Who Can Be Saved?

[DavidFilmer]

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

By “Eastern Rite” I was actually referring to Orthodox Catholics. AFAIK, the Catholic Church permits cross-communion, but the Orthodox Church does not (so they may receive, but may not approach).

 

[thistle]

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**.

Giving Communion to other Christians is CONDITIONAL and you omitted to highlight the main condition. See the part I have bolded and underlined. If that condition is not met then it makes no difference if danger of death or other grave necessity is there they will not be allowed to receive.

 

[DavidFilmer]

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.

Well, you may prefer to participate in a different forum. This is an apologetics forum. We speculate here all the time, and we are interested in a free exchange of theological opinions.

If this is not of interest to you then you will probably find other forums more suitable to your preferences.

Out of curiosity - how many angels do YOU think can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[DavidFilmer]

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

I don’t say that we should lower the standards to just anyone. Although I do say that Baptism is offered to “just anyone.”

I’m saying that some of the OTHER Sacraments (notably Confession and Unction) should be offered to ANY Baptized Christian who asks for them. Not just anyone, but any Baptized Christian.

And it may be possible for a protestant to approach these Sacraments in matters of grave necessity, with a Bishops’s approval, if he somehow “proves” himself, yada yada yada. That’s a whole lot of barriers to Grace. You have to almost be a Canon Lawyer to figure out which validly-Baptized protestants can receive these Sacraments.

These conditions are ALL of manmade origin. Any Baptized protestant has Sacramental capacity to receive Absolution and Unction (the so-called “Sacraments of necessity”). The ONLY reason why they can’t receive these Sacraments is because the Church categorically REFUSES to admit them. Dr. Martin Luther King (a Baptist minister) could not receive these Sacraments.

In what world is that right?

High standards ≠ stingy.

Where did Jesus ever expect anyone to have high standards?

And what’s that double-dash with a slash sign?

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,

yada yada yada.
OK, substitute the word “Baptism” for “Confession.” Same sense, but the argument collapses.

 

[eddie_too]

for the love of pure speculation then, as many will be saved as the number who die in the state of grace. personally, i think it will be less than an infinite number but greater than one.

if you think you can be more precise then that, go for it. as someone suggested, i will leave this thread to those with the time on their hands to dwell in it.

 

[PRmerger]

By “Eastern Rite” I was actually referring to Orthodox Catholics. AFAIK, the Catholic Church permits cross-communion, but the Orthodox Church does not (so they may receive, but may not approach).

I think you are mistaken when you use Eastern Rite to refer to the Orthodox.

The Orthodox are in schism with the CC. The Eastern Rite folks are Catholics.

 

[steve_b]

Giving Communion to other Christians is CONDITIONAL and you omitted to highlight the main condition. See the part I have bolded and underlined. If that condition is not met then it makes no difference if danger of death or other grave necessity is there they will not be allowed to receive.

Even though I didn’t highlight the text, I posted it because it’s an important component.

 

[steve_b]

I’m saying that some of the OTHER Sacraments (notably Confession and Unction) should be offered to ANY Baptized Christian who asks for them. Not just anyone, but any Baptized Christian.

I gave the answer why that’s not done. Can you refute the answer?
D:

And it may be possible for a protestant to approach these Sacraments in matters of grave necessity, with a Bishops’s approval, if he somehow “proves” himself, yada yada yada. That’s a whole lot of barriers to Grace. You have to almost be a Canon Lawyer to figure out which validly-Baptized protestants can receive these Sacraments.

These conditions are ALL of manmade origin. Any Baptized protestant has Sacramental capacity to receive Absolution and Unction (the so-called “Sacraments of necessity”). The ONLY reason why they can’t receive these Sacraments is because the Church categorically REFUSES to admit them. Dr. Martin Luther King (a Baptist minister) could not receive these Sacraments.

The barrier to grace is people making wrong choices for themselves. Our Lord’s Church is here. It’s available for anyone to join.

