Is the Catholic Church infallible?

[StRestlessHeart333]

Mormons actually claim that the Church was corrupted. (Don't ask them to say when, or to furnish any proof!) Therefore apostolic succession was never passed down, and Joseph Smith "restored" it, according to Mormon theology.

Catholics believe apostolic succession has never been completely destroyed, and Christ's Church has never been completely lost on this Earth ever since He founded it.

It's a MAJOR difference!

Yes, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it and he kept his promise. There is no other church on earth that has many churches from all over the world, all in communion with each other, all profess one faith, one set of believes. Only the Catholic Church has that. Why? Cuz it is the One and Only Church Jesus established. John.10:16 “So there shall be One Flock, One Shepherd”

That is why our Church is called Catholic, which means Universal.

 

[jannikitty]

My understanding has always been that the Catholic Church is not infallible and that Catholics believe in the infallibility of their leader, the Pope, in matters of faith and morals only when stated in Papal documents called Encyclicals. Most Catholics believe that their church can make mistakes. The Catholic Reformation following the protestant reformation is a good example of that. And the canonization of St. Joan of Arc years after she had been condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake is an example of the church's reconsideration of that decision and admittance of their infallibility in that. The Catholic church is made up of people and people can make mistakes..

 

[Rhamiel]

not every papal encyclical is counted as infallible

for the Pope to speak infallibly, it needs to be 1, on matters of faith and/or morals. 2, be addressed to the entire Church as a whole (not just a particular area, group, or rite) and 3, be spoken authoritatively, clearly stated that this is not just an opinion.

these are called "Ex Cathedra" statements

but it is not only Ex Cathedra statements that are infallible
Ecumenical Councils are also seen as infallible
for example, the Council of Nicaea gave us the cannon of Scripture, and that is counted as infallible

there is also something called the "ordinary teaching of the Magisterium"
if something is clearly taught by the Church it is counted as infallible
for example, something like the all male priesthood, I am not sure if that was ever stated in a Council, but from the beginnings of the Church until now, all over the world, Catholic Priests have been men, this is the universal teaching of the Church and thus should be accepted as infallible

St. Joan of Arc, she was tried by a British controlled court, it was a political move, I believe that her conviction was overturned just a few years after her death
but even if it had been a Pope who condemned her as guilty, such things as trials are never counted as infallible
the trial was not about a specific doctrine, but rather with the guilt or innocence of a specific individual

 

[richard373]

This is quite an old thread but being fairly new to the forum I've just stumbled across it. Having converted to the Catholic faith having been a Calvinist Evangelical for many years this is a point of Catholic dogma that was one of the largest stumbling blocks to surmount and I am still convinced needs careful qualification, particularly if we would wish others from my background to be restored to the fold. I am clear that the Catholic Church is the Mother against whom the gates of Hell cannot wholly prevail. As such she cannot suffer fatal error in terms of providing all necessary means of salvation and fulfilling her historic mission (unlike those who depart from her). However the outcome of Vatican II challenges the concept of past ecumenical councils having been infallible - which is not say they did not set forth the Truth that the faithful should uphold, albeit in accordance with God's chosen course of progressive enlightenment. They would have asserted that none outside the Catholic Church could be saved whereas Lumen Gentium states that those of other religions may finally obtain salvation:
“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 pure heart, and moved by grace try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may obtain eternal salvation” (Vatican II Lumen Gentium 16)

Likewise those with no religious faith at all:

“Divine providence (shall not) deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who without any fault of theirs have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life” (Vatican II – Lumen Gentium 16)

This assuredly was not the teaching of earlier Councils yet it is the truth according to the revelation of the Spirit heeded by the 1960's Council. I think it is important to acknowledge the decidedly qualified nature of infallibility if we would wish those who are currently fatally in error concerning the nature of gospel salvation (rejecting the Sacrament that brings life and internal communion with Christ) to be challenged by the claims of the true Apostolic Church.

