Is it helpful praying for the soul of non-catholic?


I don’t think that’s ex cathedra…

And I recall the context of the Council was pretty important.


Please stop propagating misinformation on this subject. The statement you post is from the 1400s and is not consistent with what the current Catholic Catechism teaches, and therefore is not what the Church teaches today. You’re essentially spreading misinformation to those who come onto this forum looking for information about the Church position TODAY, not back in the 1400s or other previous era.

Edited to add, the correct and current teaching of the Church may be found here in the Catechism starting around section 836. It makes clear that non-Christians, including Jewish people and Muslims, have a relationship with the Catholic church and are included in the plan of salvation.


It may also be helpful to study some of the material in the Bible such as St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, chapter 11 and especially verses 25-36 for more on the people of Israel in particular. We are asked to study many things to form our consciences and become better followers including Scripture, the Catechism, and Tradition. Looking at one or a small subset of one is not the best for our understanding and development as followers.


This attitude is troubling to me and reflects a very unfortunate misunderstanding of our faith and fundamental theology. The truth of the teachings of the Church does not change. Modern teachings do not nullify older teachings but rather further illuminate them.

One is “joined to the Church” by baptism – of water, blood, or desire – and therefore, yes, it is and always will be true that those “outside the Catholic Church…cannot share in eternal life” but those who are technically Catholic may be a larger (or not) group than any of us realize, we may be surprised.


@Tis_Bearself, from the link you provided (CCC 846 - 848):

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, 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 that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

I added emphasis here on “Re-formulated positively,” which does not mean:

I am respectfully asserting that you are both wrong in your approaches here, @Tis_Bearself and @Maryanna.


“The Church position” is a separate matter from “the truth”. Church teaching has developed over centuries and on some matters, yes it has changed. Sitting around denying that the teaching or the attitude of Catholics towards non-Catholics has changed is first of all, denying the facts and makes Catholics look like idiots, and second of all, denies the basic ability of the humans who run the Catholic church to evolve, grow in their knowledge and love of God, and better understand and communicate God’s Truth.

It is highly unlikely that any human, no matter how well-meaning or holy, will ever be able to 100% communicate, in human terms, the truth of God and the infiniteness of His knowledge, judgment and mercy. That doesn’t mean that we stop trying but it does mean that once in a while Catholics can admit their Church was wrong about stuff like Galileo or about all Jews and Muslims automatically getting sent straight to Hell.

Finesse it all you want, I believe in just putting it on the table. Popes and bishops and theologians are humans. They do make mistakes. Because our Church endures, the mistakes are resolved with time if we just hang in there.


I am not talking about “attitude” nor “teaching” (in the sense of formulation) but rather the essential truth:

Of course, here I am referring to doctrinal teachings. Are you disagreeing with this statement?


Sorry to answer a question with a question, but where in this discussion did I claim that a doctrinal teaching changed?


It is not clear to me that a papal bull from an ecumenical council should be disregarded as “misinformation” and merely a:


Your problem is with the word I used “not consistent”. I’ve seen other posters on CAF have the same knee-jerk reaction to the word “change”, as if every single thing a Pope ever said, did or issued can never ever be adjusted or called into question later. If that were the case, the Church would still be selling relics and indulgences and telling Catholics to immediately burn or give to a priest any KJV Bible that happens to come into their hands.

I think the two passages of the old and new Catechism speak for themselves, and I do not need to elaborate further. If you want to have a hangup with my wording, it’s your hangup. In any event, we do not follow 15th century catechisms or even the early 20th century Pope Pius X catechism today. We follow the current one that the Church has decreed that we follow, so it’s a moot point.


To tie this into the OP, what I’m saying is to be grafted onto the Vine, to be members of the Body, to be children of the Family of God… is by way of baptism and baptism is, by definition, into the Catholic Church. Therefore, to be Catholic in it’s truest sense, not just nominally, is required for eternal salvation. There are only Catholics in heaven. I’m also saying that all protestants, in some way, are Catholic by virtue of their valid baptism. I’m also saying that Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics may also, by baptism of desire or blood, be Catholic. As strange as that may sound.


Which papal bull or encyclical or council or other authoritative pronouncement is selling of indulgences and burning bibles part of? And is its essential truth really about selling or burning?

Again, I think this is a wrong attitude to have. Sacred Tradition involves a hermeneutic of continuity. I’ll add that I also think it is a dangerous and insidious attitude, one we’ve been warned against called: modernism.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit