You don't need to believe in Christ to be saved?

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

If the rabbi did indeed reject Christ with full advertence of the gravity of his sin, and with perfect consent of will, and he was impenitent of this deliberate mortal sin unto death, then he can be in no way understood to have attained eternal life.

Furthermore, ignorance alone is not salvific. He needed to also possess the gifts of theological faith and charity, and at least be joined to the Mystical Body of Christ by “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X:

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

Let’s break down and explain this assertion by St. Pius X…

“through no fault of his” = invincibly ignorant, as such ignorance is the only form that is non-culpable. He may have been vincibly ignorance, and so long as this ignorance is not deliberate (affected ignorance), it may reduce one’s culpability.

“if he is in good faith.” “Good faith” means, “the mental and moral state of honest, even if objectively unfounded, conviction as to the truth or falsehood of a proposition…One who is in this condition, so far as the violation of positive law, or even, in certain junctures, of the natural law, is concerned, is said to labour under an invincible error, and hence to be guiltless…This consideration is often invoked in behalf of those who are outside of the visible affiliation of the Catholic Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia - Good Faith). So, just as St. Thomas Aquinas asserts, some may honestly hold to erroneous convictions, but may be guitless in doing so.

**"received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism" **this means that the desire for baptism need not be explicit, such as that of a Catechumen, but can be merely implicit. Pius XII describes this as “a certain unconscious yearning and desire.”

"he sincerely seeks the truth," ie. lacks obstinacy and negligence.

**"does God’s will as best he can", **ie. bound to live in accord with the doctrines of faith and morals as he understands them

**"united to the soul of the Church" **this affirms they are saved in the unity of the “ark of salvation,” just as St. Augustine asserted: “it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 5:28:39)

*"consequently is on the way of salvation" *ie.,are within the same ark of salvation as those joined in body and soul to the Church, but have no more assurance of final perseverence than Catholics.

From Pius XII, Letter of the Holy Office, approved and promulgated by Pius XII (August 8, 1949), against the dissent and disobedience of Fr. Leonard Feeney from the Archdiocese of Boston:

… those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these [the Church] by no means excludes from eternal salvation… But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith…

So…

**IF **the rabbi was given the gift of theological faith and charity by God, and IF the rabbi was joined in soul to the Catholic Church at least by a certain unconscious desire, and IF the rabbi lived “in good faith” that it, inculpably ignorant of his mortal sins, and not deliberately ignorant, then he may have attained eternal life.

A lot of IFs, isn’t it?

 

[Sherlock]

Al Masetti:

In the end, it’s a “Pass” or “Fail” system. Jesus, the Judge, has said He would make a determination on each person… each soul.

Last year in a “Fundamentals of Catholicism” course, our very orthodox priest stressed that it is NOT a “Pass or Fail” system. By this he meant that different people will have different levels of glory in heaven. This is sound and is in agreement with what I have heard or read of Catholic teaching on this subject. So, although you meant well and are perhaps referring to one aspect of judgement, this comment of your is misleading. It is not a “Pass or Fail” system.
Al Masetti:

On the other hand, what if that same person was observed just prior to death, to be minding his own business, walking down the street, and sees, for example, a young girl being abducted into a van. The person drops his (or her) bundles and chases after the van… jumps on the back bumper… hangs on with fingertips to the door hinge… and calls and yells for the police. Say, the police arrive and rescue the girl and arrest the kidnappers. BUT, in the course of the event the person on the back bumper falls and strikes the pavement, and is killed instantly.

Then, what does Jesus the Judge decide?.

Only God is capable of rendering a judgement. However, you are leaning towards Pelagianism here by suggesting that this good deed is to be “weighed” on a scale against bad deeds. This is misleading, and does not reflect orthodox Catholic teaching.
Al Masetti:

And if we are Catholics, and we believe that the fullness of faith is found in the Catholic Church, and we do nothing to spread the word, the faith … then where are WE?

Again, only God can judge, but I would be willing to guess that it won’t look good. For starters, it would be a violation of Jesus’s commands to love God with all of our heart, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor. If we love our neighbor, we will wish the very best for him----and that means being a witness to the fullness of the Catholic faith.
Al Masetti:

So, why would such a famous priest believe that he might not be there? What did he see inside his own heart?

