Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation

                                            Historical context

There is also the question of the historical context of the dogma. To whom were the Councils and Popes directing the teaching "extra ecclesiam nulla salus"? To every single person formally outside the Church? Or to those who obstinately reject the Church when exposed to the Gospel? Is it reasonable to assume that the Councils and Pontiffs were talking about the Mongol in Asia who was entirely ignorant of the Gospel, and where the Church was not? Is this not a dogma that is, by its very *nature*, a teaching that depends on the culpability of the person?- John Pacecho

Lionel:

To whom was the dogma on Hell directed ? Do you see Hell in a historical context for certain time periods? And what about the belief in the Trinity which is older than the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

John Pacecho

5. Necessity of denying baptism by desire and baptism by blood

"And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, 'Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!' But the other answered, and rebuking him said, 'Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.' And he was saying, 'Jesus, remember me when You come into Your kingdom!" And He said to him, 'Truly I say to you , today you shall be with Me in Paradise'" (Luke 23:39-43).

Lionel:

We do not deny the baptism of desire or blood. They are not defacto exceptions to the dogma. If the Church declares a person a martyr we accept it. It does not contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation which says all need to convert for salvation.

John Pacecho

This is the case from Scripture for baptism by blood. The good thief, who likely did not receive water baptism before his death, asked for forgiveness from Jesus and was promised eternal life. His faith in Christ through his own blood sufficed for eternal glory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church again affirms the Tradition of the Church on this point:

"The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament" [because] "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by his sacraments." (1258-1257)

Lionel:

The Catechism does not say that the baptism of desire or blood are exceptions to the dogma or that we know and can judge explicit cases on earth. We accept the possibility of salvation with the baptism of desire etc and this does not contradict the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

John Pacecho
"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." (1260)
Apparently, the rigorists choose not to accept the current Catechism teaching on the subject.

Lionel:

They accept the baptism of desire etc as a possibility under certain conditions and certain circumstances and that it is known only to God.So they are in agreement with the Catechism and Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation.

John Pacecho

In regards to the interpretation offered on the conversion of the Good Thief, they point out that the using of the Good Thief (or the Holy Innocents) as examples of Baptism of Blood is not valid. The rigorist position holds that they died before the foundation of the Catholic Church at Pentecost, and therefore before the sacrament of Baptism became obligatory.

Lionel:

It is true that all who died before the Resurrection had to wait for the coming of the Saviour to go to Heaven.

However being saved with the baptism of desire etc is not an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma nor to Vatican Council II (AG 7)

John Pacecho

Yet, this begs the questions: does God give us more or less graces under the New Covenant? Is it to be seriously considered that God would be so merciful before the establishment of the Church at Pentecost (which is itself arguable) with the Good Thief, but would not be so merciful with some poor slob afterwards?

Lionel:

There could be no salvation, no going to eternity in Heaven without the Sacrifice of the Saviour Jesus Christ.

John Pacecho

6. The Rigorist train of thought

The rigorists demand that formal and explicit membership in the Church is necessary for salvation.

Lionel:

This is stated in the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is also the message of Dominus Iesus 20 and other magisterial documents.

John Pacecho

Question 1: For a baptized Catholic, is it absolutely necessary for salvation to receive the Eucharist as commanded by Jesus in John 6:53?
Lionel:

For a baptized Catholic who can receive the Eucharist there is the necessity of receiving the Eucharist if it is available (Necessity of means).
John Pacecho
Question 2: If a baptized Catholic falls into mortal sin and is on the way to visit a priest to receive formal absolution but dies beforehand, will he go to hell?
Lionel:
It is God who will judge. So these exceptional cases known only to God are not exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.
John Pacecho
If the answer to those questions is in the affirmative, then the rigorist position again contradicts Catholic teaching.
Lionel:
There are no defacto exceptions known there is no contradiction of the rigorist position.


The Church has said Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are needed for salvation. It means a person can go to Heaven even before he or she reaches the age for receiving the Eucharist. On the other hand a person who receives the Eucharist, if he commits a mortal sin, is on the way to Hell even though he was regularly receiving the Eucharist.

John Pacecho

If the answer to those questions is in the negative, then it is inconsistent for the rigorists to hold to their position on formal membership since all three questions are 'formal' in nature.

Lionel:

Formal membership means that the minimum requirement  for salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Then there are moral and faith conditions which are also important for salvation.

John Pacecho

7. Limbo

The Council of Florence (1438 A.D.) taught that "the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell". This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (1274 A.D.). These are the claims that the Rigorists put forward to support their position. This is the teaching of the Council, but it is not a universal condemnation of people who are not formally part of the Church. This is clarified later at the Council of Trent (1564 A.D.): "In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration OR ITS DESIRE, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Catholic theologians distinguish between two types of punishment "poena damni", the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and "poena sensus", the pain of the senses. Many of the Church Fathers are of the opinion that those unbaptized infants dying in a state of original sin suffer from "poena damni" only, and Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), who the rigorists cite as supporting their doctrine, actually favoured this view. Hence, theologians have proposed that there is a special place or state for the children dying without baptism which they call 'limbu puerorum', ubiquitously known as 'children's limbo'. Pope Pius VI (1775-1799) adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia.

Lionel:

All adults need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. Infants and the insane we will leave to the mercy of God.

John Pacecho

8. Aborted babies
It follows therefore that the rigorist position does not allow salvation for aborted babies.

Lionel:

The rigorist interpretation of the Church Councils, the popes, the saints and Vatican Council II refer to adults.

John Pacecho

The notion of 'Baptism of Blood', they claim, is itself a mere fallible and undefined speculation. It cannot apply in this case, since aborted infants are not dying for the sake of Jesus Christ, nor the Faith, nor even for virtue. Moreover, they are dying precisely for the lack of virtue on the part of their parents, for loss of Faith on the part of their murderers, and against the precepts of Jesus Christ; and the infants involved have no will either to accept or reject this, morally or otherwise.

Aborted babies, then, are not even allowed a chance at salvation? This does not square with God's justice. Original sin keeps people from heaven - it does not necessarily condemn them to eternal damnation. Jesus said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (Jn 3:5). He did not condemn them to hell - that was reserved for those who disbelieve (Cf. Mark 16:16), which is a act of sin not a state of sin.

Lionel:

Original Sin also applies to babies however we do not know what Limbo is like and can only hope that it is more like Heaven and less like Hell.

The International Theological Commission study of this issue was that we can only hope and we do not know for sure.So  they did not reject Limbo.
-Lionel Andrades
http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Ultra-Traditionalism/Articles/TheQuestionOfSalvationOutsideTheChurch.aspx

Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Whether they know it or not non Catholics with the stain of Original Sin on their soul and mortal sins committed in that state and without the Sacraments outside of which there is no salvation, are all oriented to Hell
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/whether-they-know-it-or-not-non.html
 
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
When one is clear that all those saved are explicit only in Heaven it is not difficult to affirm ‘the formal necessity of belonging to the Church’.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-one-is-clear-that-all-those-saved.html
 
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Ultra Traditonalists in accord with Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/ultra-traditonalists-in-accord-with.html

Whether they know it or not non Catholics with the stain of Original Sin on their soul and mortal sins committed in that state and without the Sacraments outside of which there is no salvation, are all oriented to Hell


Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul tells us that the exterior action indicates the interior intention and that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin.

2. Problem with mortal sin

The most difficult problem with the rigorist position is their "de facto" denial of one of the central doctrines of the faith: mortal sin. Catholic theology holds that in order for someone to lose their salvation they must have committed a mortal sin-John Pacheco 
Lionel:
Veritatis Splendor of Pope John Paul tells us that the exterior action indicates the interior intention and that a mortal sin is always a mortal sin. This would contradict the liberal interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on mortal sin ( the three conditions).

John Pacheco

The commission of a mortal sin has essentially three criteria:

i) The sin must be serious.

ii) The sin must be committed freely, with the person's consent.

iii) The sin must be known to be a serious sin.

Lionel:

i)The sin must be serious.

John Pacheco assumes that there are defacto, known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance and a good conscience contradicts the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. For cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance to contradict the dogma these persons saved would have to be known to us on earth.However he assumes that a defined dogma has explicit exceptions.This is heresy and a serious sin.

To postulate defacto exceptions to a defined dogma is heresy.

It is also a negation of the Nicene Creed in which we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ This is a serious sin. A priest was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II for denying the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady. He meets the first condition for mortal sin ?

ii) The sin must be committed freely, with the person's consent

John Pacecho has been informed a few years back in reports posted on the internet.These reports were  also sent to the Catholic Legate.

iii) The sin must be known to be a serious sin.

