No Salvation Outside The Church

[the lumberjack]

according to your rules and regulations of religion.

again Jason...thank you for your response, but I'll wait for someone else to respond.

God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

God's rules and regulations, not ours.

[XIX]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='May 5 2004, 09:56 AM'] You're treating the 1994 Catechism as if it were the only source for Catholic teachings. However, the only questions the Catechism addresses are the fate of those who do not know of the true Church, and the fate of those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church but reject her anyway. It says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who know of her, but reject her because they believe they have the truth somewhere else. To answer this question you will have to look elsewhere, for example to Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, IV Lateran Council, etc.

Also, you seem to misunderstand exactly what invincible ignorance does. All it does is excuse one from the guilt of the sin of heresy. It does not excuse one from any other sins. One who is not a member of the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, will be washed away in the flood whether his ignorance is invincible or no.

You are correct in saying that I do not have the gift of reading souls. I can not make certain judgment upon any individual Protestant or Eastern Orthodox person just as I can not make certain judgment upon any Jew, Muslim or Pagan. However, I can know that, as a rule, most such persons do not go to heaven. [/quote]
Now, this might be coming from me because I don't [b]want[/b] to believe that most people go to hell (which is what you seem to believe.) The fact is that we don't know that.

However, I have a question for you. I find myself very tempted to despair when people say that hell is a crowded place. My two greatest desires should be in this order:

ONE: To save my own soul, and then saves others as a result (first because that' is what I control)
TWO: For Satan to garner as few sould as possible, that all the others can know salvation also.

For the world of me, I can't see how somebody can live in peace while convinced that his brothers and sisters is Christ are mostly headed to hell. I can barely keep myself together without knowing for a fact what happens. I don't mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, but doesn't this depress anybody? Can Christ's final victory really come in the form of destroying the majority of his beloved human creation?

[cmotherofpirl]

It doesn't depress me because hell is a deliberate choice people make. You don't get there by accident.

I also trust in the Divine Mercy of Almighty God and pray for others souls, and leave the rest up to God.

Eye has not seen, nor ear heard what God has waiting for those who love Him.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='XIX' date='May 5 2004, 12:22 PM'] Now, this might be coming from me because I don't [b]want[/b] to believe that most people go to hell (which is what you seem to believe.) The fact is that we don't know that. [/quote]
I don't much like it either.

[quote]However, I have a question for you.  I find myself very tempted to despair when people say that hell is a crowded place.[/quote]
It is sometimes difficult not to despair, however this is a sin which one must avoid at all costs.

[quote]My two greatest desires should be in this order:

ONE: To save my own soul, and then saves others as a result (first because that' is what I control)
TWO: For Satan to garner as few sould as possible, that all the others can know salvation also.[/quote]
Those would be my desires as well.

[quote]For the world of me, I can't see how somebody can live in peace while convinced that his brothers and sisters is Christ are mostly headed to hell.  I can barely keep myself together without knowing for a fact what happens.  I don't mean this to be a personal attack on anybody, but doesn't this depress anybody?  Can Christ's final victory really come in the form of destroying the majority of his beloved human creation?[/quote]
Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I consider them heretics and schismatics in need of evangelization. This is often saddening, however I think in the long run this attitude will save more souls than the "we possess the fullness of Christ's Church whereas you only possess part" approach.

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I consider them heretics and schismatics in need of evangelization. This is often saddening, however I think in the long run this attitude will save more souls than the "we possess the fullness of Christ's Church whereas you only possess part" approach.[/quote]

its all to the grace...I don't mind if you don't consider me saved...or a brother or sister in Christ....though it is kinda sad.

I spoke to one of the associate pastors at my church ([url="http://www.therocksandiego.org"]www.therocksandiego.org[/url]), who consequently used to be a catholic, and has a masters in church history. he opened my mind to many things that I would not have paid much mind to before. as long as you keep Christ the center, and seek and follow only Him, you are my brother or sister in Christ...regardless of what your documents say.