I think that the saintlier one is, the more one has love for God and an appreciation for all that He has done for us. That heightened awareness brings with it a corresponding humility when the saints look at themselves with a heightened sense of the horror of sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sherlock,

Last year in a “Fundamentals of Catholicism” course, our very orthodox priest stressed that it is NOT a “Pass or Fail” system. By this he meant that different people will have different levels of glory in heaven.

Those in hell are not in a different “level of glory.” Only those in heaven obtain the Beatific Vision of God. You have to be born from above and persevere in faith and the love of Christ to attain eternal glory.

 

[Aaron_I]

itsjustdave1988:

Sherlock,

Those in hell are not in a different “level of glory.” Only those in heaven obtain the Beatific Vision of God. You have to be born from above and persevere in faith and the love of Christ to attain eternal glory.

What you say is correct, but you misunderstand what Sherlock is asserting. All he said was that “different people will have different levels of glory in heaven.” Notice that it already only refers to the people in heaven.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Aaron I.:

What you say is correct, but you misunderstand what Sherlock is asserting. All he said was that “different people will have different levels of glory in heaven.” Notice that it already only refers to the people in heaven.

But Aaron, the context was the comment of a “Pass / Fail” system. I presume that the people in hell can be understood as those that “Fail” and the people in heaven to be those that “Pass.” I agree that within those that “fail” (damned) and those that “pass” (Church Triumphant) that there are different levels of reward and punishment. However, hell is what was meant by “fail,” right? So, in the sense of Beatific Vision (pass) or lack of Beatific Vision (fail), Catholic soteriology can certainly be understood as “pass / fail.”

 

[Truthseeker4]

I have a question about the Jews and I wonder if the Father was alluding to this Romans 11: 1-36.

Is there any Catholic commentary on this scripture?

Does the Church replace Israel?

Thanks.

Melissa

 

[Sherlock]

itsjustdave1988:

But Aaron, the context was the comment of a “Pass / Fail” system. I presume that the people in hell can be understood as those that “Fail” and the people in heaven to be those that “Pass.” I agree that within those that “fail” (damned) and those that “pass” (Church Triumphant) that there are different levels of reward and punishment. However, hell is what was meant by “fail,” right? So, in the sense of Beatific Vision (pass) or lack of Beatific Vision (fail), Catholic soteriology can certainly be understood as “pass / fail.”

I did not mean to imply that those in hell are in a “different level of glory”—and Aaron understood what I was trying to say.

Perhaps the difficulty lies in our understanding of what a “pass/fail” system means: what I mean by that is a system that does not give “grades”, so to speak: if you pass, no distinction is made as to how well you did—the ONLY distinction is between those who pass, and those who don’t. It is true that there is a “partial” pass/fail aspect to Catholic soteriology, but only in that our two ultimate destinations are either heaven or hell (Purgatory being only a stopping-off point on the way to heaven). But Catholic soteriology recognizes that there are different “grades”, so to speak, in heaven. We are filled to capacity, but our capacity varies, according to how we have cooperated with the graces we have been given. But we are on the same page, I believe----I just remembered our priest telling us emphatically, “it is NOT a pass/fail system”, and by that he meant the idea that there are no “grades” given in heaven. I’m sorry that I didn’t make that clearer…Happy Thanksgiving.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Even in academia, if they have a Pass / Fail system, some of the “Pass” folks will go on to grad school and some won’t.

Some will go on to become Secretary of State and some won’t.

It “goes without saying” that in Heaven, there are many mansions. Some have central A/C and some don’t.

Maybe, it shouldn’t “go without saying”.

Some have a monthly foursome with the Judge and St. Peter and some don’t.

But that’s ok.

---

As for Hell, “abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

Happy Thanksgiving.

P.S. Read Anthony DeStefanis’s book, “A Travel Guide to Heaven”.

 

[barsapp]

John-the-Seeker:

I believe that the Jews were and continue to be God’s Chosen People.

”The Jews are Jesus’ people” “there is a big difference between something being fulfilled and being ended”

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_36.htm interesting article for those who still think that the Jews are the Chosen People. That is old story. The old covenant is gone, the New Chosen People is the Church.

