The truth about salvation - especially for Catholics

Here are some errors about salvation, as ennunciated in Blessed Pope Pius IX’s encyclical “The Syllabus of Errors”. Yes and this Pope has been made a blessed by Pope John Paul II!

**III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM **[left]**15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

  1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

  2. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

  3. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.**
    [/left]

If you have an honest question, post it. Debating Catholics won’t get you anywhere as it is God you have to worry about not us :slight_smile:

I am not sure if you have real questions or not, as these statements could be taken out of context. Clearly there have been some things in the past the have turned out to be wrong, seems like the Holy Spirit is doing its job to correct us mortals huh :slight_smile:

Also, don’t be confused by the fact the the Word, the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the teachings of the Church with Jesus as its Head are infallaible. Any of us are not. Casting discredit on the One True Church based on the faillings of an individual or group is without merit.

This is an exerpt from John Paul II’s document
**THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION **

**By His Holiness Pope John Paul II **

**September 1, 1980 **

First, it is clear that the starting point for acknowledging and respect that freedom is the dignity of the human person, who experiences the inner and indestructible exigency of acting freely “according to the imperatives of his own conscience” (cf. text of the Final Act under © above). On the basis of his personal convictions, man is led to recognize and follow a religious or metaphysical concepts involving his whole life with regard to fundamental choices and attitudes. This inner reflection, even if it does not result in an explicit and positive assertion of faith in God, cannot but be respected in the name of the dignity of each one’s conscience, whose hidden searching may not be judged by others

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

[indent]We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

[/indent]Isn’t there a contradiction here? Today’s Pope says its ok to have freedom of choice of religion, but Pope IX and previous popes I’m sure talk about the Catholic Church being the only true religion…

Isn’t this why we have the crisis in the church today?

Is the Syllabus an infallible document?

Either way, this essay does decent job of reconciling it with Vatican II.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/syllabus.html

(I think I’ve posted this before)

katolik

You need to clarify exactly what you mean. I have read your post with two different meanings.

I think that Protestants and other non-Catholics may have a valid concern here. It looks like that the Church has changed its teaching on salvation for nonCatholics. I don’t think that Protestants have a problem with what is being taught today, but is it unreasonable for them to have a question about what was taught before? For example:

“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=tradcatmel]This is an exerpt from John Paul II’s document
**THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND OF RELIGION **

**By His Holiness Pope John Paul II **

**September 1, 1980 **

Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

[indent]We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

[/indent]Isn’t there a contradiction here? Today’s Pope says its ok to have freedom of choice of religion, but Pope IX and previous popes I’m sure talk about the Catholic Church being the only true religion…

Isn’t this why we have the crisis in the church today?
[/quote]

There is no contradiction in the two quotes you make. JPII is saying that all men have free will and follow that. We can’t force them to choose the Catholic Church. He is also saying that you can not judge someone based on this because they are following there conscience.

Pius IX is saying that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church, except maybe those who are ignorant.

katolik,
(or anyone else)

I honestly dont know how to look at this, before V2 and the last few decades, what did the CC teach on nonCatholics (including Prots) about salvation?
If its so clear, why wasnt there an infallible statement devoted to one line that says something to the effect
"all non Catholics (including Prots) will go to hell no matter what"

Why was all this written in 1850’s I thought V2 was the problem?

Hello,

Somehow it’s not in me to “write off” a billion
people who’ve never even heard of the God we
worship.

If each of these people follows the natural law,
I believe that God accepts each of them.
I think that’s what John Paul II is saying.

reen12

[quote=katolik]Here are some errors about salvation, as ennunciated in Blessed Pope Pius IX’s encyclical “The Syllabus of Errors”. Yes and this Pope has been made a blessed by Pope John Paul II!

**III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM **[left]**15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851. **

**16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846. **

**17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. **

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

[/left]

[/quote]

I can’t understand what you’re trying to say. Please, just make a statement directly. Thank you.

[quote=Ignatius]I can’t understand what you’re trying to say. Please, just make a statement directly. Thank you.
[/quote]

What comes to my mind when I read these statements, is that Protestants may have a legitimate concern about what the Church teaches in reference to the salvation of non-Catholics. The preVatican II statements seem to contradict what is being taught now, which doesn’t seem right if the Catholic Church is infallible.

**16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

  1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc. **

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.


[size=2]“We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?”[/size]
[size=2]****************************************************************************[/size]
[size=2]I don’t think these two are NOW in contridiction. The later one was just an extension of the 1849 paper. They are not now in contridiction. The second says those people who are ignorant of Holy Mother Church can be ( I said can be) saved.

[/size]

[quote=stanley123]What comes to my mind when I read these statements, is that Protestants may have a legitimate concern about what the Church teaches in reference to the salvation of non-Catholics. The preVatican II statements seem to contradict what is being taught now, which doesn’t seem right if the Catholic Church is infallible.
[/quote]

What is being taught now is no different than what was taught PVII. Check out the Catholic Enclyopedia on line. This book was written at the begining of the 1900’s and contains the same thing that is now being taught, has always been taught and will continute to be the teaching. What has to be understood is that even if a person does not belong to the Church in a visible means that they come under the Church through invincible ignorance. Anyone who is baptised is baptised into only one Church weither they know it or not. There is only ONE baptism.

[quote=Ann Cheryl]What is being taught now is no different than what was taught PVII. … There is only ONE baptism.
[/quote]

I thought that there were three types of baptism:
Baptism of water, Baptism of desire, and Baptism of blood. I think that most Catholics beleive in Baptism of blood. According to Baptism of blood, you are saved if you die as a martyr for the faith, even if you were not baptised by water. But looking at the follwoing pontifical declaration might lead one to rule out Baptism of Blood,
“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.)
Does anyone know what is meant by the declaration that no one can be saved, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church? What basically would be the purpose of such a declaration if everyone were already in the Catholic Church whether they knew it or not?

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.