There is a book written way back in the late 19th Century (1888). This book was written in the defense of the Traditional and Orthodox Catholic Faith of No Salvation Outside the Church. It is called "The Catholic Dogma". It answers a Liberal Catholic and a Protestant that no one who dies outside the Church can be enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Here is the Link:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/muller.html

I know many here will disagree with Fr. Muller. All this shows is they are Liberals, Progressives or Neo-Catholics. They don't follow the Traditional and Orthodox teaching of the faith.

Joe

-- Joe (christian_rc@hotmail.com), February 13, 2003

Answers

The official teaching of the Church IS Tradition. And the official teaching of the Church, since the days of Father Leonard Feeney, has been that it IS possible for non-baptized non-Catholics to be saved.

Father Muller wrote before the dogma had been defined, so he was free to publish his opinions - just as St. Thomas Aquina was free to publish his opinion that that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not immaculately conceived. But once the Church makes a decision, that decision may not be questioned.

And I am neither a Liberal, a Progressive or a Neo-Catholic. I am a baptized Roman Catholic who follows the Pope.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), February 14, 2003.

Christine L

Fr. Muller wrote in the late 1800s. The Church defined the Dogma: No Savlation Outside the Church in the 1200s and has been reaffirmed through solemn (infallible) pronouncements twice. His teachiings are considered Orthodox and that is why it received an imprimatur from his Bishop.

To believe that a person who doesn't hold the truth faith and hasn't received the laver of regeneration or the desire to receive it can be enter the Kingdom of Heaven, you are a Liberal, Progessive or a Neo-Catholic. It is not of the faith of the Catholic Church. You can not find it beyond the 1800s.

Joe

-- Joe (christian_rc@hotmail.com), February 14, 2003.

I'm with you Joe!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 14, 2003.

"And the official teaching of the Church... has been that it IS possible for non-baptized non-Catholics to be saved... Father Muller wrote before the dogma had been defined."

There has been no dogmatic definition that non-baptized non-Catholics can be saved.

Neither has it been dogmatically defined that John the Baptist ate real and true grasshoppers. It is only philosophical speculation that carob is better than chocolate.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 14, 2003.

Joe, you are incorrect.

I went through the rituals of baptism and confirmation, and even have the documents to prove it. Is that Catholic enough for me to be saved?

Quite a few people who died for the faith in the early Church, were later realized to have never been baptized by water. It has been said, they were baptized by blood, or fire, depending on how they were killed. Are they considered Catholic in order to be saved? If they became Catholic for dying in what they believed in, how does this exclude other people, who die of natural causes, but share the same beliefs, yet were never baptised?

Before Christ came a long, there was no Catholic faith, as the people of God were Jews. Are they saved?

If I grew up on an island in the south pacific three thousand years ago, and of course impossible to have any exposure to Jewish/Catholic doctrine/rituals, but lived an exemplary life, following my conscience, and believing that there was a higher power for everything that exists, and acknowledging that power with praise and thanks, would that person be saved?

If I was raised a Hindu, sincerely believing and practicing my faith, because that was all I was exposed to my entire life, am I to be condemned for following my God given conscience my whole life? What's the sin, that condemns such a person to hell? The sin of ignorance, of not knowing any better, simply because I was never exposed to the truth?

I guess the point I am getting to, is what is the definition of a Catholic in the eyes of God?

Are eastern orthodox Christians Catholic enough?

I believe that God considers a holy muslim for example, who praises God, and follows his holy will, as Catholic, if they truly did not know any better.

One of the things the Catholic Church always teaches, is that God is fair and just! It is God to decide who is Catholic or not, and not you.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 15, 2003.

If Bonifice 8th, Eugene 4th, Innocent 3rd, did not make that as clear as crystal, nothing is. All Ex Cathedra, and re-affirmed by all popes, until, the past 150 years or so. Coincidental with masonry and the French revolution. No modern pope has ever said "we proclaim, we declare, etc", has ever uttered those words in the past 2 centuries. Nothing less will do. If they did that, the Church could change, and not be the word of God. The Holy Spirit, did not have to wait till the enlightened 19th and 20th century, to learn about His mistake.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 15, 2003.

Ed, I notice you did not answer a single question of mine. If it is so clear, why don't you start answering them! Are those questions too difficult for you?

