Psst, there are other non-Arians in Catholic Calendars!

St Josaphat of India - i.e. Buddha
St Isaac the Syrian - Nestorian
St Gregory Palamas - Eastern Orthodox
St Sergius of Radonezh - ditto

And no end of non-Catholics there, though of course Orthodox are a very different matter from Protestants…

St. Josaphat is not the Buddha. St. Josaphat is, at the most extreme, a literary character heavily inspired by the Buddha (but still Christian.) Being a character based on a real historical figure is not the same as being that historical figure. It’s the difference between Aslan and Jesus Christ.

A perfect application of this is in regards to the Uganda Martyrs where Saint Charles Lwanga and his companion martyrs were canonized by the Church and the other Christians (Anglicans) who were also martyred at the same time were mentioned during the canonization, but not canonized.

I like the distinction of not canonizing anybody outside the Communion.

For what it’s worth, Fr Aidon Nichols OP discusses a bit about saints (and even doctors) from communities not in full communion with Rome which are later brought into communion with the Church, in his Rome and the Eastern Churches.  The essential point he brings up is that there is a difference between a heresiarch (e.g. a founder of a schismatic heresy) and a later member of the schism who strives to live in holiness but yet remains in the schism.  He brings up the point in the context of those eastern-rite Catholics whose churches return to the Catholic Church after a prolonged period of schism, and who want to continue to celebrate the lives of their own saints in their liturgy.  Basically:  should they be permitted to continue to place such non-Catholic (because then in schism with the Church) saints on their liturgical calenders?  As far as I know, the answer is essentially in the affirmative, save for the actual founders of the schism/heresy.

I thought St. Josaphat was a Ukrainian Bishop who worked for unity between Eastern and Western Christians?

Being models is just part of it. Another part is being intercessors. We recognize some saints have a special ministry in interceding for us from heaven. Could a non-Catholic not have such a ministry? It seems at least theoretically possible

No non-Catholic Saints? I’m sure this would be news to St. Moses, St. Elijah, St. Michael the Archangel, etc.

@victor… Moses and Elijah were Old Testament.  Naturally, no one in the Old Testament would be considered catholic/christian.  It’s generally understood that many of the patriarchs would be traditionally considered a saint.  We’re talking about POST Gospel!

Also, it’s generally understood that any angel that didn’t participate in the rebellion of Lucifer, resides with God in heaven…. hence, an implication of sanctity as they are pure spirits who make decisions with 100% of their faculties (unlike humans- see St. Thomas Aquinas for doctrinal explanation). 

Does that make sense?

Mark P. Shea’s thinking on C.S. Lewis is a bit askew. The same crispness of mind that makes Lewis a great Christian apologist may have been his undoing. 

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that anyone who is not formally received into the Catholic Church cannot be saved. The exceptions to that doctrine are for those who have not heard the Word, and for those who are in invincible ignorance about the need to be joined to the Catholic Church.

C. S. Lewis never joined the Catholic Church. He certainly had heard the Word. Was he then in a state of invincible ignorance? It is very difficult to believe he was. He knew the arguments, but rejected them. Would the Holy Spirit allow a man of good faith to miss this very important truth? Was there a self-imposed impediment to Lewis accepting the truth? I don’t know, but this is not the stuff saints are made from.

Mr. Shea glosses over the absolute need to be a part of the Body of Christ through membership in the Catholic Church in order to be saved, so we must ask: does Mr. Shea believe too little of the of doctrine of papal infallibility.

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that anyone who is not formally received into the Catholic Church cannot be saved.

No it doesn’t.  If it did, there would *be* no exceptions to this doctrine.

Sorry, Mark, but here are the facts:

Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): “He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.” [Epist. 141 (CH 158)]. ??Saint Gregory the Great: “The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved.” [Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)]. ??Innocent III and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215 A.D.): “There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one can be saved.” [Cap. I; De fide cath.; DS 802 (CH 159)].
“The same teaching is expressed in the professions of faith which have been proposed of by the Apostolic See; in the one which all the Latin Churches use (2); as also in the others, one which is received by the Greeks (3), and the other by all other Eastern Catholics” (4). [Pope Gregory XVI: Encyclical Summo jugiter, May 27, 1832 to the Bishops of Bavaria (CH 159)].
How are we to interpret the dogma teaching us that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation???“This dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.  For it was not to private judgment that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposits of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
?“Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is a question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ.  For He explicitly enjoined on his apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded.  Now, among the commandments of Christ, one that holds not the least place, is that by which we are commanded to be incorporated by Baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to his Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.
?“Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.  Not only did the Saviour command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation, without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.”  [Letter of the S.C. of the H. Office, Aug. 8, 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (CH 1256-7)].

