Who Can Be Saved?

[steve_b]

The teaching of the Church applies to Catholics, who have recourse to Sacramental Confession. The Church withholds Confession from Baptized protestants (which I think is very wrong, BTW).

Do you know WHY the Church takes that position?

BTW, an exception is made for those near death.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholic opinions on who can be saved and how many are saved covers a wide range. On the far left, we have some claiming that perhaps no human souls are sent to Hell, and that we can hope that no one will be condemned to Hell. Perhaps, they say, Hell is empty of human souls.

On the far right, some claim that very few are saved, that most Catholics and few if any non-Catholics or non-Christians will be saved. In this view, the elect are very few indeed.

My own view on this topic is fairly liberal. Many souls unfortunately are sent to Hell, but only for unrepentant actual mortal sin. Most persons obtain eternal life, though usually by way of the purification of Purgatory. I consider that non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christian believers can be saved by the love of God and neighbor, despite grave errors in their religious beliefs (due to invincible ignorance). And non-believers can be saved by love of neighbor, due to invincible ignorance concerning the existence of God.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. But I consider that a baptism of desire or of blood is available to those who have not been baptized with water.

What does everyone else think about the scope of salvation for us poor sinners? Are many saved, or few? Is the path to salvation necessarily one of conversion to Christianity or Catholicism?

I think a both/and approach is the way to go here: we can hope that all are saved AND we must fear that few are saved.

God probably has been intentionally ambivalent about revealing this dogmatically for a very good reason: the former position, dogmatically embraced and uncontested, could lead to moral laxity. The latter position, espoused also without exception, could lead to utter despondency.

So God, in His great wisdom, has been ambiguous about who can be saved and how many (or how few) they are.

 

[Ron_Conte]

No, the Church TEACHES that the Grace of Christian Baptism is necessary.

No, the Church TEACHES that the Grace of Baptism may be applied without the ordinary aquatic ceremony through desire (or blood, which is really just a subset of desire).

The Church does not TEACH that this Grace cannot be applied in some other (but unknown) manner.

I think you have misunderstood this doctrine, because you have not read enough different magisterial sources on the subject. The CCC can be misunderstood, if it is not read in the light of Tradition, Scripture, and other magisterial documents.

Trent: “CANON V. If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”

CANON IV. “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; – though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.”

Vatican I: “there are seven sacraments of the new law, truly and properly so called, instituted by our lord Jesus Christ and necessary for salvation, though each person need not receive them all.”

The grace of justification is obtained by the Sacrament of Baptism, or at least by those types of baptism which are an extension of it: baptism of desire or of blood. It is not possible, given the above teaching of the Church on this subject, to say that God may save in some third manner, not connected to Baptism or any Sacrament.

When Vatican II (the source of the CCC assertion in question) taught the following:

“All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since 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.”

the Council was in no way contradicting past teachings on the necessity of the Sacraments (or the desire thereof) for salvation. It is just that the details of how the Spirit brings non-Christians to that desire (often implicitly) is known only to God.

The Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X:

“29 Q. What sacraments are most necessary for salvation?
A. The sacraments most necessary to salvation are two: Baptism and Penance. Baptism is necessary to all, and Penance is necessary to all who have sinned mortally after Baptism.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

But, of course, nobody knows if our contrition is truly perfect (ie, motivated only by our sorrow for offending God, and not influenced even a tiny bit by fear of punishment). And, for Catholics, this must be accompanied by a firm resolve to attend regular Confession at the earliest opportunity.

Contrition is perfect when it is motivated by love of God. It does not need to be free from the fear of punishment in Hell. Indeed, the standard prayer of perfect contrition mentions fear of Hell and loss of Heaven. The desire to go to Confession, necessary as part of perfect contrition, can be implicit, just at a baptism of desire can be implicit.

Catechism of Pius X:
“18 Q. Of all the parts of the sacrament of Penance which is the most necessary?
A. Of all the parts of the sacrament of Penance the most necessary is contrition, because without it no pardon for sins is obtainable, while with it alone, perfect pardon can be obtained, provided that along with it there is the desire, at least implicit, of going to confession.”

Saint John Paul the Great was speaking about invincible ignorance. AFAIK, the Church has never extended the concept of invincible ignorance to Baptized Christians (whether Catholic or not).

CCC 1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Vatican II: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity.” [Gaudium et Spes, n. 16.]

These sources are speaking to Catholic Christians about their consciences.

 

[ericc]

The Church TEACHES that Baptism is absolutely necessary, in some form, for salvation (because we are conceived with original sin).