 

[John-the-Seeker]

”The Jews are Jesus’ people” “there is a big difference between something being fulfilled and being ended”

catholicapologetics.net/apolo_36.htm interesting article for those who still think that the Jews are the Chosen People. That is old story. The old covenant is gone, the New Chosen People is the Church.

I have quickly scanned the ‘proof’ you provided and found only an opinion.
I believe that through logic the Truth can be found.
First what is a Covenant? A Covenant is the Total giving of onesself without restriction or condition. A Covenant once made is to be forever. God is forever true to His Covenants. We, His people who only had the option of being offered the ‘Food of the Children’ after their rejection of the ‘Food’, are constantly exercising our free will and giving and withdrawing and renewing our covenant with God. God does not do this with us. God will not be one kind for me and another kind of God for you. If we can reject and renew why not the Jews?
Second: God is infinite and Supreme. God can give all of Himself without restriction in one covenant and repeat the same offer in a new covenant. Do you not have ALL of God’s Love as though you were His only child and do not I and others have the same totality of Love? Therefore the New Covenant did not need to mean the end of the Old or if I am wrong on this point and one ended so another could begin, it does not need to exclude the Jews or any of God’s people and banish them to Hell just as those Gentiles prior to the New Covenant did not have to perish.
Third: God is perfect and does not make mistakes. You are not His first mistake nor am I or anyone else. Not even Satan was a mistake. Therefore God’s Covenant with the Jews was not a mistake and those Jews whose hearts are right will be in Heaven for though they do not worship Jesus they do worship His Father who is one with Jesus.
Fourth: Judge not lest ye be judged. Not me or you or probably any of us would make it into Heaven if we had human judges for we all fall short of the glory of God. Mercifully God makes a way where there is no way and should we want His mercy for our entry we must give our mercy to all. As we say in the perfect prayer, the Our Father, forgive us as we forgive others. For this reason alone I would never say too bad, how sad, Dad loves me more than you, you Jews or this or that or the other kind. I just say forgive us all for we know not what we do.
If not before, lets plan to be together in Heaven, Okay?

 

[barsapp]

John-the-Seeker:

If we can reject and renew why not the Jews? the New Covenant did not need to mean the end of the Old… and those Jews whose hearts are right will be in Heaven for though they do not worship Jesus

Council of Trent Canons on Justification. CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[Philthy]

Melchior:

I was watching Sunday Night Live on EWTN and a caller asked if non-Christians can be saved. The priest basically said everyone who is saved is saved by Christ BUT he then went on to give the example of a virtuous Jewish Rabbi friend of his who he believes is saved. This blew my mind because I can understand (at least for the sake of argument) that some pagan, or Jew or whatever who has never heard of Christ or been exposed to the Gospel can be saved by God’s amazing grace as an exception to the rule. But this priest was basically saying those who have access to Christians, as this Rabbi obviously did with Fr. Groeschel, can reject Christ and still be saved by living a virtuous life.

Please tell me this is not Catholic teaching, but merely this priests opinion. This faltly contradicts the teachings of Christ in John 3 and elsewhere.

Mel

I saw it also, and I think you left something out. Fr Groeschel said the man was “following what he believed to be the will of God for him in his life - to the best of his abilities”. Christians often do a horrible job of preaching the gospel because they do it almost exclusively with their mouths and often more for their own benefit than that of the intended recipient. This is hardly “hearing the gospel”. Anyhow, I don’t think Fr Groeschel meant to declare him a Saint or anything, just that he felt that the possibility of salvation existed because this man followed God’s will to the best of his ability and that IF in fact he were saved it is still only through the redemptive work of Christ on the Cross.

Phil

 

[Melchior]

barsapp:

Council of Trent Canons on Justification. CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

Right. I like Trent sometimes.

And also the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic. So that now not only Jews but Gentiles as well are included in the Israel of God through Christ. All the stuff about gentiles being grafted in and Jews being cut off by unbelief is true. All Jews and gentiles who by baptism and faith in the Messiah are God’s Covenant people. It is not the Jew of the flesh but the Jew of the heart as St. Paul says. And he was a Jew of Jews.