Repeating yourself over and over again, is not a discussion!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 15, 2003.

Gordon , THE POPES have answered your questions. Believe them or not, that is up to you. If God does save those Muslims, and others, He will do it in some mysterious ways, beyond our imagination. We don't have to come up with our convoluted answers. Our need to know, is just to preach, as we are ordered to do. I would ask you one question. Why did Our Lord start a church, (not churches), if people can be saved without it?. Seems like a lot of extra work for nothing!.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 15, 2003.

> At the eleventh hour the Gentiles are called: "About the eleventh hour he went out and found > others standing, and said to them: why stand you here all the day idle?" Unlike the true > Israelites who have labored faithfully, these plainly said: "because no man has hired us." No > Patriarch had come to them and no Prophet. What does it mean that no man has hired them, unless it > be that no one had yet come to preach to them the way of life? > > > Now, all this has taken place: The Gospel has been preached everywhere in the wide world: > missionaries have labored at the cost of their health and even their lives to bring those who have > not yet been invited into the vineyard. > > > Then we hear the murmuring and the grumbling. How so like even our modern days when someone is > saved on his deathbed after having `stood idle' all his life, serving the world governed by Satan. > How much murmuring escapes the lips of those who are still struggling against the flesh, while one > who has served the flesh is now almost miraculously saved! But there is more. > > > Many are brought to the faith, but few are brought into the kingdom of heaven. And many serve God > with their tongue, but turn from Him in their lives. The lesson to take home is this: No one > should presume concerning his own salvation; and no one should take it upon himself to despair of > his neighbor, whom he sees steeped in vice, because no one knows the richness of the divine mercy.

This is what I mean by God's ways instead of ours. We must not presume on God's justice,... or His mercy, Let God be God >

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 15, 2003.

> "Gordon , THE POPES have answered your questions."

Then please give me their answers to those questions. I mean, your answer is a bit of cop out, as you refuse, or can't seem to answer them.

> "If God does save those Muslims, and others, He will do it in some mysterious ways, beyond our imagination."

That's right. God will decide!

> "I would ask you one question. Why did Our Lord start a church, (not churches), if people can be saved without it?. Seems like a lot of extra work for nothing!."

Nice try Ed. You refuse to answer a single question of mine, so I refuse to answer your question.

I will make a deal with you Ed, answer my questions, and I will more than happy to answer yours.

I mean, to me it makes no sense to make such a strong claim, and refuse to debate the points I bring up. The points I bring up are very valid to the whole issue of what is a Catholic?

-- Gordon (gvink@yaho.com), February 16, 2003.

Gordon I will try to answer those 3 questions,(not that they will satisfy you)

1. What is a Catholic?. One who accepts the Catholic church, it's teachings, and especially the 7 sacraments. "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has life in him, etc". Do Muslims, protestants, jews?.

2. Eastern orthodox? Maybe?

3.Good Muslims? who is good?. "They all left Him and walked no more,with Him. Who can believe such a hard saying"/ Protestants can not, Muslims can not, Jews can not. And in recent years many priests, and laiety can not!That's a tough one but true. That's my try, take it or leave it.

Now how about, why did Jesus make a church?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 16, 2003.

you ask, how could anyone get the notion that Scripture contains errors? Well, that’s a long story — a story that started about two hundred years ago. Actually, it was the liberal Protestants who were the first to advance the concept of an errant Scripture. Leo XIII and Pius X, however, forbade Catholics to even entertain the idea. But that began to change in the 1940s and 1950s when liberal Catholic theologians badly outnumbered their traditional counterparts. As happened to the Protestants, the liberal Catholics invaded the seminaries and universities with their new-fangled teachings. They were just waiting for any stamp of approval from the Church, even if it was an ambiguous one. Lo and behold, Vatican II gave them just what they needed. By using all the ecclesiastical and political power they could, the liberals succeeded in placing a highly ambiguous statement in Dei Verbum 11, and thus Vatican II opened up a Pandora’s Box of counter- possibilities, upon which the liberal theologians gorged themselves like vultures on a dead carcass

Additional clarification, Gordon

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 16, 2003.

> "1. What is a Catholic?. One who accepts the Catholic church, it's teachings, and especially the 7 sacraments. "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has life in him, etc". Do Muslims, protestants, jews?."