 

[Simon_Templar]

This is quite an old thread but being fairly new to the forum I've just stumbled across it. Having converted to the Catholic faith having been a Calvinist Evangelical for many years this is a point of Catholic dogma that was one of the largest stumbling blocks to surmount and I am still convinced needs careful qualification, particularly if we would wish others from my background to be restored to the fold. I am clear that the Catholic Church is the Mother against whom the gates of Hell cannot wholly prevail. As such she cannot suffer fatal error in terms of providing all necessary means of salvation and fulfilling her historic mission (unlike those who depart from her). However the outcome of Vatican II challenges the concept of past ecumenical councils having been infallible - which is not say they did not set forth the Truth that the faithful should uphold, albeit in accordance with God's chosen course of progressive enlightenment. They would have asserted that none outside the Catholic Church could be saved whereas Lumen Gentium states that those of other religions may finally obtain salvation:
“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 pure heart, and moved by grace try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may obtain eternal salvation” (Vatican II Lumen Gentium 16)

Likewise those with no religious faith at all:

“Divine providence (shall not) deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who without any fault of theirs have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life” (Vatican II – Lumen Gentium 16)

This assuredly was not the teaching of earlier Councils yet it is the truth according to the revelation of the Spirit heeded by the 1960's Council. I think it is important to acknowledge the decidedly qualified nature of infallibility if we would wish those who are currently fatally in error concerning the nature of gospel salvation (rejecting the Sacrament that brings life and internal communion with Christ) to be challenged by the claims of the true Apostolic Church.

Hi Richard,

It's not entirely accurate to say that the idea you quoted from Lumen Gentium was new. This idea has, in fact, been around since the very beginning and the early Fathers did indeed have this same idea.

Many people focus on the statement "there is no salvation outside of the Church", and take this to mean that the early Church taught that only those who are explicitly members of the Church can be saved.

All salvation is through Jesus Christ, even if a person has never heard of Jesus Christ. Salvation is only available because of Jesus Christ and through Jesus Christ, even to people who lived before Christ, or who lived in parts of the world where the gospel never reached etc.

Thus if an unevangelized person was saved, they were saved through Christ, and they are themselves united to Christ and are in Christ even though they have never heard the gospel.

The Church is Jesus Christ in the world. It is his body in the world. As Paul put it in Ephesians, the Church is the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Thus, all of the grace and ultimately salvation itself is only available through the Church. Thus even if a person has never heard of the Church, the grace they receive and the salvation they receive is given through the Church.

Thus it is true to say that there is no salvation outside of the Church, but it is also true to say that people who are not explicitly members of the Church can still be saved.

 

[richard373]

Hi Simon
I wholeheartedly agree with virtually everything you say regarding the understanding of the early Church and also how the atonement of Christ availed for those throughout the world who had not heard of Christ, the Church being the Body of Christ in the world.This was the understanding I came to from Scripture and a study of the Fathers even before I was received into the RCC. But this had scarcely been articulated in (for example) the pronouncements of the Council of Trent or the Athanasian Creed utilised within the liturgy prior to Vatican II:

“This is the Catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation”; and “which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly”. :

I cannot concur with that assertion at all; nor I suspect would John Henry Newman have done so (who influenced V2 and humanly speaking was the greatest influence in the transformation of my understanding of the Faith). Surely it was contradicted in spirit and substance by the pronouncements from Lumen Gentium that I have quoted?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Hi Simon
I wholeheartedly agree with virtually everything you say regarding the understanding of the early Church and also how the atonement of Christ availed for those throughout the world who had not heard of Christ, the Church being the Body of Christ in the world.This was the understanding I came to from Scripture and a study of the Fathers even before I was received into the RCC. But this had scarcely been articulated in (for example) the pronouncements of the Council of Trent or the Athanasian Creed utilised within the liturgy prior to Vatican II:

“This is the Catholic faith, which except a man shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation”; and “which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly”. :

I cannot concur with that assertion at all; nor I suspect would John Henry Newman have done so (who influenced V2 and humanly speaking was the greatest influence in the transformation of my understanding of the Faith). Surely it was contradicted in spirit and substance by the pronouncements from Lumen Gentium that I have quoted?

Hi Richard,

You have to look at statements like that in the context that they are given. The specific passage you cite is from the Athanasian creed, so when it talks about "This is the Catholic faith" you have to look at specifically what that creed is defining.

If you look at that in context what the creed defines as "the Catholic faith" is literally only that we worship one Triune God.