I don't seek to convert you to any religion or denomination, but to correct....and to be corrected. and you guys have helped in more ways than you'll ever know.

but know this:

[b]my walk with Christ is something that you or the whole Roman Catholic Church can not deny me.[/b]

God bless.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote]
You're treating the 1994 Catechism as if it were the only source for Catholic teachings. However, the only questions the Catechism addresses are the fate of those who do not know of the true Church, and the fate of those who know that the Catholic Church is the true Church but reject her anyway. It says absolutely nothing about the fate of those who know of her, but reject her because they believe they have the truth somewhere else. To answer this question you will have to look elsewhere, for example to Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, IV Lateran Council, etc.
[/quote]

I mean no personal offense by this, but I think you're looking at this matter too simplistically. What do you think that "know" means? Sure, just about everyone knows that Catholicism exists, but there are non-Catholics who do not know Catholicism to be the truth. If that were the case, they'd probably be Catholic. There is a difference between knowing that Catholicism is the truth and rejecting it (in which case salvation is not possible) and knowing that Catholicism exists but sincerely believing that Catholicism is not fully true. Many Protestants, because of a variety of social, psychological, and educational factors, [i]sincerely[/i] believe that what they believe is true -- and that Catholicism is false. Many of them, also, love God and wish to follow Him. The Catholic Church has said that salvation is [i]possible[/i] for those who are not [b]official[/b] members of the Catholic Church if they love God, follow Him, and are invincibly ignorant. If a Protestant, for example, was raised to believe that the Eucharist was just symbolic, that Catholics were heretical to believe otherwise, and that he was doing God's work in trying to convert Catholics from their "error" out of love, then I think it'd be pretty reasonable to say that they're invincibly ignorant. Many Protestants who later convert to Catholicism testify that, had they been convinced of the truth of Catholicism sooner, they would have certainly been Catholic. Ever read [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] and [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]? Those who do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church [i]can possibily[/i] be saved. If a Protestant does not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then they can possibily be saved. If they do not believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church, it is probably because they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, in which case they can possibly be saved.

[quote]Also, you seem to misunderstand exactly what invincible ignorance does.  All it does is excuse one from the guilt of the sin of heresy.  It does not excuse one from any other sins.  One who is not a member of the Catholic Church, the only ark of salvation, will be washed away in the flood whether his ignorance is invincible or no.
[/quote]

Then you'd disagree with the Catechism, which says that one must have [b]full knowledge[/b] that something is sinful (along with grave matter and full consent of the will) for someone to be guilty of mortal sin, no? If someone is a Protestant and does not have full knowledge that the Catholic Church is the truth, how can they be held accountable? If they sin, then truthfully and sincerely repent and are fully contrite, why wouldn't they be able to be saved, presupposing their invincible ignorance of the truth of the Catholic Church? Your position seems too close for comfort to rigorist Feeneyism (which the Catholic Church condemns).

[quote]You are correct in saying that I do not have the gift of reading souls.  I can not make certain judgment upon any individual Protestant or Eastern Orthodox person just as I can not make certain judgment upon any Jew, Muslim or Pagan.  However, I can know that, as a rule, most such persons do not go to heaven.[/quote]

How is it that you can feel certain that you know that "as a rule?"

Take care,

Jennifer

Edited May 5, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='May 5 2004, 04:09 PM'] Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. [/quote]

Then what do think of their Trinitarian water baptisms? If they're not "Christian" because of that, do you believe that they need to be re-baptized? I certainly hope you're not a Donatist.

If you do believe their baptisms to be valid, then how is it that you can't see them as brothers and sisters in Christ? Were they not baptized in the name of the Father, and of the [b]Son[/b], and of the Holy Spirit? Yes!

Take care,

Jennifer

Edited May 5, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[Katholikos]

lumberjack, May 5 2004, 10:11 AM]

Lumberjack: blue
Likos: bold

[b]The Church was nearly 400 years old before the Bible as we know it existed.[/b]

[color=blue]
very true...as we know it.
this does not mean that the scriptures were not around...and being used by the local churches[/color].

[b]Lots of writings were being used by the local Churches. The NT contents were selected from among some 200 writings that circulated in the early centuries of Christianity and were read aloud to the congregation during the Liturgy. That was one purpose of the canon: to discern which among many writings were "inspired Scripture" and therefore should be read during the Liturgy. An estimated 90% of people in the Apostolic Age were illiterate.[/b]

[color=blue]yet, so many "alleged" epistles started to circulate as well...so the brothers decided that they should sit down and make a list of which ones they should and shouldn't use[/color].

[b]Those "brothers" were the Catholic bishops, meeting at the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The decrees of the Council of Carthage were approved by Pope Innocent I in A.D. 405.[/b]

[color=blue]even Paul wrote and said that they should exchange the letters that were written to them and the surrounding churches[/color].

