Where does the Church believe non-christians will go in the after life?

[Vouthon]

Brother PJM

You are misunderstanding Catholic teaching.

Let me tell you a little story.

Read:

Fr. Alessio Parente, O.F.M. Cap., lived and worked alongside Padre Pio for many years in Our Lady of Grace Friary at San Giovanni Rotondo. He wrote numerous books about his confrere, and his works provide reliable source material for the saint. The following information is from Fr. Alessio’s book The Holy Souls, 19 and was related by a “very good friend” of his, Mrs. Florence Fine Ehrman, the daughter of the person in question.

In 1965 her father, Julius Fine, who had practiced the Jewish faith all his life and believed firmly in God, was stricken with what is commonly called “Lou Gehrig’s disease.” Mrs. Ehrman wrote to Padre Pio beseeching a cure for her father from this fatal illness. A short time later she received the reply that Padre Pio would pray for her father and would take him under his protection.

When her father passed away in February of the next year, she was able to accept his death peacefully. However after some time, she began to worry about whether or not he was saved, even though he had been a very loving and kind husband and father. “This fear came about because I began to hear many people, Protestants and Catholics alike, say that unless person had been baptized they could not be saved.”

On a visit to the friary at San Giovanni Rotondo in the fall of 1967, she was told by a personal friend (quite possibly Fr. Alessio himself) to write down whatever she wished to ask Padre Pio, and this friend would present the letter to him. She of course wrote down her concerns about the eternal state of her father’s soul – this good and gentle Jewish man who had never been baptized. The reply from Padre Pio, which she received in writing, was this: “Julius Fine is saved, but it is necessary to pray much for him.” Her mind was put at ease by such a “sure and definite” statement," since she understood that her father was in Purgatory, his salvation guaranteed.

Whether Padre Pio was enlightened by his Guardian Angel, the Holy Spirit, interior locution, or some other means is not known. What is known, however, is his ability to make such determinations after intense prayer, nourished by his mystical union with Christ during his Mass and Holy Communion, and by the offering up of his sufferings, especially the painful bloody wounds of his stigmata. In this instance, Padre Pio committed himself to assuring a grieving daughter that her father, who was not baptized, and was not a Roman Catholic, was saved.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Now:

Pope Benedict when he was Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this:

"…The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation…The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ…"

“…It is false that we say to anyone that he is damned. To do so would be false to our general doctrine relating to sects outside the bosom of the Church. We are persuaded that all of those who with sincerity remain in their errors, who through inculpable ignorance believe themselves in the way of salvation . . . are children of the Catholic Church. Such is the opinion of all divines from St. Augustine…”

***- Nicolas-Sylvestre Bergier, (1715 – 1790), celebrated French Catholic theologian ***

"…Do not think you are going to a country of heathens [or “among infidels”]. Muslims attain to salvation. The ways of God are infinite…”

***- Pope Pius XI, 1934 (L’Ultima, Florence, Anno VIII) ***

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

**778. Has everyone an equal chance of getting to Heaven? **

Not necessarily. The attaining of heaven depends upon the reception of actual baptism in the case of infants, and upon Baptism at least implicitly by desire on the part of adults… But God gives to every adult sufficient grace for salvation. He has no obligation to give to every soul those extraordinary graces which, in His sheer generosity, He bestows upon some.

Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43.

The ways of God are infinite.

Now read this from Pope John Paul II:

“…The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people 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. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation…”

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio (1990)

Those who either do not know about Christ, or have obstacles to accepting Christ that arise from their religious or cultural traditions, and which make them bear no guilt for their non-acceptance of Christ, can be saved by a grace that works in them in the situation in which they are.

First of all we must bear in mind Blessed Pope Pius IX’s statement that:

“…It is to be held for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not bound by any fault in this matter in the eyes of the Lord. Now truly, who would arrogate so much to himself, as to be able to designate the limits of this kind of ignorance, because of the reason and variety of peoples, regions, natural dispositions, and a great many other things?..”

- Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari quadam, 1854

Pius resolutely refuses to set definitive limits to the application of “invincible ignorance”. To this end we will not set limits since we can never fully understand the underlying psychological, social, moral or even physical factors which influence people. We thus cannot simplify human nature. We cannot judge a person who has genuinely searched after truth and tried to inform his conscience but, for whatever vast number of reasons, still has an eroneous conscience and is bound to follow that conscience and has been unable to come to the awareness of the truth of Catholicism.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

And according to Catholic doctrine one is bound to follow an erroneous conscience.

This is an excerpt from the volume 1 of the four volumes work on moral theology by Germain Grisez. Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May were some notable figures who helped Grisez in the making of his book entitled The Way of the Lord Jesus. Grisez was a key figure in the drafting of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

He writes:

2. According to common Christian teaching, one must follow one’s conscience even when it is mistaken. St. Thomas explains this as follows. Conscience is one’s last and best judgment as to the choice one ought to make. If this judgment is mistaken, one does not know it at the time. One will follow one’s conscience if one is choosing reasonably. To the best of one’s knowledge and belief, it is God’s plan and will. So if one acts against one’s conscience, one is certainly in the wrong (see S.t., 1–2, q. 19, aa. 5–6).

Thomas drives home his point. If a superior gives one an order which cannot be obeyed without violating one’s conscience, one must not obey. To obey the superior in this case would be to disobey what one believes to be the mind and will of God (see S.t., 1–2, q. 19, a. 5, ad 2; 2–2, q. 104, a. 5). It is good to abstain from fornication. But if one’s conscience is that one should choose to fornicate, one does evil if one does not fornicate. Indeed, to believe in Jesus is in itself good and essential for salvation; but one can only believe in him rightly if one judges that one ought to. Therefore, one whose conscience is that it is wrong to believe in Jesus would be morally guilty if he or she chose against this judgment.

3. Still, one is not necessarily guiltless in following a conscience which is in error. If the error is one’s own fault, one is responsible for the wrong one does in following erroneous conscience. As Vatican II teaches: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said when someone cares but little for truth and goodness, and conscience by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of a practice of sinning”.[1]

If one’s conscience tells him that it is wrong to believe in Christ but believes in him, then he is morally guilty, meaning, he commits sin. Hence, when one is really convinced that the Catholic Church is not the true Church and does not leave it or keep on disbelieving in it, then one offends God.

For example, if one’s conscience tells him that he should leave the Catholic Church because he is convinced that it is not the true church, he does evil if he does not leave the Catholic Church.

The examples used by Grisez and Thomas Aquinas, namely, fornication and belief in Christ shows that the duty to obey conscience applies not only to erroneous religious customs/practices but to mistaken moral beliefs and erroneous doctrines as well.

And we can set no limits to this invincible ignorance.

Its past 12 at night here in the UK, when I have more time tommorrow I will explain this to you in greater depth, using Catholic theologians from centuries ago, to help you understand why many non-Christians will most likely attain to salvation.

 

[Kristin234]

I don’t believe everyone who doesn’t follow the Christian faith is going to hell.

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

“Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

 

[Zooey]

The fact that there are so many in the world who have never even heard the Name of Jesus seems to me to indicate that God’s plan for the salvation of the world must include a way for those who long for God, & who love & obey Him in the manner they are able to.
This leads me to the conclusion that we should all be more diligent in praying for the souls of the living (that they may learn more pf Him) and for the dead, who depend entirely upon our prayers to speed their entrance into His Presence.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

“Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

Believe me, I know what it says. But I was speaking mostly from people who are in a state of ignorance (like those who were never able to hear the teachings of Christ) or aborted babies, mentally handicapped people who are unable to understand it, ect.

 

[Vouthon]

Believe me, I know what it says. But I was speaking mostly from people who are in a state of ignorance (like those who were never able to hear the teachings of Christ) or aborted babies, mentally handicapped people who are unable to understand it, ect.

