From the Council of Florence, where the Church declared infallibly:
The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Aren't you glad to be Catholic?
.JPG)
Posts
23 comments:
I am off to hell then! Bye - not sad to be somewhere other than you!
Hey Mutley, I didn't make up the doctrine. It's what the Church teaches. Can other faiths be saved? Yes, according to the catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church acknowledges the goodness of people who through no fault of their own do not have the fullness of the faith. It calls this invincible or innocent ignorance. So non Catholics can still attain salvation, but it is through the Catholic Church that it will be possible.
Mutley, do you stay outside the Church despite being convinced that she is the one, true Church? That's the relevant inquiry.
father told me something on this issue as well. good that you posted this. we were talking one day about people who do not know Christ Jesus, and who died. ( franks grandfather ) father told us that if a person who lives ina country where religion is forbidden, or that they are so far away from any church or there simply is no churches at all,ie: nomaidc tribes hundreds of miles away from anything, and that person dies, but has led a really good life then yes, that person can be saved. we were speaking about grandpa because he led a very very good life, and he never knew Christ or the Church, father did say that perhaps he was saved. but that is up to God. so it was encouraging to say the least. Pope Innocent III stated that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. i believe that to be true. but on the other hand, as previously mentioned, those who through no fault of their own never had a chance to know Christ
and His True Church and lived a good life can be saved.
when you mention in the post, schismatics are going into eternal fire, does that include the sspx?
i believe someone stated on CAF in the early early spring that the canonical status of the laity of the sspx has not been determined.
does this statement here about schismatics mean that the priests of the sspx are definitively going to hell? if so, how can they confirm people then? since bishop bernard tissier de mallerais was one who was excommunicated ( i think he was? ) does that mean that since he is in schism, that he is going to hell? if that is the case, then does that invalidate all the confirmations he has done? including mine and our younger sisters? are all the priests and bishops of the sspx going to hell? if so, what does that mean for the laity? does that mean that the laity are deliberately endangering their souls?
Marilena, I just posted what the Church said in the defined doctrine. The Catechism says something about those being born into a schism, like a generation or two later, are not culpable for the schism because they were born into it through no fault of their own. Not sure what passage it is. There have been many discussions on CAF about this very subject; but the SSPX isn't really in schism, are they? In my opinion, and that doesn't count for anything at all, the SSPX is upholding and safeguarding the traditions and treasures of the Mass for the whole world. But like I said, that's just my opinion.
i dont know all the technological jargon of their status. i just hope that it is resolved soon.
here is what i know of the stance between the sspx and rome. arch bishop lefebvre was excommunicated, and 4 of the bishops he consecrated. we all know that. yes, we know arch bishop lefebvre was trying to preserve the traditional priesthood. rightfully so. but he did the consecrations without papal approval. thus, the excommunication. did not jp2 state that the society was in schism? or did he just mean the arch bishop and the 4 priests he ordained? i don't know. but he did create a schismatic act by so doing without papal approval, thus we do know this is fact. but what concerned me was i thought the schism in your op that you were talking about referred to the current excommunicated bishops in the sspx and the priests as well.
but, you have explained this to me.
i just wish this would be all done and over with so that the bishops and the priests and the laity can all be relieved that it is over.
there are those in the church that feel the actions of rome were harsh. but there are some like me, who agree that the archbishop should've had papal approval to consecrate the 4 bishops. but what is done is done. time will see for sure if the excommunications will be lifted. its up to his holines, benedict xvi to look into the matter and see if he can solve it. there is to much opposition to the socoety for it to be solved anytime soon. why? because the modernists do not want the society reconciled with rome. there are priests in europe in opposition to the society reconciling with rome. alot of modernists do not want the church to go back the way it was pre vatican 2. they like all the changes that vatican 2 brought. they think that to go back to the way things were before vatican 2 is to cast the church into the dark ages. such is not the case. but that is what they think. i have heard this to many times. there is a real lack of reverence in the NO, and reported liturgical abuses,, exct. most modernists i have met do not even call it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass aynmore:( pretty sad too. sadder even, is the fact that there are soem Catholics who no longer even believe in the Real Presence:( it makes one wonder in sorrow if things will ever be the way they were in the past. not likely. the church will never return to full tradition again until we have a pope who wants to bring it back the way it was before vat 2.
The Vatican has stated that the laity fulfill their Catholic duty by attending Mass at an SSPX Church. They get all the sacraments and there is full apostolic succession in the SSPX. The priests are valid. The only thing that has been decreed is what they call a sentence excommunication on the four SSPX bishops. Yet, the excommunication is not inforced because, Arch Bishop Levebre followed Canon Law which allows an Arch Bishop to consecrate bishops that will uphold the ancient Tradition of the Church when he sees or even feels that is in danger. And that's what he did after Vatican II and he saw all the problems taking place after it. His consecrations took place in 1989. So this was not a schismatic act, but a preserving of the Traditional Catholic Faith. The reason for that Canon was that if an Arch Bishop consecrates bishops who uphold the Tradition, then it is a good thing. Why then did Pope John Paul II despise the consecrations? These were good men upholding the Faith, not liberals who were trying to destroy it.
its funny how Novus Ordo Priests who are liberal will say things that are not true about the SSPX (I guess bearing false witness is not longer a sin in the new order). But in my area a liberal Novus Ordo priest tells his parishoners that they can take communion at the Orthodox Church, but it would be a mortal sin if they took communion at the SSPX Church. The Orthodox over an SSPX Catholic Church? WOW!
But the liberals in the Novus Ordo are threatened by the SSPX, because of guilt and exposure. The Liberals don't want their people to know the Truth, but to push their liberal agendas and destroy the Catholic Church.