What about belonging to the Catholic Church by ‘desire’ or ‘longing’. ??“In his infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.  This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the Sacrament of Baptism and in reference to the Sacrament of Penance (5).  The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation.  Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.” [Letter of the S. C. of the H. Office, Aug. 8, 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (CH 1258)].

What sort of intention or ‘desire’ or ‘longing’ would be required? ??“However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; for when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.  These things are clearly taught in that encyclical which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.  For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members and those who are united to the Church only by desire.  The same august Pontiff, when discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is composed here on earth, says: ‘Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed’ (6).

“Towards the end of this same Encyclical Letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who ‘are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire’ (7), and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition ‘in which they cannot be sure of their salvation’ (8) since ‘they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church’ (9).  With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (10)”. [Letter of the S. C. of the H. Office, Aug. 8, 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (CH 1259-60)].

The Boston references are to the famous case between Fr. Feeney and Archbishop (or Cardinal) Cushing.

My wife who was a convert before our marriage 47 years ago, came from a solidly Protestant family.  One of them, an aunt who is in her mid eighties, has been my candidate for sanctity for a long time.  She sang Ave Maria at our wedding and has never questioned our Catholicism for a second.  She convinced us of ancesteral healing long before it was promoted by the Church.  Her now late husband had a severe mental disease that had ancesteral links.  She went to the family home of her husband, and prayed and sprinkled holy water of some sort around it.  He was healed.  I could go on and on.  Her door is open to anyone who wants to be prayed over and does so many times a week.  She attends her Evangelical church three or four times a week.  Whenever we visit we go to Mass on the vigil, and then go to her place of worship of Sunday.

Don’t know if she will proceed us or not at this point, but if she goes before us, I know we will meet her there if we are worthy enough.

Mark, I may have misunderstood your message:
The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that anyone who is not formally received into the Catholic Church cannot be saved.
No it doesn’t.  If it did, there would *be* no exceptions to this doctrine.

True, the doctrine does not change, but the culpability of the person in relation to the doctrine changes depending on his ability to understand the doctrine. Much like the prerequisites for mortal sin: serious matter, full adherence and full consent. If the person does not know the doctrine of the Church well enough to know he is offending, he is not culpable.

God knows His own.  It will all come out as it should.

In the letter from the Holy Office regarding Fr. Feeney, one often overlooked phrase must be considered: “It is necesary that the desire by which a man is related to the Church be informed with perfect charity.”
Like the camel through the needle’s eye, one without the aid of the sacraments would scarcely develop the “perfect” charity demanded, but with God, all things are possible.

Another who should be considered based on work done during WW II in occupied Europe would be Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat (perhaps a Lutheran by denomination) classified as a “righteous gentile” for saving thousands of Jews from Hitler’s death camps.  He was imprisoned by the Soviets in early 1945, and details of his death are not known.
TeaPot562

“Furthermore, the salvific action of Jesus Christ, with and through his Spirit, extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Church to all humanity. Speaking of the paschal mystery, in which Christ even now associates the believer to himself in a living manner in the Spirit and gives him the hope of resurrection, the Council states: ‘All this holds true not only for Christians but also for all men of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery’. (Gaudium et Spes, 22).  Hence, the connection is clear between the salvific mystery of the Incarnate Word and that of the Spirit, who actualizes the salvific efficacy of the Son made man in the lives of all people, called by God to a single goal, both those who historically preceded the Word made man, and those who live after his coming in history: the Spirit of the Father, bestowed abundantly by the Son, is the animator of all (cf. Jn 3:34).” Dominus Iesus, 12, Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, 2000

“It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.” Dominus Iesus, 14

“The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5).  Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single ‘whole Christ.’” Dominus Iesus, 16

“The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: ‘This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that ‘outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth’, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church’’” Dominus Iesus, 16

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. Mysterium Ecclesiae 1, CDF

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. Unitatis Redintegratio, 22

From the Council of Florence and the bull Cantate Domino of Pope EugeneIV:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
 

This is a de fide proclamation by a council caLLed as a DOCTRINAL council and a solemn magisterial teaching of the pope, and ther is no getting around it.

