"one Flock And One Shepherd"

[Joolye]

This is what the Word for Today says:

"I have other sheep...not in this flock." John 10:16 NCV

Ever noticed that some of the most judgemental people around you call themselves Christians? Baptists are wary of Pentecostals; Catholics have doubts about Protestants. But listen to what Jesus said, "I have other sheep...not in this flock, and I must bring them also...there will be one flock and one shepherd." In the Book of Life God doesn't record your denomiation next yo your name. In heaven there are no labels!

Sure you love your brothers and sisters, but like any family, aren't there times when it might be easier if you weren't related? But that's never an option because as family you're connected by blood. So if sombody has the right to call God their Father, you'd better treat them as your brother or sister, regardless of which church they attend. Why? Because you're related by blood - the blood of Jesus. As Christians God tells us to, "Preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4:3 NAS). Note: He doesn't tell us to create unity, but to preserve it. Jesus prayed, "That all of them may be one...so that the world may believe" (Jn 17:21 NIV). Religious division isn't God's idea; a divided body is a wounded and weak body.

Ever considered what might happen if we discarded our labels and just called ourselves Christians? Maybe we wouldn't need signs outside our churches to attract the lost because they'd be drawn by the love of those inside. It's worth thinking about, isn't it?

The Word for Today is a daily devotional. I thought that today's one was quite relevant. (Except I disagree with the Baptists being wary of Pentecostals, or perhaps I'm just an exception!)

[Aloysius]

it's interesting, and i too share the vision of unity

however, we cannot just drop the term Catholic and all Christians will be unified. there are too many important issues we cannot comprimise on .

i firmly believe the only way to acheive unity is through the Chair of St. Peter.

i believe this follows Jesus' prayer 'that we might all be one... even as we are one (talking to The Father) Jesus is equal to the Father. Therefore, we need an earthly father figure that we are equal to. We are not equal to God. We are equal to a fellow human being. therefore there is a Human chosen and guided by God to be our earthly rock of unity, and we are all united with him by the power of God.

anyway, pray 4 unity among Christians. i only wish it were so easy, if it were just a name dividing us i would burn the word Catholic, but it isn't that simple .

Religious division isn't God's idea; a divided body is a wounded and weak body.

AMEN!!!

[McSockPuppet]

Now see, what I was always taught was that when Jesus said He had other sheep, not in this flock He was referening to Muslims. I do believe that we as catholics believe that muslims share in our salvation

"The plan for salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place are the Muslims those who profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the One, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Same goes for any religion truley acknowledging the Creator.

Edited October 14, 2003 by McSockPuppet

[Aloysius]

Now see, what I was always taught was that when Jesus said He had other sheep, not in this flock He was referening to Muslims. I do believe that we as catholics believe that muslims share in our salvation

                  "The plan for salvation also includes those who acknowledge the  Creator, in the first place are the Muslims those who profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the One, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Same goes for any religion truley acknowledging the Creator.

ummmm i think He was talking to the Jews about Gentiles in general.

which might include some muslims, but i'm pretty sure He wasn't talking about them here.

i think it's more of a Light to the Gentiles type thing, not only are Jews His sheep, but also Gentiles-- Christians.

as Catholics we do not believe that Muslims share in our salvation, just that it is possible for a Muslim to reach eternal salvation. They are included in the plan for salvation, but Islam is not the plan for salvation. Islam is used to bring ppl to worship the true God, the Creator, therefore it is part of the plan of salvation. however, it is still not just as good to be a Muslim as to be a Christian. Some may attain salvation, but it will still be through Jesus Christ.

[Don John of Austria]

Mcsockpuppet--

Now see, what I was always taught was that when Jesus said He had other sheep, not in this flock He was referening to Muslims. I do believe that we as catholics believe that muslims share in our salvation

"The plan for salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place are the Muslims those who profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the One, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Same goes for any religion truley acknowledging the Creator.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA

The Catholic Church teaches that the only way for salvation is through Christ--- THE MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE A SHARE IN THAT SALVATION as far as we know, only those baptised as Christians can be saved by ordinary means, anyone else must rely on the mercy of God and extraordinary means which we hope exist but have no direct knowledge of. " Outside of the Church there is no salvation"!!!

