Salvation through RCC?


#1

Not being a Catholic, maybe someone could help me. As I understand it, a protestant may enter heaven if s/he’s been baptized, etc. The extension is even to many others via baptism by desire. Please correct me if I’m off.

How does that complement the following ex cathedra?

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil, and his angels’ (Mt. xxv. 41), unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church’s Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ’s sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739.) (Pope Eugene IV, The Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

Thanks,
A Pac


#2

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"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


#3

It might be helpful for you to become familiar with what is meant by infallibility, since you’ve used the term ex cathedra with reference to these quotes by popes of the past. FYI I don’t know how infallible these are, but given the very limited scope of infallibility, it doesn’t seem likely that they are, at least in totality. OTOH, I do personally agree with them!! Here’s a clip from the Catholic Encyclopedia found at newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#V which lay out the conditions for infallibility:

  1. **The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

  2. Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

  3. Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

  4. Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. **

This statement is from the decree on infallibility from the 1st Vatican Council of 1870. The entire article is very interesting.


#4

Yes…and the quotes I submitted follow the criteria.

BTW…is there any volume of ex cathedra statements, or does it all remain ambiguous for convenience?

I’m still waiting for juxtaposition of the above quotes.

A Pac


#5

This has been discussed and answered in this thread:

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=164531


#6

In the context of teachings by those same popes, we also see that membership is through Baptism (by it we are born again into the Body of Christ, the society of the faithful). Then, to separate oneself, schism and heresy must be mortally sinful. If you’re not culpable, you haven’t separated yourself–Baptized protestants who love God with all their heats would be like poorly catechized Catholics, who love God with all their hearts…

Likewise, Baptism can also be supplied by perfect charity towards God and perfect contrition for sin, if water Baptism is not available.

This makes one a member of the Church, and as a member of the Body of Christ, that person can partake of His life.


#7

Likewise, Baptism can also be supplied by perfect charity towards God and perfect contrition for sin, if water Baptism is not available.

But Christ’s words were pretty definite. He didn’t leave room for if, ands, or buts.

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The baptism by desire is blatantly against the scriptures. Jesus said you need a water AND spiritual “births,” or you can’t get into heaven…period. I don’t understand how there is ANY flexibility in this. Jesus’s words were exclusive…was He wrong?

Moreover, if one needs to be subjected to the Pope for salvation, I don’t understand how baptism by desire could even be applied if someone never knew, nor had the opportunity to subject themselves to the Pope.

A Pac


#8

#9

#10

As has been pointed out already, that there has always been allowed exceptions for those, who through no fault of their own, weren’t Baptized yet wanted to be. Scriptures also tells us God desires all men to be saved–so all men are at least offered the possibility of salvation–how could God desire someone’s salvation if He put him in a position where salvation was impossible?

I realize you are LDS, so you believe the Church of Christ completely apostized almost immediately, and so the traditional understanding to you is automatically false. Without evidence of such an apostacy, however, that position is unteneble.

??? I don’t understand how this juxtaposes the scripture.

Our salvation is from faith–if someone has supernatural faith, they have submitted themselves completely to God. If they are ignorant of some of His commands, they will not be guilty of not following them. That’s why we say complete submission to God implicitly carries with it the desire to be Baptized, to be in communion with the society of faithful united to the Chair of St. Peter, etc. This perfect love of God, can also effect the forgiveness of sins apart from confession, because as Our Lord says, “charity covers a great multitude of sins.”


#11

There’s a very basic thing you have left out of your reasoning (through no fault of yours–you simply haven’t been taught this), and that is what Jesus said in establishing baptism was what is expected of us as human beings. IOW, we humans, when we know better, are responsible to do as Christ said.

God, however, is not bound by the sacraments. We are (those of us who know about them), but he isn’t. God can save whomever he pleases no matter their circumstances, and this is what the Church recognizes by teaching baptism of desire and culpability. That is the principle upon which this teaching is based.


#12

Genesis,

how could God desire someone’s salvation if He put him in a position where salvation was impossible?

I don’t think he made it impossible. I DO think he said what he meant. If He said you need baptism by water, you NEED baptism by water. Now, the LDS follow Paul’s comments to overcome the conundrum. I don’t say you need to, but simply brushing a statement by Christ to the side and saying, “well, He didn’t mean what He said,” I think is disingenuous. There’s a way for Christ to be consistent and for all to receive salvation. Why is it so hard to accept vicarious baptism?

Without evidence of such an apostacy, however, that position is unteneble.

OK…here’s one. Jesus said that Baptism MUST be received to go to heaven, and the majority of Christianity doesn’t believe it. There. There’s evidence of apostasy.

Our salvation is from faith–if someone has supernatural faith, they have submitted themselves completely to God.

Sorry-you’re incomplete. It’s through obedience, which is from faith.

If they are ignorant of some of His commands, they will not be guilty of not following them.

Then why didn’t He say so?

God, however, is not bound by the sacraments. We are (those of us who know about them), but he isn’t.

  1. We’re not talking about God receiving baptism
  2. The scriptures says that God is not a respecter of persons. Are you suggesting He is?

God can save whomever he pleases no matter their circumstances, and this is what the Church recognizes by teaching baptism of desire and culpability. That is the principle upon which this teaching is based.

I guess you are. That’s false doctrine. God would therefore be unjust, and a liar. He is no respecter of persons and that ideology makes Him just that. I reject that notion.

A Pac


#13

So it is your position that the thief on the cross is in hell?


#14

No, but thanks for asking. My position is that we should wait for the final judgment, then we’ll know where he goes.

What I DO believe is that being dead is more pleasant than being crucified. Does anyone disagree?

A Pac


#15

It depends on where you end up in death.


#16

So there’s multiple places? You sound like one of them darn Mormons!

:eek:

A Pac


#17

Wow, just when I think I’ve heard everything from the non-Catholic Christian world, I hear something new. I have never, ever run into a Christian who wasn’t certain that the thief was saved.


#18

:amen: you really think eternal damnation could, even compared to the horrors of crucifixion, be termed ‘paradise’? There’s no way the thief is going to hell.


#19

For starters Jesus said ‘you will be WITH ME’. So where Jesus goes, the thief is going. That’s not to eternal damnation, nor even to soul death if you believe in that.

In any event neither of these states could, even compared to the horrors of crucifixion, be termed ‘paradise’.

There’s no way the thief is anything other than saved.


#20

In any event neither of these states could, even compared to the horrors of crucifixion, be termed ‘paradise’.

Have you ever been crucified? I heard that is the most painful of deaths. Considering the peacefulness of death for the righteous, why wouldn’t it be comparatively paradisaic?

There’s no way the thief is anything other than saved.

Well, if YOU say it, it MUST be true! Yawn…

A Pac


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