Who can go to heaven?

[catharina]

Got it.

I figured you did.
My post was a "just in case … "

 

[Namesake]

Only faithful Catholic’s go to heaven.

What about mentally retarded people who can’t understand?

 

[louey]

If the mentally retarded person’s intellectual capacity is below the age of reason, or is not able to grasp what is basically the the doctrines of the Athanasian Creed, his baptism will suffice to obtain heaven, as all who die below the age of reason who have been baptised go to heaven.

 

[Namesake]

If the mentally retarded person’s intellectual capacity is below the age of reason, or is not able to grasp what is basically the the doctrines of the Athanasian Creed, his baptism will suffice to obtain heaven, as all who die below the age of reason who have been baptised go to heaven.

Then one would assume that there is a cut off point in some measure like IQ, would that be correct? Below a certain IQ people would get a free pass?

 

[St_Aloysius]

In response to the original question:

My understanding is that, as the catechism expresses, “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.” (847)

One, I think it is taught, must embrace the merits of Christ (charity, love, faith, etc.) in order to achieve salvation outside of the Christian religion. We can really make no particular judgments here but only pray for our neighbor and lead honorable lives testifying to our faith.

The Church, if I’m not mistaken, is also somewhat inclusivist: Saying that faithful adherents of different religions may be saved because their religon contains in it, albeit in veiled form, the Mystery of Christ–though not is its radiance, clarity, or wholeness as in the Catholic faith. Those who with true devotion celebrate these aspects of the divine Mystery in their day-to-day lives may also achieve salvation, if I’m not mistaken. But look into it for yourself.

Peace

 

[Dauphin]

I have no idea where you got your interpretation of that Scripture. This is not an argument. Jesus said if we would not be judged, we should not judge. I consider that to be Plan One. Plan Two, the part you mentioned at length is for those who wish to judge. They are NOT to say to Catholics who have been faithful to the Church for 62 years: “Oh, I hope you give up your evil ways and come to my sedevancantist Church.” It’s said on this site daily. I do hope you get my point: in other words, look at the name of this thread and explain how ANYONE CAN STATE WHO IS AND WHO ISN’T GOING TO HEAVEN. No one can. We know what God requires but we cannot do God’s judging. Our knowledge is too limited. I can teach the faith through my life, through my actions, through my words and prayers without passing judgment on anyone else.

You’re arguing a completely different subject than everyone else on this thread, and it’s embarrassing to read.

The argument is that we have the objective criteria - and if someone meets these objective criteria, he or she will be saved. The criteria are that they be part of the Catholic Church, and that they be in a state of grace. If one formally rejects the church, that is a mortal sin given full understanding and consent. Such a person would be damned.

No one here is proposing to judge any individual real person. In this case, we are talking about a hypothetical person who meets these criteria. Obviously, we have no way of knowing whether any particular person does.

 

[Dauphin]

Then one would assume that there is a cut off point in some measure like IQ, would that be correct? Below a certain IQ people would get a free pass?

That’s a simplification. What louey is referring to is the ability to reason and to assent to or reject the teachings of the Church. If a person has no such ability (which cannot be precisely measured by anyone but God), then sacramental baptism will suffice for their salvation.

 

[Dauphin]

In response to the original question:

My understanding is that, as the catechism expresses, “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.” (847)

One, I think it is taught, must embrace the merits of Christ (charity, love, faith, etc.) in order to achieve salvation outside of the Christian religion. We can really make no particular judgments here but only pray for our neighbor and lead honorable lives testifying to our faith.

The Church, if I’m not mistaken, is also somewhat inclusivist: Saying that faithful adherents of different religions may be saved because their religon contains in it, albeit in veiled form, the Mystery of Christ–though not is its radiance, clarity, or wholeness as in the Catholic faith. Those who with true devotion celebrate these aspects of the divine Mystery in their day-to-day lives may also achieve salvation, if I’m not mistaken. But look into it for yourself.

Peace

The Church teaches that no one is saved outside of Her. Celebrating elements of truth in other religions is not sufficient for salvation. Only baptismal grace conferred upon a person by God can remit original sin. A person outside the physical structure of the Church would have to be a member of the Church in voto (by desire). They would have to obtain a baptism of desire, the necessary condition of which is to have at least the implicit desire for a sacramental baptism.

 

[Namesake]

That’s a simplification. What louey is referring to is the ability to reason and to assent to or reject the teachings of the Church. If a person has no such ability (which cannot be precisely measured by anyone but God), then sacramental baptism will suffice for their salvation.

