Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?

[thessalonian]

You believe there is only one true Church, right? How can someone be saved if they are not a member of that Church?

There is one Church that is the fullness of the truth. The difference is important. That does not mean that all other Churches are completely in error. Truth is what saves (the truth shall set you free) and to the extent that others hold some truth, formally outside the Catholic Church, those truths MAY save. (not saying will, we leave that in God's hands). There is no truth contained in a Church outside of Catholicism that has some truth that is not contained in the Catholic faith. Those in religions outside the Catholic Church that are not obstianately and willfully against the fullness of the truth, according to the grace they have been given, MAY, be saved. God only holds us accountable for what we have been given. In Luke 12 the servant of Christ who does not act in accord with the respoinsibility given him, is treated as an unbeliever. Whereas the man "who did not know" "will recieve a light beating". Note that there is only accountability for what they do not know. Note also that those who do know are held to a higher standard of accountability.

In the NT, when someone believed the gospel, they became part of the church, which is the "body of Christ" Are you preposing that there is a more universal church (the sum total of all who will be saved, which only God knows who) that might include some non-catholics?

To the extent that those "non-catholics" hold some truth with a sincere heart they may be saved. The are not material non-catholics for they do not knowingly and willfully reject the Church.

But let's consider for a moment Cornelius, before Peter gave him the Gospel. Acts 10 says that he was "a righteous and God-fearing man". Had he died before Peter came to him, would he have gone to hell? Do the righteous and God-fearing go to hell? Is there any reason to believe that Cornelius was a one man occurance throughout history in his coming to the knowledge of a God, even though he didn't know all that had been revealed in scripture about God? What about the good samaritan? He is held high as an example to be followed. Samaritans were a mixture of Judaism and paganism. They believed in the God of Isreal as one of many gods. Then we have the three wise men. They were neither explicitly Jews nor Christians, though after they saw him they believed in Christ. Did they know of the resurrected Christ before they died. They were more open to the spirit of God than the Jews who lived in Israel and did not know where the Christ child was to be born.

Then how is the RCC the only true church? If there are members of the body of Christ who exist outside the RCC, then the RCC can't be the WHOLE Church can it?

Those formally members of the RCC are not as you say the whole Church. They are members of the visible body of Christ. There is a spiritual body that makes up these and those who are informally joined to the Church by their desire to live as the laws of God written in their hearts command them to.


Hope that helps.

Blessings
Do you think maybe the Church is just trying to be "politically correct" and not alienate the whole Protestant population? Even when I went to the RCC I remember it was clearly impressed upon us that there was no salvation outside the RCC. Is this a more liberal stance being taken by the RCC, to adapt to the times?

(see how well I'm behaving? :angel: )[/quote]

 

[thessalonian]

You believe there is only one true Church, right? How can someone be saved if they are not a member of that Church?

There is one Church that is the fullness of the truth. The difference is important. That does not mean that all other Churches are completely in error. Truth is what saves (the truth shall set you free) and to the extent that others hold some truth, formally outside the Catholic Church, those truths MAY save. (not saying will, we leave that in God's hands). There is no truth contained in a Church outside of Catholicism that has some truth that is not contained in the Catholic faith. Those in religions outside the Catholic Church that are not obstianately and willfully against the fullness of the truth, according to the grace they have been given, MAY, be saved. God only holds us accountable for what we have been given. In Luke 12 the servant of Christ who does not act in accord with the respoinsibility given him, is treated as an unbeliever. Whereas the man "who did not know" "will recieve a light beating". Note that there is only accountability for what they do not know. Note also that those who do know are held to a higher standard of accountability.

In the NT, when someone believed the gospel, they became part of the church, which is the "body of Christ" Are you preposing that there is a more universal church (the sum total of all who will be saved, which only God knows who) that might include some non-catholics?

To the extent that those "non-catholics" hold some truth with a sincere heart they may be saved. The are not material non-catholics for they do not knowingly and willfully reject the Church.

