation outside the Church. What we are claiming is that God can offer the means of salvation (including unity with the Church) in extraordinary ways if we fail in our mission. Someone who desires the means of salvation will not be deprived of them by human weakness. God promises that those who knock shall receive.

Consciously separating yourself from the Church will of course not lead to salvation. You’re desiring to cut yourself off from the life of Christ received from the Body from the Head.

On the contrary, those saved through those extraordinary means desire those means of salvation you choose to reject in your hypothetical–they have the desire to do all God has commanded and believe all He has revealed. In your hypothetical, you choose to reject these things. In short, in one case good will and good faith are present, in the other they are lacking.

 

[Genesis315]

What do you mean by extraordinary means?

Ordinary means is through missionaries, etc. Extraordinary means could be death-bed interior illumination of necessary truths, or even Baptism by an angel, as some saints have suggested. There has been some debate over precisely what the bare minimum necessity of means are (union to the Church cannot be dispensed with, but the consensus of theologians and the Fathers say the desire for Baptism suffices when it is lacking; there is also some debate as to the knowledge of specific truths that is necessary)–but whatever they are, God can offer them to those who desire them, even if we are negligent in our mission.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Ordinary means is through missionaries, etc. Extraordinary means could be death-bed interior illumination of necessary truths, or even Baptism by an angel, as some saints have suggested. There has been some debate over precisely what the bare minimum necessity of means are (union to the Church cannot be dispensed with, but the consensus of theologians and the Fathers say the desire for Baptism suffices when it is lacking; there is also some debate as to the knowledge of specific truths that is necessary)–but whatever they are, God can offer them to those who desire them, even if we are negligent in our mission.

So do you believe it is necessary to be Baptized and be Catholic to be saved or not?
I can’t tell. The previous reply you say in so many words that you can be saved without being Catholic, albeit without knowing anything about the faith and excluding leaving the Church.

This reply you claim that God will give you the Catholic means to be saved, ordinarily or extraordinarily. This implies that if someone is of goodwill or worthy, then God will send them the means to be saved through the Church. Thereby, excluding any salvation outside the Church.

I’m confused.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I don’t get it.
If the Church teaches that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Protestants are “Catholic” in that they have some sacraments of the Church and the Bible but are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Anyway, remember it is Jesus who saves, not the Church. The Church leads to Jesus, the Church that Jesus started through Peter, the rock. Why take a chance on your salvation if you know this?

I’m really struggling here to remain in the Catholic Church, if I am able to achieve salvation outside of it. The Church’s teachings are very hard to follow. I feel that if I can follow an easier means to get to heaven then it would be better to follow that path.

I came to the Catholic Church because it is Harder to follow, thus IMO it must be God’s way, the narrow path and all. Those who follow a wide road are led to perdition. St Faustina, Fatima, Lourdes, etc. all point to Rome, and away from the disunity of differing theology.

B16 thinks that it was wrong and fanatical to destroy pagan temples, and it seems by his wording that he thinks that paganism is not idolatry and that it shouldn’t necessarily be eliminated.

You’re inferring a conclusion, if it is wrong to bomb abortion clinics, that is not a support of abortion.

 

[Bryan_Paul]

Perhaps this can help clear up your confusion (from Catechism of the Catholic Church)

1260: Since Christ died for all, and sine all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal Mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

This answers your question about whether those outside the Church can be saved - just be clear - it refers to those who have not heard the Gospel. The next one answers your question as to whether or not YOU can be saved now that you are aware of the Church and Her authority:

1257: …Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…

So, brother, you are on the hook. There is no turning back. The Church contains the fullness of the truth - why would you give Her up for an ‘easier’ path. What appears easy now will only end up in distress. The broad road, upon which people go merrily dancing in their own pride, leads to destruction. The narrow road, straight and hard, is the path of Christ that we are all called to walk, and to share. Christ rules from his throne - fastened to a cross, not a La-z-boy recliner. Keep the faith, my friend, and learn more about the love your Mother has for you.