Look it up. The Catachism does not say they have a share in salvation, it says they are in the plan of salvation which might mean they are there just to lead the weak away from Christ. Regardless it is the Infallable teaching of the Church that the Sacraments or martyrdom for CHRIST are mandatory for salvation.

[McSockPuppet]

Thats not true read your Catechism paragraph 841. It states that the plan for salvation includes those who acknowlege the creator.

Edited October 15, 2003 by McSockPuppet

[Don John of Austria]

I am not wrong, I have read my Catachism thank you and your interpretation is wrong --It must be because it is a heretical interpritation and I do not believe that the Catachism intended heresy. This is part of what the ecumenical Council of Trent said about Justification, it is inffallable and cannot be Challenged or altered in any way while remaining within the Church.

THE IMPOTENCY OF NATURE AND OF THE LAW TO JUSTIFY MAN

The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam,[3]having become unclean,[4] and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath,[5] as has been set forth in the decree on original sin,[6] they were so far the servants of sin[7] and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent,[8] was by no means extinguished in them.

CHAPTER II

THE DISPENSATION AND MYSTERY OF THE ADVENT OF CHRIST

Whence it came to pass that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort,[9] when the blessed fullness of time was come,[10] sent to men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had both before the law and during the time of the law been announced and promised to many of the holy fathers,[11] that he might redeem the Jews who were under the law,[12] and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice[13] might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him has God proposed as a propitiator through faith in his blood[14] for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.[15]

CHAPTER III

WHO ARE JUSTIFIED THROUGH CHRIST

But though He died for all,[16] yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His passion is communicated; because as truly as men would not be born unjust, if they were not born through propagation of the seed of Adam, since by that propagation they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own, so if they were not born again in Christ, they would never be justified, since in that new birth there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace by which they are made just. For this benefit the Apostle exhorts us always to give thanks to the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, and hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have redemption and remission of sins.[17]

CHAPTER IV

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

CHAPTER V

THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight. Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply: Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

CHAPTER VI

THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ's sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Of this disposition it is written: He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him;[24] and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee;[25] and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin;[26] and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;[27] and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;[28] finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.[29]

CHAPTER VII

IN WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER CONSISTS, AND WHAT ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.[30]

The causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one's disposition and cooperation.

For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts[38] of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.[39] For which reason it is most truly said that faith without works is dead[40] and of no profit, and in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by charity.[41]

This faith, conformably to Apostolic tradition, catechumens ask of the Church before the sacrament of baptism, when they ask for the faith that gives eternal life, which without hope and charity faith cannot give. Whence also they hear immediately the word of Christ: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.[42] Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are commanded, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe[43] given them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, so that they may bear it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and may have life eternal.

Now all of that is important, but that which is in read directly states my point.

Now some other staments from Trent:

CANONS ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL

Canon 4. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification,[2] though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema

CANONS ON BAPTISM

Canon 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation,[13] let him be anathema.

If you would like more it is avialable, regardless these Statements where made by Holy Mother Church in an Infallable Council, The canons carry with them Anathemas which are Expusion from the Church not just refusal of Sacrements and decent is not an option. You may submit to the will of God or you may become a Protestant but this is how it is.

[Freaky Chik]

You may submit to the will of God or you may become a Protestant but this is how it is.

ooooooooooohhh -aahhh

*chooses to ignore the statement*

:lol:

[Donna]

Don John, this teaching job is good for you (and your students).

It must be rough.

God bless your Ninja family. "Hold fast that which thou hast that no man take thy crown".

Freaky, I understand completely your choosing to ignore that statement at this time.

[cmotherofpirl]

The Necessity of Being Catholic

by James Akin

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full-fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non-Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council . . . asing itself on Scripture and Tradition . . . teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. . . . [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many moderns explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full-fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities.

