Salvation in other faiths of Christianity?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
If someone who is a good hearted and well devoted christain but not a Catholic, instead a baptist or methodist, can they be saved? Say they have heard catholic preachers or read catholic books but do not agree with them and stay at their own faith are they still saved? So it would be like the christian agrees with the Catholic church on doctrines as Christ is God,the trinity, commandments of the bible such as the ten, but doesn't believe in Mary's immacualate life, or the real presence of Christ in communion, or the way catholics baptize. So because of those dissagreements in doctrines does that deny the christians salvation even if he is a practicing one and loves God dearly but perhaps his eyes are just not open to ALL the truth?
-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted firstname.lastname@example.org), October 24, 2003
"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". - Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 847
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 24, 2003.
My opinion, is that the example that Jason gives, does not appear to be invincible ignorance. That is just hardness of heart. Were the people that "walked with Him no more", invincibly ignorant?Our Lord told us about eating His flesh. They said it was too hard a teaching. Is that not what Protestants are saying?
-- Robert (Bobby35@aol.com), October 24, 2003.
From UT UNUM SINT
"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".
With reference to the many positive elements present in the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Decree adds: "All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. The separated brethren also carry out many of the sacred actions of the Christian religion. Undoubtedly, in many ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community, these actions can truly engender a life of grace, and can be rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of salvation".
-- x (email@example.com), October 24, 2003.
We firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
That is ex cathedra dogma; Believe it or not. If not, then you are not a Catholic
-- Tropicana (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 24, 2003.
It is Catholic doctrine to be sure Tropicana. There was a time in which I wasn't aware of the clarity in which it had been put forward by the Church, before the time I actually started trying to find out what the Church actually said about it. I was Catholic then, but just didn't know. I was still bound by it though.
It is ex cathedra; it is clear. According to the parameters infallibility, this statement clearly stands as a excercise of papal infallibility, and whoever shoves it aside shoves aside the dogma of infallibility along with it.
A person can't have it both ways, bludgeoning with supposed infallibility in one place, and disregarding blatant infallibility in another.
People aren't getting it: they don't see that none of us deserves anything, let alone salvation in God's kingdom. God needs nothing from us, and every benefit we derive from Him is an act of Divine Mercy on His part.
People aren't getting it: we're all going to die, and on the other side of this veil of a life ultimate trajedies and triumphs are terrible and unchangable realities.
Given what loss of the Faith is pervasive everywhere, I think that people need time to absorb the Faith all over again, and that it takes time and effort.
-- Emerald (email@example.com), October 24, 2003.
The idea of "Anonymous Christianity", where this idea of a Mystical Body of Christ that was not just the actual Catholic Church itself as has always been taught, but something subsistant and "mysterious" and larger than the borders of the Catholic Church, was an idea espoused by...
Karl Rahner had a theory that there was an anonymous Christian, in his words, who...
"...even though he is a non-Christian is justified through the grace of Christ and through a faith, hope, and love for God and mankind which are to be qualified as specifically Christian in a special sense, even though this triad, constituting the single way to salvation and possession of salvation, is something of which they are not objectively aware in the sense of having consciously explicitated their specifically Christian dimension to themselves. Merely in passing it may be remarked that we might apply the term 'anonymous Christian' to every individual who, in virtue of God's universal will to save, and thereby in virtue of the 'supernatural existential,' is inescapably confronted with the offering of God's self-bestowal and is totally unable to escape from his situation. In other words, according to this terminology, absolutely every man is an 'anonymous Christian."
Now is that, or is that not, what the average Catholic now thinks? Is that correct, or is that a deviation from the true Catholic Faith?
Was not Rahner faithless to the Church, or does someone want to stand up and call him orthodox?
How does Rahner justify this new way of thinking? Something exuding from, in his words, "...the development of the Church's conscious awareness of her faith".
Can you say Development of Doctrine?
God is merciful. If there's a good person out there that wants to seek the truth and do the will of the God, then God will lead that person to His one true Church. What, does God have His hands tied such that He can't pull this off? I think not. Once in the Church, that person can recieve the Sacraments and do the will of God, and He will see everlasting life with God and His angels and His saints.
