Limbo, No Salvation For Noncatholics, And Becoming A Catholic

[dairygirl4u2c]

the notions that draw me to becoming a catholic, are being a catholic who believes that noncatholics cannot be saved, and who believes that nonbaptaized infants go to hell, or limbo. these types of catholics do exist, and are obedient to the pope. of course they are probably not very popular for their beliefs.

 

those are the notions primarily that i saw as being contradictions, but reading into them further, could be argued as the old teachings correct, and the 'new' stuff just fallible statements and modern fancies.

 

what are your thoughts?

prefereably not delving into the subjects specifically, too much. just in general.

Edited May 17, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

a few quick examples of those obedient who believe that way...

 

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/

 

http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/

[John Ryan]

The Church preaches that those non-Christians who cooperate with the Grace God has given them can attain eternal salvation. It has become standard Roman theology since Vatican II. Amen.

Edited May 17, 2014 by John Ryan

[Guest]

These topics are so played out...Take this hate somewhere else...Phatmass doesn't need it here...

[Perigrina]

The Church preaches that those non-Christians who cooperate with the Grace God has given them can attain eternal salvation. It has become standard Roman theology since Vatican II. Amen.

 

Something is very wrong with the way that this teaching has been received.  Although this is was clearly not the intent, it is common to find this teaching understood in a way that undermines evangelism or even contributes to indifferentism. I sympathize with people who, seeing these things, have a negative reaction to the teaching.  Personally, I think it is in need of clarification or even reformulation.  In fact, there have been some clarifying documents from the Vatican, such as Dominus Iesus:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
 

[Anomaly]

Makes me think of that Billt Joel song:

I'd rather love others with the sinners than hate with the saints.

[John Ryan]

Something is very wrong with the way that this teaching has been received.  Although this is was clearly not the intent, it is common to find this teaching understood in a way that undermines evangelism or even contributes to indifferentism. I sympathize with people who, seeing these things, have a negative reaction to the teaching.  Personally, I think it is in need of clarification or even reformulation.  In fact, there have been some clarifying documents from the Vatican, such as Dominus Iesus:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
 

 

I think the problem is that peoples minds have been poisoned by the paltry philosophies of new age and relativism which preaches that there are many ways up the mountain in terms of religion. The Roman Church is said to be the closest thing to a true religion on the Earth; yet since it is also a human institution it reflects that truth sometimes imperfectly. Since truth is One there cannot be many equal paths up the mountain. However, the Church preaches that these other paths generally act as shadows of the true path. The other faiths are truth reflected in a mirror darkly. People seem to be unable to think outside the exclusivist absolutism that views all other faiths as "wrong" and the inclusivism that considers all other faiths as "right". As usual, the Roman Church has an answer that is much less crass, and much more theologically profound.

[Perigrina]

DairyGirl,

If understanding the doctrine of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is so crucial to your decision to become Catholic, it may be worth your while to obtain Francis A Sullivan's Salvation Outside the Church?: Tracing the History of the Catholic Response.  Here is the Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/1592440088

 

I think that this customer review is a good summary:

 