Here is the difference. Veritatis Splendor says some sins are intrinsically evil. Some actions are evil whether you are aware of it or not. Many sins today are not considered evil via the media and society but they are mortal sins all the same.Veritatis Splendor has rejected the Fundmental Option Theory and other such arguements on morals.

I do not know if John Pacecho considers the denial of a dogma as a serious sin. So according to his logic if a Catholic does not know that fornication, contraception etc is a serious sin  it is not a mortal sin ?

If I do not believe Hell exists, Hell will not exist?

John Pacheco

The commission of mortal sin, therefore, requires the individual to *know* it is a sin. Hence, if a non-Catholic does not *know* it is a serious sin to remain outside of the Catholic Church, then he cannot be guilty of a mortal sin, and therefore, he cannot be unequivocably condemned for being outside of the True Church of Jesus Christ.

Lionel:
This is a contradiction of Veritatis Splendor.
The three conditions apply to Catholics and the conditions are known and judged only by God.
We cannot judge that non Catholics do not know in general. Also the issue is Original Sin.The Church Fathers and the saints have written about this with respect to non Catholics.Tradition has always taught that non Catholics are oriented to Hell. The Church Fathers knew about mortal sin.

John Pacheco



 So, if the Rigorists deny any possibility of salvation to non-Catholics, then they must logically deny a central part of Catholic theology.

Lionel:
It was Jesus who said that those who do not believe will be condemned.(Mk:16:16). Rigorist ? It was Jesus who asked us to proclaim the Good News knowing that the baptism of water was necessary for salvation whether a man believed in it or not.(John 3:5).

It was Jesus who held the 'rigorist position' that the Eucharist was his Body and it was needed for salvation. Even if one does not beleive in the Eucharist it still is the Body of  Jesus and is needed for salvation.

It’s a law of nature that a woman whether she knows it or not can give birth to a child after sexual intercourse. Whether we know it or not we know that water will always fall downwards and not upwards.Whether they know it or not non Catholics with the stain of Original Sin on their soul and mortal sins committed in that state and without the Sacraments outside of which there is no salvation, are all oriented to Hell.Hence God wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church (CCC 845). One could say, for example, that it is not fair that only women can conceive and not men, but this is the way God chose to make human beings.

John Pacheco:

St. Thomas Aquinas explained it like this: "Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to a man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about things one is bound to know."

Lionel:

Invincible ignorance is not a sin. However we cannot assume that any non Catholic is in invincible ignorance and will be saved or that anyone has already been saved in this condition. We are unable to judge. Only God can judge these cases.They are only a possibility, as says John Pacheco.

John Pacheco:

A word of sober consideration, though: it is dangerous for a Protestant, for instance, to understand that this arrangement is flexible. For, as long as he is not convicted of the truth of the Catholic faith, he may think that all will be well. However, this is not the Catholic teaching on this subject. What is being discussed here is a theoretical and theological possibility only.

Lionel:

Yes it is a theoretical and theological possibility only.

John Pacheco:

The Protestant, or any other non-Catholic, will be judged on their culpability for not accepting the true faith. Obviously, he will be held to a standard consumerate with the opportunities that are presented to him, and the access he had to the Church's teachings. It is not a light matter - in fact, it is a most undesirable position to be in - especially for those in more affluent western countries. And it must be remembered that sloth nullifies pleading ignorant before the Holy Court of Justice.

Now, the rigorists may deny that they are not rejecting the concept of mortal sin in Catholic theology. In order to address the requirement for *knowledge* of the mortal sin, they will repeat their oft mentioned argument: "God will either reveal to him through internal inspiration or through the means of an angel what has to be believed." Yet, this rationale simply will not hold. Under this scenario, why wouldn't God use such means with *everyone*, and not just those formally outside of the Church?

Lionel:

Since God has chosen that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7,LG 14). The Church is the ordinary means of salvation.(Redemptoris Missio 55).

John Pacheco:

Why wouldn't God just simply whisper the complete truth in everybody's ears? Why, for that matter, is ignorance a possibility at all - why wouldn't God 'clear things up' so there would be no question in regards to the seriousness of a sin?The answer to that question can be found in Sacred Scripture - He instituted His Church to do preach the Gospel and assist people in recognizing mortal sin. And, as discussed above, not all people outside the formal boundaries of the Church have always been able to hear the true Gospel in all places at all times.