That's the apostolic Faith that has been handed down to us, not ambiguity and lukewarmness.
-- Emerald (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 24, 2003.
Tropicana, I get the impression that you (and some useless, bleep-for-brains blabbermouth) think that the above quotations from the Catechism and 'Ut Unum Sint' are contradicting the papal passage you quoted.
If that's what you think, I'm here to tell you that your thoughts are B.S.
Educated people who read carefully can see that there is no contradiction at all.
-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 25, 2003.
John Paul II's latest document, "Pastores Gregis," states:
"In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation." (par. 65)
I find it interesting that, while it IS an infallible fact that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, our blessed Pope is aparently stating that we now have "universal salvation". I can only hope that there was an error in translation from Latin or Italian into English in the above quotation.
Also, if there is "universal salvation" (which there isn't) then why would the missions be necessary at all? Would the Catholic Faith be necessary at all, for that matter? No, neither would be needed. Yet another proof of the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church.
-- Psyche +AMDG+ (email@example.com), October 25, 2003.
As I just got through saying (two posts up), "Educated people who read carefully can see that there is no contradiction at all" between recent (post-1957) Vatican documents and the constant teaching of the Church through the centuries.
The passage quoted does not mean that the pope believes that all human beings will go to heaven at the end of time. Article 65, from a quotation is given above, has a bold-face title of "Missionary spirit in the episcopal ministry." A pope does not have "missionaries" if he thinks that everyone will be saved, but because he knows that many more can be saved through the work of missionaries.
Why then the phrase, "universal salvation?" It refers to the fact that Jesus came to "save all mankind," and he did enough for "universal salvation," but it is up to man's free will choice to accept or reject the salvation offered.
-- B.S.D. (Bull@Spit.Detector), October 25, 2003.
Just shows that self-interpretation of Church documents and Papal letters is no more valid than self-interpretation of Scripture.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 25, 2003.
there's interpretation; and there's RE-interpretation. the previous infallible statements on this issue are so bold and clear as to be self-explanatory. if such unequivocal statements cannot be taken literally, then exactly which of the Church's teachings can we trust? do we need every line of the CCC to be accompanied by a further 50 pages of detailed interpretation? and would those explanatory notes themselves require interpretative notation?
stand up if you're a Catholic.
-- Ian (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 26, 2003.
Alrighty already! I was just seeking answers not looking to get in any arguments. I'm a recently new Catholic and I'm very happy with my faith. I don't automaticly know everything! But what would you say to even this, a person claims to be a Catholic and believes EVERYTHING EXCEPT that the angel Gabriel was actually God who appeared and not just an angel because of the word Gabriel from what I heard means "man of God" as in Christ. Or what if a new Catholic believes something that the Church doesn't teach and the new Catholic is just unaware of the one thing he believes that the Church does not? Also what if he disbelieves the visons of Mary. Is he still, going to hell because he doesn't know every single complete truth? Could someone anwser without making comments like "Oh, this just proves that your not saved or not a Catholic?" Sadly the arguments people have here are sometimes ugly.
-- Jason Baccaro (Enchanted email@example.com), October 26, 2003.
If there is a particular required Catholic teaching that a particular Catholic person has difficulty with, then he needs to inquire, read, study, and clarify the teaching for himself, so that he can give full consent. It isn't actually Church teachings that most people have difficulty with, but rather their incomplete, uninformed versions of Church teaching. Learning exactly what the Church actually does teach, and why, clears away a lot of the debris, and opens doors to faith. Very few Catholics thoroughly understand all the truths of the faith. In fact I would say that any Catholic who has not made a specific and intensive effort to study and learn about the truths of the faith probably has quite a few erroneous, or at least incomplete and inadequate views of Church teaching. On the other hand, even someone who has been studying Church teaching intensively for years still doesn't know it all. We should all be taking steps to grow in faith, and that means growing in knowledge of the faith.
The name "man of God" identifies Gabriel as someone who is not God. Jesus was not a "man of God". Peter was a "man of God". Jesus was the "God-Man".