Peace and All Good

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Protestants are “Catholic” in that they have some sacraments of the Church and the Bible but are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

I thought Catholics were Catholics and protestants were something different. What valid Sacraments do the protestants have?

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,"…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.

You’re inferring a conclusion, if it is wrong to bomb abortion clinics, that is not a support of abortion.

What else could you infer from his statement?
What is wrong with blowing up abortion clinics except it’s against civil law ( I am not advocating it, for the sake of argument), the saints were destroying the pagan’s place of public false worship without destroying more life. The abortion clinic could be destroyed in theory without destroying more life.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Perhaps this can help clear up your confusion (from Catechism of the Catholic Church)

This answers your question about whether those outside the Church can be saved - just be clear - it refers to those who have not heard the Gospel. The next one answers your question as to whether or not YOU can be saved now that you are aware of the Church and Her authority:

So, brother, you are on the hook. There is no turning back. The Church contains the fullness of the truth - why would you give Her up for an ‘easier’ path. What appears easy now will only end up in distress. The broad road, upon which people go merrily dancing in their own pride, leads to destruction. The narrow road, straight and hard, is the path of Christ that we are all called to walk, and to share. Christ rules from his throne - fastened to a cross, not a La-z-boy recliner. Keep the faith, my friend, and learn more about the love your Mother has for you.

Peace and All Good

If I am clear on this then, So to you and the catechism the doctrine “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” means, there is salvation outside the church as long as you don’t know about the Church.

So “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” is not actually a teaching of the Church, it’s actually something like “There is usually No Salvation outside the Catholic Church but sometimes there is”.

Am I right?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I thought Catholics were Catholics and protestants were something different. What valid Sacraments do the protestants have?

Baptism and Marriage.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,"…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.

Vatican II has expounded on this in greater detail. I’m not sure where exactly. We must know, though, that Jesus saves, not the Church. It is God’s prerogative.

What else could you infer from his statement?
What is wrong with blowing up abortion clinics except it’s against civil law ( I am not advocating it, for the sake of argument), the saints were destroying the pagan’s place of public false worship without destroying more life. The abortion clinic could be destroyed in theory without destroying more life.

The pagan place of worship wasn’t the problem, the pagans were. Converting the pagans through love precludes the use of violence. Also, if a pagan has come to some truth, any truth, even if only partial truth, then as truth is from God, (the Way, the Truth, and the Life, etc), and thus is profitable for conversion to the fullness of the truth which leads to happiness and eternal life. The overall context of the pope, Christian Charity, must be considered along with the statement. This would preclude anything wanting in virtue.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Vatican II has expounded on this in greater detail. I’m not sure where exactly. We must know, though, that Jesus saves, not the Church. It is God’s prerogative.

If the Church is not what saves, then why do we need it.
You can’t say “because it leads us to Jesus”, because from what I have learned here, other religions can lead you to Jesus too. That would make adherence to the Catholic faith obsolete.

Also, if a pagan has come to some truth, any truth, even if only partial truth, then as truth is from God, (the Way, the Truth, and the Life, etc)

I thought partial truths are what lucifer uses to lead astray.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

If I am clear on this then, So to you and the catechism the doctrine “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” means, there is salvation outside the church as long as you don’t know about the Church.

So “No Salvation outside the Catholic Church” is not actually a teaching of the Church, it’s actually something like “There is usually No Salvation outside the Catholic Church but sometimes there is”.

Am I right?

From the Catechism also:
819 ** “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”**

From the Congregation for Inter-Religious Dialogue: On the Holy Spirit:
For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery» (GS 22). All this takes place above all through other religions. Indeed Vatican II teaches that «whatever good or truth is found» in other religions is «given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life» (LG 16). Consequently, it seems that through interreligious dialogue we can discover this action of the Spirit better and become more docile to it.