But let's consider for a moment Cornelius, before Peter gave him the Gospel. Acts 10 says that he was "a righteous and God-fearing man". Had he died before Peter came to him, would he have gone to hell? Do the righteous and God-fearing go to hell? Is there any reason to believe that Cornelius was a one man occurance throughout history in his coming to the knowledge of a God, even though he didn't know all that had been revealed in scripture about God? What about the good samaritan? He is held high as an example to be followed. Samaritans were a mixture of Judaism and paganism. They believed in the God of Isreal as one of many gods. Then we have the three wise men. They were neither explicitly Jews nor Christians, though after they saw him they believed in Christ. Did they know of the resurrected Christ before they died. They were more open to the spirit of God than the Jews who lived in Israel and did not know where the Christ child was to be born.

Then how is the RCC the only true church? If there are members of the body of Christ who exist outside the RCC, then the RCC can't be the WHOLE Church can it?

Those formally members of the RCC are not as you say the whole Church. They are members of the visible body of Christ. There is a spiritual body that makes up these and those who are informally joined to the Church by their desire to live as the laws of God written in their hearts command them to.


Hope that helps.

Blessings
Do you think maybe the Church is just trying to be "politically correct" and not alienate the whole Protestant population? Even when I went to the RCC I remember it was clearly impressed upon us that there was no salvation outside the RCC. Is this a more liberal stance being taken by the RCC, to adapt to the times?

(see how well I'm behaving? :angel: )[/quote]

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

Henry, I would have to say that the Catholic Church is the only church not founded by man. Catholics trace their historic roots to Jesus when he asked Peter to head his Church on earth.

Dear ttg,

I just wanted to gently correct you if I may? The head of the church is Jesus... not Peter:

"He (God the Father) put all things under His feet, and gave Him (Jesus) to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

Ephesians 1:22-23

Jesus does not need to appoint anyone as head over His body.

"I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church..."

Colossians 1:24

Here is the verses often cited and terribly mis-interpreted below in italics:

Basically, Jesus is asking the disciples who people are saying He is? They answer with several different options. Peter then correctly answers Jesus and says, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Matthew 16:16


Jesus responds to Peter and tells Him he was blessed because God has revealed this to him and then Jesus tells Him,

"And I will also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..."

Matthew 16:18

The rock was not Peter, THE ROCK OR FOUNDATION was Peter's correct statement of who Jesus really was. This is the foundation. This is the cornerstone. Jesus is none other than...

THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD
:angel:

 

[thessalonian]

Justified,

As moderator of this forum I must tell you this is not a place for Catholic/Protestant debate but for questions and discussions regarding Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Therefore refrain from debating Catholicism in this forum. There are other forums for that. Further contentious posts will be deleted. Thank you.

Thess

 

[thessalonian]

Now a couple quickies for ya justified. First of all you raise a false dichotomy. It is not Peter or Christ. It is Christ through Peter. There is no denial of Christ's headship in Catholicism. It is affirmed in our Catechism. But just as Moses lead the Jews through the desert and there was no contradiction in saying God lead them through, so Peter and his successors lead the Church, but there is no contradiction in saying Christ leads.

I am glad you brought up the foundation of the Church because that verifies what I am trying to say. Jesus is the foundation of the Church that is true. 1 Cor 3:11 tells us that. Yet Eph 2:20 tells us prophets and apostles are the foundation as well. Is this another foundation. Not at all for Christ worked through them to lay the foundation.


I have no problem with Peter's faith being a part of the reason he is the rock. But Peter means Rock and so one cannot just say it was his faith. Nor does Christ give Peter's faith the keys to the kingdom of heanven and the power of binding and loosing but Peter himself. (v.19). Therefore he most assuradly was talking to Peter in Matt 16 and not just about his faith. For this is no transition back to peter in v. 19. He simply continues his statement.

Hope this helps.

