Will non Christians go to hell?

[TNT]

Getting down to the original question:

Will non Christians go to hell??
Any place of existence in the afterlife OUTSIDE of Heavenly abode is HELL.

It does not ALWAYS mean a place in HELL of TORMENT but of PRIVATION of what God desired for all through the Redemption of His Only Begotten Son.
This says it all
Quote from God Almighty:

Luke 12
47 And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more.

We could reasonably say that :
he that knew not, and did NO things worthy of stripes, **shall NOT **be beaten with few stripes.

BUT:
Who has not sinned OR will die in perfect repentance if he has, without ANY belief of the True Messiah? Which, by the way is itself a sin.
No wonder The Christ did not bring this up as a possibility.

 

[TNT]

scylla:

So that person really believes that God would send millions upon millions of people to hell, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time? Anyone who has never heard the gospel? There were whole civilizations that never were evangelized.

I believe this is limiting God as we don’t decide who goes to hell, God decides, and it is up to God. I think the Cathecism sums it up nicely also, we do have a fair and just God.

Correction:

1. It’s BILLIONS upon BILLIONS.
2. God does not SEND …to Hell. It is done by each individual.
   3. God ALSO KNOWS those who, if given EVERY opportunity to embrace the Faith of Jesus Christ, would summarily REJECT it or live a life against it.
3. Witness yourself, how many have been given the opportunity, yet dash it to the ground!
4. Do you believe that all who never heard the Gospel would believe and be saved if they did? If not, what % would? 0%, 1%, 2%, 40%, 80%?
   Even if it were as unlikely as 80% it would still be in the millions for those who would not believe and act on it; the 20% throughout the last 2000 years.
   Does this Help:
   **

John 6: 64-65. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
**

 

[TNT]

quixotic:

hi hi… got into this heated argument with this Protestant friend of mine. He kept insisting that non christians will perish and burn in the recesses of hell while i kept saying that our god is a fair and just god… please help…

thanks

Well, I guess your prot. friend will have lots of “heated” discussions with them in the hereafter if he doesn’t convert as well! If he is refusing the True Faith, how can he judge others?

Your prot friend is not God.
God is, by definition Perfect Mercy, with Perfect Justice.
God tells us of differing degrees of “punishment” or torment.
See Luke 12.

 

[quixotic]

Hi hi… having read everything… and trying to digest it… I have one more question… to which i think i know the answer and its already stated here… we need to be baptized to be save rite?? so my question is, can a good person, ie maybe Ghandi be ‘saved’?? he did good… but i doubt he was a Christian… I mean how can we tell excatly that who’s saved and who’s not??? If a Christian or Catholic is in ‘bad behaviour’ mode… then he is not saved rite??? and thus he will either end up in purgurtee… (ok… i nkow that the wrong spelling… ) or hell…

I’m just very curiou… thanks so much

hugs
annie

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

I want to make sure I am clear on this. Were you saying, in response to my post, that you reject what the Church has always taught based on “CCC” (the teachings of the catechism of the Catholic Church), “JP II” (the teachings of John Paul II) and “SACN” (not sure what that is).

But surely you know that the teachings of the faith do not change? Even the Pope is bound by what the Church has defined, and has always taught.

I have a question for you: If John Paul II teachings something contrary to what all of the Pope before 1960 taught, who should we believe? John Paul II, or all of his predecessors?

No, no, no! I don’t deny EENS at all! The circle has just been explained as being a lot larger, the doctrine explained and expanded upon. I understand the teaching as it has been put forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “a sure norm for teaching the faith” (JP11). See, I don’t know about YOU, but I do not for a heart-beat believe that my protestant family members who love Our Lord and who genuinely seek to follow Him are going to Hell. And the Church doesn’t either, as explained in CCC. They are in “certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (again, the CCC, in the section entitled “Who Belongs to the Catholic Church”, but then you knew that). As for JPII teaching something contrary to what has gone before, well, to say that is to say that he has erred in matters of faith. I think he is protected by Christ’s Promise.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

TNT:

Nice to hear from you too.
I already “see” above. Thanks. That makes Everything crystal clear.
Read on:

Who is the first to “contradict this definition of ours” ?
Every Non-Catholic protestant. Therefore:
“anathema sit.”