I do best with simple ideas.

So, if some people can achieve salvation because they have been baptized appropriately but lack the intellectual ability to understand the teachings of the Catholic Church, would that same courtesy extend to people who lack the temperament or curiosity to understand and accept the teachings?

 

[Dauphin]

I do best with simple ideas.

So, if some people can achieve salvation because they have been baptized appropriately but lack the intellectual ability to understand the teachings of the Catholic Church, would that same courtesy extend to people who lack the temperament or curiosity to understand and accept the teachings?

No. This is where the concept of the grace of God is essential. If a person truly has the disposition to serve God, He will grant them the grace to get past their bad temperament, prejudices, or laziness, so that they may enter into the fullness of His truth.

 

[Namesake]

No. This is where the concept of the grace of God is essential. If a person truly has the disposition to serve God, He will grant them the grace to get past their bad temperament, prejudices, or laziness, so that they may enter into the fullness of His truth.

I didn’t mean serving God. I meant understanding and accepting the teachings. If a person lacks the requisite intellectual capacity for one reason or another to understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church then can they achieve salvation?

For example, if a person is not able to comprehend the idea of transubstantiation for any reason, can they still go to heaven?

 

[Dauphin]

I didn’t mean serving God. I meant understanding and accepting the teachings. If a person lacks the requisite intellectual capacity for one reason or another to understand and accept the teachings of the Catholic Church then can they achieve salvation?

For example, if a person is not able to comprehend the idea of transubstantiation for any reason, can they still go to heaven?

Of course! If a complete understanding of all the Church teaches and all the methods of explaining it was necessary for salvation, salvation would be restricted to a few theologians.

All that’s required is assent. If you reject something you know the Church teaches, that is a grave sin. Things like transubstantiation can be very difficult for some to understand, but all the person has to do is acknowledge that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood - not bread and wine.

Put another way, if a person is conscious that their personal view is in conflict with that of the Church, they are in a state of grave sin if they persist in their error. I think this is the best way to put it.

 

[bobzills]

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium: “16. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” AND TOGETHER WITH US THEY ADORE THE ONE, MERCIFUL GOD…" BLASPHEMY. Catholic’s do not worship the same God as the Muslim’s…not ambiguous, no smoke and mirror’s. Out and out heresy. And JPII taught the same…John Paul II, May 5, 1999: “Muslims, who ‘together with us adore the one, merciful God …We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings His creatures to their perfection.’” (General Audience, May 5.)

Just one of many heresies that came out of the mouth of JPII.

In other words, the infallible Supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ, is speaking heresy? If that is the case, is there any living Catholic today, except for yourself, who does not espouse heresy of some sort?

 

[Namesake]

Of course! If a complete understanding of all the Church teaches and all the methods of explaining it was necessary for salvation, salvation would be restricted to a few theologians.

All that’s required is assent. If you reject something you know the Church teaches, that is a grave sin. Things like transubstantiation can be very difficult for some to understand, but all the person has to do is acknowledge that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood - not bread and wine.

Put another way, if a person is conscious that their personal view is in conflict with that of the Church, they are in a state of grave sin if they persist in their error. I think this is the best way to put it.

I get confused. If a person cannot believe in some important teaching of the Church, like transubstantiation, can that person really be Catholic and have a chance at salvation if there is no salvation outside the Church?

Or are there gradations that are allowed? If a person has never head the gospel message they apparently can achieve salvation. So then, if a person has heard the message but is incapable of understanding it can they receive salvation?

If they can, what cause of their failure to accept the teachings are allowed? IQ? Personality? Biological accident? Cultural issues? I think it’s quite confusing.

Doesn’t the Church teach that a person does not sin unless they are aware of their sin. If you don’t understand the very concept of sin, you cannot sin?

 

[Dauphin]

I get confused. If a person cannot believe in some important teaching of the Church, like transubstantiation, can that person really be Catholic and have a chance at salvation if there is no salvation outside the Church?

Or are there gradations that are allowed? If a person has never head the gospel message they apparently can achieve salvation. So then, if a person has heard the message but is incapable of understanding it can they receive salvation?

If they can, what cause of their failure to accept the teachings are allowed? IQ? Personality? Biological accident? Cultural issues? I think it’s quite confusing.

Doesn’t the Church teach that a person does not sin unless they are aware of their sin. If you don’t understand the very concept of sin, you cannot sin?

It’s not confusing at all. You’re complicating a very simple issue.

If a person is conscious of a conflict between their own personal view and the teaching of the Church, they are in a state of grave sin if they persist in their error.