It is different in Catholicism though and has always been because of our doctrines of invincible ignorance, baptism by implicit desire etc. We don’t share the traditional Protestant exclusivist view of salvation. We are inclusivist, which is the kind of middle-ground between what we see as two heretical propositions:

*- Exclusivism: There is no salvation outside of formal water baptism/explicit faith in Christ (Feenyism - heresy)

• Pluralism: all religions and paths are equal and can grant salvation (heresy) *

A Catholic in good conscience is not allowed to believe either of these heretical ideas.

**The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) **

“The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven.”

**The Spirit of Catholicism (1935) **

“Therefore the Church is the true and ordinary institute of the grace and truth of Jesus. But that does not prevent there being, alongside this ordinary institute, extraordinary ways of salvation, or hinder the grace of Christ from visiting particular men without the mediation of the Church. But because and in so far as the Body of Christ comprehends all those who are saved by Christ, those also who are visited by His grace in this immediate way belong to His Church.”

It is dependant on having the ability to both know and accept that the Catholic Church is the true Church. If one is constrained by one’s upbringing in another religion, experiences of bad Christians and a whole other limitless list of reasons, or if one is brought up Catholic but for whatever reason never truly believed in the religion and has an erroneous conscience, then that person is guiltless and through no fault of his own is being held back from the truth.

Blessed Pope John XXIII once said:

“…If I were born a Muslim, I believe that I would have always stayed a good Muslim, faithful to my religion…”

- Blessed Pope John XXIII (1881 – 1963)

So as you see Pope John believed that an upbringing in another religion or philosophy was a very strong conditioner. He would have remained a “good Muslim” that is one baptised by implict desire and incorporated into the Church through following the Will of God.

**Radio Replies (1938, 1940, 1942) **
“Good non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have never known the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and who die sincerely repentant of such sins as they have committed, will save their souls.”

I prefer using old sources pre-Vatican II since you will find on these forums a number of heretical people who try and reject Vatican II or dismiss it - thankfully all these ideas of the salvation of non-Christians were well elucidated long before Vatican II

This was explained rather well by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a somewhat eccentric German Catholic polymath/genius who was known to be able to quote swathes of Catholic theology from ancient documents off-by-heart, in 1952:

"…The Catholic has the duty of forming, educating and training his conscience…Yet the Catholic who has lost his faith and who honestly accepts the teachings of another religious body commits a mortal sin if he does not publically embrace whatever religion he believes in. Father O’Karr very wisely points out that George Bernard Shaw was very much mistaken when he claimed Saint Joan of Arc for Protestantism. It was precisely her defiance of ecclesiastical authority and her strict adherence to her conscience which made her canonization (elevation to sainthood) possible within Catholicism…According to Catholic theology it is, therefore, quite likely that Jan Hus’ soul went straight to heaven after his death, provided he sincerely believed in his own views, however erroneous [he rebelled against Catholic dogma and was a heretic]

Only God can judge the sincerity of someone’s heart and intentions. But Catholicism has always maintained that: “nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God”.

 

[Vouthon]

And the Bible supports this later teaching of the Church when it says:

“…Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God…Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love…God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them…”

- 1 John 4:18 (Holy Bible)

 

[Vouthon]

Can you please show me what document states this? It would seem to shed some light on this passage of the CCC (emphasis added):

Sure thing brother Its in Gaudium et Spes:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. (Lumen Gentium, 2.16; cf. Gaudium et Spes 1.22)

The Council also recognized that, by not always showing the true face of God, believers may have contributed to the rise of atheism (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 19; CCC, n. 2125).

This is one of the reasons why their blame can be diminshed and they can attain salvation, for similar reasons as to why the native Indians of America during the Spanish Conquest were excused because of the horrendous actions of the Spanish Catholic invaders:

“…The invincibly ignorant are not obliged to believe unless the faith is fully presented and explained to them by suitable ministers. A great many unbelievers are excused from accepting the faith for a long time and perhaps for their whole lifetime, no matter how long it lasts, so long as they see the extremely corrupt and detestable conduct of the Christians…”