I absolutely do not deny this pope or any of his predecessor’s
authority as you have outlined it above. Please see my prior post. Let’s hope the CCC is right, for my family’s sake and for yours, TNT. According to some of your posts, someone quite close to you is somewhat attached to a group called schismatic by the one who holds the very authority you write of.

 

[RSiscoe]

JKirkLVNV:

No, no, no! I don’t deny EENS at all! The circle has just been explained as being a lot larger, the doctrine explained and expanded upon. I understand the teaching as it has been put forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “a sure norm for teaching the faith” (JP11). See, I don’t know about YOU, but I do not for a heart-beat believe that my protestant family members who love Our Lord and who genuinely seek to follow Him are going to Hell.

Then I will tell you about me. I am the only Catholic in my family - all the rest are Protestant. Are they good people? Some very good, some not so good. My mother, for example, is actually very saintly; that is to say, on the natural level, she is very virtuous and holy. Now, since I love my family and find it very difficult to even think of them in hell, should I reject what the Church has defined infallibly so I can think nice thoughts? No. IF they die outside the Catholic Church they will be lost. I must believe that, and I do. To reject that is to reject what the Church teaches infallible. And to twist the clear teaching of the Church so that they say what I would like them to say is not being honest. The following infallible dogma leaves little wiggle room:

• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (, 1302.Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)

I know of no Protestant who is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Instead of thinking of my family dying as Protestants and going to hell, I try to convert them and pray that none of them will be lost. So far, since I have been praying that prayer, two family members have died. One received the sacraments on her death bed (became a Catholic) and I have very good reason to believe that the other also had a death bed conversion. So instead “interpreting” what the Church has always taught in a way that makes “no salvtion outside the Church a meaningless formula” (Pope Pius XII), I believe the dogma as it has always been taught and pray for their conversion.

And the Church doesn’t either, as explained in CCC. They are in “certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (again, the CCC, in the section entitled “Who Belongs to the Catholic Church”, but then you knew that).

If you understand those portions of the Catechism to mean a non-Catholic can be saved, you have misunderstood it. It is true that non-Catholics are “in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”, but to be saved one must be in a supernatural union with the Catholic Church (by possessing faith, hope and charity), which non Catholics do not possess. In other words, to be saved there must be a perfect superantural union with the mystical body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church. A “certain, through imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” will not profit for eternal life. There are no gray areas when we are dealing with the supernatural. Just like with the state of grace: either we are in the state of grace, or we are not - there is no gray area. The same goes for suprnatural unity - there is either all or none, no middle ground.

As for JPII teaching something contrary to what has gone before, well, to say that is to say that he has erred in matters of faith. I think he is protected by Christ’s Promise.

The Pope is only protected when he defines a dogma. Papal Infallibility does not extend to all of his actions. It is a charism that is engaged in limited circumstances (see Vatican I), not an abiding gift.

 

[RSiscoe]

quixotic:

Hi hi… having read everything… and trying to digest it… I have one more question… to which i think i know the answer and its already stated here… we need to be baptized to be save rite?? so my question is, can a good person, ie maybe Ghandi be ‘saved’?? he did good… but i doubt he was a Christian…"

To be saved we must receive grace, which is the supernatural life of God that he infuses into our soul. That is what the term “born again” means. No “good work” done by a man can merit, or earn, this supernatural life: it is a pure gift from God. However, in order for us to receive this supernatural life, we must have faith, which means we must believe what God has revealed to us through the Church. If a person, such a Ghandi, does not have the Catholic faith, they cannot obtain the state of grace, no matter how many good works they do. The foundation of the supernatural life is faith, and without it our good works will not profit us.

I mean how can we tell excatly that who’s saved and who’s not???

The only way we can know that a person is in heaven is when they are canonized by the Church. That is the only time we can be certain. The Church allows for the possibility that a person can be converted and obtain the state of grace in ways “known to God alone”. For example, the Church allows for the possibility that a person, having heard the truth, could come to believe that truth. If they desired with all their heart to be basptised, and intented to do so as soon as they could, the Church says that, if they should die before receiving the baptism, such a person could receive the state of grace without actually receiving the sacrament, which is the normal way to obtain grace.

