Immaculate Conception St. Bernard and Thomas Aquinas

[LOCO]

So the belief that Mary was purified from all sin prior to the virginal conception of Christ (either at or after her own conception) was universal?

Hello mark_sam

The Catholic Church teaches that from the very moment of her conception, the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from all stain of original sin. This simply means that from the beginning, she was in a state of grace, sharing in God's own life, and that she was free from the sinful inclinations which have beset human nature after the fall.

At the time of St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas, the data from Scripture and the Fathers was still not clear.

Additionally, the understanding of original sin was not as clear as it should have been--it was often thought of as having a positive element, instead of merely being an original lack of the grace to which God calls us. This positive element was thought to be transmitted from parents to children through the marital act (which was itself thought to be somehow sinful, though pardoned by God), and so it was hard to see how there could be an immaculate conception.

This conception had been found in some, though by no means all, of the Fathers. Now of course we know it to be false. Finally, it was not generally seen at this time how an Immaculate conception of Mary would not take away from the universality of redemption through Christ.

After a while, however, the theological tide began to turn, and the objections which had long obscured the content of divine revelation began to be overcome. This was due especially to the work of the Franciscan, Venerable John Duns Scotus. He showed that for God to preserve Mary from original sin was a greater redemption than to allow her to fall into it and then rescue her.

Blessings

 

[LOCO]

.


While I'm not a minimalist (only what is MANDATED for faith is to be professed), I also don't agree that DOGMA should be made of the moot. Christian unity should not be fractured over an issue that totally doesn't matter.

One denomination (out of the 50,000 Catholics often insist exist) insists that it's DOGMA that Mary was conceived immaculately - all with ZERO (absolutely ZERO) biblical support or from the earliest Church Fathers. Does it matter? Not that ANY of my Catholic teachers or my Catholic Deacon or Catholic priest could explain. I frankly have no "problem" with someone holding to this (or how often Mary did or did not have sex after Jesus was born or if Mary was or was not assumed into Heaven upon Her death or was it undeath?), nor with whether their is life on some other planet or if Jesus had half-brothers or whether Mary ever took a bath or whether meat should be eaten on Fridays or if there are 2,3,5,7, or hundreds of "Sacaments" - but I do have an issue declaring such DOGMA.


In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend speaking of a certain large denomination, "My biggest problem with the ____________ is that it has never learned how to shut up."

.

Just because you believe the issue doesn't matter doesn't make it so. Why automatically discount those who believe otherwise?

Not sure why would you have a problem with CC Dogma, you are not Catholic. No-one is forcing you to join the CC. Only Catholics are required to follow the CC Dogma and if we don't like it, we know where the door is.

If I thought any non-Catholic Dogma unscriptural I would not be telling them that they are docile fools who are being led astray. That's their business, I don't have to follow it. I can try to understand why they believe it, but I won't attack, condemn or belittle them or their 'church'.

Why should you be allowed to preach your dogma but Catholics need to shut up?

I see a definite pattern in your posts.

You are willing to accept the authority of the CC when it comes to deciding the contents of the Bible but on anything to do with Mary's perpetual viriginity and immaculate conception, the Church is wrong.

Why believe anything in the Bible at all if you do not accept the CC's authority in claiming it to be the written word of God?

How do you know that anything in the Bible is true?

How do you know the CC included the right Gospels and Letters in the Bible when there were many Gospels and Letters to choose from?

The statement below is only directed at you, to illustrate that I know exactly where you are coming from.

In the words of my Baptist friend who recently converted to the CC...
"Why buy a cheap Chinese knockoff when I can have the original."

I said to her 'you have much to learn about what the CC teaches'.

See how cheap shots work, I guess you already knew that.





Blessings

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

While I'm not a minimalist (only what is MANDATED for faith is to be professed), I also don't agree that DOGMA should be made of the largely irrelevant.



Christian unity should not be fractured over an issue that largely doesn't matter.


