I’ve heard something about only those who are a part of the catholic church are saved. Does this mean that, according to catholic belief, non-catholics go to hell? I’m simply curious; this is not intended to stir up catholic bashing.
Catholicism does not claim that only Catholics can be saved. It claims to be the only true church, but allows that God will recognize good and righteous people for what they are.
Just thought of this:
You may have heard a phrase *extra ecclesiam nulla
Oops:
You may have heard a phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (“Outside the Church, no salvation”)
This is not as absolutist as it sounds, though. The “Church” is basically intepreted as Christ, and the standard RCC teaching is that anyone who seeks God with a “sincere heart” may be moved by grace and be saved.
“I’ve heard something about only those who are a part of the catholic church are saved.”
No, that is not true. What the Church teaches is this: “‘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 partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 1260)
Again: “I’ve heard something about only those who are a part of the catholic church are saved.”
If a person follows his conscience and natural law, then he is, however imperfectly, a “part” of the Catholic Church. You don’t necessarily need to be a formal member of the Catholic Church to obtain salvation.
Also, this article may be of some help regarding the “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” statement (“extra” is spelled "extre’ here. 'Tis a typo). It says this: ““Extre Ecclesiam nulla salus” should be
translated to the English “If it weren’t for the Church, there would BE no
salvation”, or some equivalent. It is NOT meant, and never has been meant,
to mean that unless you’re a listed member of a Catholic parish, you’re out
of luck. You’ll find that NOWHERE among the official teachings or documents
of the Church, and quite staggering amounts to the contrary.”
There was, indeed, a statement popular among some Catholics, years ago: “Outside the Church, there is no salvation.” (Denying that such a statement was ever made is foolish and counterproductive.) A similar statement appears in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas when he discussses the need for the Eucharist to attain salvation.
However, for a great many years, it has been recognized by the Church (at least outside Cardinal Ratzinger’s coterie of associates) that the phrase should not be an indication of a requirement for membership in the institution of the church. Rather, the Church is perceived as the extended Body of Christ (through whom all are saved) and that there is no salvation without Jesus (as manifested in the world through the Body of Christ, which is his church). In this regard, one does not need to be a Catholic, or even a Christian, to be saved. The statement is only that without the church there would be no salvation.
In the most recent Catechism, the church has explicitly noted that all people are called to be saved.
Article 9, Paragraph 3 addresses that situation, with special attention found at Sections 836 - 845 and the specific (current) meaning of "“Outside the Church there is no salvation” addressed in Sections 846 - 848.
Section 847 says it: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337”
If i had the book infront of me I’d quote it, but, in Dante’s Divine Comedy, more specifically in Purgatorio, One who does not accept god as their god can redeem themselves if it is no fault of their own. Atheists howeve and those who CHOOSE to not believe in god are damned,
In short: non-catholics may go to heaven ;j if the accept jesus as their lord and savior.
hope that helps a little.
-ZeN
Two things, ZenMonkey:
-
Dante’s Divine Comedy is a work of fiction and not a theological treatise endorsed by the Catholic Church.
-
The Catechism of the Catholic Church linked by the two posters prior to you (tomndebb and richardc) specifically does not state anything about accepting Jesus as lord and savior.
I don’t think that’s fair to Ratzinger. In fact, in Dominum Iesus, Ratzinger reiterates:
and even:
and even, speaking of the non Catholic Christian churches, repeats Vatican II’s statement that:
Ratzinger just rejects the position that there’s an equality between Catholicism and other religions, or that other religious beliefs are equally valid as Catholicism. But he’s no Feeney.
Wasn’t there a bishop who was excommunicated a few years back for stating that all non-Catholics go to Hell-and refused to change his stance when informed that is not Catholic teaching?
I don’t know about a bishop, but there was a Jesuit priest named Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for a while for teaching an overly literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam. He was kind of the poster boy for that view. That was a while ago though, I think it was the 70’s. You may be aware of something more recent.
My cheap shots are never fair to Ratzinger. If we were discussing his specific views, in depth, I would find myself compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt and to carefully not misrepresent his actual positions. However, I have such little respect for him that in a toss-away aside I don’t generally observe such niceties.
Guin, that was Feeney. Catholics who insist you must be Catholic to be saved are often called Feeneyites.
Feeney kept running his mouth and getting in progressively more trouble through the 1940s. He was suspended from the priesthood around 1950 and, unrepentant, formally excommunicated in 1953. (I’ve always enjoyed the irony of being excommunicated from the church for saying you had to be in the church to be saved.) At the time, a number of people who had been drawn to his message left the church with him.
Feeney died around 1978 and some time in the 1990s, with JP II doing his best to reconcile with a number of conservative groups, I remember some sort of rapprochement between the surviving Feeneyites and the Archdiocese of Boston, although I don’t know the final results of that action.
Guin, that was Feeney. Catholics who insist you must be Catholic to be saved are often called Feeneyites.
Ok, I guess I remember his death in '78 and Feeneyism being talked about a little in the papers and whatnot. I was a sixth grader in a Catholic school at the time and I remember one of the Fathers talking to my class about extra ecclesiam and explaining what it meant. I guess in my eleven year old head I got the impression that Feeneyism was more current at that time than it really was. It must have just been his death that brought the discussion back out.
Anyone else think that Catholicism sounds like some horrible disease?
I think Feeney himself got recommunicated (if that’s a word) sometime in the mid 70s not too long before his death, where he basically said, “I’ll shut up now.”
Captain: I think you’re looking for “reconciled.”