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

Justified,

As moderator of this forum I must tell you this is not a place for Catholic/Protestant debate but for questions and discussions regarding Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Therefore refrain from debating Catholicism in this forum. There are other forums for that. Further contentious posts will be deleted. Thank you.

Thess

Dear thessalonian,

I will honor your request.

 

[JustifiedByFaith]

Now a couple quickies for ya justified. First of all you raise a false dichotomy. It is not Peter or Christ. It is Christ through Peter. There is no denial of Christ's headship in Catholicism. It is affirmed in our Catechism. But just as Moses lead the Jews through the desert and there was no contradiction in saying God lead them through, so Peter and his successors lead the Church, but there is no contradiction in saying Christ leads.

I am glad you brought up the foundation of the Church because that verifies what I am trying to say. Jesus is the foundation of the Church that is true. 1 Cor 3:11 tells us that. Yet Eph 2:20 tells us prophets and apostles are the foundation as well. Is this another foundation. Not at all for Christ worked through them to lay the foundation.


I have no problem with Peter's faith being a part of the reason he is the rock. But Peter means Rock and so one cannot just say it was his faith. Nor does Christ give Peter's faith the keys to the kingdom of heanven and the power of binding and loosing but Peter himself. (v.19). Therefore he most assuradly was talking to Peter in Matt 16 and not just about his faith. For this is no transition back to peter in v. 19. He simply continues his statement.

Hope this helps.

Dear thessalonian,

I have spent much time in this area of study. I wish to avoid this particular forum because I tend to get in the flesh regarding the RCC. I will go back to my favorite thread topics of Prophesy.

God Bless You.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

Hey Brad. Thought you may find this passage useful. Its written by the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI

?The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ?heresy? is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy?s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine?s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.?

--The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pgs. 87-88


There is a lot of value in this and all clumped really tightly together. So Trent anathemized things, however, the great lapse of time and the identity that Protestant christianity has developed changed the rules a little.

They are "cozying" up to each other :smt052, that's what it is. It's "hip", it's politically (religiously) "correct". ****edited by moderator thessalonian ***

 

[thessalonian]

Ummm brad I think you had better find a different forum if you are going to make comments like the above which was deleted.

 

[Chette]

I left catholic church and became protestant

I am an ex-catholic and now a protestant. and I'd say that when I became a protestant I felt assured that I am with God. And I have saw a lot of faults of Catholic church. My family are still catholic and I am praying for them Praise the Lord that my sister is now a born again and my dad will soon leave the catholic church.

I left the church because I saw a lot of faults.

God bless,
Chette

I am saved and I am not even a catholic
so my answer on this question

Yes you can be saved all you gotta do is Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. The apostles (Peter) was not catholic, they were Christians. And Peter never came to rome, it was Paul who came to Rome.

 

[stray bullet]

Re: I left catholic church and became protestant

I am an ex-catholic and now a protestant. and I'd say that when I became a protestant I felt assured that I am with God. And I have saw a lot of faults of Catholic church. My family are still catholic and I am praying for them Praise the Lord that my sister is now a born again and my dad will soon leave the catholic church.

I left the church because I saw a lot of faults.

God bless,
Chette

I am saved and I am not even a catholic
so my answer on this question

Yes you can be saved all you gotta do is Accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. The apostles (Peter) was not catholic, they were Christians. And Peter never came to rome, it was Paul who came to Rome.

Peter and Paul went to Rome- which is confirmed even by non-biblical sources. Peter and the apostles made up the Christian Church, which had a definate hierarchy of apostles, who were replaced by successors (Acts 1:26). Each community of believers were called churches of a particular region and had a bishop (2 Timothy 4:22). Bishops were ordained by the apostles. However, all churches were part of a larger community, ruled by apostles that by the end of the 1st Century, was called the "Catholic Church". "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - Ignatius of Antioch, 107A.D.

The apostles established five Sees, two in the large jewish communities of Jerusalem and Antioch- then three in the major center of importance: Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. They were founded by James, Peter, Mark, Peter and Andrew respectfully.