That's sounds reasonable, but to go to hell, one has to be guilty of a mortal sin, which is a result of three conditions: 1) Serious matter 2) Full will 3) Full Knowledge

Are Muslims, Protestants, Jews aware of the seriousness of their sin in the rejection of the Catholic faith. On that ground alone, one could argue, they are not commiting a mortal sin, for they sin in ignorance. Don't you agree?

How can the Church contradict itself, by saying Mary's parents, Anne and Joachim are Saints, yet they were Jews their whole lives!

> "2. Eastern orthodox? Maybe?"

They reject the primacy of Peter, which is very important teaching of the Church. Based on what you have indicated, they cannot be considered Catholic.

> "3.Good Muslims? who is good?. "They all left Him and walked no more,with Him. Who can believe such a hard saying"/ Protestants can not, Muslims can not, Jews can not. And in recent years many priests, and laiety can not!That's a tough one but true. That's my try, take it or leave it."

Well only God is good, but I was implying a Muslim who is not in a state of mortal sin. Does God reject the pleas of forgiveness of those who are not Catholic?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

> "you ask, how could anyone get the notion that Scripture contains errors?"

I never said that. I don't believe the Bible contains errors.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

Gordon, actual sin does not encompass every condition... there is such a thing as original sin. That's basic doctrine. Mortal sin isn't the sole principle by which souls are lost; remember, we begin lost, we don't just end up there by sinning at a later point. We are really far from our roots.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2003.

Emerald, the Church certainly does not teach that souls are lost to hell because of original sin!

If that was the case, than all the children that are slaughtered through abortion would go to hell. I even pointed out above, that some of the early Christian martyrs in the Church were never baptised with water.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

Gordon, I would suppose, some of those, who hit the WTC, might well get to Heaven, because they did not really know that murder was a mortal sin. They obviously had sufficient reflection, and certainly full consent of the will, but in their mind it was not serious matter,in fact it was a glorious thing. Natural law will convict. No one in this world (adults anyway), can cop out on the "invincible ignorance" plea.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

> "No one in this world (adults anyway), can cop out on the "invincible ignorance" plea."

God will decide, and I have a problem with people who condemn all non-Catholics to hell, because it does not meet YOUR standard.

God will decide who is Catholic or not, and will also decide if a person is in a state of mortal sin or not. You will not decide.

Don't come back to me, and say a Pope said this, because all that amounts to is your extreme interpretation.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

"God will decide who is Catholic or not, and will also decide if a person is in a state of mortal sin or not."

Whoever said otherwise?

"Don't come back to me, and say a Pope said this, because all that amounts to is your extreme interpretation."

Since when is what a pope says irrelevant... at least to a Catholic, that is? The use of the word "extreme" doesn't really work here. Someone could say that the Church's teaching on contraception or premarital sex is extreme, but what difference does it make? Because someone perceives something as extreme means that it cannot be the truth?

These are strange days, when basic doctrines are called heresies. Why not just go ahead and be anything you want, I guess... God will honor your enlightenment, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2003.

> "Since when is what a pope says irrelevant... at least to a Catholic, that is?"

You guys are saying that only Catholics go to heaven, but I just want to point out, that it is God who decides who is Catholic or not. You cannot go around saying all Jews/Muslims/etc are going to hell, because they don't meet you definition of what a Catholic is.

> "The use of the word "extreme" doesn't really work here. Someone could say that the Church's teaching on contraception or premarital sex is extreme, but what difference does it make? Because someone perceives something as extreme means that it cannot be the truth?"

You guys are excluding most of humanity from God's saving grace when you go around repeating what past Popes have said, without providing an explaination for it all. I mean clarity is needed here!

> "These are strange days, when basic doctrines are called heresies. Why not just go ahead and be anything you want, I guess... God will honor your enlightenment, right?"

It has nothing to do with my "enlightenment", but has everything to do with the teachings of the Church. Can the Church contradict itself? No it cannot. What you guys are saying, creates lots of contradictions, which I pointed out above, like Mary's parents for example being Saints in the Church, but were never Catholics.

I never said you can be whatever you want, as I made it quite clear that I do believe in: 1) original sin 2) that is is a sin to reject God's faith, but whether it is venial or mortal is for God to decide 3) and that people cannot be in a state of mortal, if they want to be saved.