For those who don't know: Fr. Sullivan is the most well-known Catholic ecclesiologist in the English-speaking world (with perhaps the exception of Cardinal Dulles, whose work covers much more than just ecclesiology), and he is now a professor at Boston College (after many years at the Gregorian). This book is, as far as I know, the only book-length survey of original research on the Catholic response to the issue of salvation outside the Catholic Church (Fr. Stravinskas' book on this subject was largely based on Sullivan's research). This book is not a polemic nor an apologia of the Catholic view. It is simply a work of historical theology, wherein the scholar interprets the theology of an issue in its various contexts from the beginning to the present (in this case, from the early church to Pope John Paul II). However, I do think that, if interepreted in view of Cardinal Newman's (and the Catholic Church's) view on doctrinal development and proper interpretation, the book vindicates the Catholic dogma of no salvation outside the Church as understood by Vatican II. The main issue for those acquiring this book will be how Vatican II's document, Lumen Gentium, can be consistent with the statement at the Council of Florence (15th century) that Jews, Muslims, pagans, and heretics were damned (thus reaffirming Pope Boniface VIII's papal bull, Unam Sanctam, in 1302 that non-Catholics were damned). This restrictive view of salvation to only Catholics was not largely held by the fathers of the early Church. When the early Church fathers spoke of no salvation outside the church, they were only refering to heretics and schismatics -- those who had explicitly rejected the Catholic Church. Those ignorant of the orthodox, catholic faith could still be saved (and through Christ but without explicit knowledge of Christ as the instrumental means of their salvation). So why is the medieval view so restrictive? The answer is simply that the medieval worldview did not see beyond the Muslim territories that surrounded Christian Europe and knew nothing of the pagan lands across the Atlantic. They believed that the Church had reached to all nations (as Christ said that it must do). It was presumed that Muslims, Jews, and any who remained pagan had heard enough of the gospel to be culpable for their remaining outside of the Church. Indeed, the violence of Muslims toward Christians in the East (which began the Crusades) only confirmed this view of their rejection of the true faith. Thus, the medieval magisterial statements on salvation outside the Church cannot be interpreted as applying to those who were inculpably ignorant. These statements were only addressed to those believed to be culpable, just as the early Church fathers addressed their statements of no salvation outside the Church to those believed to be culpable.

I personally know someone who was struggling with this issue and found this book very helpful.  Perhaps it will help you too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ive looked through that book, and i noted he gave two examples of missionaries in like 1600 or 1700 or indicated something like natives might be able to be saved. it's too much to rely on a couple people hundreds of years after the main quotes in question. i notice the wikipedia article on limbo does something similar when it brushes off the florence quote, just because some theologian a significant while later acted like maybe the babies could be saved. they use these as if it's sufficient evidence to not take the quotes at their face value.

 

that may be the best response on the salvation of noncatholics though. some of the quotes do expand quite a bit listing everyone who is damned, but not mentioning specifically people on deserted islands or such. then there's quotes like 'no one at all is saved'. it could be reading too much into them given there is not explicit elaboration. but it is strong langauge nevertheless. and even if there are some quotes here and there at certain points with lenient views, the prominent view was the rigorist one. you take what people understood to interpret the teachings. while not definitive proof, it's compelling, nevertheless.

[Perigrina]

Church documents, until very recently, were virtually never read by lay people.  The intended audience was people with extensive training in theology.  For someone to go in without this background and read things "at face value" is likely to lead to misunderstandings.  The value of a book like Fr. Sullivan's is that it explains how to understand to documents.  It is better to have a guide of this sort than to rely on one's ability to interpret the documents correctly.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i also dont know if there was much variation in the early church on the matter. most all ive read is that you have to be catholic. cyprian is a great example. i thought i read once a strict view and then a lenient one, indicating you have to be careful reading the strict stuff. but i never found that lenient view again, and think i was just imagining things. it was pretty much unanimous then too to my understanding.

[Perigrina]

DairyGirl,

Are you familiar with the work of William Most?  Here is one of his articles that addresses your questions:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=138

[Credo in Deum]

Makes me think of that Billt Joel song:

I'd rather love others with the sinners than hate with the saints.

The problem with this is the saints love the sinners, while the majority of sinners hate the saint because they trouble their conscience. This is because sinners are happy among those who do not challenge them. Like how a dirty windshield looks clean at night, but during the day when the sun hits it, you can see the dust and filth which covers every inch of the glass. The saints do not hate the sinners. They are like the sun which helps the sinners see where their windshield is dirty. The sinners can either thank them for this and clean their windshield, or they can take Billie Joel's advice and only drive at night. Edited May 17, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Perigrina]

Another Fr. Most article: http://web.archive.org/web/20040809222454/http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

[John Ryan]

Another Fr. Most article: http://web.archive.org/web/20040809222454/http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

 

Vatican II reclaimed and pronounced a profound truth. Let us submit our will and intellect to the Magisterium on this matter. Amen.