I am a former protestant, who realized he was separated from the Church established by Christ.

I'm curious what faults you found with the Church?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Forgive my ignorance on "Catholic" doctrine. I have been a Christian for a long time. I have a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ, and I love His word.
While I have often found myself explaining to other "Protestants" that it is possible for a person to be both a Catholic and be saved, I was not aware that this silly thing was going in both directions.
Right down to the absolute bare minimum ~ would you please tell me what it is that the Catholic Church says one must do to go to heaven?

 

[Chette]

Oh a lot...

anyway your verses did not supplied the sentence that Peter went to Rome.

hmm... even deeper things because like I said, I was a catholic but had a cursed blood of wiccan

you're a former protestant? but you left?
They are still unto it huh? @.@ oh well

Well that's all I got to say, I am not really into debate
and I just shared my opinion about this... and I'll just keep praying to God that He will start to reveal everything and I am glad He is working

I am so sorry if I don't want to answer your question, maybe you can just visit my page so that you'll know and.. I've been to these kinds of debate but nowhere to go hehe so yeah

God bless,
- Chette

 

[stray bullet]

Forgive my ignorance on "Catholic" doctrine. I have been a Christian for a long time. I have a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ, and I love His word.
While I have often found myself explaining to other "Protestants" that it is possible for a person to be both a Catholic and be saved, I was not aware that this silly thing was going in both directions.
Right down to the absolute bare minimum ~ would you please tell me what it is that the Catholic Church says one must do to go to heaven?

One must receive grace from God, by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in order to find salvation.

The Catholic Church is the source and preserver of the saving Gospel, as well as the source of sacraments which assist us in obtaining the faith and grace to be saved. To that extent, when people began splitting with the Church, it was considered jeopardizing one's faith to do so. Nowadays, however, most protestants aren't that familiar with the Church and what she really is. Furthmore, nearly all of them have not left the Church, but were born into protestantism.

To answer what one must do or believe is complicated and it leads to legalism. We really aren't in the position to judge the salvation of another person, much less making sweeping declarations about the salvation of large groups.

 

[stray bullet]

Oh a lot...

anyway your verses did not supplied the sentence that Peter went to Rome.

Then tell me, what happened to Peter, where did he die? There is only one historical account, which was that Peter went to Rome, where he was crucified upside-down and buried on a hill called the Vatican (where his successors later built their churches).

you're a former protestant? but you left?
They are still unto it huh? @.@ oh well

huh?

I am so sorry if I don't want to answer your question, maybe you can just visit my page so that you'll know and.. I've been to these kinds of debate but nowhere to go hehe so yeah

Well, you seemed to have some issues and I just wondered what they were. Most people's negativity about Catholicism is based on bad or false information. I should know- I was kept away because of it for most of my life.

Now there isn't a day that goes by that I don't desire to be at Church and praying/singing to the Lord

 

[francisdesales]

Gabbylittleangel wrote:
Forgive my ignorance on "Catholic" doctrine. I have been a Christian for a long time. I have a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ, and I love His word.
While I have often found myself explaining to other "Protestants" that it is possible for a person to be both a Catholic and be saved, I was not aware that this silly thing was going in both directions.
Right down to the absolute bare minimum ~ would you please tell me what it is that the Catholic Church says one must do to go to heaven?

The bare minimum?

This one verse is the bare minimum...

He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:12

The greatest way we can have the Son is through the Eucharist, although the Spirit blows where He wills. While the Eucharist is oridinarily the means by which we come into the abiding presence of the Lord, the Spirit CAN and DOES enter into Protestants and even Muslims. If we have sanctifying grace within us, the Lord's presence in us, at the time of our death, we will be saved for eternal life.