The creed goes on to define what the Triune nature of God means in detail because it was specifically written to differentiate the Catholic faith from the heretical non-trinitarian sects (specifically Arianism at that time).

However, at the basic level all that statement requires is that you believe in and worship one God who is three persons.

I would say that any where you find people who know God and are saved, whether they have the bible or have ever heard the gospel, they will know this basic truth about God. They may not have it expressed in intellectual or precise terms but the basic knowledge is there.

This is because of what Paul talks about in Romans 1. God's invisible nature is knowable from creation, and God is revealed in our hearts. Thus no one has any excuse because all should have known and had the opportunity to know.

 

[richard373]

Simon, I would so much like to agree with you but I’m not sure I can:

PAPAL BULL: Cantate Domino [CE1441]

"(The Church) 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."
[Pope Eugene IV, (1388-1447 CE) [My underlining]

Simon, I could not accept it; I would not receive it. The Church and the pope at the time clearly believed it to be the truth; they were in error as had Augustine been before them in the area of God's providence and economy of grace.


ON THE OTHER HAND:

Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio" (1964)

“Some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."… "The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."

The decree rightly adds the following caveat:

“We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God."

We would surely both agree about that, but if the Roman Church does not wish to hinder such a re-unification and thereby thwart the will of Christ (Ut unum sint), then she cannot pretend that the Church in the past did not have a quite inadequate (indeed fallible) understanding of certain issues especially with respect to divine Providence. As I say in the e-book I have just published (click my BLOG ENTRY) where I am referring to the differences between EOC and RCC:

“In spite of such differences the essential Gospel teaching and provision has been made available through Catholic/Orthodox Christianity in West and East throughout the gospel age, in which sense and within which scope they can be regarded as infallible. My findings are in tune with both in terms of what I will call the “inclusive essentials of the Church’s historic salvific mission”, by which I mean that what is indispensable for that purpose has always been included within what has been deemed to have been indispensable both in the East and West, which unfortunately is not the case for the denominations that have separated themselves” [chapter 7 - Fellowship of the Secret, from which writing it will be evident I am no longer an orthodox Catholic following an overpowering and (I believe) prophetic encounter with the Holy Spirit].

The dogmatic contradictions I have identified separated by centuries are in a sense nothing to be ashamed of – it is progressive revelation, the Spirit leading the currently disaffiliated Apostolic Church (West and East) into a fuller understanding of the truth. It only becomes a problem and a barrier to Christian universality if we refuse to acknowledge error, including the understanding of our own infallibility. Review this forum as a whole, such would be nothing in comparison to what other Christian communities would have to concede if we expect them (as I individually have had to do) to recognise the soteriologically desolating errors of the Reformation "solae".

 

[Simon_Templar]

Hi Richard,

Here again, you have to take the whole and not just pieces here and there. What the Pope says in that encyclical is true, and has not changed, but it has to be understood in the context that he is talking about the normal circumstance of those who have rejected the truth.

What we are talking about when we talk about the unevangelized, or even those who might be schizmatic or heretical but were raised in that view point and never really were presented with the truth about the Catholic Church etc. Are people who accepted as much of the truth as they were ever given. What the pope is talking about in that encyclical is people who rejected the truth that they were given.

The point is you can't take a statement like that which is general statement about the normal state of affairs, and make it an absolute stricture that has no exceptions. The Church doesn't do that (with this type of statement).

 

[richard373]

Hi Richard,

What we are talking about when we talk about the unevangelized, or even those who might be schizmatic or heretical but were raised in that view point and never really were presented with the truth about the Catholic Church etc. Are people who accepted as much of the truth as they were ever given. What the pope is talking about in that encyclical is people who rejected the truth that they were given.

Simon, Pope Eugene wrote -
"(The Church) 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..".