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who -- by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion -- are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be "associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . . f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity -- no exceptions at all -- to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

Necessity of Means and Precept

Theologians also differentiate between things that are necessary by precept and things that are necessary as a means. The same example of driving on the right hand side of the road serves to illustrate both. In America driving on the right hand side of the road has a necessity of precept because the law requires us to do so. However, it is also necessary as a means because if one wishes to safely navigate the highways in America then one must drive on the right hand side of the road. If you wish to arrive safely at your destination, the means to that end is driving on the right hand side.

Thus driving on the right side of the road is a normative necessity by precept (because the law normally requires it) and a normative necessity of means (because it is normally necessary to safely arrive at one's destination). However, it is not an absolute necessity of precept (because the law makes exceptions for emergencies) or an absolute necessity of means (because safely arriving at one's destination sometimes requires a swerve into the other lane as an emergency maneuver).

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all,' 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' by which Christ is 'at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men'" (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45:1).

The Offense of the Gospel

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one must be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many even say it is an absolute necessity -- no exceptions allowed -- and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34-35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13-16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses -- meaning non-Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses -- may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists find the claim that one must be Catholic to be saved offensive, but no more offensive than non-Christians find the Evangelical claim that one must be Christian to be saved. Non-Christians regularly complain that this claim is offensive, sectarian, and even "anti-Christian." Yet Protestants argue that it is nothing of the sort; it is simply true. One must (at least normatively) be a Christian to be saved.

To back this up, they point to verses such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12. In the former, Jesus declares, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." In the latter Peter declares that Jesus is "the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Both passages teach the (normative) necessity of being a Christian to be saved, and Protestants are right to cite them.

This means the Catholic claim that we must be part of a particular group is no more offensive, sectarian, or anti-Christian than the corresponding Protestant claim. It simply involves a somewhat smaller group -- Catholics -- instead of a somewhat larger one -- Christians (the majority of whom are Catholics to begin with). It is part of the offense of the gospel, since the gospel demands a radical commitment to Christ (and correspondingly to his Church). Non-Christians naturally find this call to a radical realignment and recommitment upsetting, but there is nothing unreasonable about it. It is part of the offense of the gospel.

Similarly, there is no unreasonableness about the gospel's demand for a commitment to Christ entails a corresponding commitment to his Church. When they find this offensive, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are having the same emotional reaction that others have to their own claim. This has nothing to do with whether the claim is true; it is simply part of the offense of the gospel.

The Argument

How then would a Catholic go about proving it is necessary to be a Catholic and subject to the pope? The answer is that both these things are refinements of what it means to be a Christian. To be a Christian it is normatively necessary to be a formal member of the Church Christ founded. This is the Catholic Church. And to be a formal member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be formally subject to the earthly leader Christ established for it: the pope.

A Catholic thus might construct an argument for Unam Sanctam's definition like this:

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.

2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.

3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.

4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

The first premise we may take as established. The verses quoted earlier, John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12, show that it is (normatively) necessary to be a Christian to be saved.

Both Protestants and Catholics also agree on the second premise, though they disagree over the nature of Christ's Church. Protestants say it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church to be a Christian because in their view all true Christians are automatically members of Christ's Church, which they define as the invisible, spiritual communion of all true Christians.

Catholics say that it is normatively necessary for Christians to be members of Christ's Church for two reasons. First, because baptism automatically incorporates one into the Catholic Church (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27) unless some assault on the unity of the Church -- such as heresy or schism -- prevents one from being or remaining fully incorporated into it (cf. Rom. 11:19-23, Col. 2:18-19). Because baptism is the means by which one becomes a Christian, there is a necessity of means for a Christian to be a Catholic.

Second, because Christ also commands his followers to be subject to the Church leaders he has established (including the pope). This means it is also a necessity of precept for a Christian to be a member of the Catholic Church (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:7, 17; cf. Matt. 16:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 20:28).

The Nature of the Church

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition -- that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ's own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 -- the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. inDouche, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as "a gentile or a tax collector" (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church's members are in heaven and Christ's heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Union with the Pope

This leaves us with the fourth proposition -- that to be a Catholic one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Two lines of evidence show this proposition.