If a Catholic believes something the Church does not teach, that might or might not be a problem, depending on just what the belief consists of, and whether or not it conflicts with what the Church actually does teach. If a person is unaware of the discrepancy between his own beliefs and the teaching of the Church, he is not immediately responsible for the position he is in. However, ongoing study is, again, the means of rooting out such discrepancies and dealing with them if they need to be dealt with.
If a Catholic doesn't believe in something which is not required belief, like apparitions of Mary, that is entirely different from rejection of official Church doctrine that IS required belief. Still, we should try to maintain a spirit of openness to whatever God wants to teach us, including issues which are generally supported by the Church but not required elements of the faith.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 26, 2003.
There is this modernist idea afoot, about invincible ignorance, desire etc. This is foolish man trying to give God and themselves a way out of declared dogma.
The arrogance resides in their thinking that God needs their help. Just be as little children guys, and let God do things His way. He is all loving and Just. No one will go to hell unless they deserve it.
-- Alison Tierney (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 27, 2003.
"invincible ignorance, desire"
Modernist idea? I'm not too sure I'm reading what you wrote correctly.
Information: there are three types of Baptism; by water, by blood, and by desire. Baptism of desire may sometimes involve invincible ignorance.
Those people who deny the existence of Baptism of desire are called Feenyites, I believe.
On to other topics: "universal salvation" means "universal salvation". At least in English, it does. Maybe it means something else in Italian, Polish, or Latin. I don't know. However, if the Church is going to go to the trouble to translate these documents and make them available for the common lay Catholic to read and study, I would think She would make sure that the language in the document expresses exactly what the Pope intended, calling for an absolute minimum of personal interpretation.
As to how the phrase "universal salvation" is to be interpreted, I invoke Occam's Razor: The most simple explanation is usually correct. Everyone who wants to second-guess the meaning of what the Pope himself has written and the Church has translated, may go right ahead, but I won't be one of their number.
-- Psyche +AMDG+ (email@example.com), October 27, 2003.
If those "invincibly ignorant" people can be saved, let us leave them alone, and stop dumping all the responsibilities of being a Catholic on them. We are doing them no favors.
-- Soapy (9999.@444.com), October 27, 2003.
I am a Christian. So, my view might be slightly different from everyone else's. It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Christian, Protestan, or Baptist. What matters is if you've accepted the plan of salvation. If a person prays and tells Jesus that they know they're a sinner, they believe that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, and they want to give their life to them they are saved. Jesus said in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Also, Colossians 3:11 says "There is no difference between slaves and free people. But Christ is in all believers. And Christ is all that is important." So, it doesn't matter if you aren't baptized the way a Catholic is baptized or if you don't have communion every Sunday. In Romans 3:22-25 "God makes people right with himself through their faith in Jesus Christ. This is true for all who believe in Christ, because all are the same. All people have sinned and are not good enough fro God's glory. People are made right with God by his grace, which is a free gift. They are made right with God by being made free from sin through Jesus Christ. God gave Jesus as a way to forgive sin through faith. And all of this is because of the blood of Jesus' death..." As long as you believe in Jesus and follow Him you are saved. So, don't be fooled that you must follow a law. (read Romans)Because it's your faith that saves you, not the law.
-- Jerica (RoxyBabe030@aol.com), May 06, 2004.
"I am a Christian. So, my view might be slightly different from everyone else's. It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, Christian, Protestan, or Baptist. What matters is if you've accepted the plan of salvation."
Jerica, you imply: that Catholics are not Christian; that Protestants are not Christian; that Baptists are neither protestant nor Christian; that some but not all members of all the above groups have "accepted the plan of salvation" and some have not. Weird.
"it doesn't matter if you aren't baptized the way a Catholic is baptized or if you don't have communion"
Jesus in the Gospels emphatically disagrees.
"As long as you believe in Jesus and follow Him you are saved. So, don't be fooled that you must follow a law. (read Romans)Because it's your faith that saves you, not the law."
How do we know how to follow Him without a law?
-- Peter K (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 10, 2004.
No where in the bible does it say that we are justified and saved by "faith alone". It does say that we are not justified by "faith alone" James 2:24. We are saved by grace through faith. The grace that we receive must then be manifested through our free will by works of love. If the grace is dormant than our faith and relationship with God will be dead.
-- Michael (Mcard1977@aol.com), July 08, 2004.