What you say (which I agree was the intention of V2) may apply to heretics and schismatics, it cannot possibly have applied to pagans and the Jews of Eugene's day. How can the men, women and children brought up in a pagan or even Jewish environment ALL have received an understanding of the Catholic truth? Whatever else that pope may have said (except he were a dire communicator) he will not have qualified his assertion that they all must burn in Hell "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock". That can only pertain to their physical incorporation into the Church

Why not acknowledge the Church at the time did not have the understanding then that she has today concerning providence, in particular what Newman referred to as "universal revelation" whose reasoning so influenced that Holy Council? Bear in mind you have been communicating with someone who longs with all his heart that the whole of Christendom come under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome; yet your line of reasoning does not convince, I find it somewhat furtive, yet I have no doubt whatsoever you are being faithful to the Church's apologetic line (which worries me all the more). The reason I believe the opportunity has never been greater to convince the separated brethren concerning the true nature of their "Reformation"(apart from the prophecy I have received indicating it is about to happen and I am to be involved in it) is that in this internet age there is simply no hiding place for those Evangelical pastors and teachers (and such was I) who would ignorantly mislead or wilfully deceive their flock about the sacerdotal, sacramental and synergistic nature of gospel salvation as it was handed on from the Apostles and their immediate appointees. This I have sought to do in my e-book [click blog], a format which facilitates rapid linking to biblical Greek/Hebrew text and the witness of the early Fathers. In such a context kinder publishing is as radical a development as the printing press was for the Reformers, only this time, linked to such a comprehensive data source and being interactive it is more likely to validate those who are holding to the Truth.

Yet it will work both ways - the Church too must be utterly truthful and transparent, not just because that is right and just, but to do otherwise would simply not wash with those from my former ilk who will seek to do to Rome what I am doing with you but with opposing convictions and the greatest venom. I've said more than enough on the subject this thread, but if at some time in the future you wish to discuss further with me I would be happy to do so privately (by email), for I am sure we both wish for the same outcomes. Richard.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Simon, Pope Eugene wrote -
"(The Church) 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..".

What you say (which I agree was the intention of V2) may apply to heretics and schismatics, it cannot possibly have applied to pagans and the Jews of Eugene's day. How can the men, women and children brought up in a pagan or even Jewish environment ALL have received an understanding of the Catholic truth? Whatever else that pope may have said (except he were a dire communicator) he will not have qualified his assertion that they all must burn in Hell "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock". That can only pertain to their physical incorporation into the Church

Why not acknowledge the Church at the time did not have the understanding then that she has today concerning providence, in particular what Newman referred to as "universal revelation" whose reasoning so influenced that Holy Council? Bear in mind you have been communicating with someone who longs with all his heart that the whole of Christendom come under the auspices of the Bishop of Rome; yet your line of reasoning does not convince,I find it frankly somewhat devious, yet I have no doubt whatsoever you are being faithful to the Church's apologetic line (which worries me all the more). The reason I believe the opportunity has never been greater to convince the separated brethren concerning the true nature of their "Reformation"(apart from the prophecy I have received indicating it is about to happen and I am to be involved in it) is that in this internet age there is simply no hiding place for those Evangelical pastors and teachers (and such was I) who would ignorantly mislead or wilfully deceive their flock about the sacerdotal, sacramental and synergistic nature of gospel salvation as it was handed on from the Apostles and their immediate appointees. This I have sought to do in my e-book [click blog], a format which facilitates rapid linking to biblical Greek/Hebrew text and the witness of the early Fathers. In such a context kinder publishing is as radical a development as the printing press was for the Reformers, only this time, linked to such a comprehensive data source and being interactive it is more likely to validate those who are holding to the Truth.

Yet it will work both ways - the Church too must be utterly truthful and transparent, not just because that is right and just, but to do otherwise would simply not wash with those from my former ilk who will seek to do to Rome what I am doing with you but with opposing convictions and the greatest venom. I've said more than enough on the subject this thread, but if at some time in the future you wish to discuss further with me I would be happy to do so privately (by email), for I am sure we both wish for the same outcomes. Richard.

Hi Richard,

There are a few points I'd like to address here

#1 - Infallibility is often misunderstood to mean that everything every part of the Church or every pope has ever said is infallibly true. That's not what infallibility means. Infallibility applies to the Church as a complete whole, not to any individual parts of the Church. So, for example, there were times such as the Arian controversy when the majority of the Church was lead astray into Heresy including the majority of the leaders in the eastern Church. The Church, as a whole, however, never succumbed to Arianism and it eventually was stamped out.

Likewise with Pope. His infallibility is an extension of the infallibility of the whole Church. It only extends to dogmatic proclamations he makes that are binding on the entire Church. It does not include everything he believes or says, or even teaches.