***- Bartolomé de las Casas (c. 1484–1566) Catholic Bishop, abolitionist and Dominican theologian ***

“…The barbarians are not bound to believe from the first announcement of the Christian faith …] because it is merely announced and proposed to them that the true religion is Christian, and that Christ is the savior and redeemer of the world, without miracles or any other proofs or arguments…it is not sufficiently clear to me that the Christian faith has thus far been proposed and announced to the barbarians so as to obligate them to believe it… It does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them suitably and piously, so as to obligate acquiescence…”

- Francisco de Vitoria (ca. 1492-1546), De Indis (On the Indies), 1539 [Roman Catholic philosopher, Dominican theologian and jurist]

 

[Vouthon]

LOL I meant to say above its in Lumen Gentium and that LG references Gaudium et Spes

 

[meltzerboy]

And according to Catholic doctrine one is bound to follow an erroneous conscience.

This is an excerpt from the volume 1 of the four volumes work on moral theology by Germain Grisez. Joseph Boyle, John Finnis, and William E. May were some notable figures who helped Grisez in the making of his book entitled The Way of the Lord Jesus. Grisez was a key figure in the drafting of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

He writes:

If one’s conscience tells him that it is wrong to believe in Christ but believes in him, then he is morally guilty, meaning, he commits sin. Hence, when one is really convinced that the Catholic Church is not the true Church and does not leave it or keep on disbelieving in it, then one offends God.

For example, if one’s conscience tells him that he should leave the Catholic Church because he is convinced that it is not the true church, he does evil if he does not leave the Catholic Church.

The examples used by Grisez and Thomas Aquinas, namely, fornication and belief in Christ shows that the duty to obey conscience applies not only to erroneous religious customs/practices but to mistaken moral beliefs and erroneous doctrines as well.

And we can set no limits to this invincible ignorance.

Its past 12 at night here in the UK, when I have more time tommorrow I will explain this to you in greater depth, using Catholic theologians from centuries ago, to help you understand why many non-Christians will most likely attain to salvation.

Are you saying then, Vouthon, that even those Catholics who are fortunate enough to be in the bosom of the Church but later come to disagree with the Church’s teachings due to their conscience, and consequently leave the Church, are acting morally and may attain to salvation? Does Catholicism therefore not want people to go through the motions of belief (which may or may not eventually lead to true faith), and would rather they leave the Church if their, perhaps erroneous, conscience so dictates? This doesn’t sound correct to me.

 

[meltzerboy]

It is different in Catholicism though and has always been because of our doctrines of invincible ignorance, baptism by implicit desire etc. We don’t share the traditional Protestant exclusivist view of salvation. We are inclusivist, which is the kind of middle-ground between what we see as two heretical propositions:

*- Exclusivism: There is no salvation outside of formal water baptism/explicit faith in Christ (Feenyism - heresy)

• Pluralism: all religions and paths are equal and can grant salvation (heresy) *

A Catholic in good conscience is not allowed to believe either of these heretical ideas.

**The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) **

“The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven.”

**The Spirit of Catholicism (1935) **

“Therefore the Church is the true and ordinary institute of the grace and truth of Jesus. But that does not prevent there being, alongside this ordinary institute, extraordinary ways of salvation, or hinder the grace of Christ from visiting particular men without the mediation of the Church. But because and in so far as the Body of Christ comprehends all those who are saved by Christ, those also who are visited by His grace in this immediate way belong to His Church.”

It is dependant on having the ability to both know and accept that the Catholic Church is the true Church. If one is constrained by one’s upbringing in another religion, experiences of bad Christians and a whole other limitless list of reasons, or if one is brought up Catholic but for whatever reason never truly believed in the religion and has an erroneous conscience, then that person is guiltless and through no fault of his own is being held back from the truth.

Blessed Pope John XXIII once said:

“…If I were born a Muslim, I believe that I would have always stayed a good Muslim, faithful to my religion…”

- Blessed Pope John XXIII (1881 – 1963)

So as you see Pope John believed that an upbringing in another religion or philosophy was a very strong conditioner. He would have remained a “good Muslim” that is one baptised by implict desire and incorporated into the Church through following the Will of God.

**Radio Replies (1938, 1940, 1942) **
“Good non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have never known the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and who die sincerely repentant of such sins as they have committed, will save their souls.”

