For Catholics - Who Is Saved?

This is a question I would like Catholics to address for me. For centuries the Pope has adamantly insisted that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. In recent years there have been papal statements to the effect that there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church, particularly with those churches that employ a trinitarian formula for baptism. Yet, on the other hand, I hear from the same Popes that only the Catholic Church contains the fullness of salvation.

My question then, is how are non-Catholics saved? i.e. do they spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics? Are Catholics given front-row seats in heaven reserved only for those having the fullness of salvation? What are the differences, if any, between salvation and full salvation?

Thanks.

There is no salvation outside of the Church we still teach this. However, this does not nor has never meant that one must fully belong to a Catholic parish to be saved. Baptized Christians(protestants) are informally united to the Catholic church by virtue of their trinitarian baptism and faith. So they are part of the Catholic church albeit informally in our view. Whether they go to purgatory or not depends upon their level of sanctification at death. Catholics do not have a one way ticket or front row seats to heaven. We just have everything that God intended us to have to get to heaven. We have the fullness of truth. Some Catholics will be in hell and some Protestants will be in heaven. Protestants and Catholics will both be in purgatory.

Think of it this way. The Catholic faith is like a gift box that God gave and in this box all the things God intends his people to have for their relationship with him and salvation are there. Protestants have many elements found in the box(faith in Christ, the scripture etc). Are those things useful to their sanctification and salvation? Yes! But what they have is originally from the Box and properly belongs to it. They have parts of the box but they do not have everything the box has and was given by God. In this way the box has the "fullness of truth" given by God for salvation. Or put another way the fullness of salvation( because they have everything that belongs in the box). But protestants still have part of the box so are united to it informally and can be saved.

Theologically speaking Catholics would call the "Box" the "deposit of faith" that Jesus left the Church.

I hope that helps.

God bless you!

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

Thanks for the explanation. It does help me understand current thinking, I assume, of course, that this also applies to the Orthodox.

What I had found puzzling is that when I was growing up ages ago in a very Catholic city all of my Catholic friends kept telling me that I was assured going to hell because I was not Catholic and that only Catholics had the hope of heaven because there was no salvation outside of the Church.

In the 1960's with Vatican II and the ecumenical movement there were many changes, including a new openness to non-Catholic Christians. Now, I know that Vatican II was not on the level of an ex-cathedra statement. However, all the anathemas and bulls issued by the Pope against Protestants and the Orthodox in the past condemning them in very strong and unflattering terms to the fires of hell surely must mean something. So, my question is whether the Catholic church changed its mind or did God change His mind.

Athanasias said:

There is no salvation outside of the Church we still teach this. However, this does not nor has never meant that one must fully belong to a Catholic parish to be saved. Baptized Christians(protestants) are informally united to the Catholic church by virtue of their trinitarian baptism and faith.

Click to expand...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]'Pius Bishop, servant of the servants of God, in lasting memory of the matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]1. In obedience to which duty, we (who by God's goodness are called to the aforesaid government of the Church) spare no pains and labour with all our might that unity and the Catholic religion (which their Author, for the trial of His children's faith and our correction, has suffered to be afflicted with such great troubles) may be preserved entire. But the number of the ungodly has so much grown in power that there is no place left in the world which they have not tried to corrupt with their most wicked doctrines; and among others, Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gether with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]2. Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics.' - [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Bull against Elizabeth [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]Pius V, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, Swiss, SunSans-Regular]1570[/FONT]

bbbbbbb said:

Thanks for the explanation. It does help me understand current thinking, I assume, of course, that this also applies to the Orthodox.

What I had found puzzling is that when I was growing up ages ago in a very Catholic city all of my Catholic friends kept telling me that I was assured going to hell because I was not Catholic and that only Catholics had the hope of heaven because there was no salvation outside of the Church.

In the 1960's with Vatican II and the ecumenical movement there were many changes, including a new openness to non-Catholic Christians. Now, I know that Vatican II was not on the level of an ex-cathedra statement. However, all the anathemas and bulls issued by the Pope against Protestants and the Orthodox in the past condemning them in very strong and unflattering terms to the fires of hell surely must mean something. So, my question is whether the Catholic church changed its mind or did God change His mind.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your question. The Catholic Church anathematized(which means to excommunicate when spoken of in Canon documents and councils) the original reformers. Those excommunications dealt with only those who at one time were part of the Catholic church and left it having full knowledge that it was the true church. Today most protestants never were ever part of the Catholic church or realized it was the true church. They grew up protestant. Anathemas(Excommunications) only dealt with the reformers originally and their original followers and not the current protestants who were never "formally" part of the Catholic church. The Church teaches and has always taught that those not formally united to the Church by "no fault of their own" can be saved by the truth and grace they do have which comes from the Catholic faith and which unites them informally to the Catholic Church "the box" . This shows up in Justin Martyrs writings about the Greeks in the 150's A.D. when he said they(the Greeks) were Christians they just did not know it yet because they were searching after the logos which the Catholic church had found.