The council of Florence predated the Protestant Reformation.  It is still a council of the Church and speaks the truth.  When new realities face the Church, such as the Protestant Reformation and the resulting 500 years, such teaching must be looked at deeper.  Did the definition of the Trinity have the same depth and clarity from 100 A.D. to 1000 A.D?  Certainly, not.  There is still room for the development in dogma.  Hence:

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. Unitatis Redintegratio, 22

Salvation comes through the Catholic Church who is the body of Christ on earth.  If a non-Catholic is saved and enters into eternal life, it by means of the Holy Catholic Church.

Kyle, the problem with using Vatican II resources is that Vatican II said nothing with the imprint of infallibility on it: ” There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible
teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964,
repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in any
extraordinary manner and dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”  [Paul VI, General Audience , December 1, 1966 published in L’Oservatore Romano 1/21/1966]. Pope John XXIII opened the Council and then died. It was Pope Paul VI whose Council it became and we would be imprudent to doubt his understanding of the theological nature of the Council. One cannot equate an explicitly infallible document with one whose meaning must unfold over years. No church declaration begins life as non-infallible and then morphs into an infallible document.  I think what we are seeing here in the comments is the disbelief of the whole concept of infallibility. No man of good reason and honesty can doubt the fact that the Catholic Church teaches infallibly that one must become a member of the Catholic Church to be saved. Well before Vatican II the exceptions for culpability were clearly spelled out. Since Vatican II, and the vagueness of its documents, we find a definition of infallibility that is absurdly illogical. A sort of—war is peace, lies are truth—understanding.

Just as an aside to make the point of baptisnmal necessity more evident in the history of the Church:

“With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox.” (Der Glaube das Pimmelkopfgelauben, Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)

God will save everyone and everything. He made this universe. He shed blood to reclaim it. It is doubly his, and not one atom will be lost. He will not give his glory to another.

“For men are not cast off by the Lord forever. Though God brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love.” Lamentations 3

“Then I heard every created being in heaven and on earth and under the earth (the place of the dead) and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” Revelations 5

God raises up saints…not the Church..there are countless saints in heaven that the Church never heard of…The Church canonizes those from among “the ranks” within its formal membership and holds them up as an
example of saintly lives for us to emulate. The Church (The Mystical Body of Christ) includes far more members than the Diocesan rosters would indicate. Most of the Church is not visible to us…and as someone said here The Shepherd knows his sheep and the sheep answer to his voice. In other words, whomever the church canonizes Christ recognizes as true saints but the Church cannot and does not begin to know all those whom Christ calls His own…from all faiths I would suspect. If you want to know who are members of the wider Church I would suggest reading the late Pope John Paul II’s Crossing the Threshold of Faith!

Lumen Gentium 14:

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

I am impressed by the scholarship in these postings, citing concilar documents, patristic writing, and some passages from Sacred Scripture.
I am, however, troubled by what seems, at times, to be a tone of advocacy for one postion or another, rather than a spirit of trying to to understand and to weigh the best evidence rather than to find evidence for one position or another in the way that lawyers in legal controversies,  or staffers in political campaigns, quite innicently in those cases do. Surely the goal of these discussions should be to deepen understanding rather than to score rhetorical points. Given that proper understanding of Sacred Scripture requires the resources of anthropology, history, linguistics, and archaeology to the extent that they shed light on the meaning of Sacred Scripture, I suggest that patristic writings or concilar documents, which carry great authority, but not an authority equal to divinely inspired Biblical writing, need also be understood in the context in which they were written. I don’t claim for a minute to have learning equal to that of many who have written. Nevertheless what I, in my lack of sophistication write here, may be useful to those with greater learning. We can learn from many who
know less than we do, if they can present to us a perspective which we may be unaware of, or temporarily not attending to.

The reality of the situation is that nobody can get to Hell by accident. Even if you are the most hard core atheist you have to choose to go to Hell, or choose to reject Heaven. God is the most merciful being in the universe, and his understanding is WAY above ours. I’m not putting forward an image of God as the ‘eternal teddy bear’ who is all warm and fuzzy, and quite obviously our choices do matter (e.g. that line in Matthew about feeding the poor etc). However, beyond the academic pursuit of debating theology (which is doubtlessly what is going on here, I don’t think anyone is really alleging that C.S. Lewis ended up in Hell…), this is completely outside of our domain. It is not for us to say who did or didn’t get into Heaven. You pray for everyone regardless, and adobt an attitude of charity. As Jesus said “Stop judging and you will not be judged.” Lk 6:37

Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ now and for evermore. Oh my goodness! here comes the true Catholics and Christians.