I have made no attempt to water down the teachings of the Church, but have made every effort to explain them clearly.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

"You guys are saying that only Catholics go to heaven, but I just want to point out, that it is God who decides who is Catholic or not. You cannot go around saying all Jews/Muslims/etc are going to hell, because they don't meet your definition of what a Catholic is."

It isn't my definition. I didn't make any definition; nor am I deciding who is a Catholic.

"You guys are excluding most of humanity from God's saving grace when you go around repeating what past Popes have said, without providing an explaination for it all. I mean clarity is needed here!"

I'm not excluding anyone from anything at all; people exclude themselves from God's saving grace... people make their own decisions. I'm not making any decisions for anybody; I have no power to decide anyone's fate. Clarity has already been provided by the pontiffs; I'm not going to be adding anything to it, nor am I able to.

"It has nothing to do with my "enlightenment", but has everything to do with the teachings of the Church. Can the Church contradict itself? No it cannot."

That's what I think too.

"What you guys are saying, creates lots of contradictions, which I pointed out above, like Mary's parents for example being Saints in the Church, but were never Catholics."

To hold to the dogma of the Faith is to be clear of all contradictions. The situation of Mary's parents does not contradict anything.

"I never said you can be whatever you want, as I made it quite clear that I do believe in: 1) original sin 2) that is is a sin to reject God's faith, but whether it is venial or mortal is for God to decide 3) and that people cannot be in a state of mortal, if they want to be saved."

What people don't seem to realize is that in the distinction between venial and mortal sin, the subject of those sins is assumed to be a baptised Catholic. Mortal sin would be the loss of that grace in the soul pertaining to baptised Catholic. In other words, the terms mortal and venial are not predicated of a person who is not a baptised Catholic. This kind of shows how people have all but forgotten the glaring reality of original sin and the fact that all humanity is lost but for the blood of Christ.

"I have made no attempt to water down the teachings of the Church, but have made every effort to explain them clearly."

I realize that Gordon; I know you have nothing but honest intentions. I know you think you are right and I understand pretty much where you are coming from, and I also understand that almost nobody understands what I'm talking about; but that's fine by me. I know people think it is an unjust way of thinking but I guess you just have to trust that I'm not heaping condemnation on anyone, no matter what it looks like. I want the best for everyone; why wouldn't I? I don't deserve the best of anything myself.

Someday soon probably, we will get some clarification for people to see, to understand.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 17, 2003.

Here is something to think about. How likely is it for someone to actually get through their life without committing a mortal sin? Even we Catholics, who have all the help of the sacraments.....rarely does even a Catholic go through life without committing a mortal sin. Now, put that in context with what you are trying to say, and voila, virtually no one outside the Church will have much of a chance of being saved. Why? Because as it is very unlikely for almost everyone, (excepting the holiest of saints maybe) to get through life without committing a mortal sin, and as confession is the only way to remove a mortal sin (besides perfect contrition which is a grace not granted to just anyone), then how is it that people believe that so many outside the Church can be saved? Even if you believe those outside the Church can be saved, (and I believe more along the lines of Emerald and Ed), then you would have to admit that it is very unlikely without the graces of the true Church and her sacraments.

Now this will ruffle a few feathers. I also believe that the three conditions for mortal sin posted above is something that is also watered down quite often to excuse mortal sin. Mortal sin = mortal sin. It's kind of like driving through a state with a seat belt law that you weren't aware of, then getting pulled over and trying to tell the police you didn't know it was a law in this state. Most police officers probably wouldn't care if you knew or not. How many times have we heard the saying that "Ignorance is no excuse for the law"? (Or something like that.) Most, if not all, are left ignorant because they do not bother to search for the truth.

One more thing, the analogy of the Blessed Virgin's parents.....that just does not hold water, because the Church had not been established yet. All those before the time of Christ were bound by the old law, only those during and after the time of Christ are bound by the new law. By following the old law, Mary's parents were quite within the will of God, because the new law had not been established yet.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

> "What people don't seem to realize is that in the distinction between venial and mortal sin, the subject of those sins is assumed to be a baptised Catholic. Mortal sin would be the loss of that grace in the soul pertaining to baptised Catholic. In other words, the terms mortal and venial are not predicated of a person who is not a baptised Catholic. This kind of shows how people have all but forgotten the glaring reality of original sin and the fact that all humanity is lost but for the blood of Christ."

