Confusion on salvation for non-catholics

[jswranch]

I visited an an anti-Catholic website [url="http://www.bible.ca/cath-one-true-church.htm"]http://www.bible.ca/cath-one-true-church.htm[/url] and marveled at my ability to dispute their wild claims (no Tertulian and Origen were not Early Church Fathers etc) . However, I am shaddy for logical arguments against one point in their section on "flip-flopping" doctrines.

Specifically, I am not crystal clear how to defend against their argument that the church taught only Catholics can go to heaven, but now (post VII), others may go to heaven. They claim "Officially, before Vatican 2 in 1965 AD, all non-Catholic churchgoers will go to HELL! Today it is different!"

Here is where I am stuck:
One cannot deny that 'outside of the church there is no salvation' is a dogma.

1. VII described/decreed (not defined) that non-catholic christians (from ignorance) may very well attain heaven.

[quote]UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
"For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect... But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church..." While VII made no canons or dogmatic statements, it described/decreed that other christians are catholics. [/quote]

However, I find trouble with my conclusion when I read things quotes like this one:

[quote]Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam." (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846):
"It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922):
"Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)


"The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the 'everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For the union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1438-45, From the Bull "Cantate Domino", February 4, 1441 (Florentine style) Decree for the Jacobites, Denz. 165.) [/quote]

Perhaps these are poor translations or fake.


2. It is incorrect for anyone to believe the church now (post-VII) teaches non-christians may share in salvation. Catholics may very correctly teach God has the ultimate authority to save whom ever he chooses even if they are not baptized. However, to say "non-christians, through their attempted relationship with God, may be assured of their salvation" is error.

[Brother Adam]

It is this misunderstanding that fuels the SSPX movement. They squeal like a stuck pig at the idea of 'non-catholics' being saved. However, the Churches position has been pretty much the same since St. Paul wrote the book of Romans. You have to start asking questions like "What does it mean to be saved?" "What does it mean to be Catholic?" "What is full communion and partial communion?" "Is God confined to working in 'the box'?" "What is a formal heretic and how does it compare to being a material heretic?" "Are all Protestants formal heretics?"

The website are, in usual fashion reading the statements in a vacuum. They do not consider culture, history, or the wider context of what was happening when different documents were written. They want the Catholic Church to be wrong, so they find reasons for the Catholic Church to be wrong. It is not a method in which one should search for truth.

[MichaelFilo]

Thanks Adam, I'm sure your rant bashing the SSPX will aide him in his plight. (sarcasm aside)

The real problem is some of those (actually most) are post-Protestantism, so what you have are very real claims about the nature and salvation of Protestants; in essence, they can expect hellfire. Jesus taught the same thing (I am the way, the Truth and the Life, none may see the Father except through Me) (John 14:6?). Catholicism, beilving it is the Body of Christ, as Paul calls the Church, is too exclusivist, and anyone outside Her will perish in hellfire.

To look at the quotes specifically (although this is an abhorent whore for me, because I truely believe those who remain outside of the Church are not saved, and the extraordinary means through which they join are so limited. I too see a (possible) contradiction in Catholic tradition by Vatican II, but what the hell, what do I know?) we will look at the last one, the one of greatest importance first. TWo things ought to be stressed, the first "The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church" makes special note to say "no one remaining outside", where the word "remaining" means a choice. No one who has never heard of the Catholic Church can choose to remain outside. Anyone who knows Her and rejects Her will go to hell, regardless of their other religious beliefs, even protestants.


The second to last quote features this line "or as a whole rejected" which also implys an active rejection.

the 2nd one, ask for some context, I can't find the online copy.

The first one is of special importance because it references the document Unam Sanctam which was written to the schismatic Eastern churches. It's specific intent was to remind them that by rejecting the pope, they lose their salvation.

In short, all the quotes fall short of total rejection, as some men may enter the Church if they never get to know her. Sadly, for your heretic friends, that doesn't mean them, unless, as some modernists argue like Brother Adam who himself was a heretic, they never get to see the Church for what it really was. Although, I must say, thats a novelty, knowing no root in Catholic tradition. If they see the Church, and reject her (which they do, they know what the Church teaches about Christ's body in the Eucharist, and they knowingly reject it) then these quotes do apply to them. All the more they ought to convert.

All VII did was say what Catholics have always said, that some maybe saved if they don't ever hear about the Church, but if they reject Her, to hell with them, quite literally.

God bless,
Mikey

[Brother Adam]

Yep, it is qutie easy to argue, as you have, by simply declaring that I am a "modernist" (which means you have no understanding of the heresy of modernism). For a Protestant to simply see a Catholic Church and go "oh, there is a Catholic Church" and not immediately convert does not mean that they have 'rejected the Catholic Church'. I'd suggest (I know this is a stretch for someone sympathetic to rejecting the Catholic Church through schism) reading the Decree on Ecumenism. It is remarkable how much SSPX'ers sound more and more like their brothers in blood, Once Saved, Alwasy Saved folk who through reason out with the bathwater.

The fact is that Protestants, by a valid baptism are members of the Church of Christ, as the Church has always recognized, though not communio plena. Of course these concepts are not fully rooted and developed in Tradition because there were no Protestants before the Protestant Reformation and the question of these Christians did not come up. Unlike previous heresies they maintained at least one valid sacrament. Even canon law recognizes the sacramentality of Christian marriage between two baptized non-Catholic Christians. The sad fact is folks such as yourself forget the most important of all virtues, charity.

Schismatic attitudes (including VII 'be damned') piss me off because I use to be Protestant and being Catholic now makes me want to say "away with" anything that wants to claim to be Catholic and yet disobey the Catholic Magisterium, on all levels but those of personal opinion in the hierarchy of truth.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Brother Adam

[MichaelFilo]

I'd go on to debate further Adam, but you know better than I (this wouldn't be the first time I'd be told) that isn't a debate table, this is about answering his question. Also, I hardly am a fan of the SSPX, as it is schismatic, and have made it rather public as to where I stand on that group's position to leave the Church (if indeed they have, as I'm told, it is under some dispute as to whether they have been actually kicked out?). Regardless, I am no SSPXer.

To your second part,

[quote]2. It is incorrect for anyone to believe the church now (post-VII) teaches non-christians may share in salvation. Catholics may very correctly teach God has the ultimate authority to save whom ever he chooses even if they are not baptized. However, to say "non-christians, through their attempted relationship with God, may be assured of their salvation" is error.[/quote]

It is true, the Church has always taught that the unbaptized who die have no hope of salvation, but the Church has also taught that through desire or blood (martyrdom for Christ, without actual baptism) one may be baptized.

Key point of note : No one can be assured of their salvation.

Edited April 24, 2006 by MichaelFilo

[jasJis]

Intersting. I think I need to change may name to Kindling.

[phatcatholic]

filo.............you were out of line from the outset. you know better. and there's no point in even moving this to the debate table. charity went out the window when you posted........