If a Christian or Catholic is in ‘bad behaviour’ mode… then he is not saved rite??? and thus he will either end up in purgurtee… or hell…

Well, if bad behaior mode means mortal sin, they will go to hell. Why? Because when we commit a mortal sin, we turn away from God and chose sin. When we do this, we lose the state of grace. The way we receive “grace” again is by going to the sacrament of confession.

God Bless

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

Then I will tell you about me. I am the only Catholic in my family - all the rest are Protestant. Are they good people? Some very good, some not so good. My mother, for example, is actually very saintly; that is to say, on the natural level, she is very virtuous and holy. Now, since I love my family and find it very difficult to even think of them in hell, should I reject what the Church has defined infallibly so I can think nice thoughts? No. IF they die outside the Catholic Church they will be lost. I must believe that, and I do. To reject that is to reject what the Church teaches infallible. And to twist the clear teaching of the Church so that they say what I would like them to say is not being honest. The following infallible dogma leaves little wiggle room:

• We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

I know of no Protestant who is subject to the Roman Pontiff. AND THEY DON’T KNOW THEY ARE EITHER. THAT’S PART OF THE POINT THE CCC IS MAKING. IN THE BINDING POWER OF THE KEYS, THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE CURRENT POPE OR FUTURE POPE MAY NOT SAY, "HERE LET ME ILLUMINATE THIS A LITTLE BETTER."

Instead of thinking of my family dying as Protestants and going to hell, I try to convert them and pray that none of them will be lost. So far, since I have been praying that prayer, two family members have died. One received the sacraments on her death bed (became a Catholic) and I have very good reason to believe that the other also had a death bed conversion. So instead “interpreting” what the Church has always taught in a way that makes “no salvtion outside the Church a meaningless formula” (Pope Pius XII), I believe the dogma as it has always been taught and pray for their conversion.

NOT A MEANINGLESS FORMULA, SIMPLY NOT ONE THAT MEANS WHAT YOU AND FEENYITES THINK IT MEANS.

If you understand those portions of the Catechism to mean a non-Catholic can be saved, you have misunderstood it. It is true that non-Catholics are “in a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”, but to be saved one must be in a supernatural union with the Catholic Church (by possessing faith, hope and charity), which non Catholics do not possess. In other words, to be saved there must be a perfect superantural union with the mystical body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church. A “certain, through imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” will not profit for eternal life. There are no gray areas when we are dealing with the supernatural. Just like with the state of grace: either we are in the state of grace, or we are not - there is no gray area. The same goes for suprnatural unity - there is either all or none, no middle ground.

SEE SECTION 819 CCC, WHERE IT SPEAKS OF THOSE OTHER ECCLESIAL COMMUNITES AS BEING USED BY GOD AS MEANS OF SALVATION! IT DOES GO ON TO SAY THAT THOSE MEANS ARE DERIVED FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (ANOTHER WAY TO SAY EENS), BUT IT NOWHERE SAYS THAT THEY MUST BE FORMALLY JOINED OR EVEN DESIRE TO BE CATHOLIC, MERELY TO BE CHRISTIAN. GOD CAN SAVE OUTSIDE HIS SACRAMENTS, THE GREATEST OF WHICH IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

The Pope is only protected when he defines a dogma. Papal Infallibility does not extend to all of his actions. It is a charism that is engaged in limited circumstances (see Vatican I), not an abiding gift.

IT EXTENDS TO HIS TEACHINGS TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, WHICH IS WHAT THE CCC IS.

 

[rwoehmke]

So what happens to Abraham, Noah, David, Salomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and all those Jews including Jesus Himself who received only the Baptism of John and about whom it would be somewhat redundant to call Him a Christian. Pentecost after Jesus had ascended to the Father is considered the Birth of the Church. That’s a lot of Old Testament folks who never had a chance. Not a single one was a member of the Catholic Church through Baptism. Course I suppose its tit for tat. There are a lot of Baptists and Evangelicals who don’t think we are saved. Reminds me of the Patriarchs and the Popes who hurled anethmas at one another.