Lionel:
If there are any exceptions (in invincible ignorance etc) it would be known only to God. In general millions of people know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus tells us that they are on the way to the fires of Hell. Vatican Council II has the same message in Lumen Gentium 14 regarding those who ‘know’ and yet do not enter.
-Lionel Andrades


When one is clear that all those saved are explicit only in Heaven it is not difficult to affirm ‘the formal necessity of belonging to the Church’.

Some closing thoughts
It is a difficult path to walk: on the one part, insisting on the Church's divine institution and the "extrinsic" necessity of belonging to her versus rejecting the absolute intrinsic and formal necessity of belonging to the Church on the other part. It is clear, however, that both the indifferentist position and the rigorist position pose serious problems from a moral and theological perspective. The former finds its foundation in protestantism and modernism while the latter attempts to quash the former with theological extremism. Neither of them witness to the truth. John Pacheco


John Pacheco

It is a difficult path to walk:

Lionel:

It’s not. As long as you know that there are no defacto exceptions to the dogma there is no confusion.

When one is clear that all those saved are explicit only in Heaven it is not difficult to affirm ‘the formal necessity of belonging to the Church’. Except for the saints we do not know who has been saved in Heaven. While the dogma tells us the all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless at the time of death they converted into the Catholic Church.

John Pacheco

on the one part, insisting on the Church's divine institution and the "extrinsic" necessity of belonging

Lionel:

The dogma demands the extrinsic necessity for all to belong to the Church. The issue is simple here.

John Pacheco

to her versus rejecting the absolute intrinsic and formal necessity of belonging to the Church on the other part.

Lionel:

You would feel the need to reject the absolute and formal necessity of belonging to the Church if you assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, the seeds of the World, elements of sanctification, imperfect communion etc were known visibly on earth and so they are defacto exceptions to the need ‘for the absolute and formal necessity of belonging to the Church’ with no exceptions.

John Pacheco

It is clear, however, that both the indifferentist position and the rigorist position pose serious problems from a moral and theological perspective.

Lionel:

To assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are defacto exceptions to the dogma could also lead to indifferentism. It is suggesting that one or more people on earth do not have to formally enter the Church for salvation. It is saying that non Catholics in the present times are being saved in their religions inspite of the different moral teachings.

John Pacheco

The former finds its foundation in protestantism and modernism while the latter attempts to quash the former with theological extremism. Neither of them witness to the truth.

Lionel:

The dogmatic teachings on extra ecclesiam nulla salus could not be considered theological extremism unless you believe there are defacto exceptions and that Vatican Council II has contradicted the dogma.-Lionel Andrades

Ultra Traditonalists in accord with Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus

It is from this perspective that the question of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - "outside the Church, there is no salvation" must be considered. There is the possibility that a man may be saved OUTSIDE THE FORMAL MEMBERSHIP of the Catholic Church. It is my contention that, in order to quash both the Modernist and Protestant errors, certain ultra-Traditionalist Catholics, or 'Feeneyites', have accepted another heresy, namely, the rigorist view of the subjective necessity of the Church for salvation. In the hopes of putting down religious indifferentism and the attacks on the Church's divine foundation, the followers of Father Feeney are adopting the polarized extreme on this question. Unconsciously, they are falling into the same trap that the Monophysites fell into with the question on Christ's natures. That is why, for instance, the successor of Pope Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, had to reign in a group called 'intergralists' whose excesses in combating Modernism were likewise too extreme.-John Pacheco

Salvation Outside the Church by John Pacheco


John Pacheco
There is the possibility that a man may be saved OUTSIDE THE FORMAL MEMBERSHIP of the Catholic Church.

Lionel:
Yes.

John Pachecocertain ultra-Traditionalist Catholics, or 'Feeneyites', have accepted another heresy, namely, the rigorist view of the subjective necessity of the Church for salvation

Lionel:
The rigorist view just cites the popes, the Church Councils, the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney.This was the centuries old interpretation of the dogma. It cites Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma. It affirms the baptism of desire in accord with the rigorist view of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

John Pacheco
Pius XII, who affirmed the doctrine in his Encyclicals 'Mystici Corporis (1943 A.D.)' and 'Humani Generis' (1950), also qualified its meaning in attempting to silence Father Leonard Feeney, S.J., an American Jesuit at Boston College and the 'father' of the rigorist movement (whose proponents, whether rightly or wrongly, are now referred to as the 'Feeneyites'). Father Feeney was expelled from his order and then excommunicated in the 1940's for holding and pushing the rigorist view as official Catholic teaching.

Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston affirmed the rigorist view when it mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’statement. The dogma is in accord with the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

John Paceheco.
(He was later reconciled to the Church.)

Lionel:
He was later reconciled with the Church without having to recant.

John Pacecho
In other words, knowledge of the Church and of her Founder is required of anyone for whom is to be considered necessary for salvation." (Catholic Encyclopedia, p.862, Reverend Peter Stravinskas, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana, 1991)

Lionel:
True and we cannot postulate that most or some people on earth today can be saved or that we can judge if someone has the knowledge for salvation.The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence and Vatican Council II (AG 7) tell us that all need to convert into the Church for salvation and just those who know.

Pacheco:
The Second Vatican Council also affirmed the qualified teaching in the *Dogmatic* Constitution on the Church: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved" (Lumen Gentium, 14).

Lionel:
Only God can know who 'knows' or who is in invincible ignorance. The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church.

Pacheco:
Nevertheless, "those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience" (Lumen Gentium, 16).

Lionel:
We do not know any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance so it is not an exception to the dogma. This is not a defacto exception. So it should not be implied that these are exceptions to the dogma or Vatican Council II.

Pacheco:
Even the early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr (First Apology, 46) and Origen (Against Celsus 4:7) did not hold to the strict view. And even those who first appear to hold to such a strict interpretation may not have.

Lionel:
The Church Fathers mentioned the possibility of exceptions, in principle, none of them said that these exceptions were defacto known or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching that all need to convert into the Church. One has to assume this error. It would be irrational since we do not know any such exception in real life.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990101/ARTICLES/salvation.htm

http://catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/Ultra-Traditionalism/Articles/TheQuestionOfSalvationOutsideTheChurch.aspx

DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH THAT MUSLIMS ARE SAVED ?

Muslims need to enter the Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell). Their religion is not a path to salvation.(1).They need to enter the only Ark of Salvation (2).Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary mean of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is not being saved in invincible ignorance (3).Muslims need to convert for salvation.(4).Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(5).

OBJECTIONS

Lumen Gentium 16

We do not know any non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16).Neither do we know any one in the present times saved with the baptism of desire, the Word of God, in imperfect communion with the Church (Vatican Council II). We accept in principle the possibility of these persons being saved ‘in certain circumstances’ (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) however we do not know any such explicit case. So it is not an exception to the magisterial teachings quoted above. The Magisterial teaching says every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell. We know there are no known exceptions on earth. If there is any such case it would be known only to God.

Lumen Gentium 16 mentions that a non Catholic can be saved with a good conscience. LG 16 does not say that this the general, ordinary means of salvation or that we know of particular Muslims saved with a good conscience. We are unable to know who is presently saved among them in Heaven.

So those saved with a good conscience, unknown on earth, are not exceptions to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845 etc. These magisterial documents say all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and that Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church and that the Church is the only of Noah that saves in the flood. God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.

We don’t know any Musllim saved following his good conscience so it does not contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation.

All one can say is that it is possible that a Muslim can be saved following his good conscience and that in principle we accepts this.

The traditional teaching is that all people, with no known exceptions need to enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7) for salvation.( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) etc.

To say that Muslims in general can be saved by following their conscience is a personal interpretation of Vatican Council II but not the traditional official teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.Contraception and divorce may be popular and the secular media encourages it but this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. So it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Muslims are saved in general by following their conscience

Nostra Aetate

Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II no where says that non Catholic religion are paths to salvation or that non Catholics are saved in general in their religions. We accept in principle the possibility of a Muslim being saved ‘in certain circumstance’ and know that these cases would b known only to God.

So Nostra Aetate is not a contradiction of Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which indicates the norm of salvation is Catholic Faith ans the baptism of water.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 846

So when the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says all those who are saved are saved through Jesus an the Church this does not contradict the Church teaching which says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Lumen Gentium 14 says those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved. The religious leaders and founders of Islam, the Quran indicates, knew about Jesus and the Catholic Church He founded but chose not to enter.
-Lionel Andrades
_____________________________________________

1.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20

2.
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.-Catechism of the Catholic Chuch 845

3.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-A Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

4.
submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

5.
EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (EXTRAORDINARY MODE )

• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) –http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ( ORDINARY MODE )

Pope Boniface I, Epistle 14.1: "It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."