And yet in CC2157 she qualifies it in 2 ways:

1. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
2. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

For 1, is it possible that there are other means that the Church do not know of? OT Israelites did not have baptism but one can argue that circumcision has the effect of baptism. An example would be an infant after circumcision dies the next day. Would this baby get into heaven (after waiting for Christ). And what about Israelite female babies since they would not get circumcised? And what about those that died before they get circumcised? Does the Chosen Race get special treatment?

Pre-Moses, i.e. pre-circumcision, Enoch and Noah I’d presume saved too. So how did Enoch avoided OS effects to get into heaven directly? And if there are instances of people getting to heaven without circumcision or baptism, then there are other ways to get there. The Church prescribes the normative means for salvation but God can predestine anyone heaven in accordance to his Will. He is not limited by his sacraments.

 

[Ron_Conte]

And yet in CC2157 she qualifies it in 2 ways:

1. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude
2. God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

For 1, is it possible that there are other means that the Church do not know of? OT Israelites did not have baptism but one can argue that circumcision has the effect of baptism. An example would be an infant after circumcision dies the next day. Would this baby get into heaven (after waiting for Christ). And what about Israelite female babies since they would not get circumcised? And what about those that died before they get circumcised? Does the Chosen Race get special treatment?

Pre-Moses, i.e. pre-circumcision, Enoch and Noah I’d presume saved too. So how did Enoch avoided OS effects to get into heaven directly? And if there are instances of people getting to heaven without circumcision or baptism, then there are other ways to get there. The Church prescribes the normative means for salvation but God can predestine anyone heaven in accordance to his Will. He is not limited by his sacraments.

Again, we must read the CCC in the light of other magisterial teachings. Only the formal sacrament assures entry into heaven, in a qualified sense: the sacrament puts the person in the state of grace, repentance would be needed if the person sins gravely. The Church certainly teaches that a baptism of desire is possible, as well as a baptism of blood. This is in Trent as well as the CCC.

The often repeated phrase “not bound by the sacraments” is only true if we include all the teachings of God in His Church. He is bound by the truths He himself has taught through the Church. So I don’t think we can interpret this true expression as nullifying past teaching on the necessity of some form of baptism.

You can look in the Catholic Encyclopedia and see that the standard teaching on salvation theology is that some form of baptism (water, desire, blood) is necessary for salvation, without exception. And the necessity of baptism is a definitive magisterial teaching. So the “not bound by the sacraments” phrase can only refer to the possible broad applicability of the non-sacrament forms of baptism: desire or blood.

OT salvation was by a baptism of desire or of blood. Circumcision was merely a symbol of that type of salvation; it absolutely did not confer sanctifying grace apart from a baptism of desire.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Again, we must read the CCC in the light of other magisterial teachings. Only the formal sacrament assures entry into heaven, in a qualified sense: the sacrament puts the person in the state of grace, repentance would be needed if the person sins gravely. The Church certainly teaches that a baptism of desire is possible, as well as a baptism of blood. This is in Trent as well as the CCC.

The often repeated phrase “not bound by the sacraments” is only true if we include all the teachings of God in His Church. He is bound by the truths He himself has taught through the Church. So I don’t think we can interpret this true expression as nullifying past teaching on the necessity of some form of baptism.

You can look in the Catholic Encyclopedia and see that the standard teaching on salvation theology is that some form of baptism (water, desire, blood) is necessary for salvation, without exception. And the necessity of baptism is a definitive magisterial teaching. So the “not bound by the sacraments” phrase can only refer to the possible broad applicability of the non-sacrament forms of baptism: desire or blood.

OT salvation was by a baptism of desire or of blood. Circumcision was merely a symbol of that type of salvation; it absolutely did not confer sanctifying grace apart from a baptism of desire.

How is a baptism that is not a sacrament and which doesn’t involve dipping and which doesn’t require a form of words be properly called baptism. It’s just a word fiction to get around alleged doctrinal/Scriptural difficulties.
Why not simply call such things what they properly are…acts of conversion other than the ritual water baptism allegedly necessitated by Scripture.

 

[thistle]

Catholic opinions on who can be saved and how many are saved covers a wide range. On the far left, we have some claiming that perhaps no human souls are sent to Hell, and that we can hope that no one will be condemned to Hell. Perhaps, they say, Hell is empty of human souls.

On the far right, some claim that very few are saved, that most Catholics and few if any non-Catholics or non-Christians will be saved. In this view, the elect are very few indeed.