I am so full of joy at reading this article and for all the responses that have been made. Thank you Mark for initiating this conversation.

I praise God because it has been a long time that I heard Catholic expressing their opinions and knowledge, without abusing and name calling each other. I don’t want to fall into my criticism, so I shall not begin to mention names, but I should point out that in some so-called Catholic news outlest, all you find is anger, hatred, name-calling and division of out Beloved Church-the Body of Christ into a cluster of “liberals” and “conservatives”.

I may not totally agree with some of the comments or even some of the points that Mark raises, yet I am more than willing to pass all that because I can recognise a group of brothers and sisters in the faith sharing their knowledge of the faith and this simply makes an honest Catholic desire to know what our Church really teach on these issues.

I am most thrilled by the fact that people are able to make reference to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to support their point. This is what has been lacking in most discussions in the church today and as a result, people feel that is is just up to what one thinks or feels.

Please lets keep this spirit up and continue to enlighten each other along this journey of faith, in a prudent, Catholic and Christian way.

Thanks and God bless you all.

We can’t start poaching other people’s saints and extraordinary people. The Jewish religion has a “worthy gentile” honour (I think it sounds patronising). Perhaps we could have an honours list like the Queen’s honours or Commander of Australia etc -Vatican Honours. Of course, there is alway the Vatican medal that is freely given to non-catholics.
Josephine, Sydney

The idea that no one not a member of the visible Catholic Church can be a saint…or be saved…is not doctrine. Sure we know the doctrine says one must be a member of the Church as in the Body of Christ..but the operative word here becomes…except!As Mark correctly points out! Of course any number of holy people could be saints…in the definition what is a saint?
Everybody in heaven is a saint! If you think only Catholics are in heaven than you are not accepting the exceptions the Church allows for…all grace necessary for entrance does flow from the Church…but that grace that comes from every Mass said in all parts of the world throughout all time does not stop at the doors or walls of the Church. It continues to flow out into the rest of the world…as in Ite missa est…go and proclaim the gospel to the rest of the world. Jesus, the Good Shepherd knows His sheep…and they know His voice! Again, read the late John Paul II’s book Crossing the Threshold of Faith if you want a sense of the wider Church that is a part of the Mystical Body!

The Church teaches, without qualification, that there is no salvation outside the Church. The questuion is only of how one becomes a member of the Church. If anyone gets to heaqven, he gets there as a Catholic or he does not get there.

Wrong Dan, plain and simple! Go read the Catechism! Also consider the many things that Jesus says in the Bible regarding this…such as ” in my Father’s house there are many mansions”..or ” I have sheep that are not of this fold"is my favorite refutation for this narrow and vindictive view!

If you be a Catholic, there are some things that you must believe: “Who hears you hears Me, who rejects you rejects Me, who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me.” (Lk. 10:16)  Read the defined pronouncement of the Council of Florence posted above. If you are not in the Ark, you perish in the flood. Read your catechism again. Those outside are brought into the Church by God “in ways known only to Himself.” (CCC# 848).

Dan…yes, there is salvation outside the Church! We agree! ( CCC# 848: which you just quoted) The narrow view you express before that is fine
until you get to where the Church says..except! That opens the door much
wider than you stated. The Church was founded to be a “hospital” for the sick more than a sanctuary for the saintly or presumed saitly. There are more modern interpretations of this teaching ( not changed or different Truth..just expounded upon) since the Council of Florence. Read what Pope John Paul II had to say about who is the Church in Crossing the Threshold.
Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation..all who are saved are done so through His Cross. A gift freely given…the Good News of the Gospel.

We do NOT agree! There is no absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and this is a frequenjtly defined teaching of the Church. Vatican I defines that those defined doctrines mean precisely and only that which was meant by those who defined them. The Church teaches and has always solemnly taught that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Now that God can, in ways known only to Himself, bring into the Church those whom appearances would suggest are not within her bosom. is another issue. But there is absolutely no salvation oputside the Catholic Church. Who does not hold this fails to hold what the Church teaches.

Just what I said Dan..glad we agree on the Church’s teaching. Salvation
comes from Jesus Christ through the Church he has established for that
purpose…to teach and proclaim this…it is called the Good News! Now does that always mean that one must be a member of the visible Church?
Generally yes…except when and where __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________….I am leavig you lots of space, Dan, to fill in the
blanks with those exceptions the Church has declared can occur. You are a good Catholic so you should not have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing this…oh and while we are on the subject let me ask you about another difficulty alot of people have…sometimes even members of the visible Church…IF you are a member of the Catholic Church are you guaranteed salvation? I am sure that for you Dan, that will be easy to
answer…probably even w/o consulting the Catechism..but that’s ok if you
want to check on that rather salient point…it is not a trick question.