I hope that helps!

BBBBBBB, There was alot of prejudice on both sides 50 years ago. Many Catholics personally were prejudice and didn't see the protestants going to heaven ands vice versa. However that was never our official teaching. Check this article out it will explain in detail the Churches official position on your question above and it will give examples in history and in councils.

Here it is http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

Athanasias said:

Thanks for your question. The Catholic Church anathematized(which means to excommunicate when spoken of in Canon documents and councils) the original reformers. Those excommunications dealt with only those who at one time were part of the Catholic church and left it having full knowledge that it was the true church. Today most protestants never were ever part of the Catholic church or realized it was the true church. They grew up protestant.

Click to expand...

This is an argument? Or a joke?

bbbbbbb said:

My question then, is how are non-Catholics saved? i.e. do they spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics?

Click to expand...

As to the first question, let the Church speak for itself:

There was an incident in the late 40s and early 50s of Father Feeney, who was excommunicated by Pope Piux XII for continuing to falsely teach that in order to be saved a person had to be a formal member of the Catholic Church.

A 1949 letter from the Papal Office, correcting Father Feeney, read in part:As to your purgatory question, the Church does not take a position on who will get how much "time" in purgatory. First of all, the Church does not attribute a worldly sense of "time" to the condition of purgatory. Secondly, purgatory is simply the removal of all damage (not to be confused with guilt) of sin so that a person be completely detached from sin and 100% focused on glorifying God, completely incapable of sin, because full union with God is incompatible with even the slightest tendency for sin. Purgatory is not automatically applied more whether or not a person is a formal member of the Catholic Church.

MrPolo said:

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

Click to expand...

Which serious Prot is ignorant of the RCC and its claims? Is it not the duty of the RCC to make sure that all are aware of its presence and its claims?

What has happened is that ordinary people talk about 'Christians and Catholics', and Rome is now having to suck up to the public instead of arrogantly treating born again people with contempt, as they did within living memory.

Now my little brain is spinning. Here is the current view as I understand it:

1. Ignoramuses which happen to have been baptized with a trinitarian formula but who otherwise are very marginal and nominal Christians will probably be saved because they didn't give a twit about Christianity.
2. Sincere and godly Protestants who, for example, don't buy the Perptual Virginity of Mary dogma, are condemned to an eternity in hell as a result.
3. Purgatory is now a pleasant experience and not the hellish reformatory that it was widely taught and believed to be for centuries. What would Dante say?
4. Most folks won't end up in hell, after all, unless the Catholic Church takes the effort to anathematize them. Thus, salvation is universal for all mankind (or at least Protestants and Orthodox) unless they are condemned to hell by the Catholic Church.

bbbbbbb said:

Now my little brain is spinning. Here is the current view as I understand it:

1. Ignoramuses which happen to have been baptized with a trinitarian formula but who otherwise are very marginal and nominal Christians will probably be saved because they didn't give a twit about Christianity.
2. Sincere and godly Protestants who, for example, don't buy the Perptual Virginity of Mary dogma, are condemned to an eternity in hell as a result.
3. Purgatory is now a pleasant experience and not the hellish reformatory that it was widely taught and believed to be for centuries. What would Dante say?
4. Most folks won't end up in hell, after all, unless the Catholic Church takes the effort to anathematize them. Thus, salvation is universal for all mankind (or at least Protestants and Orthodox) unless they are condemned to hell by the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

1. No, if they don't care about God deliberately they may well go to hell. If they deliberately not care about His will.
2. No, sincere Protestants will likely be saved if they follow the will of God to the best of their understanding. They would be viewed as not having a full grasp of the Gospel, but as sincere, as stated in CCC#847.
3. No, no one said there would be no pain. At the least, the saved soul would have anguish in knowing there is a delay of sorts before being able to fully unite with God. Paul eludes to it as a "fire" in 1 Cor 3. There is no purgatory "now" vs. "then". Dante wrote poetry. His Divine Comedy is not dogmatic, but a poetic representation of heaven, hell, and purgatory.
4. No one knows how many go to hell except for God.

MrPolo said:

1. No, if they don't care about God deliberately they may well go to hell. If they deliberately not care about His will.
2. No, sincere Protestants will likely be saved if they follow the will of God to the best of their understanding.

Click to expand...

How many Protestants have not heard of the Vicar of Christ? Or do Catholics also believe that Herr Ratzinger is not the Vicar of Christ?

calluna said:

How many Protestants have not heard of the Vicar of Christ? Or do Catholics also believe that Herr Ratzinger is not the Vicar of Christ?

Click to expand...

Is hearing of the Vicar of Christ the same as hearing of Christ? One can watch a media blurb on the Pope's visit to the U.S. without knowing much about the Pope or Christ.

tz620q said:

Is hearing of the Vicar of Christ the same as hearing of Christ? One can watch a media blurb on the Pope's visit to the U.S. without knowing much about the Pope or Christ.