My own view on this topic is fairly liberal. Many souls unfortunately are sent to Hell, but only for unrepentant actual mortal sin. Most persons obtain eternal life, though usually by way of the purification of Purgatory. I consider that non-Catholic Christians, and non-Christian believers can be saved by the love of God and neighbor, despite grave errors in their religious beliefs (due to invincible ignorance). And non-believers can be saved by love of neighbor, due to invincible ignorance concerning the existence of God.

Baptism is necessary for salvation. But I consider that a baptism of desire or of blood is available to those who have not been baptized with water.

What does everyone else think about the scope of salvation for us poor sinners? Are many saved, or few? Is the path to salvation necessarily one of conversion to Christianity or Catholicism?

Anyone CAN be saved but those who ARE saved when they die are sacramentally baptised Catholic, those considered to be Catholic through baptism of blood, baptism of desire - explicit (e.g. a catechumen), baptism of desire - implicit (invincible ignorance) AND they must die in a state of grace.

 

[ericc]

Again, we must read the CCC in the light of other magisterial teachings. Only the formal sacrament assures entry into heaven, in a qualified sense: the sacrament puts the person in the state of grace, repentance would be needed if the person sins gravely. The Church certainly teaches that a baptism of desire is possible, as well as a baptism of blood. This is in Trent as well as the CCC.

So how did Enoch and Noah(presumed) get into heaven then? Unless you lump everything else that did not go through normative baptism, baptism by desire. Which translate to baptism by convenience? So what did CCC in the light of other magisterial teachings actually say about Enoch and Noah? If they are silent, then just take it as it is rather than assume. Do you have more convincing data to back that up?

So as long as God enable Enoch and Noah to be reborn of water/spirit, they will be saved. I do not know how God gave that to them. All God needed to do is to will it to happen and they are reborn. I can also quote scripture that say to God nothing is impossible. I can’t find anything in Genesis that God told them they need to be reborn.

The often repeated phrase “not bound by the sacraments” is only true if we include all the teachings of God in His Church. He is bound by the truths He himself has taught through the Church. So I don’t think we can interpret this true expression as nullifying past teaching on the necessity of some form of baptism.

You can look in the Catholic Encyclopedia and see that the standard teaching on salvation theology is that some form of baptism (water, desire, blood) is necessary for salvation, without exception. And the necessity of baptism is a definitive magisterial teaching.

That would be true if the Church actually says that for ALL cases. But for unbaptized babies, the Church declined to state categorically that babies will not be saved. Is the Church declining to speak the truth then? I don’t think so. The Church when it doesn’t know, say it doesn’t know. Otherwise, the Church MUST teach unbaptized babies go to hell. And if the Church doesn’t know how Enoch got to heaven by what means, one shouldn’t assume it must be by one way or the other. The Church is not privy to all heavenly methods.

When you say “God is bound by the truths he himself has taught”, you are putting God subservient to his own teachings. Rules are higher than God. I don’t think the Church ever taught that.

So the “not bound by the sacraments” phrase can only refer to the possible broad applicability of the non-sacrament forms of baptism: desire or blood. OT salvation was by a baptism of desire or of blood. Circumcision was merely a symbol of that type of salvation; it absolutely did not confer sanctifying grace apart from a baptism of desire.

OT salvation was by a baptism of desire or of blood. Circumcision was merely a symbol of that type of salvation; it absolutely did not confer sanctifying grace apart from a baptism of desire.

The words in red, is that your assumption or indeed the Church teaching? If it is the Church teaching, can you point me to the relevant documents? I’d like to know more about that.

You are positing that if it is not sacramental, it must be non-sacramental. And if it is non-sacramental, it must be desire or blood baptism. Everything is locked down that God has no other option available to him. No, I don’t think that is meant by “not bound by the sacraments”. God is supreme. He is not subject to your rules, or the way you define it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

When you say “God is bound by the truths he himself has taught”, you are putting God subservient to his own teachings. Rules are higher than God. I don’t think the Church ever taught that.

God is Truth. Therefore, He can never deny or contradict any truth, for He cannot deny Himself. The truths of the Catholic faith are not mere rules. God always acts according to His own nature.

 

[Sola_Catholicus]

We are all subject to the grace of God and the grace of God is the only thing that can save anyone. Is it up to the individual to accept that grace? Of course. Is God’s mercy and grace infinite? It certainly is if He so chooses.

I don’t know why this subject is continually argued.

 

[steve_b]

We are all subject to the grace of God and the grace of God is the only thing that can save anyone. Is it up to the individual to accept that grace? Of course. Is God’s mercy and grace infinite? It certainly is if He so chooses.

I don’t know why this subject is continually argued.

Because Peter teaches, 1 Peter 3:15

 

[DavidFilmer]

Do you know WHY the Church takes that position?