Regards

 

[LittleNipper]

Gabbylittleangel wrote:
Forgive my ignorance on "Catholic" doctrine. I have been a Christian for a long time. I have a wonderful relationship with Jesus Christ, and I love His word.
While I have often found myself explaining to other "Protestants" that it is possible for a person to be both a Catholic and be saved, I was not aware that this silly thing was going in both directions.
Right down to the absolute bare minimum ~ would you please tell me what it is that the Catholic Church says one must do to go to heaven?

The bare minimum?

This one verse is the bare minimum...

He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1 John 5:12

The greatest way we can have the Son is through the Eucharist, although the Spirit blows where He wills. While the Eucharist is oridinarily the means by which we come into the abiding presence of the Lord, the Spirit CAN and DOES enter into Protestants and even Muslims. If we have sanctifying grace within us, the Lord's presence in us, at the time of our death, we will be saved for eternal life.

Regards

See, that is where I witness the line drawn. The "Eucharist" to a Catholic is the consecrated (by a priest in good standing ) of wine into the blood of Christ and the wafer into the body of Christ. I know that this isn't the case. Salvation is through faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST for HIS sacraficial death and our hope is in the fact of HIS resurrection. We are saved through faith. Our faith is the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enters to reside with the soul of the saved individual. This is the act of Baptism by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then begins a work within that individual and starts to transform this now saved individual to be more and more like Christ. This process is completed upon death and the Glorification of the believer or saint. The LORD's Supper is a ceremony as is water baptism. Participation in ceremony will not bring about salvation. The Mormon is not saved by his immersion by a certified Mormon minister anymore then the Catholic is saved by "transubstantiation" perforrmed by a certified Catholic priest. Jesus Christ paid it all once and for whosoever will accept HIS sacrifice through faith. The act of the LORD's Supper and the act of Baptism are in fact an outward sign of an inward change. Both acts condemn the individual who isn't truly saved but happens to be placing his faith and trust in his act of being a part of ritualism. *****Edited by moderator thessalonian*****

 

[thessalonian]

LittleNipper,

This forum is for the purpose of discussing the teachings of the Catholic Church, as stated by the Catholic Church, which you have misrepresented and presented false dichotomies about. It is not for Protestant Catholic debate and anti-catholic attacks. Please refrain from such posting and be respectful in your posts. That was the reason the last comment on the last post was edited. If you wish to debate Roman Catholicism or post what you think the RCC teaches you may do so in other areas of the forum. Thx.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

LittleNipper, I do have to ask what does "my flesh is true food, my blood is true drink" mean? Don't we have to have faith in the truth of the teachings of Christ?

 

[francisdesales]

thessalonian
LittleNipper
francisdesales in default color

See, that is where I witness the line drawn. The "Eucharist" to a Catholic is the consecrated (by a priest in good standing ) of wine into the blood of Christ and the wafer into the body of Christ. I know that this isn't the case.
I believe, from your post, you are making a false dichotomy between Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church. Christ saved us THROUGH His bodily death on the cross (not a spiritual or invisible death) and CONTINUES to save mankind through this Body, the Church.

Naturally, if you read John 6, you will see that Jesus says faith IS involved in accepting the Eucharist as it really is. It doesn't come from rational human intellect, but the Spirit leading us into faith. How else could someone believe that we must eat human flesh to receive eternal life?

Participation in ceremony will not bring about salvation
You misunderstand the point of liturgy. It is during liturgical rituals that we come into ultimate contact with God Himself! It is through public prayer that we form our relationship with Jesus Christ. The rituals move our minds and hearts to what they signify - and in the Eucharist, they are also a reality and foreshadowing of the good things to come in heaven.

This forum is for the purpose of discussing the teachings of the Catholic Church, as stated by the Catholic Church, which you have misrepresented and presented false dichotomies about. It is not for Protestant Catholic debate and anti-catholic attacks. Please refrain from such posting and be respectful in your posts.

Feel free to PM me, LittleNipper, if you want to further this discussion. Be sure to bring an open heart and the possibility that your knowledge of what Catholic believe about the Eucharist might be incorrect. Without this, you will be wasting both of our time.

Regards