You seem to have (deliberately?) overlooked the teaching of Vatican I that I pinted out viz. that those defined truths mean exactly and only what they meant to those who defined them. There is no salvation outside the Church. What did those who defined this (look at the Council of Florence for one) mean by this? Schismatics, heretics, Jews, and pagans were excluded from that body, unless before physical death they were joined to Her even (“in ways known only to Himself”). But the unicity is essential. Who is not in the ark drowns in the flood.
  As for the salvation of Catholics, if they keep pure their baptismal innocence, or, with the help of God’s grace,wash their robes in His blood should they have soiled them, then, and only then will they be saved. All have been redeemed, but not all are saved if they do not persevere in their redemption.

sometimes we try to understand some things on a human level but God’s ways are not ours. He will judge all according to their works, we are a holy people and all are called to live a life of grace.
Saints are walking amongst us known only to God catholic or non catholic,
the church is the body of Christ and has a head who as Peter did was given the keys of the kingdom.
the church has rules inspired by God though through the head of the church the Pope.
we as catholics abide by these rules, God does the rest.

So - are Dan and Shamrock saying the same thing but with different emphasis? Dan says no one outside the Church can be saved - in the end only God can judge who is “outside” the church - although if we have the fullness of Catholic revelation then we are responsible for and because of that knowledge -is that the right perspective? That is a serious question by the way:)

It is not simply “Dan” who says this, but the Catholic Church. It is an article of faith that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and who does not hold to that article of faith places him/herself outside that ecclesial body, the Mystiacal Body of Christ. For Catholics, this is not debatable - “Romka locuta est - causa finita est” (Rome has spoken - the issue is closed). There are 3 official creeds, the ‘Nicene’, the Apostles’, and the Athanasian which begins, “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;
Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
  There is just no getting around the Church’s constant teaching.

Melinda…I think Dan and I agree tht the Church, as established by Jeus
Christ, provides the means for all to be saved. How does it do this? By the graces provided through the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus
who is the only Saviour. Those who profess Jesus as their Saviour are members of the Mystical Body of Christ..by baptism into this Church. Some are visible members of the Catholic Church..others members of the wider Church which Johm Paul II include mysteriously some of our separated brethren…but the graces flow from within the sacramental Church and only God knows those who respond to those graces. There is no Saviour but Jesus…and only those who come to know Jesus as their Savior are saved. It is a mystery greater than any of us understands how this can be but with God all things are possible ..for those who have faith and sorrow for their sins. We have to be careful not to fall into the errors of the late Father Feeney…and to do that we have to enlarge our understanding past Vatican I teachings…enlarge upon them as we have been guided by the Holy Spirit to a fuller meaning of Church. For all I know God could raise
up saints among the Pygmies if He so chose by His All Embracing love. We run the risk of becoming Pharisiacal to believe otherwise.
I see nothing wrong in Dan’s quotes about Vatican I…he just does not go far enough in what the Church has done to expand our understanding since then through the Holy Spirit! We sometimes tend to give a narrower interpretation of the mercy of God because of our own imperfections..wide and everlasing for those who seek Him.

There is no “fuller” meaning of Church than the one meant when the dogmas were defined. You have said with your lips that you accept Vatican I’s dogma, but you then do exactly what the council forbade by pretending that we have understood better than they what they meant. They meant what they meant, not what you wish they meant, and they said with clarity and precision exactly what they meant. You are, of course, free to believe otherwise, but you then fall into the category of those in the Athenasian Creed who fail to hold “whole and undefiled” what the Catholic Church teaches.

Dan…No one is disagreeing with Vatican 1 ...but you need to consider afew other things in your faith formation..and not sound so condescending to those who do not hold the fullness of Truth through no fault of their own. None of us, even the visible members of the Church, knows “it all”. It is not given to us and we have to be humble about that and not go around “spouting like the Pharisees” about the “poor Publican”..thanking God in our false pride that we are not like them. That seems to be what comes across from your comments. Please don’t respond with the writings of Vatican 1 again…as if that were the end all and be all…Did you learn anything from Vatican 11 for example that is worth quoting? re this matter?