 

[RSiscoe]

rwoehmke:

So what happens to Abraham, Noah, David, Salomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and all those Jews including Jesus Himself who received only the Baptism of John and about whom it would be somewhat redundant to call Him a Christian. Pentecost after Jesus had ascended to the Father is considered the Birth of the Church. That’s a lot of Old Testament folks who never had a chance. Not a single one was a member of the Catholic Church through Baptism.

The Old Testment saints were obviously not bound to receive baptism since the New Law had not yet been promulgated. They were justified through the Old Law, which was done away with when the New Law came.

I just responded to you on the other thread and gave you an abundance of additional quotes from our Popes. If you disagree with the Pope and saints I quoted, at least be honest enough to admit it, rather than pretend that they are not saying exactly what I have have said.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe: I appreciate your candor about your family. I still believe, however, that your narrow interpretation of EENS is not the mind of the Catholic Church. The Holy Father is not out banging at Queen Elizabeth, or Dr. Billy Grahm, or President Bush to formally enter the Catholic Church. If you’re right, shoudn’t he be? Why isn’t he? Perhaps because of CCC #817-819. AND if what you say is true, then Holy Mother Church and her hierarchy have much to answer for when we all stand before God. My grandmother and grandfather’s farm was down the road from Saint Martin’s Catholic Church in Talty, Tx. They attended lots of funerals there, had lots of Catholic friends. No one ever told them they had to be Catholic. Lot’s of Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on the door, but never a Catholic priest or anyone else evangelizing in the Name of the Church. “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?” They didn’t know…and the word know can be interpreted as “were convinced” or “understood.” It surely doesn’t mean merely “was informed.” Your’s is an extreme version of EENS. That doctrine has been amplified in the CCC, our “sure norm for teaching the faith.”

 

[RSiscoe]

JKirkLVNV:

RSiscoe: I appreciate your candor about your family. I still believe, however, that your narrow interpretation of EENS is not the mind of the Catholic Church.

My view is actually not as narrow as some. I agree with Pope Pius IX, who taught that it is possible for an invincibly ignorant person to be saved. Some people reject that.

The Holy Father is not out banging at Queen Elizabeth, or Dr. Billy Grahm, or President Bush to formally enter the Catholic Church. If you’re right, shoudn’t he be? Why isn’t he?

I don’t know if he should be knockiing at their door, but he should be doing every thing he can to bring others into the Church.

The primary duty of the Pope is to protect the integrity of the faith. He is not a missionary, but he must hold to the dogma that all heretics, schismatics, Hundus, Muslims, and Jews will be lost. That is one of the dogmas he must profess as a member of the Church. Since his job is not primarily a missionary he is not required to “knock on doors”, but he must at least implicitly seek and desire the conversion of all outside the Church.

Perhaps because of CCC #817-819. AND if what you say is true, then Holy Mother Church and her hierarchy have much to answer for when we all stand before God.

Part of that I agree with - not Holy Mother Church, but the hierarchy will have much to answer for. I personally believe that we are in the day of the “great apostasy” that was spoken of in the Bible and by many saints. Actually there have been many past saints who explicitly told us that it would begin in the second half of the 20th century - and these prophecies were from hundreds of years ago. There are also many prophecies that tell us that the “great chastisement” will come about as a result of the hierarchy perverting the teachings gospel. I have an entire book on that subject, which was written many years ago (I think in the early 1900’s). The author, who is a priest, quotes many prophecies and draws the conclusion that at some point in the future (today?) the hierarchy will begin to pervert the true faith and this act will bring about the great chastisement. I firmly believe we are in that day right now.

My grandmother and grandfather’s farm was down the road from Saint Martin’s Catholic Church in Talty, Tx. They attended lots of funerals there, had lots of Catholic friends. No one ever told them they had to be Catholic. Lot’s of Jehovah’s Witnesses knocked on the door, but never a Catholic priest or anyone else evangelizing in the Name of the Church. “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it?” They didn’t know…and the word know can be interpreted as “were convinced” or “understood.” It surely doesn’t mean merely “was informed.”