[b]Yes, and Paul's letters were the first to be recognized as Scripture. However, if -- as Protestants believe -- the Bible is the sole rule of faith and morals, you've got a problem 'cause three of Paul's "inspired" letters are missing.[/b]

[color=blue]no church=no bible? by no means[/color]

[b]Quizito:
The Bible fell out of the sky. T/F Answer: F
The Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. T/F Answer: T[/b]

[color=blue]no church=no salvation...NEVER! [/color]

[b]Quizito:
Jesus wrote the New Testament as the means of salvation. T/F Answer: F
Jesus never told the Apostles or anyone else to write. T/F Answer: T
Jesus founded the Catholic Church as the means of salvation. T/F Answer: T [/b]

[color=blue]Christ established His church, yes...but we are not saved by going to church or by being part of some organization...we are saved by Christ, and living in an active relationship of faith with Him and thru Him... we DO, however, need the church to be guided in doctrine and growth, so we don't err. but it is not the church that saves us[/color].

[b]Christ saves us [i]through His Church[/i]. The Catholic Church, His agent, is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Which of thousands of churches with conflicting and competing doctrines are we to follow so we don't err? [You made my case!][/b]

[color=blue]the early churches all erred in their own way in doctrine, which is why the writers of the epistles wrote to them all on their different subjects...and the early church wrote nothing to itself...they were being "raised" in truth and correct doctrine by the discples and Apostles of Christ... if this were not so, would they have not written one letter and distributed that?[/color]

[b]Christ founded the Catholic Church. He established it's operating plan, the philosophy by which it was to operate, gave it its policies and procedures, taught it its doctrines, told it the purpose for which it was created, and gave it its marching orders. He left it in the hands of its "board of directors," its leaders, the Apostles. The Apostles, in turn, founded branches of the Church all over the then known world. These were the local Churches. They had the same beliefs and practices, the same doctrines, the same Sacraments, as all the other Churches -- they were all sprang from the Mother Church.

The Church wrote the NT to itself (to believers, to her own children), and not to outsiders. These branches, the local Churches, were founded by one or more Apostles who taught their converts the Faith [i]orally.[/i] The letters were written to address problems that had arisen at a particular location, not to teach doctrine, which the Christians already knew full well. The recipients were [i]reminded[/i] of certain beliefs and doctrines, to be sure. The letters are different because the problems that arose in Corinth were not the same as those that developed in Galatia, for example.

The problem with the Scriptures is that outsiders try to interpret them!

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 250) states succinctly: “One cannot have God as a father who doesn’t have the Church as a mother.” [I] St. Cyprian, De Ecclesiae Catholicae unitate 6: CCL 3, 253: “Habere iam non potest Deum patrem qui ecclesiam non habet matrem.”

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos[/b]

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 5 2004, 02:17 PM']

I spoke to one of the associate pastors at my church ([url="http://www.therocksandiego.org"]www.therocksandiego.org[/url]), who consequently used to be a catholic, and has a masters in church history. he opened my mind to many things that I would not have paid much mind to before. as long as you keep Christ the center, and seek and follow only Him, you are my brother or sister in Christ...regardless of what your documents say.



[/quote]

This is very, very sad news. The worst thing that could happen in my life is not my death, but the death of my Catholic Faith.

People don't usually leave the Church over doctrine but over moral issues, such as divorce and remarriage or contraception. [i]Then[/i] they seek to justify their action by attacking the doctrines. Private interpretation of the Scriptures promotes this kind of thinking. I don't know the circumstances here, but that is often how it happens.

It's a package deal. Christ acts in and through his Church. The way that Christ provided of knowing him is through His Church. "He who hears you, hears me . . . he who rejects you, rejects me" (Lk 10:16). It is [i]possible[/i] to "know" him outside the Church he founded and sustains -- His Bride, His very Body -- but self-deceit is an even greater possibility.

"How narrow the gate and constricted the road that leads to life. And those who find it are few" Mt 7:14.

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Such is the state your associate pastor finds himself in, whether he recognizes it, or believes it, or not, having rejected the Eucharist. Let us pray.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='May 5 2004, 04:09 PM']


Well, for one thing I do not consider non-Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ. I consider them heretics and schismatics in need of evangelization. This is often saddening, however I think in the long run this attitude will save more souls than the "we possess the fullness of Christ's Church whereas you only possess part" approach. [/quote]
If they are baptised they are your brothers and sisters in Christ whether you like it or not.