I mean, why did Pope Paul VI remove various Traditional Arch Bishops off of Vatican II and replace them with 6 Protestant Preachers. 6 Protestants helped form Vatican II. So Vatican II was not truly a Catholic Council, but half Catholic and half Protestant.
just my 2 cents
Dave
what happens to jews and all others who claim they worship God but don't accept Jesus?
Dave, I look forward to the day when the SSPX is in full communion with Rome. I am grateful that the society has preserved the ancient traditions of the Church. I have been to five or six SSPX Masses, and found them very beautiful and reverent. Still, I prefer to wait for their imperfect communion to be fully resolved before I attend the Masses more frequently.
marilena said...
what happens to jews and all others who claim they worship God but don't accept Jesus?
Marilena, I think it boils down to culpability & ignorance as mentioned in comment #2
Here is some encouraging news concerning the SSPX and Rome:
http://beatificvision.blogspot.com/
Dave
There is no salvation outside the Church unless:
a. A man be invincibly (through NO fault of his own) ignorant of the claims of the Catholic Church, &
b. He worship God according to the law written on the heart of everyman, &
c. He die not in mortal sin.
All three conditions must be met simultaneously, and of which we are *not* to "hold out a good hope", whilst enquiring too deeply is not lawful.
That's it, EENS.
I know this won't be good enough.
Simon Peter,
This is where I struggle. My whole family is Protestant. I'm the only Catholic convert. In the Lutheran teaching, my family is taught that all sin is sin and that as long as you believe and repent, then you are okay with God, no matter what sins you do. Only apostasy is the only way one baptized can go to hell. Well, I have a little brother who cheated on his wife and she divorced him and he married another, and my mother after my father died, married a man who has been divorced three times. I know they are both now living in adultery. Yet under Lutheran teaching they are okay. Yet Truth is Truth no matter what a Protestant teaches. But as you say, there is salvation for them if they do not know the Truth. So do I keep this from them? And it would be better that way?
Dave
Dave, it is your duty as an educated Catholic to teach them the truth. Otherwise, you are missing the spiritual work of mercy to admonish the sinner. If they don't believe or understand the truth because of "innocent ignorance", then that reduces their culpability for sin. You would have done your part, though, in trying to bring them to the truth, and hopefully to the Catholic faith.
what happens to jews and all others who claim they worship God but don't accept Jesus?
Marilena, Jesus IS God. Remember the whole "Three Persons in One God" teaching?
Our God in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Period. Please remeber what Christ said... "those who deny Me, deny The Father"
This is a tough doctrine. One that is seldom spoken of today, with the new spirit of ecumenism. Everybody goes to heaven, right???
i understand what you mean. it is said by some protestant friends of mine that they believe still that the jews are Gods chosen people, and that shen Christ returns, they will believe in Him, and He will save them. is this true? recall please, in the Scripture where it states "His blood be upon us, and our children" this happened when the jews wanted Him crucified. since they stated that, is Christ's blood upon them even today because of their rejection of Him? if so, will they be saved as the protestants believe? i think that anyone who willfully rejects Christ right to the last wont be saved, correct?
It is a sin to speculate on who is going to hell. That is up to God in His infinite wisdom and mercy to decide.
Preach the Gospel always, if necessary use words.
i did say it as a question. i wasn't speculating. it was a sincere question, so how can it be a sin?
Marilena,
Don't confuse excommunication with schism. The former is a sanction (punishment) imposed by the Church (although a person can incur it automatically by certain actions, e.g. abortion or assisting in abortion). The late archbishop and the 4 current SSPX bishops have been excommunicated (for how long is only a matter of time). Schism is cutting oneself off from the Church by teaching or accepting false doctrine and refusing to be corrected. High-ranking members od the Curia have said SSPX is NOT in schism.
Firstly, the Council of Florence is correct but sadly incomplete. Councils, as Theologian Yves Congar maintained, are not exactly the Bible which is inspired by the Holy Spirit....Councils are "guided" by the Holy Spirit not inspired by Him and thus the shortcomings of men can enter into their pronouncements unlike the Bible. One way their shortcomings enter in is as to length and completeness. For example, in Vatican II's Lumen Gentium section 20 it simply says that those who hear the Bishops hear Christ and it gives no ifs ands or buts. But there are ifs ands and buts. You have one Bishop calling the death penalty "cruel" and another one saying that it is sometimes needed...which one is Christ talking....or is either? Likewise with the Council of Florence's famous and narrow passage posted here.
Vatican II Bishops knew that Florence's core message was true: that anyone who is saved, is saved through the Catholic Church even if they do not know it....but Florence's Pope was envisioning that all non Catholics had to actually return to the visible Church during their lifetime to be saved which is not correct. Vatican's II's Bishops thought Florence's shortcomings so narrow that they used words from Florence against Florence's mistakes: the shedding of blood passage. Here is the Council of Florence first and then Vatican II using its "shedding of blood passage against Florence and against its human shortcomings:
Council of Florence: "nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ"unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
Vatican II: " Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments from our common heritage which are to be found among our separated brethren. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood"
As Francis Sullivan has pointed out on this issue,the Pope at Florence's time thought that the whole world had heard at least rumors of the gospel. He had no idea that there were people in the now Siberian region; people in Alaska region; people at the southern tip of South America; Caribs in what is now St. Martin, Anguilla, Monserrat etc. He thought that people in general had heard of Christ when in fact millions of new peoples had not even been discovered....hence the narrow and strict requirements he gave to what he thought was the known world.
The best book on this problem is orderable here:
http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-Outside-Church-Catholic-Response/dp/0809133040/ref=sr_1_2/104-6937017-4390361?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176555541&sr=1-2
Post a Comment