There is nothing about having Sanctifying Grace through other religions or knowing one is saved positively, no matter what, in the Catholic Church or elsewhere, you won’t find that type of presumption any place but a “faith-alone” congregation not in union with the Bishop of Rome. Salvation comes from God, the Church God started through Peter is, IMO, the only place to look, the only place with the fullness of faith and truth.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

If the Church is not what saves, then why do we need it.
You can’t say “because it leads us to Jesus”, because from what I have learned here, other religions can lead you to Jesus too. That would make adherence to the Catholic faith obsolete.

Jesus is HERE, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. My point is that being confirmed is not Sanctifying Grace.
Why need the Church? John chapter 6: 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Where else is this adhered to?

I thought partial truths are what lucifer uses to lead astray.

Half-truths, with lies thrown in.

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

Jesus is HERE, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. My point is that being confirmed is not Sanctifying Grace.
Why need the Church? John chapter 6: 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Where else is this adhered to?

Half-truths, with lies thrown in.

Like I was saying before, is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH a doctrine, dogma, etc… or is it a qualified statement that has more meaning than what it says.
Do you have to be Baptized and at least hold to the basic Truths of the Catholic Church (Incarnation, Trinity, etc…) to be saved? Or not really?
To me it seems that it is either all or nothing. It seems that God is an all or nothing Being. Either He requires unconditional membership in His Church and all the help he provides, or He requires much, much less.

 

[Extempore]

Even if the phrase is qualified as you just put it, then would it not be a great risk to lose even one soul.
If the missionaries were to just leave the pagans to themselves then there is no risk of someone hearing “the Truth, knows that it is true, and rejects it until he dies knowing that he is turning his back on God” and loses his soul forever; even one soul.

Invincible ignorance doesn’t presuppose that every person not exposed to the Truth is automatically saved. Every person is born with a conscience and our souls are naturally oriented to seek the truth. As St. Augustine put it, “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”

The soul and the conscience provide a compass. It is up to each of us to use our God-given will to either follow it or reject it.

 

[puzzleannie]

An honest question?
I am wondering why these great saints would risk horrific tortures and death to Baptize millions of pagans if these pagans could have achieved salvation through their ignorance of the Catholic faith. .

just because the mere possibility exists that God could save a non-Christian, there is no certainty or guarantee that he will act beyond the means he promised, baptism, so it certainly behooves the Christian missionary and evangelist to obey the command of Jesus to the letter, spread the gospel to all nations and baptize them.

 

[peary]

I don’t get it.
If the Church teaches that there is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, then why is there salvation outside the Church. This can’t be a dogma as it is stated because there are so many exceptions.

I’m really struggling here to remain in the Catholic Church, if I am able to achieve salvation outside of it. The Church’s teachings are very hard to follow. I feel that if I can follow an easier means to get to heaven then it would be better to follow that path.

Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 373: “There were in fact Christian hotheads and fanatics who destroyed temples, who were unable to see paganism as anything more than idolatry that had to be radically eliminated.”

B16 thinks that it was wrong and fanatical to destroy pagan temples, and it seems by his wording that he thinks that paganism is not idolatry and that it shouldn’t necessarily be eliminated.

Benedict XVI, Salt of the Earth, p. 24: “Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question
altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on thecontrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.”

B16 thinks that people are saved this way a lot. So wouldn’t it be logical to assume that I can join one of these groups and have a good chance at salvation, possibly better than my chances in the Catholic religion, given the strict rules of the Church.

**Protestants (our seperated brethren) who have a *valid *Baptism can be saved because they are offered a life of Grace because of that; they also have the Word of God (Bible). There is also a Baptism of Desire whereby an individual truly desires to be a Christian but has not had the opportunity to be validly baptized, either through ignorance or demise.

Of course the Church’s teachings are hard to follow. Christ’s teachings are hard to follow. When was the last time you picked up a Bible, turned to the New Testament, and read and studied what Christ truly taught? Do you think by going outside of the Church will make it easier for you? Your ego might be soothed because of cafeterianism where you can “pick and choose” what you believe and do, but the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Faith. Why would you leave it? And why would you leave the Eucharist for something less?? That makes no sense to me. Besides, you would be turning your back on the fullness of Faith given to you through the Church. It doesn’t work that way!