One denomination (out of the 50,000 Catholics often insist exist) insists that it's DOGMA that Mary was conceived immaculately - all with ZERO (absolutely ZERO) biblical support or from the earliest Church Fathers. Does it matter? Not that ANY of my Catholic teachers or my Catholic Deacon or Catholic priest could explain. I frankly have no "problem" with someone holding to this (or how often Mary did or did not have sex after Jesus was born or if Mary was or was not assumed into Heaven upon Her death or was it undeath?), nor with whether their is life on some other planet or if Jesus had half-brothers or whether Mary ever took a bath or whether meat should be eaten on Fridays or if there are 2,3,5,7, or hundreds of "Sacaments" - but I do have an issue declaring such DOGMA.




In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend speaking of a certain large denomination, "My biggest problem with the ____________ is that it has never learned how to shut up."





.

Just because you believe the issue doesn't matter doesn't make it so. Why automatically discount those who believe otherwise?


.

1. Read what you quoted from me.


2. My Catholic teachers taught me that "dogma" is declared, in part, to identify heretics and apostasy, and to separate truth from such. It declares a matter to be one of highest importance and greatest certainty - AND thus to define different views as heresy of the greatest condemnation. It is a DIVISION. Dogmas aren't declared, I was told, unless there is heresy of the worse kind that must be condemned. Read what you quoted from me.


3. Since it is proclaimed to all the world as matter of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth - other views being heresy of the greatest condemnation - is it SO unreasonable and shocking to think there might be substantiation of such to the level claimed? I have a hunch if it was insisted - as DOGMA - that the pope is gay, you'd want some pretty solid substantiation to the truth of such AND why such is regarded as a matter of highest importance of all and greatest certainty of truth - and views to the contrary are heresy of the most condemnable nature. I'm probably wrong about that.



4. Funny, because when Protestants present a view that isn't taught in the RCC or EOC, persons associated with those denominations are all over them with "where's the proof?" Even if it's NOT dogma - or even doctrine or even official teaching. I guess this only works one way.





.

 

[OpenDoor]

Not sure why would you have a problem with CC Dogma, you are not Catholic.

Acording to the RCC not believe Catholic Dogma means a person lacks saving faith.

 

[LOCO]

Acording to the RCC not believe Catholic Dogma means a person lacks saving faith.

Most people don't bother to find out what the Church means when she says that. It does NOT mean one must be a visible member of the Church.

Our understanding is that non-Catholic Christians, can be non-Catholic through no fault of their own. They are one with us in the Body of Christ, yet they lack the fullness of the truth. So, we see them as saved through Christ in communion with the united Body of Christ, and we pray that they will come into the fullness of the faith.

No different from non-catholics who assume they have the fullness of faith and pray for Catholics to come into communion with them.

Technically and historically speaking there is no such thing as the RCC.

There is only one Catholic Church of which there are 22 Eastern Churches in communion it.

There are 10 Rites (manner of worship) in the CC. One of those rites is the Roman Rite.


Blessings

 

[LOCO]

.






1. Read what you quoted from me.


2. My Catholic teachers taught me that "dogma" is declared, in part, to identify heretics and apostasy, and to separate truth from such. It declares a matter to be one of highest importance and greatest certainty - AND thus to define different views as heresy of the greatest condemnation. It is a DIVISION. Dogmas aren't declared, I was told, unless there is heresy of the worse kind that must be condemned. Read what you quoted from me.


3. Since it is proclaimed to all the world as matter of highest importance and greatest certainty of truth - other views being heresy of the greatest condemnation - is it SO unreasonable and shocking to think there might be substantiation of such to the level claimed? I have a hunch if it was insisted - as DOGMA - that the pope is gay, you'd want some pretty solid substantiation to the truth of such AND why such is regarded as a matter of highest importance of all and greatest certainty of truth - and views to the contrary are heresy of the most condemnable nature. I'm probably wrong about that.



4. Funny, because when Protestants present a view that isn't taught in the RCC or EOC, persons associated with those denominations are all over them with "where's the proof?" Even if it's NOT dogma - or even doctrine or even official teaching. I guess this only works one way.