Yes, but I disagree with it. The Church has been given stewardship of God’s Grace. God has allowed the Church to define that role. I think the Church should be generous, rather than stingy, with that Grace.

The prohibition for non-Catholics to approach Confession is a man-made rule. There is no theological reason why a Baptized protestant of good will could not receive the Grace of Reconciliation from a Catholic priest/Bishop at any time and under any circumstance. There might be an intellectual objection (“so why aren’t you Catholic, you dummy?”) but that’s not the same thing.

BTW, an exception is made for those near death.

Can you cite that (for people not associated with any Eastern Rite faith?)

 

[thistle]

Do you know WHY the Church takes that position?

BTW, an exception is made for those near death.

It is not as black and white as you imply.

CCC 1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you cite that (for people not associated with any Eastern Rite faith?)

Not sure why you posted the parenthetical phrase. Eastern Rite folks are part of the Catholic Church.

 

[steve_b]

It is not as black and white as you imply.

CCC 1401 When, in the Ordinary’s judgment, a grave necessity arises, Catholic ministers may give the sacraments of Eucharist, Penance, and Anointing of the Sick to other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church, who ask for them of their own will, provided they give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding these sacraments and possess the required dispositions.

when I said

BTW, an exception is made for those near death.

to me “grave necessity” and “near death” are equals when it comes to exception for non Catholics,

Re: the last statement,

"evidence " one holds the Catholic faith and required disposition, regarding said sacrament being given, that might not be absolutely possible. For example, I’m thinking of a mortally wounded soldier on the battle field who might not be able to speak or communicate in anyway.

 

[eddie_too]

anyone can be saved. how many are saved? it seems to me that answering this is entirely speculative; and, i am not sure why i should be concerned or interested in the answer.

 

[steve_b]

Yes, but I disagree with it. The Church has been given stewardship of God’s Grace. God has allowed the Church to define that role. I think the Church should be generous, rather than stingy, with that Grace.

A good steward of the sacraments God gave us, doesn’t mean lowering the standards for receiving those same sacraments by just anyone.

High standards ≠ stingy.

High standards = honor and respect for the awesome gift
D:

The prohibition for non-Catholics to approach Confession is a man-made rule. There is no theological reason why a Baptized protestant of good will could not receive the Grace of Reconciliation from a Catholic priest/Bishop at any time and under any circumstance.

Here’s why a Protestant can’t go to a Catholic priest for confession
catholic.com/quickquestions/as-a-protestant-who-wishes-to-stay-focused-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri

Said a bit differently,

If a Protestant believes in confession to a priest, then as soon as a Protestant goes to confession, they aren’t exempt from believing all the other beliefs of the Catholic Church, nor exempt from living out the Catholic faith as well. That means as Sunday comes, they need to go to mass. They can’t receive the Eucharist, but deliberately not going to mass, they commit a mortal sin. Back in the confessional they go. But one says mass is NOT in their wheel house as a Protestant. Bingo! And a whole lot of other beliefs are missing in their wheel house as well. That’s why there is no open policy on receiving the sacraments by anyone who wants to show up…
D:

Can you cite that (for people not associated with any Eastern Rite faith?)

 

[thistle]

when I said
to me “grave necessity” and “near death” are equals when it comes to exception for non Catholics,

Re: the last statement,

"evidence " one holds the Catholic faith and required disposition, regarding said sacrament being given, that might not be absolutely possible. For example, I’m thinking of a mortally wounded soldier on the battle field who might not be able to speak or communicate in anyway.

If the soldier is unable to speak or communicate how would you know he was Christian at all never mind if he agreed with Catholic beliefs. Your thought process would mean every mortally injured soldier should be given Communion. That is nonsense.

 

[steve_b]

If the soldier is *unable to speak or communicate how would you know he was Christian at all never mind if he agreed with Catholic beliefs. *Your thought process would mean every mortally injured soldier should be given Communion. That is nonsense.

I wasn’t leaving it wide open. Remember the exception I used was near death. #36

To answer your points

If a Catholic soldier or any Catholic receiving the sacrament, can’t speak, the highlighted text answers that.

**1532 **The special grace of the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick has as its effects:

• the uniting of the sick person to the passion of Christ, for his own good and that of the whole Church;
• the strengthening, peace, and courage to endure in a Christian manner the sufferings of illness or old age;
  - the forgiveness of sins, if the sick person was not able to obtain it through the sacrament of Penance;
• the restoration of health, if it is conducive to the salvation of his soul;
• the preparation for passing over to eternal life.

Re: non Catholics

Can. 844 § 4. *If the danger of death is present *or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.