#2 - Teachings of the Church which are accepted and are true still have to be understood in the context of the WHOLE of Church teaching, not individually taken apart from the whole. So when you come across any statement like the one you are quoting here it must be understood in the context of the whole of Church teaching, not simply on its own. The backdrop of the rest of Church teaching shows us how we must understand the statement. If we divorce it from that, then just like with the bible, we can end up interpreting it anyway we want.

#3 - What Pope Eugene said there is true and the Church would still agree with that statement today.

What you are doing is trying to interpret that statement as an absolute stricture on salvation and it shouldn't be taken that way. This is not a modern reinterpretation, this is a current of understanding that goes back to the earliest days of the Church.

Let me illustrate by using a current example, there are Christians who believe that Jews are saved via Judaism as God's chosen people and the gospel of Jesus Christ is not intended nor necessary for them. This teaching is heresy. There is no way of salvation in Judaism and Jews who reject Christ will not be saved.

That is the normal rule. However saying that is the rule doesn't mean that there are no exceptions. The Church recognizes and has since the early days of the Church that there are cases of invincible ignorance etc where people accepted as much of the truth as they had the opportunity to have and in such a case God's mercy may save them etc.

what it seems like you are trying to do is make the exception into the rule. The exception is only an exception because there IS a rule and the rule is precisely what Pope Eugene said.

Let me use a scriptural example.

Jesus told Nicodemus that "unless you be born again you cannot see the kingdom of heaven" and he equated being born again with baptism (as Paul also did) This would condemn millions of unborn children to hell if it were taken as a stricture with no exceptions. Some people do try to take it hat way, but they always end up being forced to make exceptions.

That is the normal rule. You have to be baptized in order to be saved. However the Church has always recognized that there are exceptions when baptism was impossible and so on.

If you understand V2 to mean that Christianity is not the only way of salvation and that people of all religions are going to be saved simply by being good adherents of their own faith, then you are misunderstanding V2.

What you have here is not a disagreement, but rather a difference of focus. Pope Eugene is focusing on the rule, and V2 pointed out that there are exceptions. Neither idea is new and neither idea has been changed or rejected.

 

[richard373]

Hi Richard,



If you understand V2 to mean that Christianity is not the only way of salvation and that people of all religions are going to be saved simply by being good adherents of their own faith, then you are misunderstanding V2.

.

Just briefly, I take on board what you say about defining Church/Pope infallibility, but in terms of what you say above, if you are right the following will have been very poorly worded indeed:

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 pure heart, and moved by grace try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may obtain eternal salvation” (Vatican II Lumen Gentium 16)

&

“Divine providence (shall not) deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who without any fault of theirs have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life” (Vatican II – Lumen Gentium 16)

No qualification is made in these statements about the need to be converted to the Catholic faith, or in the latter case, any religious faith; and if they were to be so qualified it would invalidate or at least make quite pointless what the statements themselves are teaching. Arriving at a clearer perspective is surely nothing for the Church to be ashamed of, rather it is to be rejoiced in that the Holy Spirit had made her clearer concerning God's goodness, benevolence and reconciliatory aims for the world. Or if you prefer:

"Even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries" [CATECHISM CATHOLIC CHURCH 66].

Until we have grasped the significance of (say) every jot and tittle of Paul's sometimes quite obscure rhetoric we may in CCC language not be able to be explicit concerning certain truths more especially in the areas of natural law and Providence, which the earliest fathers were not entirely agreed about and are also somewhat veiled in Scripture. But we may have to agree to disagree on certain aspects of this for now.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Just briefly, I take on board what you say about defining Church/Pope infallibility, but in terms of what you say above, if you are right the following will have been very poorly worded indeed:

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 pure heart, and moved by grace try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may obtain eternal salvation” (Vatican II Lumen Gentium 16)

&

“Divine providence (shall not) deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who without any fault of theirs have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life” (Vatican II – Lumen Gentium 16)

No qualification is made in these statements about the need to be converted to the Catholic faith, or in the latter case, any religious faith; and if they were to be so qualified it would invalidate or at least make quite pointless what the statements themselves are teaching. Arriving at a clearer perspective is surely nothing for the Church to be ashamed of, rather it is to be rejoiced in that the Holy Spirit had made her clearer concerning God's goodness, benevolence and reconciliatory aims for the world. Or if you prefer:

"Even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries" [CATECHISM CATHOLIC CHURCH 66].