First, if one is a member of any formal organization, one is by nature subject to its leader (if it has one). The boundaries of formal organizations are established by who is united with the leader. If one is not in formal union with the leader, one is not a formal member of the organization. This holds regardless of the group in question. If one is not subject to the king, one is not a citizen of the kingdom. If one is not formally under the chairman, one is not a member of the committee. Since Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church, one who is a member of the Church is necessarily subject to the pope.

All Catholics have at least formal submission to the pope by their very membership in the Church. In practice, however, many do not live out the obligation of giving real submission, and may even declare that they find the notion of "submission" to anyone repulsive. This is similar to how political radicals may disavow the President of the United States, even though they are formally subject to him by their American citizenship. If a person disavows submission to the pope, he is automatically excommunicated by having gone into schism, which is defined as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751, CCC 2089.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Keys are used to open and close doors or gates through which people enter. Jesus thus gave Peter the power to admit and exclude from the Church. This power is often exercised in the name of the pope by his priests, who by baptism or profession of faith bring new members into the Church, but power is the pope's. When one is admitted to the Church, it is by exercise of the keys of the kingdom. The keys also can potentially exclude one through excommunication. Both the gaining and loss of membership are functions of the power of the keys, which is held by the pope.

Scripture thus shows that all four of the above propositions are true. It is normatively necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope. This is not because of any special quality of the pope himself, but because he is the leader Christ appointed for his Church, and because full membership in his Church is normatively necessary for being a Christian, which is normatively necessary for salvation.

Exceptions to the Rule

It is possible in some instances for a person to be saved without fulfilling these obligations. If a person is innocently ignorant of his obligation to join the Church then God will not hold this against him, but will make it possible for him to be saved anyway.

One is innocently ignorant if he has not seen sufficient evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith (given his mental faculties and any opposing evidence he has been given by anti-Catholics). But if one has seen sufficient evidence, or if he has seen enough evidence that he should investigate further but has failed to do so, his ignorance is not innocent.

Even for those who are innocently ignorant, salvation is not achieved without some union with the Church. As Catholic teaching makes clear, one can be united with the Church in a way that does not involve full incorporation into it. Only Catholics are fully incorporated, though non-Catholics who are in a state of grace are linked with it (to use Vatican II's terminology), even if they are unaware of this.

Vatican II stated: "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. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

Some radical traditionalists are not satisfied with the teaching of Vatican II and demand more proof that some who are not in formal union with the Church can be saved. We could cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX's allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Trent on Desire for Baptism

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]." Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44-48, also Luke 23:42-43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus the state of grace can be received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Implicit Desire

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better -- whatever that drug might be -- and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth -- wherever that might be found -- rather than his primary desire being membership in a non-Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non-Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

Justification and Salvation

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies, Trent defines justification as "a translation . . . to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification . . . is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for'" (Summa Theologiae III:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "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 . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally . . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST III:68:2).

Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries-old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries-old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself.

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements.

The Necessity of Evangelism

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way -- contrary to what they explicitly state -- that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

Also, the mere presence of elements of truth does not mean a religion is leading one toward God. Though it is rare, full-blown Satanism contains elements of truth (there is a supernatural world, God exists, Satan exists, Satan is in rebellion against God, using consecrated Hosts in a Black Mass is offensive to God, etc.), but this religion definitely does not lead one toward God!

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth -- Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) -- but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization -- to hear the good news -- but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world-wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved?", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright © 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

[cmotherofpirl]

NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

by Fr. William Most

It is a defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church.

Yet, as the Holy Office pointed out in condemning L. Feeney (DS 3866) we

must understand this the way the Church means it, not by private

interpretation.

First we find that the Church insists many times over that those who

through no fault of their own do not find the Church, but keep the moral

law with the help of grace, can be saved:

<Lumen gentium> #16 says: "For they who without their own fault do not

know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere

heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in

practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain

eternal salvation." John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10

says the same [underline added]: "For such people [those who do not

formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible

by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the

Church, does not make them <formally> part of the Church." We underline the

word "formally" to indicated that there may be something less than formal

membership, which yet suffices for salvation. A similar thought is found in

LG #14 which says "they are fully incorporated" who accept all its

organization. . . . ." We will show presently that there can be a lesser,

or substantial membership, which suffices for salvation.