Pope Pelagius II (578-590): "Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord… Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness… Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned… [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church" (Denzinger, 469).

Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia: "Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved."

Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991: "I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved."

Pope Innocent III (1198–1216), Profession of Faith prescribed for the Waldensians: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved" (Denzinger 792).

Pope Clement VI, Letter Super Quibusdam (to Consolator the Catholicos of Armenia), September 20, 1351: "In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside of the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved… In the ninth place, if you have believed and do believe that all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the eternal punishments of hell."

Pope Leo XII (1823–1829), Encyclical Ubi Primum: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"

Pope Gregory XVI (1831–1846), Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio (on mixed marriages), 5-6, May 27, 1832: "You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the Apostles, martyred Saint Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: 'Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.' Moreover, Saint Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: 'Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ' (Epsitle 141). Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise Saint Gregory the Great, who expressly testifies that this is indeed the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved' (Moral. in Job, 16.5). Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of the Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.' Finally, the same dogma is expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use (Creed of the Council of Trent), but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses (cf. Gregory XIII, Profession 'Sanctissimus') and that which other Eastern Catholics use (cf. Benedict XIV, Profession 'Nuper ad Nos')… We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies."

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Allocution Singulari Quadem, December 9, 1854: "Not without sorrow we have learned that another error, no less destructive, has taken possession of some parts of the Catholic world, and has taken up its abode in the souls of many Catholics who think that one should have good hope of the eternal salvation of all those who have never lived in the true Church of Christ. Therefore, they are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion. Far be it from Us, Venerable Brethren, to presume on the limits of the divine mercy which is infinite; far from Us, to wish to scrutinize the hidden counsel and "judgements of God" which are "a great abyss" (Ps. 35.7) and cannot be penetrated by human thought. But, as is Our Apostolic Duty, we wish your episcopal solicitude and vigilance to be aroused, so that you will strive as much as you can to drive form the mind of men that impious and equally fatal opinion, namely, that the way of eternal salvation can be found in any religion whatsoever. May you demonstrate with skill and learning in which you excel, to the people entrusted to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no wise opposed to divine mercy and justice.

"For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood…

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): "Teach that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and come to the community of His children (Romans 1; Hebrews 11; Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8). There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). ... Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."[7]

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: "And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching.

Pope Pius IX The Syllabus of Errors, attached to Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864: [The following are prescribed errors:] "16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. - Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846.

"17. One ought to at least have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ. - Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, etc."

Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914), Encyclical Jucunda Sane: "It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation."

Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922), Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Pope Pius XI (1922–1939), Encyclical Mortalium Animos: "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation… Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors."

Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), Allocution to the Gregorian University (17 October 1953): "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."-Wikipedia

_______________________________________________

WE DON'T KNOW ANY MUSLIM SAVED FOLLOWING HIS GOOD CONSCIENCE SO IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION


Where and when does the Catholic Church teach that a particular Muslim or non Catholic can be saved by following his conscience?

Lumen Gentium 16 mentions that a non Catholic can be saved with a good conscience. LG 16 does not say that this the general, ordinary means of salvation or that we know of particular Muslims saved with a good conscience. We are unable to know who is presently saved among them in Heaven.

So those saved with a good conscience, unknown on earth, are not exceptions to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845 etc. These magisterial documents  say all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and that Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to enter the Church and that the Church is the only of Noah that saves in the flood. God the Father wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.

We don’t know any Musllim saved following his good conscience so it does not contradict the dogma outside the church no salvation.

So LG 16 is not an obstacle, to Church doctrine ,as I have mentioned in the report ‘What does the Catholic Church teach about Islam?’(Catholic Beliefs forum)

Jon, the Administrator at Catholic Beliefs.com says 'I don't think that the Catholic Church teachers that Muslims must enter the Church to avoid hell. My understanding is that they must follow their conscience if not having been exposed to the Gospel.'

When he says that Muslims can be saved following their conscience he is not implying that he knows most Muslims or some Muslims are saved by following their conscience. He does not. He obviously cannot know.

All he can say is that it is possible that a Muslim can be saved following his good conscience and that in principle he accepts this.

The traditional teaching is that all people, with no known exceptions need to enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7) for salvation.( Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) etc.

So Jon’s interpretation of Vatican Council II is a personal one and expedient but not the traditional official teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), Dominus Iesus 20 etc.Contraception and divorce may be popular and the secular media encourages it but this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. So it is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that Muslims are saved in general by following their conscience –Lionel Andrades