Jesus gave us the Catholic Church and with it He gave His Church the sacraments, and power to bind and loose. It’s the pillar and foundation of truth.

People outside the Church don’t have to be outside. They can choose to come into the Church but no one is going to force them to choose. Choices always have consequences.
D:

Where did Jesus ever expect anyone to have high standards?

why do you say stuff like that? Of course He expects high standards.

For example

When Paul said things like1 Corinthians 11:29 where do you think he got that from? It’s from Jesus.John 14:25-26 , John 16:12-15
G:

And what’s that double-dash with a slash sign?

≠ means not equal to

when I said “High standards ≠ stingy.” IOW high standards don’t equal stingy

 

[thistle]

Even though I didn’t highlight the text, I posted it because it’s an important component.

Its not just important. Without that being satisfied other Christians are not permitted to receive even if danger of death or other grave necessity is near.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I gave the answer why that’s not done. Can you refute the answer?

You gave me a link to a priest who wrote about the subject. You have not expressed your own answer in your own words. I will answer YOU, but I won’t answer a priest’s blog, when the priest does not even know about me, and has no way to respond.

This is, IMHO, a (weak) form of plagiarism. You can present official Church doctrine for debate, but to present complete personal opinions of others (even when cited) is questionable. The original author has no opportunity to participate in the discussion. If someone used a CAF post by me in this way, I would feel violated.

The barrier to grace is people making wrong choices for themselves. Our Lord’s Church is here. It’s available for anyone to join.

For those raised as properly catechized Catholics, I might agree.

Jesus gave us the Catholic Church and with it He gave His Church the sacraments, and power to bind and loose. It’s the pillar and foundation of truth.

Yes, and anyone who comes to know and understand this is obliged to become Catholic. Like me. I did not WANT to convert. I was a happy Anglican. But I left a lot of other happy Anglicans when I converted. They are some of the best friends I have ever had.

People outside the Church don’t have to be outside. They can choose to come into the Church but no one is going to force them to choose. Choices always have consequences.

But, for the choices to have consequences (as far as the Church is concerned), these choices must be INFORMED (by both knowledge and consent).

≠ means not equal to
Um, yeah. I thought you were messing with me. You know that I am a college math major. I thought it was a steganographic joke, and I made a steganographic anti-joke in reply. Did I overestimate you?

 

[steve_b]

You gave me a link to a priest who wrote about the subject. You have not expressed your own answer in your own words. I will answer YOU, but I won’t answer a priest’s blog, when the priest does not even know about me, and has no way to respond.

This is, IMHO, a (weak) form of plagiarism. You can present official Church doctrine for debate, but to present complete personal opinions of others (even when cited) is questionable. The original author has no opportunity to participate in the discussion. If someone used a CAF post by me in this way, I would feel violated.

I did give my answer when I said

"said a bit differently " read what follows #38
D:

For those raised as properly catechized Catholics, I might agree.

Yes, and anyone who comes to know and understand this is obliged to become Catholic. Like me. I did not WANT to convert. I was a happy Anglican. But I left a lot of other happy Anglicans when I converted. They are some of the best friends I have ever had.

Everyone of competent intellect is obliged to look for the roots of what they believe. It’s NEVER been so easy to trace our faith back to the source. Newman said it so well when he said “to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant” That screams simplicity and logic. And it’s soooooo easy to prove that the Catholic Church is THE CHURCH Jesus established on Peter…
D:

But, for the choices to have consequences (as far as the Church is concerned), these choices must be INFORMED (by both knowledge and consent).

That’s why we’re here. To spread the truth.
D:

Um, yeah. I thought you were messing with me. You know that I am a college math major. I thought it was a steganographic joke, and I made a steganographic anti-joke in reply. Did I overestimate you?

≠ is a standard math symbol. rapidtables.com/math/symbols/Basic_Math_Symbols.htm

You’ve asked this question before.

 

[Eliza10]

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 agree with you.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Jesus already gave us the answer.

Mt 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few

the rest go…

Since He is the one who does all the judging, He ought to know.