What should we say about a line in LG #8: "This Church, in this world

as a constituted and ordered society, <subsists in> the Catholic Church. .

. even though outside its confines many elements of sanctification and

truth are found which, as gifts proper to the Church of Christ, impel to

Catholic unity."

We must not overlook the words in LG #8 which speak of "this one and

only [<unica>] Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed. . . ."

Similarly the Decree on Religious Liberty in #1 says that" it [this decree]

leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the duty of men

and societies to the true religion and the one and only [<unica>] Church of

Christ."

So there really is only one true Church. But really, we it seems that

some think that protestant churches are as it were <component parts> of the

Church of Christ. And they think that follows from the words about

"subsisting in" and the statement that elements of sanctification can be

found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

This does not mean that there are other legitimate forms of

Christianity. Pope Gregory XVI (DS 2730. Cf. Pius IX, DS 2915 and Leo XIII,

DS 3250) condemned "an evil opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation

<by> just any profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm."

So although people who do not formally join can be saved, as LG #16 says,

and <Redemptoris missio> #10 also says, they are not saved <by> such a

faith. It is in spite of it.

Yet we can account for the words about <subsisting in> and about finding

elements of salvation outside. For this we need the help of the Fathers of

the Church.

In this way we find <a way of filling in on what the Magisterium

teaches>:

We begin with St. Justin the Martyr who c. 145 A. D. in <Apology> 1. 46,

said that in the past some who were thought to be atheists, such as

Socrates and Heraclitus, who were really Christians, for they followed the

Divine Logos, the Divine Word. Further, in <Apology> 2. 10 Justin adds that

the Logos is in everyone. Now of course the Logos, being Spirit, does not

take up space. We say a spirit if present <wherever it produces an effect>.

What effect? We find that in St. Paul, in Romans 2:14-16 where he says that

"the Gentiles who do not have the law, do by nature the works of the law.

They show the work of the law <written on their hearts>." and according to

their response, conscience will defend or accuse them at the judgment.

So it is the Logos, the Spirit of Christ, who writes the law on their

hearts, that, it makes known to them interiorly what they need to do. Some

then could follow it without knowing that fact. So Socrates: (1)read and

<believed> what the Spirit wrote in his heart; (2) he had <confidence in

it>; (3) he <obeyed it>. We see this obedience in the fact that Socrates

went so far as to say, as Plato quotes him many times, that the one who

seeks the truth must have as little as possible to do with the things of

the body.

Let us notice the three things, just enumerated: St. Paul in Romans 3:29

asks: "Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the

gentiles." It means that if God made salvation depend on knowing and

following the law of Moses, He would act as if He cared for no one but

Jews. But God does care for all. Paul insists God makes salvation possible

by faith for them (cf. Romans chapter 4). Faith in Paul includes the three

things we have enumerated which Socrates did.

So in following that Spirit of Christ Socrates was accepting and

following the Spirit of Christ, But then, from Romans 8:9 we gather that if

one has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he "<belongs to> Christ". That

is, He is a <member of Christ>, which in Paul's terms means a <member of

the Mystical Body>, which is the Church.

So Socrates then was a member of the Church, but not formally, only

substantially. He could not know the Church. So he was saved, not <by> his

false religious beliefs <but in spite of them. He was saved by faith, and

similarly protestants and others who do not formally join the Church today

are saved not as members of e. g. , the Baptist church, which some seem to

think is an integral part of the one Church of Christ -- no, they are saved

as individuals, who make use of the means of sanctification> they are able

to find even outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

Many other Fathers speak much like St. Justin. A large presentation of

them can be found in Wm. Most, <Our Father's Plan>, in a 28 page appendix.

Lumen gentium also likes to speak of the Church as a <mystery>. This

is correct, for it is a mystery, since it is <only partly visible>. It does

have visible structure, and no one who knowingly rejects that can be saved.