Click to expand...

But what you don't realise is that Protestants have heard of Christ. Well, the keen ones have.

calluna said:

But what you don't realise is that Protestants have heard of Christ. Well, the keen ones have.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But please understand, the Catholic Church has a far deeper understanding of Christ, who is the Word, revelation itself. Just by knowing we recognize Cardinal Ratzinger now as the Pope may or may not be enough to convince someone that the Catholic Church is the true Church. God knows whether or not a person is formally outside of the Church for innocent reasons or not. That is the Catholic teaching as detailed above from the Catechism and elsewhere.

MrPolo said:

Indeed. But please understand, the Catholic Church has a far deeper understanding of Christ, who is the Word, revelation itself.

Click to expand...

Of course it does! Now if Protestants, keen ones who know the gospels (often far better than the average Catholic, it might be said), who also know the teachings and nature of Roman papacy, refuse to recognise Herr Ratzinger as Christ's vicar, just as the original Reformers did of contemporary popes, they cannot be categorised any differently from those Reformers. The Vatican merely applies its standard double standards. The symbol of papacy should not be keys, but a wet finger raised into the wind. The Vatican has no choice but to admit born again people as Christians, because if it came to a contest, the born agains would win, hands down, in the public eye. This volte face is sickening to those of us who can still feel the bruises for telling Catholics they must be born again. But we expected nothing else.

calluna said:

Of course it does! Now if Protestants, keen ones who know the gospels (often far better than the average Catholic, it might be said),

Click to expand...

Irrelevant parameter match.

who also know the teachings and nature of Roman papacy, refuse to recognise Herr Ratzinger as Christ's vicar, just as the original Reformers did of contemporary popes, they cannot be categorised any differently from those Reformers.

Click to expand...

But do they know the teachings and nature of the Catholic Church? That, my friend, is a very good question.

The Vatican merely applies its standard double standards. The symbol of papacy should not be keys, but a wet finger raised into the wind. The Vatican has no choice but to admit born again people as Christians, because if it came to a contest, the born agains would win, hands down, in the public eye.

Click to expand...

Since when did the public eye determine the truth?

Technocrat2010 said:

Irrelevant parameter match.

Click to expand...

True. I should know better than to mention the Bible in this context.

But do they know the teachings and nature of the Catholic Church? That, my friend, is a very good question.

Click to expand...

Usually much better than most Catholics.

Since when did the public eye determine the truth?

Click to expand...

Since when did the RCC care about truth?

calluna said:

True. I should know better than to mention the Bible in this context.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. You compared well-versed Protestants with the "average" Catholic. Please demonstrate how the two are valid matches, since you have not provided any points of correlation between the two groups.

Usually much better than most Catholics.

Click to expand...

Please demonstrate this.

Since when did the RCC care about truth?

Click to expand...

For ~2000 years, since the founding of the Church.
Please answer my question. Since when does the public eye determine truth?

Technocrat2010 said:

Incorrect. You compared well-versed Protestants with the "average" Catholic. Please demonstrate how the two are valid matches, since you have not provided any points of correlation between the two groups.

Click to expand...

So is the average Catholic not a Catholic?

Please demonstrate this.

Click to expand...

Prove it's wrong.

For ~2000 years, since the founding of the Church.

Click to expand...

MrPolo said:

1. No, if they don't care about God deliberately they may well go to hell. If they deliberately not care about His will.
2. No, sincere Protestants will likely be saved if they follow the will of God to the best of their understanding. They would be viewed as not having a full grasp of the Gospel, but as sincere, as stated in CCC#847.
3. No, no one said there would be no pain. At the least, the saved soul would have anguish in knowing there is a delay of sorts before being able to fully unite with God. Paul eludes to it as a "fire" in 1 Cor 3. There is no purgatory "now" vs. "then". Dante wrote poetry. His Divine Comedy is not dogmatic, but a poetic representation of heaven, hell, and purgatory.
4. No one knows how many go to hell except for God.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the point by point response, to which I respond, as follows:

1. I have known a great number of both Protestants and Catholics who don't deliberately do anything religious. They go with the flow and see the church as another social club. They show up once or twice a year and for major events such as their funerals. Given the fact they have not deliberately rejected God's will, then they will be saved because they had a trinitarian baptism. Is this not so?
2. There are many sincere and devoted Protestants such as myself who deliberately, with a full understanding, reject the Marian dogmas as nothing more than extrabiblical suppositions. We are definitely sincerely doing the will of God, but are we not anathematized because we deliberately do not believe essential dogmas which are required for salvation?
3. The description of purgatory at present varies markedly from that given by the Catholic church until at least the past fifty years. Previously, the presentation was exceedingly grim and full of genuine physical pain and torment, not the mere longing to be in heaven sooner.
4. So, then the anathemas and bulls of the Popes are utterly without meaning because they were not God and could not state with the least bit of certainty that those individuals were bound for an eternity in hell?