I am not saying that you grandparents were lost. Did they knowingly reject any truths of the faith? It is very possible that they did not. Did they believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (two dogmas which St. Thomas teaches must be explicitly believed in to be saved)? They probably did. God is the judge, not us. We can only judge objectively, by what appears. We do not know what is in the heart. Your grandparents may indeed have had theological faith, but were never exposed to the complete truth. I am not capable of judging them, nor would I want to. God is the judge, not us. But if they were saved, it is because they died as Catholics, not Protestants.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

continuation…

When we get into the area of invincible ignorance, it becomes very confusion for those who do not fully understand it. In fact, Pope Pius IX said that it was “forbidden” to speculate on the salvation of those who were invincibly ignorant. He taught that salvation for them is possible, but, realizing the confusion it could cause, he forbid even the Bishops, from speculating on the subject.

Your’s is an extreme version of EENS. That doctrine has been amplified in the CCC, our “sure norm for teaching the faith.”

Actually, my view is not extreme, as you may now realize. There is an objective and a subjective level. Objectively, every single non Catholic will be lost. Subjectively, it can be possible for a person who is not a formal member of the Church to be saved. But this is the area for God to judge, not us. The Church has always taught objectively, not subjectively. In recent years, however, the Church has shifted the emphasis from the objective level to the subjective level. This is what has caused so much confusion, in my opinion. Most Catholics today can no longer judge objectively when it comes to matters of faith. Everything is viewed from the subjectively level of “possibilities”. This only leads to confusion. That is why the Church has always taught objectively, and clearly.

Here is an example of how judging subjectively, rather than objectively, can cause confusion: Let’s say that the Church cease to say that abortion was a mortal sin, and instead focused on the subjective guilt of the person who had the abortion. Let’s say that we were given repeated examples of how a person could have an abortion without being guilty of a sin. For example let’s say that a women lived in China and was forced to have an abortion. In that cause, she commited no sin at all, subjectively. Another example: Let’s say that a young 11 year old girl had always been told that abortion was merely a medical procedure and that the Baby did not become human until the 6th month. Let’s say that this girl was violated and became pregnant. Not realizing what she was doing (invinvibly ignorant), she went in to have the “medical procedure”. She had no idea that she had just killed a living human being. In this case, the girl would not be guilty of a sin.

Now, if we were repeately given such examples, whereby we judged the evil of abortion from a subjective level of “invincible ignorance”, and “possibilities of no guilt” we would evantually say that abortion is not always sinfull, since not everyone is guilty of a sin when they have an abortion. Eventually, people who claim that abortion is a mortal sin would be called “judgmental”. “You can not say abortion is a mortal sin, because you do not know the circumstances. What about the women in China who are forced to have an abortion”, they would say.

When people judge only subjectively, they eventually reject the objective truth. And that is what has happened to the faith today.

Fortunately, on moral issues most Catholics still judge objectively; but when we are dealing with matter of faith (dotrine), they almost always reject objective judgment. Just read over my posts on the topic of no salvation outside the Church, and the responses that I have been given. I am merely saying “objectively” what the church has always taught - and even providing MANY quote of Pope and saint who said the same - yet what I am saying is completely rejected.

That is because I am speaking objectively and most Catholic can no longer judge objectively in matters of faith. They have been confused by the subjectivism of the last 40 years.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

I am not saying that you grandparents were lost. Did they knowingly reject any truths of the faith? It is very possible that they did not. Did they believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (two dogmas which St. Thomas teaches must be explicitly believed in to be saved)? They probably did. God is the judge, not us. We can only judge objectively, by what appears. We do not know what is in the heart. Your grandparents may indeed have had theological faith, but were never exposed to the complete truth. I am not capable of judging them, nor would I want to. God is the judge, not us. But if they were saved, it is because they died as Catholics, not Protestants.