[amarkich]

Hello everyone. As you probaby know, I am very interested in this topic, hence my signature. I had previously typed the equivalent of a few pages, but I imprudently clicked a link on the website (I had a New Message) without saving what I had written. I do not have time to do this now, but I want to make just one comment. The Church has never said that we are "brothers" of heretics and schismatics, as they are rightly called by Hananiah. These who are outside the Church are outside the Ark of Salvation and will surely perish should they remain outside of it (c.f., fill-in any Doctor of the Church or any Saint for that matter). Those who are outside the Church who happen to be heretics (e.g., Protestants) are not our brothers anymore than those who are outside the Church who happen to be Rationalists and atheists. As far as I can see, the idea of heretics and schismatics being our "brothers" in Christ is simply an extention of the "brotherhood of the human race" and other New Age and Masonic beliefs infiltrating the Church. The Church is very firm in standing against not only heresies but also heretics themselves, and we must do the same, remembering that we should do our best to convert them at the same time, as they cannot reach Heaven otherwise. We must act, in a sense, the way that the government does. As the government's central goal in justice is first punishment and then rehabilitation, so our goal should be first to defend Truth and then to convert others to the One Truth. God bless.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='May 5 2004, 02:40 PM'] What do you think that "know" means? Sure, just about everyone knows that Catholicism exists, but there are non-Catholics who do not know Catholicism to be the truth. If that were the case, they'd probably be Catholic. There is a difference between knowing that Catholicism is the truth and rejecting it (in which case salvation is not possible) and knowing that Catholicism exists but sincerely believing that Catholicism is not fully true. [/quote]
If the only people who fell under the the condemnation of Unam Sanctam, Cantate Domino, et al were people who believed the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ, but rejected her anyway, this would only include about a dozen people in the entire course of Church history. Unam Sanctam says that [i]anyone[/i] who consciously rejects the Roman Pontiff excludes himself from membership in Christ's Church. It does not distinguish between those who sincerely believe they have the truth and those who know they are living a lie.

[quote]Many Protestants, because of a variety of social, psychological, and educational factors, [i]sincerely[/i] believe that what they believe is true -- and that Catholicism is false.  Many of them, also, love God and wish to follow Him.[/quote]
And many Jews, Muslims, and Pagans also belsincerely believe that what they believe is true, love God, and wish to follow Him. However, Cantate Domino is not very optimistic about their prospects for eternal salvation if they do not convert to Catholicism before their death. In fact, Cantate Domino even excludes from salvation Protestants and Eastern Orthodox who are so sincere in their beliefs that they would die for Christ.

[quote]The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)[/quote]

[quote]The Catholic Church has said that salvation is [i]possible[/i] for those who are not [b]official[/b] members of the Catholic Church if they love God, follow Him, and are invincibly ignorant.[/quote]
I agree that it is possible for one to be a spiritual member of the Catholic Church without being a member of the visible insitution. One becomes a spiritual member of the Catholic Church through baptism (by water, desire, or blood) and remains so until such time as one severs this connection by mortal sin, or by denying subjection to the Roman Pontiff. So, baptized Protestant children can properly be called Christians, as can adults who live in very isolated Christian communities (e.g. Ethiopia, Syria) and who never consciously reject the Catholic Church.

[quote]If a Protestant, for example, was raised to believe that the Eucharist was just symbolic, that Catholics were heretical to believe otherwise, and that he was doing God's work in trying to convert Catholics from their "error" out of love, then I think it'd be pretty reasonable to say that they're invincibly ignorant.[/quote]
I agree. Invincible ignorance would excuse him from the guilt of the sin of heresy. He would be a heretic in good faith, which would make God more willing to grant him the graces required for conversion, and lessen his punishments in hell if he never converted, as compared to a heretic in bad faith.

[quote]Many Protestants who later convert to Catholicism testify that, had they been convinced of the truth of Catholicism sooner, they would have certainly been Catholic.  Ever read [i]Lumen Gentium[/i] and [i]Dominus Iesus[/i]?  Those who do not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church [i]can possibily[/i] be saved.  If a Protestant does not know that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, then they can possibily be saved.[/quote]
Ok. They [i]can[/i] be saved. The next question to ask is [i]how[/i]. Cantate Domino can answer that for us; they must join the Catholic Church.