Emerald, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that those who have original sin, are commiting mortal sins, when they commit venial sins? Note that the Church never says anyone goes to hell, for lack of baptism. Original sin effects our lives, and drags us down, by causing other sins, but that does not mean mortal sins.

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

> "Here is something to think about. How likely is it for someone to actually get through their life without committing a mortal sin?"

I agree, that would be an exceptional holy person so avoid commiting any mortal sins their whole lives.

> "Because as it is very unlikely for almost everyone, (excepting the holiest of saints maybe) to get through life without committing a mortal sin, and as confession is the only way to remove a mortal sin (besides perfect contrition which is a grace not granted to just anyone), then how is it that people believe that so many outside the Church can be saved?"

I don't believe that non-Catholics are held to the Catholic standard. I believe a Protestant can confess their sins to God, and be forgiven. Ask yourself this, as a Catholic, if you were stuck on a desert island for a long time, without access to a priest, would God hear your pleas for forgiveness? I believe God would in such circumstance forgive you any mortal sins that you commit, if you have a contrite heart.

> "Even if you believe those outside the Church can be saved, (and I believe more along the lines of Emerald and Ed), then you would have to admit that it is very unlikely without the graces of the true Church and her sacraments."

Are saying that all Jews for example are going to hell, because they know in their hearts that the Catholic faith is the true Church of God, but reject it out of pride, or something? I mean, a lot of these people are sincere in their faith, and believe they are following the true faith.

> "Now this will ruffle a few feathers. I also believe that the three conditions for mortal sin posted above is something that is also watered down quite often to excuse mortal sin. Mortal sin = mortal sin."

Well, the conditions I listed above comes from the Catholic faith! Should I list what the Catechism says?

> "It's kind of like driving through a state with a seat belt law that you weren't aware of, then getting pulled over and trying to tell the police you didn't know it was a law in this state. Most police officers probably wouldn't care if you knew or not. How many times have we heard the saying that "Ignorance is no excuse for the law"?"

I agree that the law of God is written in each man's heart, but that is moral law. We are talking about people who are rejecting the Catholic FAITH. They are following their own faith sincerely. How would they know, the Catholic faith is the true faith? You tell me!

> "(Or something like that.) Most, if not all, are left ignorant because they do not bother to search for the truth."

I agree, but we cannot judge others if they lacked this effort, for we do not really know. That is for God to decide.

> "One more thing, the analogy of the Blessed Virgin's parents.....that just does not hold water, because the Church had not been established yet. All those before the time of Christ were bound by the old law, only those during and after the time of Christ are bound by the new law. By following the old law, Mary's parents were quite within the will of God, because the new law had not been established yet."

Thank you Isabel for the exception!!! Like I have been saying all along, the Popes declaration, that only Catholics go to heaven is not something that is absolute. There are exceptions like you just gave us.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 17, 2003.

> "Original sin effects our lives, and drags us down, by causing other sins, but that does not mean mortal sins."

Meant 'necessary' mortal sins.

-- Gordon (gvink@bigfoot.com), February 17, 2003.

Isabel, I'm glad I'm not completely alone. Gordon, I know what you're saying... I really do. But the truth is all that really matters.

God bless, man.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), February 18, 2003.

I agree the truth is all that matters, and I also believe that God is just, as how the Catholic Church describes that. I'm in no way judging God according to my own standard, but applying the standard of my faith, as taught to me by God's Holy Church. God bless.

---

Heart of Jesus, Son of the Eternal Father, have mercy on us.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 18, 2003.

The source of Salvation is Christ, none other. Not Mary, not the Catholic church, nor any protestential denomination.

Christ alone saves.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), February 18, 2003.

Thank you Isabel for the exception!!!

I am speechless.......a little common sense would be in order here. Sorry to disappoint you, but when *at that time* that was the *rule*, and they followed the rule in place at that time*, then there is no exception.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), February 18, 2003.

> "The source of Salvation is Christ, none other. Not Mary, not the Catholic church, nor any protestential denomination."