As for Benedict XVI’s words you quote (“It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation.”) there are many questions about what ‘pleases’ God. I do not believe that God denies salvation to those who receive from their religion directives that help them to be pure, moral and pleasing to God due to invincible ignorance. If that were the case, most of humanity would be going to Hell. This is not logical, and does correlate with what we know of God’s infinite Mercy. **

 

[Isaac_Jogues]

just because the mere possibility exists that God could save a non-Christian, there is no certainty or guarantee that he will act beyond the means he promised,

Invincible ignorance doesn’t presuppose that every person not exposed to the Truth is automatically saved.

I don’t know what all this means because something else is being taught below.
Vatican Council II teaches me that 1. we worship the same God as Muslims, 2. that the Jews Covenant is still Valid, and 3. that Buddhism by itself leads to salvation.

1. Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
   “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are
   first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
   WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
   WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”- This obviously means that if the God of Islam is the same as that of Christianity then both paths should lead to heaven. Therefore Islam is a viable option for conversion.
2. Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the
   Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
   presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
   followed from the holy scriptures.”- This tells me that if I feel that Jesus was not really the Christ and I wanted to convert to Judaism, then there is no way that I could be rejected or cursed by God, assuming that I lived up to God’s expectations of the Jews. So Judaism is a viable option for conversion.

3.Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical
inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a
way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit
may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”- This teaches me that I can save myself through Buddhism with a devout and trustful spirit and it never mentions anything about, “if you hear the Christian gospel first, there is no chance of salvation through Buddhism”.
This means that Buddhism is a viable option for conversion.

 

[chrisb]

I don’t know what all this means because something else is being taught below.
Vatican Council II teaches me that 1. we worship the same God as Muslims, 2. that the Jews Covenant is still Valid, and 3. that Buddhism by itself leads to salvation.

1. Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
   “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are
   first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
   WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
   WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”- This obviously means that if the God of Islam is the same as that of Christianity then both paths should lead to heaven. Therefore Islam is a viable option for conversion.

Am I to understand that you are attempting to argue that the only reason you are Catholic is because you think it’s the only way to gain heaven and that if other ways of life have the possibility of salvation you would rather not be Catholic and try out these other ways of life because you think they are easier?

1. Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the
   Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
   presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
   followed from the holy scriptures.”- This tells me that if I feel that Jesus was not really the Christ and I wanted to convert to Judaism, then there is no way that I could be rejected or cursed by God, assuming that I lived up to God’s expectations of the Jews. So Judaism is a viable option for conversion.

I think you are misunderstanding this as an affirmation of the Old Covenant but I’m not particularly interesting defending Catholic teachings per se.

3.Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical
inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a
way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit
may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”- This teaches me that I can save myself through Buddhism with a devout and trustful spirit and it never mentions anything about, “if you hear the Christian gospel first, there is no chance of salvation through Buddhism”.
This means that Buddhism is a viable option for conversion.

There is a saying that “you will know them by their fruits”… I’m not sure I would condemn the Asian World who for whatever reason have not come to a fuller encounter with the Risen Lord but I also know many Christians who have not come to a fuller encounter with the Risen Lord but instead ponder their faith as if it was a legal contract and not something to be lived.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

3.This teaches me that I can save myself through Buddhism with a devout and trustful spirit and it never mentions anything about, “if you hear the Christian gospel first, there is no chance of salvation through Buddhism”.

This means that Buddhism is a viable option for conversion.

No, you are being led to infer this by your desire not to follow a seemingly more difficult path. Jesus, the only name by which we are saved, started the Catholic Church. He gave it the fullness of truth. All truth is from God. Those who stumble upon a bit of Catholic truth, however small it may be, still find the truth that is from God. Pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit Whom Jesus sent to the apostles as they were given the mandate to lead the mystical Body of Christ.