[quote]Then you'd disagree with the Catechism, which says that one must have [b]full knowledge[/b] that something is sinful (along with grave matter and full consent of the will) for someone to be guilty of mortal sin, no?  If someone is a Protestant and does not have full knowledge that the Catholic Church is the truth, how can they be held accountable?[/quote]
One who is privy to invincible ignorange will not be held accountable for the sin of rejecting the Catholic Church. However, since the Catholic Church is an absolutely necessary means of salvation (you can find many documents which compare her to Noah's ark) this will not change the fact that such a person must convert to her in order to be saved. It's like if your dad gave you a bike and told you that, in order to escape the floodwaters rising around you, you had to pedal to higher ground as fast as possible, and you didn't do it. Invincible ignorance might excuse you from the sin of disobeying your father, but it wouldn't change the fact that you would drown.

[quote]If they sin, then truthfully and sincerely repent and are fully contrite, why wouldn't they be able to be saved, presupposing their invincible ignorance of the truth of the Catholic Church?[/quote]
Even one, venial sin merits eternal death for those not in a familial, covenant relationship with the Father through Christ and His Church. Heretics and schismatics, like the Judaizers whom St. Paul condemned, would have to be perfect in order to be saved outside the Catholic Church.

[quote]Your position seems too close for comfort to rigorist Feeneyism (which the Catholic Church condemns).[/quote]
There are important differences. I acknowledge the validity of baptisms by desire and by blood, and I also acknowledge the possibility that there are large numbers of Christians who are spiritual, but not formal, members of the Catholic Church and hence can be saved (i.e. people who are baptized but never consciously reject the Catholic Church).

[quote]Then what do think of their Trinitarian water baptisms? If they're not "Christian" because of that, do you believe that they need to be re-baptized? I certainly hope you're not a Donatist.[/quote]
No, Jennifer, I'm not a Donatist. Like I said before, anyone who recieves a valid Trinitarian baptism becomes a spiritual member of the Catholic Church. One who, at a later time, rejects the Catholic Church, severs this tie, and is "severed from Christ, cut off from grace" (Gal 5:4).

God bless,
Ben

[PedroX]

Hannaniah,

A very thoughtful, and well stated post. I will need to ponder this more, but I wanted to give you some props upfront.

peace...

[Hananiah]

Thank you.

[cmotherofpirl]

Many people reject the Catholic Church based on the lies they have been told, and not actual Catholic Church teachings.

If I believed all the things my poor Baptist aunt was taught about the Catholic Church I would reject it too.

Evangelize all, and trust in the Mercy of God.

Hananiah that was an excellent post.

Edited May 6, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Katholikos]

We know that the decrees of the Councils are infallible teaching.

John A. Hardon, S.J.'s Modern Catholic Dictionary says this about encyclicals:
"A papal document treating of matters related to the general welfare of the church, sent by the pope to the bishops. Used especially in modern times to express the mind of the Pope to the people. Although not of themselves an infallible document, encyclicals may (and generally do) contain pronouncements on faith and morals that are [i]de facto[/i] infallible because they express the ordinary teaching of the Church.

About Papal Bulls, Father Hardon says: "The most solemn and weighty form of papal letter. The name is derived from the Latin [i]bulla[/i], the disklike leaden seal attached to such a document. It is used by the Pope in appointing a bishop. Formerly all papal letters of major importance, including canonization decrees, were called bulls, but the current [i]Acta Apostolicae Sedis[/i] gives some of these papal letters various names."


Does anyone know the degree of weight given to the pronouncements of bulls?

[cmotherofpirl]

It depends on which one, who it was directed to, and what it concerned.

[Katholikos]

duplicate post deleted

Edited May 6, 2004 by Katholikos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='May 5 2004, 08:15 PM'] Many people reject the Catholic Church based on the lies they have been told, and not actual Catholic Church teachings.

If I believed all the things my poor Baptist aunt was taught about the Catholic Church I would reject it too.

[/quote]
I was like your poor Baptist aunt. I thought the Catholic Church was evil, the enemy of democracy and truth, and that it was my duty to oppose her. I'll be forever grateful to God for giving me the willingness to open my mind and heart and unlearn all the bull-oney I was taught.

God bless and Mary keep, Likos.