Until we have grasped the significance of (say) every jot and tittle of Paul's sometimes quite obscure rhetoric we may in CCC language not be able to be explicit concerning certain truths more especially in the areas of natural law and Providence, which the earliest fathers were not entirely agreed about and are also somewhat veiled in Scripture. But we may have to agree to disagree on certain aspects of this for now.

Let's look at some specific examples.

Let's say there was a muslim person raised in a muslim country. This person has heard of Christianity and Jesus, but what they have been tought about Christianity and Jesus is false. They have only ever been presented untrue versions of Jesus and the gospel. (thus in a very real sense, they have never heard the true gospel).

This muslim person believes in God and in their conscience, they genuinely follow the truth of God that has been revealed to them.
This person could be saved.

The "Christianity" that they rejected was not the true gospel because they never heard the true gospel.
Another interesting point, in my opinion, is that if they know the true God, and they follow their conscience, they would be likely to differ from Muslim orthodoxy in those points where Muslim orthodoxy has significant errors about the nature of God.

Likewise, if there is a protestant in the United States who has only ever been presented with a false image of the Catholic Church. For example they've always been told that Catholics are idolaters who worship Mary, and that's all they really know about Catholicism.
They have genuine faith in God and they follow as much of the faith as they know. Then that person is likely saved even though they reject the Catholic Church. (keeping in mind that we can never judge individual salvation of anyone because we don't know the heart etc. Only God can judge that).

But making allowances for cases like these does not over-turn the truth that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way of salvation. There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved. It also doesn't negate that there is only one true Church, which is the manifestation of Christ in the world and you can't be a member of Christ without being a member of his Church.

The issue here is again the rule and the exception. By saying that there are exceptions in cases where it was impossible for people to know the whole truth, we are not saying that the whole truth is not true, nor that it is unimportant.

To say a muslim who did not know the gospel can be saved is not the same as saying that Islam is a valid path to salvation. Do you see my point?

The statements above from V2 are really, when you think about them, expansions upon what st. Paul said in Romans 1. They are logical elaboration.

 

[richard373]

Let's look at some specific examples.


To say a muslim who did not know the gospel can be saved is not the same as saying that Islam is a valid path to salvation. Do you see my point?

The statements above from V2 are really, when you think about them, expansions upon what st. Paul said in Romans 1. They are logical elaboration.

I absolutely see your point and agree with all your reasoning in this instance. Likewise I have little problem with what V2 proposes, but earlier councils would say not merely that Islam is not a valid path, they would have positively asserted that a Muslim would not be saved regardless of what his conscience decreed. If the matter had been presented to the magisterium in such terms at the time I am quite certain the response would have been that in no circumstances a Muslim or pagan could be saved "except he be incorporated into the Church before his death". That is the clear, consistent and insistent message of earlier constitutions. If there were to be substantial exceptions (and what you/I/V2 are now saying could hardly be more substantial) they would need to have been elucidated, firstly so that the faithful might have a right view on the matter itself and secondly with regard to the implications concerning the nature and intelligible justice of God, our loving Father whom we might wish our people not only to revere but adore for His goodness and grace. R.

 

[Rhamiel]

I absolutely see your point and agree with all your reasoning in this instance. Likewise I have little problem with what V2 proposes, but earlier councils would say not merely that Islam is not a valid path, they would have positively asserted that a Muslim would not be saved regardless of what his conscience decreed. If the matter had been presented to the magisterium in such terms at the time I am quite certain the response would have been that in no circumstances a Muslim or pagan could be saved "except he be incorporated into the Church before his death". That is the clear, consistent and insistent message of earlier constitutions. If there were to be substantial exceptions (and what you/I/V2 are now saying could hardly be more substantial) they would need to have been elucidated, firstly so that the faithful might have a right view on the matter itself and secondly in view of the implications concerning the nature and intelligible justice of the God that we would wish our people not only to revere but adore for His goodness and grace. R.

as far back as St. Augustine, there has been the idea that those who have never heard the Gospel have the possibility of salvation

ofcourse, many modern Catholics take this "possibility" as some kind of assurance, and that is quit sad

 

[Mitchelsheart]

Allot of People do not realize that not only did Jesus not declare in “” Mat 16:19 “; I will give to YOU.. The Keys TO the kingdom of heaven: That whatsoever YOU bind on earth is BOUND in heaven: and whatsoever YOU will loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

But - This is not WHAT the original Text Says., ;............... Lets look at the original. Greek.