.

I know exactly where you are coming from CJ. I have been reading your posts. You don't engage or respond to arguments or scriptural evidence that answer your questions.

You just keep on attacking, change direction, introduce something new, snide third party comment here or there, always keeping Catholics or EO's on the defence. And then you ignore or feign surprise or offence when you are called on it.

mmm..you discuss Marys personal life insisting on using the term 'sex' instead of Virgin despite EO, Catholic and other posters, finding the term offensive when discussing Our Lords mother and then out of all the fictitious dogmas you could choose to invent, you choose the Pope being gay...I'm beginning to understand your psyche.

If you wanted to proclaim dogma that the Pope was gay, go ahead, we've heard worse, others accuse him of being the anti-christ.

I'd find it humorous especially since you espouse familiarity with Catholicism, you already know that the CC allows homosexual Priests and does not condemn people for simply being homosexual. We don't view homosexuality in and of itself as a sin.

The sin lies in homosexuals having sex outside of marriage, just as it is a sin for heterosexuals to have sex outside of marriage.

Since all Priests have taken a vow of celibacy, the CC sees no issue with ordaining Priests who are homosexual.

Catholics are called to treat gays with compassion, respect and dignity. They are carrying their own cross.

 

[OpenDoor]

Most people don't bother to find out what the Church means when she says that. It does NOT mean one must be a visible member of the Church.

Our understanding is that non-Catholic Christians, can be non-Catholic through no fault of their own. They are one with us in the Body of Christ, yet they lack the fullness of the truth. So, we see them as saved through Christ in communion with the united Body of Christ, and we pray that they will come into the fullness of the faith.

No different from non-catholics who assume they have the fullness of faith and pray for Catholics to come into communion with them.

From the Catholic POV a rejection of Catholic Dogma is a rejection of Christian Truth.

When the Immaculate Conception was defined as dogma in the Catholic Church it became nessasary for someone to believe, in order to have saving faith (From the Catholic POV if Mary was not immaculately conceived Christ could not be born).

Does the Catholic Church teach that a person can be saved who rejects Catholic Dogma?

 

[LOCO]

From the Catholic POV a rejection of Catholic Dogma is a rejection of Christian Truth.

When the Immaculate Conception was defined as dogma in the Catholic Church it became nessasary for someone to believe, in order to have saving faith (From the Catholic POV if Mary was not immaculately conceived Christ could not be born).

Does the Catholic Church teach that a person can be saved who rejects Catholic Dogma?

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC847).

The same Church Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire".

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those Catholics who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.



Ignatius of Antioch (A.D.110)

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

St Justin Martyr (A.D.151)



"We have been taught that Christ is the first-begotten of God, and we have declared him to be the Logos of which all mankind partakes [John 1:9]. Those, therefore, who lived according to reason [Greek, logos] were really Christians, even though they were thought to be atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates, Heraclitus, and others like them. . . . Those who lived before Christ but did not live according to reason [logos] were wicked men, and enemies of Christ, and murderers of those who did live according to reason [logos], whereas those who lived then or who live now according to reason [logos] are Christians. Such as these can be confident and unafraid" (First Apology 46 [A.D. 151]).

Irenaeus (A.D.189)



"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Clement of Alexandria (A.D.208)



"Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety . . . for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews" (Miscellanies 1:5 [A.D. 208]).

Origen (A.D. 248)



"[T]here was never a time when God did not want men to be just; he was always concerned about that. Indeed, he always provided beings endowed with reason with occasions for practicing virtue and doing what is right. In every generation the wisdom of God descended into those souls which he found holy and made them to be prophets and friends of God" (Against Celsus 4:7 [A.D. 248]).

"If someone from this people wants to be saved, let him come into this house so that he may be able to attain his salvation. . . . Let no one, then, be persuaded otherwise, nor let anyone deceive himself: Outside of this house, that is, outside of the Church, no one is saved; for, if anyone should go out of it, he is guilty of his own death" (Homilies on Joshua 3:5 [A.D. 250]).

Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 251)



"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).

Lactantius (A.D.307)



"It is, therefore, the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth; this, the domicile of faith; this, the temple of God. Whoever does not enter there or whoever does not go out from there, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. . . . Because, however, all the various groups of heretics are confident that they are the Christians and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, let it be known that this is the true Church, in which there is confession and penance and which takes a health-promoting care of the sins and wounds to which the weak flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes 4:30:11–13 [A.D. 307]).

Jerome (A.D.306)



"Heretics bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation. Between heresy and schism there is this difference: that heresy involves perverse doctrine, while schism separates one from the Church on account of disagreement with the bishop. Nevertheless, there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church" (Commentary on Titus 3:10–11 [A.D. 386]).

Augustine (A.D. 393,400,412)



"We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and the Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

"[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

"I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]" (ibid., 4:21[28]).

"The apostle Paul said, ‘As for a man that is a heretic, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him’ [Titus 3:10]. But those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated the error of bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed . . . those who seek the truth with careful industry and are ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics" (Letters 43:1 [A.D. 412]).

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" (ibid., 141:5).

Fulgentius of Ruspe (A.D.542)



"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

 

[bbbbbbb]

The reality, of course, is that it is far, far better to be a dolt or a very marginal member of another Christian church than to be a sincere, knowledgable believer in another Church who understands and rejects the Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception. According to the Catholic Church a dolt or a very marginal member of another Christian church is a Catholic, through no fault of his own. For the rest of us, who understand and reject Catholic dogmas, there is no alternative but the lake of fire forever.

 

[OpenDoor]

snip

IMO that response is good when dealing with the majority of the public, but on a site such as this. Too many of us know at least a little bit about Catholicism and those who are not Catholic reject (at least some) of its teachings.

 

[OpenDoor]

The reality, of course, is that it is far, far better to be a dolt or a very marginal member of another Christian church than to be a sincere, knowledgable believer in another Church who understands and rejects the Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception. According to the Catholic Church a dolt or a very marginal member of another Christian church is a Catholic, through no fault of his own. For the rest of us, who understand and reject Catholic dogmas, there is no alternative but the lake of fire forever.

The part that I think is sad is that it essentially teaches that the RCC would rather a person is an atheist then a non-catholic Christian.

 

[LOCO]

The part that I think is sad is that it essentially teaches that the RCC would rather a person is an atheist then a non-catholic Christian.

You are free to choose to interpret it that way. That is not what the CC teaches.

Read this next part carefully.

For those Catholics who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

Non-Catholic christians are considered invincibly ignorant, outside the church, and can be saved. That is to say: those who were never properly catechised and did not, through negligence or willfull act, reject valid catechesis.



Those who fall into the latter category with non-catholic christians include:

i) Those who lived good, charitable lives before Christ was born.

ii) Those who lived good, charitable lives when Christ was alive but were unaware of who he really was.

iii) Those who lived/live good, charitable lives but were never made aware of Christ's teachings i.e. those in remote villages of the globe

iv) Those who are mentally handicapped, people who are not able to make fully informed decisions about Christ. Some in this category have the mental age of a child. The CC sees the age of reason as being 7-9 when we can commit culpable sin i.e. we know it's a sin but we choose to commit it anyway.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

Blessings

 

[washedagain]

Are atheist invincibly ignorant?

What about those that understand Catholic Teaching and reject it but have put all their faith In Jesus Christ as their lord and savor?

Are those that reject Catholic teachings but understand them the same as an atheist?

 

[LOCO]

Are atheist invincibly ignorant?

What about those that understand Catholic Teaching and reject it but have put all their faith In Jesus Christ as their lord and savor?

Are those that reject Catholic teachings but understand them the same as an atheist?

Depends whether God chooses to have mercy on that atheists soul.

Only if they were properly catechised and baptised Catholic.

Not if those that reject Catholic teachings are non-Catholic Christians.

I think many will be surprised by who is in Heaven and who has gone to Hell.