I prefer using old sources pre-Vatican II since you will find on these forums a number of heretical people who try and reject Vatican II or dismiss it - thankfully all these ideas of the salvation of non-Christians were well elucidated long before Vatican II

This was explained rather well by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a somewhat eccentric German Catholic polymath/genius who was known to be able to quote swathes of Catholic theology from ancient documents off-by-heart, in 1952:

"…The Catholic has the duty of forming, educating and training his conscience…Yet the Catholic who has lost his faith and who honestly accepts the teachings of another religious body commits a mortal sin if he does not publically embrace whatever religion he believes in. Father O’Karr very wisely points out that George Bernard Shaw was very much mistaken when he claimed Saint Joan of Arc for Protestantism. It was precisely her defiance of ecclesiastical authority and her strict adherence to her conscience which made her canonization (elevation to sainthood) possible within Catholicism…According to Catholic theology it is, therefore, quite likely that Jan Hus’ soul went straight to heaven after his death, provided he sincerely believed in his own views, however erroneous [he rebelled against Catholic dogma and was a heretic]

Only God can judge the sincerity of someone’s heart and intentions. But Catholicism has always maintained that: “nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God”.

The inclusivist principle found in Catholicism echoes that found in Judaism. The latter also believes that those who do not feel compelled to convert to Judaism can just as well achieve a share in the World to Come by following the moral principles of the Seven Laws of Noah as well as the tenets of their own faith.

 

[Vouthon]

The inclusivist principle found in Catholicism echoes that found in Judaism. The latter also believes that those who do not feel compelled to convert to Judaism can just as well achieve a share in the World to Come by following the moral principles of the Seven Laws of Noah as well as the tenets of their own faith.

My dear brother Meltzer

Amen! I have always loved the emphasis placed upon the Noachide Laws in Judaism. Yes indeed, Judaism also teaches inclusivism, namely, that righteous people among the nations (gentiles) who do not belong to the Jewish faith will have a share in the Olam Haba (world to come). Examples of this can be seen even in the Bible, for example in the Zoroastrian King Cyrus the Great of Persia, who was acclaimed by Deutero-Isaiah to be a “messiah”, annointed by God and fulfilling his purpose and indeed to worship the God of Israel even though he wasn’t a Jew!

*I of course - being a biased Catholic - would say that our religions are similar in this respect since we are actually members of the same religion of God since we both believe in the God of the Tanakh. Jesus never set out to found a new religion, and as you know the Catholic Church started as a sect of Judaism. I am physically Gentile but spiritually a Jew and son of Abraham through my faith in Jesus, which has grafted this wild olive branch onto the tree of Israel. *

This passage from Malachi always strikes me as one of the most inclusivist in the Bible - Tanakh or New Testament:

“…For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the LORD of hosts…”

- Malachi 1:11

A lot of Protestant Christian bibles, with the notable exception of the Catholic Douay-Rheims, sneakily (and wrongly) translated the is in the above passage to will be as if too make it look like a prophecy of Christianity. However this loses the sense of the original - the prophet Malachi is saying that in his own day and age God’s name is revered among the many gentile pagan nations, who - although not having the fullness of truth that Judaism does and the full revealed knowledge of God - are still worshipping the Jewish God even if unknowingly.

I think that this is very inclusivist

 

[PJM]

=Alex246;9346843]Can you please show me what document states this? It would seem to shed some light on this passage of the CCC (emphasis added):

I don’t have time to search the V II doc’s; BUT an exception is in the Catholic Cathechism a possibily under precisely defined conditions. The KICKER IS the NEED highlighted.

**846 ***How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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.*

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

These INFALLIBLE teachings would seem to excluse Atheist and Agnostics because by defination they are NOT ??? [God’s call] seeking God:shrug:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t have time to search the V II doc’s; BUT an exception is in the Catholic Cathechism a possibily under precisely defined conditions. The KICKER IS the NEED highlighted.