Mel

 

[reen12]

Why is it that the assumption is made that to

be told of Christ, and what the Church holds =

necessary acceptance of same?

As to faith:

quote: reen12 from another thread

We cannot maintain that it is a gift of grace,
while simultaneously maintaining, that to
know what the Church teaches, must result,
inevitably, in acceptance of those teachings.
Where is grace, in all this?

For, if faith is a gift of grace, then there can be
no “culpability”, for one who has not received
that gift.

Catholic Encyclopedia online:

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ACT OF FAITH FROM THE SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT

paragraph “c”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

To maintain that knowledge necessarily leads to faith,
is a view that I believe mistaken.

Just my thought,

reen12

 

[Al_Masetti]

If you want to read something very interesting about who is in Heaven and who is in Hell, go on line and look up

The Population of Hell by Avery Cardinal Dulles

Either google the whole thing or just type in Avery Dulles and that will take you to his Web site. Fortunately many of his talks and writings are available now on line.

Very worthwhile. Cardinal Dulles is a super writer, speaker and scholar.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

reen12,

… To maintain that knowledge necessarily leads to faith,
is a view that I believe mistaken.

It is true that faith precedes understanding.

Yet, God gives to all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to attain eternal life. But just as manna from heaven was not poofed into the bellies of God’s people, but required their co-operation, that other heavenly gift called grace is not irresistible. It involves co-operation, or else like heavenly manna which could turn to worms, the gift of grace can be received in vain.

 

[reen12]

quote: itsjustdave

Yet, God gives to all innocent unbelievers sufficient grace to attain eternal life.

I don’t argue that point, Dave.

Of course God gives the ‘innocent unbeliever’ ‘sufficient
grace.’ To do otherwise would render Deity unjust,
which would be a contradiction in terms.

The problem is in holding that a modern day member
of another Christian denomination - on hearing the claims
of Catholicism - will necessarily accept same, without
specific grace given.

No grace, no Catholic faith.

To hear the claims of the CC, is to believe…I don’t think so.

St. Thomas had a few words to say, on the subject:

Catholic Encyclopedia

online:

V. ANALYSIS OF THE ACT OF FAITH FROM THE SUBJECTIVE STANDPOINT

paragraph “c”

newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

A person who acknowledges the truth of Catholicism -
and actively resists that grace - is a whole* other* story.

My point is, in terms of this thread, that non-Catholic
Christians, who live in a society where it is fairly
easy to hear the truths of the CC proclaimed…and, yet,
cannot accept same - remain in a position of “good conscience,”
vis a vis God - to employ a CC term.

Best,

reen12

 

[12brokEnBonEs]

I am stunned and appalled that this is even a topic for discussion.
After viewing this thread I see (in summary):

-A sincere question - You don’t need to believe in Christ to be saved?

-A bunch’o sincere replies - paraphrased - “Nope. You don’t need Christ if you are a Jew or if you have not yet heard the gospel”

If those who can’t hear the Gospel get a free pass to glory, then isn’t spreading the gospel the most unkind thing we could do. Better yet, burn the Bible, destroy the Christians (very few in my estimation) and thereby guarantee salvation for the whole world

At what point has faith in Christ been supplanted by faith in “the church”?

 

[12brokEnBonEs]

Regarding…“Of course God gives the ‘innocent
unbeliever’ ‘sufficient grace.’ To do otherwise would render Deity unjust, which would be a contradiction in terms.”

And who is this “innocent person”. All have sinned period. There was one who was innocent and he died for you.

 

[reen12]

quote:reen12

Of course God gives the ‘innocent unbeliever’ ‘sufficient
grace.’ To do otherwise would render Deity unjust,
which would be a contradiction in terms.

quote: 12brokEnBonEs

And who is this “innocent person”. All have sinned period.

A person, who thru no fault of their own, hence, “innocent”
in *that *sense]…say, a denizen of Europe, before the
missionaries got there…who had no opportunity to
hear of Christ - not “innocent” in terms of Original
Sin, but “innocent” in terms of not having rejected
the Good News that they never heard.

quote:
12brokEnBonEs

There was one who was innocent and he died for you.

And your point is…?

reen12