There is a saying that 'Hell is paved with millions of skulls of those who identify as Christians'.

 

[xfisherman]

You are free to choose to interpret it that way. That is not what the CC teaches.

Read this next part carefully.

For those Catholics who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

Non-Catholic christians are considered invincibly ignorant, outside the church, and can be saved. That is to say: those who were never properly catechised and did not, through negligence or willfull act, reject valid catechesis.



Those who fall into the latter category with non-catholic christians include:

i) Those who lived good, charitable lives before Christ was born.

ii) Those who lived good, charitable lives when Christ was alive but were unaware of who he really was.

iii) Those who lived/live good, charitable lives but were never made aware of Christ's teachings i.e. those in remote villages of the globe

iv) Those who are mentally handicapped, people who are not able to make fully informed decisions about Christ. Some in this category have the mental age of a child. The CC sees the age of reason as being 7-9 when we can commit culpable sin i.e. we know it's a sin but we choose to commit it anyway.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

Blessings

You mean to tell me that the Roman Catholic Church can tell who is saved or not,so it is taking the place of God and playing God,amazing.

 

[Rhamiel]

You mean to tell me that the Roman Catholic Church can tell who is saved or not,so it is taking the place of God and playing God,amazing.

we do not judge who is not saved, and it is only in special circumstances where we say someone is saved (those who are declared a Saint, and we know that heaven has a lot more people then just those who are declared Saints)
LOCO was just saying that for some people are counted as innocent because of their ignorance, now we should be careful not to assume everyone is ignorant, but then we should not be too harsh either

 

[LOCO]

You mean to tell me that the Roman Catholic Church can tell who is saved or not,so it is taking the place of God and playing God,amazing.

No that is not what I am saying. We need to have clear doctrine so we don't have confusion such as traditionalists who say 'You are not Catholic therefore you cannot be saved' and on the other extreme those who say 'unless you believe in Jesus Christ you cannot enter Heaven'.

I'd be interested to know your 'church' doctrine on the issue. What are you taught on the mentally challenged, those who lived good charitable lives before Christ was born and those who lived or still living after Christ died who have not heard the Gospel?

Are they doomed as they died without even knowing Christ existed?
Are they 'saved'?
Can they be saved?
How can they be saved if Christ was not alive when they were?
How can they not be saved when Christ was not alive when they were?

Blessings

 

[OpenDoor]

You are free to choose to interpret it that way. That is not what the CC teaches.

Read this next part carefully.

For those Catholics who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

Non-Catholic christians are considered invincibly ignorant, outside the church, and can be saved. That is to say: those who were never properly catechised and did not, through negligence or willfull act, reject valid catechesis.



Those who fall into the latter category with non-catholic christians include:

i) Those who lived good, charitable lives before Christ was born.

ii) Those who lived good, charitable lives when Christ was alive but were unaware of who he really was.

iii) Those who lived/live good, charitable lives but were never made aware of Christ's teachings i.e. those in remote villages of the globe

iv) Those who are mentally handicapped, people who are not able to make fully informed decisions about Christ. Some in this category have the mental age of a child. The CC sees the age of reason as being 7-9 when we can commit culpable sin i.e. we know it's a sin but we choose to commit it anyway.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

Blessings

I am in schism with the RCC but in full communion with Christ.

 

[OpenDoor]

Only if they were properly catechised and baptised Catholic.

Sounds like me (although "properly catechised" could be debatable)

 

[LOCO]

Sounds like me (although "properly catechised" could be debatable)

My point exactly. Many Catholics are not properly Catechised just as many so-called Christans are ignorant of Church History and what the Church Fathers taught and how the faith was practiced.

If anyone Christian or not, is cognitively unaware of the true Teachings, how can they then be considered culpable and sent to Hell. They did not make an informed decision.

Having said that there are many who are fully aware of the message of Christ and deliberately choose not to follow it.

I would still be reluctant to condemn the latter to Hell as only God has the power and knowledge to do that. Additionally, many non-believers have converted on their deathbeds or much later in life.

Blessings