That's not what we are debating Oliver, and if you are Protestant, please check the numerous threads on this forum, were we Catholics have explained our position. The claim you make "Not Mary" is insulting to us Catholics, and something Protestants do over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. So please stop with such nonsense, as how can you convert anyone by first mistating what those you are trying to convert believe in? Please don't bother answering that question, as we have debated that endlessly here in this forum, and I will not debate that lie with you.

---

Heart of Jesus, formed in the womb of the Virgin Mother by the Holy Ghost, have mercy on us.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 18, 2003.

> "I am speechless.......a little common sense would be in order here. Sorry to disappoint you, but when *at that time* that was the *rule*, and they followed the rule in place at that time*, then there is no exception."

Of course, God held them accountable to the rules they believed in. Could God hold them to rules they were not aware of? Of course not, so how can God do this to people of other faiths, who mostly all do not reject the Catholic faith out of pride, but are ignorant of the truth. Are you saying that God is unfair?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), February 18, 2003.

The only source of salvation is Christ, but the means to salvation is the Church, which brings men to the source, and without which no-one would ever have heard of the source. This is the reason Christ came to earth - to win salvation for all men, AND to provide men with the means of hearing about salvation and actually receiving it. The Cross provided the first of these objectives; the Church provides the rest. The Cross would have been ineffective in saving men unless Christ also provided a means by which men could know of it and respond to it, in all future generations until the end of time. That means is the Church He founded.

In the same way, Christ is the only source of the truth through which men are saved. But the Church is the pillar and foundation of that truth (1 Tim 3:15), supporting and upholding it so that all men might find it and understand it. Take away the pillars and the foundation and the truth collapses.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 18, 2003.

Paul

I do agree with your statement. If Jesus did not come, no one could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. All the justified would still be waiting in the Limbo of the Justified, while everyone else would be burning in Hades. Due to His death on the Cross, Christ opened up Heaven to everyone. Wih His Resurrection, He led the Old Testament Saints into Heaven.

Now Jesus did set up a means for salvation. This means is the Church, outside of which no one can be saved. One must enter Her to have a true hope of salvation. There is only one way one enters the Church. It is through the Sacrament of Baptism which is the gateway into the Spirital life.

Mark

-- Mark Trieger (trieger4@earthlink.net), February 27, 2003.

"Invincible ignorance," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "is a punishment for sin." (De Infid. q. x., art. 1.)

Saint Augustine (died A.D. 430): "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church." (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem)

In his Encyclical Letters, dated Dec. 8, 1849; Dec.. 8, 1864; and Aug. 10, 1863, and in his Allocution on Dec. 9, 1854: Pope Pius IX. says: -

"It is not without sorrow that we have learned another not less pernicious error, which has been spread in several parts of Catholic countries, and has been imbibed by many Catholics, who are of opinion that all those who are not at all members of the true Church of Christ, can be saved: Hence they often discuss the question concerning the future fate and condition of those who die without having professed the Catholic faith, and give the most frivolous reasons in support of their wicked opinion . . . . .

"We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error, which has been imbibed by certain Catholics, who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith, and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of our Lord, (Matt. xviii. 17 ; Mark xvi. 16; Luke x. 16; John iii. 18) as also from the words of St. Paul, (II. Tim. Iii. 11) and of St. Peter (II. Peter. ii. 1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch.

"We therefore again reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all and every one of these perverse opinions and doctrines, and it is our absolute will and command that all sons of the Catholic Church shall hold them as reprobated, proscribed, and condemned. It belongs to our Apostolic office to rouse your Episcopal zeal and watchfulness to do all in your power to banish from the minds of the people such impious and pernicious opinions, which lead to indifference of religion, which we behold spreading more and more, to the ruin of souls. Oppose all your energy and zeal to these errors and employ zealous priests to impugn and annihilate them, and to impress very deeply upon the minds and hearts of the faithful the great dogma of our most holy religion, that salvation can be had only in the Catholic faith. Often exhort the clergy and the faithful to give thanks to God for the great gift of the Catholic faith."

-- Bernard (bluyben@telusplanet.net), November 07, 2004.

Bernard,

If you don't have any reading material more recent than mid-19th century, I can send you some. You are really missing a lot. The Church has grown tremendously in knowledge and grace since then, just as it did in the couple of centuries preceding that time. If you are going to be a Catholic you can't live in the past. Christ told His Church He would be with it until the end of time, and He continues to speak to His Church and guide it through the Holy Spirit. To be a true Catholic today, you really need more than a medieval understanding of Church teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2004.