Sorry, but Vat II was a pastroral council, not a dogmatic one like VatI, and that distinction must not be overlooked. They are not to be equated. My faith formation, the formation of any Catholic, must be founded upon the teaching of the Church, which teaching comes to us from the apostles. My belief is the same as that which the Church has always taught. Any novelty, any deviation from that teaching, imperils the salvation of souls. And, as was said in the motto of the bishop in whose diocese I was born, “Salus animarum suprema lex.”
  To suggest that I not respond with defined dogma but substitute for it what is not defined dogma is ludicrous from a Catholic position, and most certainly does not help in the salvation of souls.

Dan…you keep seeing bogey-men where none exist! What you have said here
is true regarding the distinction between Vatican 1 and Vatican 11…however that is not my point. Perhaps you can tell me more specifically what I have stated that is not Church teaching. It seems to me we agree and that you are implying things that I have not said. Nothing I have said contradicts Church teaching. My contention is that you are saying unless someone is within the four walls of Roman Catholic Church he/she cannot be saved! Strictly speaking that is not what we teach. The
Church teaches that the grace for salvation comes from our sacramental Church! How that grace becomes available to those outside the physical walls of the Church is part of the mystery of faith…and God’s perogative.
You want to keep quoting from Vatican 1. The Church has spoken about the salvation of souls in many other venues clarifying the teaching in a less narrow way. While the intent remains the same and truth does not change (as God does not change) we can become more fully enlightened re this Truth as
Church leaders expound more in depth in order to clarify its earlier
teachings. Again, have you read the late Pope John Paul 11’s book (first book ever written by a Pope) Crossing the Threshold of Hope…wherein he
clarifies this teaching. I would especially recommend to you the chapters
dealing with “What does “To Save” Mean? and also “A Dialogue of Salvation”
where he distinquishes the difference between Vatican 11 ..and all the
preceeding councils. You will find most interesting…and I believe also
enlightening! Pax!

What you seem to have ignored is not that there is a change in approach (which JPII notes with a friendly eye; he was a principle architect of Lumen Gentium), but that there is a radical difference in AUTHORITY between Vat II and the preceding councils. Paul VI made it clear that no dogmatic declarations were made by the council. No statement of any document of Vat II can be compared with the defined pronouncements of prior councils because its documents do not speak with the same authority. For a genuinely Catholic and in depth study of this question, I recomend IOTA UNUM by Amerio Romano.

On opening the Council, Pope John XXIII stated that the Council intended “to transmit the doctrine pure and entire, without diminution or distortion”, adding: “It is our duty not only to guard this precious treasure, as if interested only in antiquity, but also to devote ourselves readily and fearlessly to the work our age requires. ... This sure unchangeable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, has to be studied in depth and presented in a way that fits the requirements of our time. For the deposit of the faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is one thing, and the way in which they are enunciated, while still preserving the same meaning and fullness, is another.”
Please note that he said “the same meaning.” There is no ‘deeper’ or ‘more relevant’ meaning, only the same meaning that has been handed down from the apostles.

There are numerous learned people who posted very informative knowledge. I do not even come close. Sad to say that I am the bottom rung of the ladder. One comment I once read that I keep recalling: “God made it so simple intellects couldn’t understand it.” As for me, a non-intellectual, I keep my faith simple. God - Prayer - Holy Eucharist - Sacrament of Penance - Rosary. I have to say I can comprehend intellectual debate. I leave the rest to the Holy Spirit for inspiration because it is beyond my pay grade.

Theology has been described as ‘faith seeking understanding.’

There is sometimes a need to hold doggedly to the truth, when attempts are made to adulterate or distort the truth. But one must be careful to do this in humility and in charity. ” In essentials, unity; in non-esssentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

    I again suggest that   no one here has a brief here to represent

    a point of view, but that all in the discussion should be seeking

    how best to understand and how to explain the revelations of God

    in His Word and in Tradition. WHile truth can not in itself

    change,  our understanding of truth can, has, and presumably, will

    continue to change materially.  In particular   the distinction

    between pastoral and doctrinal councils, while enlightening,

    surely   should not lead us to consider the documents of the Second

      Vatican Council as having no force or authority.  In law  

      courts,  advocates dispute over what legal authorities are

      most relevant to the facts in a dispute and which sources

      are more authoritative.  This is not the way to approach

    seemingly contradictory scriptures and authoritative statements

        of the magisterium.  Here we need to reconcile such seemingly

      contradictory   sources of revelation, to find deeper

      understanding. As St. Thomas does, we must learn to

      distinguish.