Mat 16:19 And G2532 I will give G1325 unto thee G4671 the G3588 key G2807 of the G3588 kingdom G932 of heaven: G3772 and G2532 whatsoever G3739 G1437 thou shalt bind G1210 on G1909 earth G1093 shall G2071 be bound G1210 in G1722 heaven: G3772 and G2532 whatsoever G3739 G1437 thou shalt loose G3089 on G1909 earth G1093 shall be G2071 loosed G3089 in G1722 heaven G3772
........________________________________________________________________________________

The Fact is - The Words - I will / thou shalt / thou shalt Are not Part of the Original Greek Manuscripts. The Translators Falsely Slipped in these EXTRA Words .

Mat 16:19 Simply Says And give You the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever IF bound on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever IF loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
........______________________ Jesus is never recorded Using the WORDS I and You .

The WORDS I and You . are not in the original . The Catholic Church Should be spreading this message. Instead of re inventing theology, based on false misrepresentation of the Scriptures.



we find Jesus HAVING departed from Galilee, to Judaea beyond Jordan “; And great multitudes followed him

Here, now - just Days later Jesus is Telling A great Crowd of people about these same exact Keys.\\

Using the Same exact words.

THESE VERY, VERY, VERY SAME exact SAME KEYS “; Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven .

Please read chapter 18 of Matthew.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Allot of People do not realize that not only did Jesus not declare in “” Mat 16:19 “; I will give to YOU.. The Keys TO the kingdom of heaven: That whatsoever YOU bind on earth is BOUND in heaven: and whatsoever YOU will loose on earth is loosed in heaven.

But - This is not WHAT the original Text Says., ;............... Lets look at the original. Greek.


Mat 16:19 And G2532 I will give G1325 unto thee G4671 the G3588 key G2807 of the G3588 kingdom G932 of heaven: G3772 and G2532 whatsoever G3739 G1437 thou shalt bind G1210 on G1909 earth G1093 shall G2071 be bound G1210 in G1722 heaven: G3772 and G2532 whatsoever G3739 G1437 thou shalt loose G3089 on G1909 earth G1093 shall be G2071 loosed G3089 in G1722 heaven G3772
........________________________________________________________________________________

The Fact is - The Words - I will / thou shalt / thou shalt Are not Part of the Original Greek Manuscripts. The Translators Falsely Slipped in these EXTRA Words .

Mat 16:19 Simply Says And give You the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever IF bound on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever IF loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
........______________________ Jesus is never recorded Using the WORDS I and You .

The WORDS I and You . are not in the original . The Catholic Church Should be spreading this message. Instead of re inventing theology, based on false misrepresentation of the Scriptures.



we find Jesus HAVING departed from Galilee, to Judaea beyond Jordan “; And great multitudes followed him

Here, now - just Days later Jesus is Telling A great Crowd of people about these same exact Keys.\\

Using the Same exact words.

THESE VERY, VERY, VERY SAME exact SAME KEYS “; Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven .

Please read chapter 18 of Matthew.

Sorry, it's everybody else is re inventing theology. It doesn't change a thing. Those words may have been added, but if they were added, it was to clarify. The apostles and the disciples understood and taught what Jesus meant by what he said. It's only 1500 years later that someone thought to reinterpret them.

 

[Farm Truck]

Is the Catholic Church infallible?

Some among men think so... but not so much with God.

In the end we will see that God only honors His written Word, not all the extra biblical stuff added to it by neither catholics or protestants.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Some among men think so... but not so much with God.

In the end we will see that God only honors His written Word, not all the extra biblical stuff added to it by neither catholics or protestants.

Ah, someone who speaks for God, who thinks God only speaks through the Bible, when there is plenty more writing, which is from God. Someone who wants to put limitations on how God speaks to His people...

 

[Farm Truck]

All depends on WHO you are calling God...