First of all, when dealing with centuries old Church documents, a bit of historical context is essential otherwise we run the risk of applying one teaching out of context.

When the extra ecclesia nullus salus came out Europe had been Christian for hundreds of years. The only non-Christians were Jews and Muslims. Non-Christian Europeans where a thing of the past.

Thus, should any evangelized and baptized European forsake the Church and faith knowing what it is and is essential for salvation as the Church understands it, then absolutely, that person would not, and indeed could not be saved.

But that was not and indeed is impossible to apply to non-Christians who had no contact with the Gospel. Unfortunately people like Feeney didn't do their homework - they jumped to conclusions.

There is a reason why Catholic theology and the Fathers talk of the ordinary economy of salvation....because they recognize that an extraordinary economy may exist which does not contradict it.

To be sure, it's highly probable that baptised Catholics will be saved (with the typical provisos that they try to maintain their faith throughout all trials, etc). And in the same way, it's highly improbable that non-baptised folk will attain the truths and values needed to maintain the virtues required to be open to sanctifying grace, baring a miracle of God's mercy.

We're talking statistics here, not anecdotes. Like everything, there is a bell curve - most Catholics and most non-Christians, not the exceptions of either group.

If you know the Church is Christ's body and yet leave it, you are damned. But if you don't know either Christ or understand that the Church is His body, you may still be saved. That isn't contradictory.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.

Wait wait wait... if there is no salvation outside the church, does that mean Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and George Washington all went to hell?

What about President Bush? You guys seem to be a pretty big fan of him, but he's not a catholic. What will happen to him?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), November 11, 2004.

The Church teaches that there is no salvation except through the church. That is, if you are baptised, you can be saved, but if you are saved and are NOT a Catholic, it is still because of Christ's sacrifice for us.

We don't know about the fate of the non-baptised, but the church has always taught that it is ***possible*** for someone who is a non-Catholic to be saved through invincible ignorance. That is, if you never heard of Christianity, or if it was presented to you in such a way that you would not be able to accept it as true (think of how a Muslim radical might inttroduce Christianity to his children) then you would not be held accountable, and would be judged rather on how well you lived up to "natural law", and the POSSIBLITY of salvation would still be open to you, but we just don't know what will happen.

This isn't just for non-Christian adults, the same would apply to aborted babies, or children that died before baptism. We hope for their salvation, not seeing how a merciful God could NOT save them, but we have been told the path to salvation, and that is through baptism. So put Ghandi into the same class as an innocent child, what do you think God would do? It's as good a guess as mine. The only BAD, REALLY BAD thing you can do is to truly understand the truth of the church, and turn your back on it.

Finally, just being Catholic isn't a free pass to salvation, we have to try like everyone else, and pray for God's grace. You can't earn salvation, but you can pray and long for it. In that way, we are in the same boat as George Washington, George Bush, etc. The way we are different is in having the fullness of the truth in the church, and not being heretics, if that would still be an appropriate term to use for someone who was not BORN a Catholic but left the chruch, but one who was born into heresy and didn't know better.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2004.

and so..since the ultimate goal is eternal life with God, and that can be had for all Baptized people, Catholic or not, then what is the significance of all of the Canon laws regarding Catholics marrying in other churches? Why have any separation at all if "it's all good"? Seriously..It sounds as if there ULTIMATELY is no difference, so why be Catholic at all? Everyone talks in the modern world about "personal conscience" ..so if a person's "personal conscience" leads them to believe that a Protestant church is the way to go, and they leave the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church teaches that the Protestant church folks are getting to heaven too, and it's "all good", doesn't that logically contribute to folks being massively confused???? I'm confused just by writing this. Back in the late 60's and early 70's, this was one of the hot topics.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), November 12, 2004.

The fact that God in His infinite mercy may choose to save some people who have not had the opportunity to know the fullness of truth has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that His Church is the One True Church which He intends to be the channel of salvation for all men, and which provides the fullness of truth and grace as means of attaining salvation. We as Catholics should simply thank Him for the grace of being Catholic, and leave the question of who else is saved to the Savior. We should also keep in mind "from him to whom much has been given, much will be required".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2004.