Are Catholics serious ?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

"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

An argument could be made that it is pretty difficult these days to not know of the Gospel and the Church and thus those who do not are in trouble salvation wise. I suppose it hinges on what it means to be "ignorant of the Gospel" i.e. whether that requires no knowledge of the Gospel at all or whether imperfect knowledge or flawed (according to the RCC) interpretation is "ignorance".

Originally posted by Conrau K
.... or be exposed to despair ....

I've completely had it then... I am exposed to despair on a daily basis.

🙁

Originally posted by Rajk999
If neither paragraph mentions conversion then what is this last sentence in para 16 about :

Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Seems to me that the passage is i there is no life after death.

I dont know why you are defending the Catholic stance here.

I do not know how much clearer than this: Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church. Such people are obviously not Catholics; the document clearly says that they can obtain salvation. What exactly is unclear?

Seems to me that the passage is in fact saying that these 'heathens' can be saved if and only if they are converted.

It is not saying that at all. It merely says that the Church should promote the Gospel. How that entails "heathens can only be saved iff they are converted" is beyond me. Perhaps you should stop the conspiracy theories. The text is explicit that "heathens" can obtain salvation -- membership in the Church and belief in Jesus is not necessary or sufficient to be saved; it is merely efficient.

And para 17 continues to explain in detail the importance of understanding the Gospel to salvation. .

Precisely. The document is not arguing "Atheists can be saved, so nobody need worry about the Gospel or morality or God." The message is quite clear that, while atheists and other religious peopke can be saved, the most certain and assured path to salvation is through the Church and its sacraments. The theory is summarised by Pope Pius XII: "For though they [non-Catholics] may be related to the Mystical Body of Christ of the redeemer by some unconscious yearning and desire [and thus obtain salvation], yet they are deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be only in the Catholic Church." (Mystici Corporis, Part III.) I can work out for myself how to work a computer, but I would rather read the instruction manual.

Clearly there is no salvation for those who do not know Christ. And if there is no salvation then there is no life after death

Bizarre that you can reach that view when Lumen Gentium contradicts it explicitly.


I dont know why you are defending the Catholic stance here.

Because I have never heard a Catholic express that view; I have never read that view in any Catholic book; I have only ever heard Pope JPII and Benedict XVI teach that non-Catholics can be saved (Benedict said exactly that at World Youth Day in front of religious representatives in my home country this year). It has never been Catholic doctrine that all non-Catholics burn in hell and no where does Lumen Gentium express that view.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this:

"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 ...[text shortened]... ther imperfect knowledge or flawed (according to the RCC) interpretation is "ignorance".

An argument could be made that it is pretty difficult these days to not know of the Gospel and the Church and thus those who do not are in trouble salvation wise. I suppose it hinges on what it means to be "ignorant of the Gospel" i.e. whether that requires no knowledge of the Gospel at all or whether imperfect knowledge or flawed (according to the RCC) interpretation is "ignorance".

That ignorance is interpreted very widely. A person with no 'knowldge of the Church' could range from a heathen to a person raised as an inveterate Protestant. The only criterion for their salvation is that they have responded to grace and sought 'to follow the dictates of conscience'.

Originally posted by rwingett
No. 1 is right. It appears that Christianity did not ultimately break with Judaism until late in the 1st century. The earliest followers of Jesus were all Jewish. Jesus most likely saw himself as a reformer working within Judaism and not as the founder of a new religion. Christianity did not develop a separate identity until they invented the mythology of the "atoning death and resurrection."

When, pray tell, was the doctrine of the atoning death and resurrection of Jesus "invented"?

Originally posted by Conrau K
An argument could be made that it is pretty difficult these days to not know of the Gospel and the Church and thus those who do not are in trouble salvation wise. I suppose it hinges on what it means to be "ignorant of the Gospel" i.e. whether that requires no knowledge of the Gospel at all or whether imperfect knowledge or flawed (according to the RCC) is that they have responded to grace and sought 'to follow the dictates of conscience'.[/b]

Is there an RCC document that specifically spells out what "ignorance of the Gospel" means in this context?

"without blame on their part,"




http:// hive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html[/b]

This is unclear too. It was available to me but my environment did not encourage me to investigate it. Am I to blame?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is there an RCC document that specifically spells out what "ignorance of the Gospel" means in this context?

No. I did a search today and similar expressions are used in the encyclical Mystici Corporis and in speeches of Pope John Paul II, Pius XI and Leo XIII. There is however no clarification of what this means.

Originally posted by twiceaknight
This is unclear too. It was available to me but my environment did not encourage me to investigate it. Am I to blame?

No. I could probably memorise the phone books, but obviously I am not culpably ignorant just because I do not know everyone's number.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. I did a search today and similar expressions are used in the encyclical Mystici Corporis and in speeches of Pope John Paul II, Pius XI and Leo XIII. There is however no clarification of what this means.

Given the care and thought that goes into the Catechism and other official Church pronouncements, is it reasonable to suppose that the concept has been deliberately left ambiguous?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Given the care and thought that goes into the Catechism and other official Church pronouncements, is it reasonable to suppose that the concept has been deliberately left ambiguous?

Possibly there is just no consensus on what it means.