…

If you are saying that everyone in heaven is what we would call “Catholic,” then yes, I agree. And yes, my grandparents believed (my grandfather still believes) in the Trinity and the Incarnation. More to the point, they lived out their Christian faith as they understood it to be asked of them. They weren’t exposed to the complete truth of Catholicism, that was my point, no one ever bothered to tell them much of anything about it at all. And the Southern Baptist Church has always taught, up until not very long ago at all, that Catholicism is the “Great Apostacy,” and the “Whore of Babylon.” You hear that year in and year out, you’re exposed to this and to Jack Chick’s mentality, that makes for pretty invincible ignorance. My grandfather is terribly pleased that we (Catholics) “have stopped talking about Mary so much, and are talking about Jesus!” Then there is this little gem: “I just wish the Catholics would get rid of the pope. Jesus didn’t say anything about a pope! Idn’t no pope in the Bible!” I believe this is fairly invincible ignorance in an 87 year old, esp. when he looks at me so disbelievingly when I try to explain (I guess it will take someone more credible than his harebrained grandchild to convince him). He clings to Jesus alone. I firmly believe that both my grandmothers and he are possessed of theological faith. As for “objective” vs. God’s judgement of the heart, true. But this also: “by their fruits shall you know them” and “they shall know you are My disciples if you love one another.” In examining the fruit of their lives, I find nothing lacking. If God does, then He does and I cannot do anything about it. BUT…to out of hand accept EENS as interpreted more narrowly than the CCC does would be for me a temptation to despair. I cannot imagine believing that my lovingly devout grandmothers, who followed Jesus faithfully, are lost in an everlasting torment, cut off from the love of God, or I would go nuts.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

RSiscoe:

I am not saying that you grandparents were lost. Did they knowingly reject any truths of the faith? It is very possible that they did not. Did they believe in the Trinity and Incarnation (two dogmas which St. Thomas teaches must be explicitly believed in to be saved)? They probably did. God is the judge, not us. We can only judge objectively, by what appears. We do not know what is in the heart. Your grandparents may indeed have had theological faith, but were never exposed to the complete truth. I am not capable of judging them, nor would I want to. God is the judge, not us. But if they were saved, it is because they died as Catholics, not Protestants.

…

If you are saying that everyone in heaven is what we would call “Catholic,” then yes, I agree. And yes, my grandparents believed (my grandfather still believes) in the Trinity and the Incarnation. More to the point, they lived out their Christian faith as they understood it to be asked of them. They weren’t exposed to the complete truth of Catholicism, that was my point, no one every bothered to tell them much of anything about it at all. And the Southern Baptist Church has always taught, up until not very long ago at all, that Catholicism is the “Great Apostacy,” and the “Whore of Babylon.” You hear that year in and year out, you’re exposed to this and to Jack Chick’s mentality, that makes for pretty invincible ignorance. My grandfather is terribly pleased that we (Catholics) “have stopped talking about Mary so much, and are talking about Jesus!” Then there is this little gem: “I just wish the Catholics would get rid of the pope. Jesus didn’t say anything about a pope! Idn’t no pope in the Bible!” I believe this is fairly invincible ignorance in an 87 year old, esp. when he looks at me so disbelievingly when I try to explain (I guess it will take someone more credible than his harebrained grandchild to convince him). He clings to Jesus alone. I firmly believe that both my grandmothers and he are possessed of theological faith. As for “objective” vs. God’s judgement of the heart, true. But this also is true: “by their fruits shall you know them” and “they shall know you are My disciples if you love one another.” In examining the fruit of their lives, I find nothing lacking. If God does, then He does and I cannot do anything about it (which I still do not see happening merely BECAUSE someone is a Protestant, esp. in light of the clarifications of the CCC). BUT…to out of hand accept EENS as interpreted more narrowly than the CCC does would be for me a temptation to despair. I cannot imagine believing that my lovingly devout grandmothers, who followed Jesus faithfully, are lost in an everlasting torment, cut off from the love of God, or I would go nuts. I have the Mass offered for them, I pray nightly for the repose of their souls.

 

[jdnation]

The solution to the delimna is truly ‘ignorance.’ Read the Book of Romans where it says that “those who do not know the law, shall not be judged by the law.”

People of other religions who have not been introduced to Christianity and Christ, that is, they who have not been given proper reasons for believing in the Gospels or perhaps never heard about anything at all are ignorant of the true message.

But as Romans states clearly, that all men have a conscience and will be judged by the law written on their hearts. For it is not knowing the law that God desires, but obeying the law. All other religions have moral laws to adhere to, however wrong some of those may be in one way or another, those people seek to please the God they know, and therefore if they knew the truth we’d ascertain that they be faithful in whatever faith they are brought to believe in.