It has members visibly adhering. But it also has members who belong to it

even without knowing that, and without external explicit adherence. Hence

there is much mystery, to be known fully and clearly only at the end.

So all other forms of Christianity are heretical and/or schismatic. They

are not legitimate.

The Decree on Ecumenism states that the worship and liturgical actions

of other Christian bodies 'can truly engender a life of grace and can be

rightly described as capable of providing access to the community of

salvation.

Here is the actual text of the Decree: "In addition, out of the elements

or goods by which, taken together, the Church herself is built up and made

alive, certain things, or rather many and excellent things can exist

outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church: The written Word of God,

the life of grace, faith, hope and love, and other interior gifts of the

Holy Spirit and visible elements: all these things, which come from Christ

and lead to Him, belong to the one-only Church of Christ. Even not a few

sacred actions of the Christian religion are carried out among the brothers

separated from us. . . which beyond doubt can really generate the life of

grace, and are to be said to be apt to open the entry into the community of

salvation."

We notice the things mentioned: (1)<scripture> -- Protestants read it.

(2)<the life of grace>-- yes, one can reach the state of grace without

formally entering the Catholic Church, as <Lumen gentium> 16 says:"They who

without fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek

God with a sincere heart, and try with the help of grace to fulfill his

will, known through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal

salvation." Even pagans can do this. (3)<faith> - yes, outsiders can have

faith, at least if they are not misled by Luther's great error on what

faith is. (4)<hope and love> - again, even a pagan may attain these.

(5)<other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit>-- yes, if outsiders reach the

state of grace, they also have the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. (6)<and

visible elements> - Baptism if validly given. BUT we must note the next

words in the decree:" all these things. . . belong to the one-only Church

of Christ." In other words, it is not a protestant church as protestant

that can provide these things -these are things that belong to the Catholic

Church, which the Protestants have not completely rejected. So some

religious actions are carried out in protestantism which can really

generate the life of grace. Yes, Baptism does that. Reading of Scripture,

prayers, and other things enumerated above in the first 6 items can do

that. But again, it is not protestant worship as protestant that gives

grace -- it is things the protestants have retained even after breaking

with the one-only Church of Christ. As the previous sentence said:"

So the Decree continues in the next sentence cited above: "they belong

to the one-only Church of Christ."

[cmotherofpirl]

Mcsockpuppet--

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA

The Catholic Church teaches that the only way for salvation is through Christ--- THE MUSLIMS DO NOT HAVE A SHARE IN THAT SALVATION as far as we know, only those baptised as Christians can be saved by ordinary means, anyone else must rely on the mercy of God and extraordinary means which we hope exist but have no direct knowledge of. " Outside of the Church there is no salvation"!!!

Look it up. The Catachism does not say they have a share in salvation, it says they are in the plan of salvation which might mean they are there just to lead the weak away from Christ. Regardless it is the Infallable teaching of the Church that the Sacraments or martyrdom for CHRIST are mandatory for salvation.

Yes and no.

We are bound by the Sacraments, but God is not.

THe Good Thief was not martyred, and did did not recieve the Sacraments.

We have no clue what GOD considers extraordinary means or how far His mercy extends.

Judging who is in heaven and who is not, is God's call, not ours.

[Anna]

Now see, what I was always taught was that when Jesus said He had other sheep, not in this flock He was referening to Muslims. I do believe that we as catholics believe that muslims share in our salvation

                  "The plan for salvation also includes those who acknowledge the  Creator, in the first place are the Muslims those who profess the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the One, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Same goes for any religion truley acknowledging the Creator.

The muslim religion came after Christianity; Mohammed lived well after the time of Christ.

Doubtful that Christ was referring, therefore, to muslims, but most likely He was referring to the Gentiles, who Paul sought after and evangelized.

[cmotherofpirl]

History and timelines do not apply to Jesus was who the MAn-God.

He had knowledge of what was, what is, and what is to come.

[Katholikos]

Thanks, cmom.

Father Most (God rest his very orthodox soul) and James Akin (one very smart convert, the saints be praised) are the "mostest." Great stuff. I read every word.