Someone who has heard the gospel must acknowledge it to the extent that they are capable.

You have to be conscious of sin in order to sin gravely. If one is incapable of being conscious of sin, that degree of mental retardation would undoubtedly mitigate culpability for any act.

 

[catharina]

I get confused. If a person cannot believe in some important teaching of the Church, like transubstantiation, can that person really be Catholic and have a chance at salvation if there is no salvation outside the Church?

Or are there gradations that are allowed? If a person has never head the gospel message they apparently can achieve salvation. So then, if a person has heard the message but is incapable of understanding it can they receive salvation?

If they can, what cause of their failure to accept the teachings are allowed? IQ? Personality? Biological accident? Cultural issues? I think it’s quite confusing.

Doesn’t the Church teach that a person does not sin unless they are aware of their sin. If you don’t understand the very concept of sin, you cannot sin?

Based on some of your other posts, I wonder if you’re asking if like/dislike can be factored in as a way to reject the message of the Gospel. (E.g., you say “So then, if a person has heard the message but is incapable of understanding it can they receive salvation? If they can, what cause of their failure to accept the teachings are allowed? IQ? Personality? Biological accident? Cultural issues? I think it’s quite confusing.”) While mental retardation stands as an impediment to understanding for some, Ithe other categories you present seem negligible.

 

[Namesake]

It’s not confusing at all. You’re complicating a very simple issue.?QUOTE
It sure seems complicated to me.

Someone who has heard the gospel must acknowledge it to the extent that they are capable.

That’s the hard part for me. If there are gradations of capability then where are the lines drawn?

Someone on this forum stated plainly that the only ones who will go to heaven are faithful Catholics who accept all the teachings of the Church. But then you say that they only must accept to the level of their ability. Does that include those who have had deficient education because of poor teachers?

It just seems to me that the idea of salvation only for the people who can understand and be faithful to the Church teachings is probably not correct. Is it dogma?

 

[louey]

Then one would assume that there is a cut off point in some measure like IQ, would that be correct? Below a certain IQ people would get a free pass?

IQ, are measurements of modern man. I believe the Church states that one reaches the age of reason around the age of 7, which is when a child prepares for the sacrament of the Eucharist, and Confession. It is understood than a child at the age of 7 or so, understands the difference between right and wrong, and now culpable for their sins. I believe this age is not exact but around that age more or less, some would even extend the age to around 14, that may be the case with some children as they may obtain the use of reason at a slower or not the average age of reason. Just as one may obtain the age of reason before the age of 7. God knows the culpability of each individual. From my own personal experience, I have a child with down syndrome, he is 12, but he is more like a 3 or 4 year old in his reasoning or his intellectual capabilities. He is not able to understand the Trinity. He know’s when he is naughty, just as a 2 year old demonstrates that he is aware he is doing something wrong, when he is being naughty. “Invincible ignorance” can be rightly applied to infants and some mentally handicapped people. I hope this answers your question.

 

[Dauphin]

That’s the hard part for me. If there are gradations of capability then where are the lines drawn?

Someone on this forum stated plainly that the only ones who will go to heaven are faithful Catholics who accept all the teachings of the Church. But then you say that they only must accept to the level of their ability. Does that include those who have had deficient education because of poor teachers?

It just seems to me that the idea of salvation only for the people who can understand and be faithful to the Church teachings is probably not correct. Is it dogma?

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I can’t think of another way to communicate this. If someone knows the truth, and rejects it, they commit a grave sin. If they are not capable of knowing the truth, no grave sin is committed in not accepting it, since this is not possible. In such a case, the grace of baptism is all that’s required. For example - in an infant. The Church most certainly does not teach that infants cannot be saved. Likewise, the church does not teaching that people with the level of intelligence of infants cannot be saved.

I think you’ve added confusion to something that’s very simple.

 

[Namesake]

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I can’t think of another way to communicate this. If someone knows the truth, and rejects it, they commit a grave sin. If they are not capable of knowing the truth, no grave sin is committed in not accepting it, since this is not possible. In such a case, the grace of baptism is all that’s required. For example - in an infant. The Church most certainly does not teach that infants cannot be saved. Likewise, the church does not teaching that people with the level of intelligence of infants cannot be saved.

I think you’ve added confusion to something that’s very simple.

OK. So then it’s very simple. Why would that member of this forum state that only faithful members of the RCC can go to heaven if that isn’t the teaching of the church? That seems so harsh. I hope it isn’t the teaching of the Catholic Church.