**846 ***How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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*.

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

These INFALLIBLE teachings would seem to excluse Atheist and Agnostics because by defination they are NOT ??? [God’s call] seeking God:shrug:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

Might not an agnostic or an atheist have sought or still be seeking G-d but have not yet found Him? And might they not also do G-d’s Will by their acts of charity toward their neighbors (and, in that sense, they HAVE found G-d)? I think the Catholic Church intentionally refrains from saying outright that atheists and agnostics are damned and is purposefully either silent or ambiguous on this point.

 

[Vouthon]

Vatican II says that, in addition to Jews and Muslims and others who believe in God, it is possible for people who do not believe in God to be saved:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life [Lumen Gentium 16].

“Those who . . . have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God” would seem to include atheists.

The constitution Gaudium et Spes also stressed the universal possibility of salvation:

ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery [Gaudium et Spes 22].

So naturally atheists cannot be exempted from this universal action of the Holy Spirit

 

[meltzerboy]

Vatican II says that, in addition to Jews and Muslims and others who believe in God, it is possible for people who do not believe in God to be saved:

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life [Lumen Gentium 16].

“Those who . . . have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God” would seem to include atheists.

The constitution Gaudium et Spes also stressed the universal possibility of salvation:

ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery [Gaudium et Spes 22].

So naturally atheists cannot be exempted from this universal action of the Holy Spirit

Vouthon, why do you suppose some Catholics, and probably more Protestants, believe that only Christians (or Catholic Christians) may attain to salvation, even in the face of Church teaching, including written documents, to the contrary? Do you think there is a psychological motivation that consists of setting a specific group (their own in-group) apart from the other, less favorable out-groups? Or perhaps, in addition, a motivation to prove the necessity of their own religion, because if everyone has the possibility of being saved, namely those who believe in other religions and even atheists, then one might wonder what is the point of being Christian (Catholic or Protestant), which is so focused on the afterlife? On the other hand, maybe there is a need to adhere to what they were taught as children and adolescents, which was perhaps not entirely correct? I know Jews who also believe that only Jews will partake of the World to Come or gain a larger share of it, even though this idea is explicitly opposed to Jewish teaching in several ways: Jews are held more accountable for their actions than non-Jews and we are not supposed to speculate about the afterlife or judge others, whether Jew or Gentile.

 

[jagger3320]

from what i know, jesus is the savior of mankind, he only saves those who want to be saved. the option of weather you want heaven or hell is entirely up to that person.

 

[PJM]

Are you saying then, Vouthon, that even those Catholics who are fortunate enough to be in the bosom of the Church but later come to disagree with the Church’s teachings due to their conscience, and consequently leave the Church, are acting morally and may attain to salvation? Does Catholicism therefore not want people to go through the motions of belief (which may or may not eventually lead to true faith), and would rather they leave the Church if their, perhaps erroneous, conscience so dictates? This doesn’t sound correct to me.

As a Catholic, I presume the right to respond to this:

Unrepented catholics who leave “Thee Church” FOR ANY REASON, doom themselves to hell. NOT my words but the Bibles:

Heb.6 Verses 4 to 10: “For it is impossible [except by repentance and re-conversion] to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, [Baptized] who have tasted the heavenly gift,* [CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION]* and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, [CONFIRMED AS A CATHOLIC -your decision!] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, *** [HAD THE BIBLE PROPERLY, FULLY AND TRUTHFULLY EXPLAINED AT MASS]*** if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.”

Even those Baptized at birth BUT never in “communion” or practiced MAY too be at risk; as God MUST [absolutely] judge US on what he makes possible for us to know; NOT what “we know” or only “what we accept.”

As to ones conscience:

The Catechism says this:

1778 “Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law”

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment."

1783 "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings".

God bless,
pat/PJM

 

[wcknight]

"
And according to Catholic doctrine one is bound to follow an erroneous conscience. "

It makes you wonder what happens to these suicide bombers ?? You have to be pretty well convinced that you are doing the right thing, when you strap a bunch of exposives to yourself and take out a bunch of folks with you.

Can their defense be, “I was just following my erroneous conscience” ???

okay here’s your 55 virgins…