Scismatics and heretics of the past who first split from the Church, we can assume for the msot part, had knowledge. It is they who will be held accountable for leading others off the path. However many others today are born into these schismatic religions and are usually only indoctrinated in it without recieving confrontation with the truth about the Catholic Church. Thus being ignorant, they will not be judged according to the law they do not know or were taught unchallenged that some laws were untrue. However once confronted with the truth in a manner that presents it as indisputable, that blissful ignorance is taken from them and they will be held accountable for that.

In the meantime, Catholics are not obliged to sit back and let them revel in this ignorance. we must alwasy preach the Gospels as unshakable and that the true Church and sacraments are the right salvation, striving to do our best. But know that whatever and wherever we don’t succeed, God will take care of according to the ignorance clause found in Romans, only He will truly know how validated that person is.

It is good to note that this ignorance seems to only apply to those who are truly seeking to know the true God, which may extend to theists not associated with any religion or in any religion not related to Christianity. It certainly doesn’t extend to those who choose to worship the devil. However I must say I’m still wondering on how it would apply to atheists. Well in a certain sense of people who declare themselves atheists but are still unsure, or completely indoctrinated with atheistic ideals without being confronted with evidence for God (A rare case which probably won’t exist, consider it more of an extreme what if scenario…) otherwise generally atheists on the other hand actually expend their efforts in the other direction truly seeking to account for everything without God or revelation.

In any case, to sum it up, the Catholic Church is the true Church, Christ is the judge under whose authority we act and who will decide who will be saved. We will continue to propagate this truth, but know that God will be taking our unintended failures to do this impeccably into account.

 

[trogiah]

quixotic:

Hi hi… having read everything… and trying to digest it… I have one more question… to which i think i know the answer and its already stated here… we need to be baptized to be save rite?? so my question is, can a good person, ie maybe Ghandi be ‘saved’?? he did good… but i doubt he was a Christian… I mean how can we tell excatly that who’s saved and who’s not??? If a Christian or Catholic is in ‘bad behaviour’ mode… then he is not saved rite??? and thus he will either end up in purgurtee… (ok… i nkow that the wrong spelling… ) or hell…

I’m just very curiou… thanks so much

hugs
annie

So many people have been quoted in this thread, Popes and Saints and others.

I am not sure I understand all that they have written but every day I am more certain of the meaning of what Jesus said over and over in parables and in plain words:

Those who practice forgiveness are forgiven.

Those who practice condemnation risk condemnation.

He says it in so many ways there is no doubt in my mind that he means what he says.

A person who follows Jesus practices forgiveness. A person who practices forgiveness follows Jesus. So I suppose we can say that a person who follows Jesus is saved. But it must be a person who actually follows him, and not just says they do.

No one knows for sure if there is forgivneness in the heart of another person (although sometimes we have a prettty good indication) so we can never know for sure whether another person is under condemnation or not. Gandhi (I used to spell it wrong too) wrote clearly about the virtue of forgiveness so if he practiced what he preached at all, I expect that he enjoys peace at this time. What really matters most is what we practice.

peace

-Jim

 

[GoodSamaritan]

God will judge every man according to his works. This means that plenty of non-Christians will go to Hell, along with many Christians.

Your friend has a bad misconception of what the Church actually IS and so he/she makes this statement possibly out of fear. The Catholic Church actually teaches that no one outside the CATHOLIC Church can be saved.

 

[gelsbern]

GoodSamaritan:

God will judge every man according to his works. This means that plenty of non-Christians will go to Hell, along with many Christians.

Your friend has a bad misconception of what the Church actually IS and so he/she makes this statement possibly out of fear. The Catholic Church actually teaches that no one outside the CATHOLIC Church can be saved.

The judgment you are talking about is the general or final judgment and is not when the judgment of heaven or hell is made. The judgment of heaven or hell is made at death (Particular Judgement) the final judgment will judge the level of reward/punishment one will recieve in their respective eternal residence.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm

For those who are in hell, but did their best to be good but still rejected God, their punishment will not be as harsh as someone who rejected God and did nothing but evil. In heaven, those who did a lot of good works will reap a greater reward in heaven as compared to those who followed all the rules of the Church, but did not perform many good works.

Particular Judgment

General (Final) Judgment

catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp