Jacob Rees-Mogg on who will get to heaven.

[scottmaciver]

For those of you who aren't aware of him, Jacob Rees-Mogg (Here) is a prominent British conservative politician. He is a politician that I admire in many ways, yet as a Roman Catholic, he offers this very confused response in answer to the question, "will a non-Catholic go to heaven?"...

He responds with, "that great mystery, if there was any doubt, was cleared up in the second Vatican council, and there is no doubt that people from all faiths and no faith can go to heaven. The mercy of God is not exclusively there for Catholics."

See around the 19 minute mark Here. I don't expect a Biblical answer on the doctrine of salvation from a Roman Catholic, however, in some ways, his response is at odds with someone who is so measured and logical in many other ways.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But he's evidently a "consistent" Roman, who recognizes that his ultimate obligation is to believe as his church authority instructs him. "Implicit faith" protects him from damning effects of wild swings of doctrine (from the church that never changes). So, even if in his lifetime his church should teach once again what it taught prior to Vat.II, and "clear things up yet again," as long as he believes as he's told, he's got the one key doctrine down: sola ecclesia, Salvation by Church Alone.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I heard him say once that marriage was defined by the church as a sacrament and, for that reason, "gay marriage" was wrong. He is very good on a lot of issues, but I was reluctant to ever join the clamour for him to lead the Conservative Party owing to his religious views. That said, he would have been a better Prime Minister than Theresa May, which is not saying a lot (and I say that as one who is slow to criticise sitting magistrates).

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@scottmaciver

Not sure what's surprising about JRM's answer to the interviewer (who apparently is not apprised of Vatican II). It's the standard teaching of the "anonymous Christian" as set forth by Karl Rahner and others. Wrong? Of course, Rome's soteriology in general is confused. But JRM is, as Bruce notes, simply affirming what the "infallible" magisterium teaches in the anonymous Christian doctrine.

Now as to Daniel's point, JRM's argument should be not only the sacramental nature of marriage (as Rome teaches) but also the natural law's prohibition of SSA. But even here, the times (under Francis) are a'changin'!

Peace,
Alan