 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
NotCatholic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| First Name: | NotCatholic | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal,none |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 11:41 pm |
|
No Salvation outside of the Church.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches 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, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.
What I get from this is if a Protestant man does not know the Catholic Church is necessary for Salvation then he can be saved, am I looking at this the right way. This seems to be saying you can be Protestant and not join the Catholic Church as long as you don't know its necessary to be Catholic am I reading this right?
Last edited on Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 11:42 pm by NotCatholic
____________________
The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves-Willem De Kooning
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 12:07 am |
|
I think I would prefer the positive statement as it appears in the Catechism rather than your negative statement, NotCatholic. The reason is that the negative statement sets up an assumed position whereby it is possible to abuse the text and make it say, simply and quite wrongly, that if a non-Catholic decides, for whatever reason, that he doesn’t have to be Catholic to be saved, this would be sufficient to make his salvation possible.
What the text is actually saying, however, is that all salvation comes from Christ through the Church. So if you are not at least in some way united with that Church, you cannot be saved. Now a person whose ignorance is invincible (remember that word? — meaning the person really, really hasn’t the foggiest notion and therefore can’t be expected to know, as versus the idea that he simply has a contrary idea) is allowed the benefit of a doubt (in human terms) or, from God’s point of view, he really would have chosen to be part of the Church had he known and understood what the Church really is and how it is tied to salvation — such a person can still be saved through being a “virtual” member of the Church. Such “virtual membership” is not available to those who simply disagree. Note also that it is God who is the judge; we humans can have no certain knowledge of who is saved and who is not.
Am I explaining this so that you understand?
David
|
|
|
NotCatholic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| First Name: | NotCatholic | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal,none |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 01:55 am |
|
So your saying that yes you must be a Catholic to be saved but if you truly have no idea that you need to join the Catholic church you can still be saved. Is this what your saying. I like the way Catholics use to say it seems more up front to me.
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved." [Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)].
Innocent III and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215 A.D.): "There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one can be saved." [Cap. I; De fide cath.; DS 802 (CH 159)].
____________________
The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves-Willem De Kooning
|
|
|
Br_Carlo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tyler, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 153 |
| First Name: | Br_Carlo (Vince Brach) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Presbyterian, Episcopalian, CATHOLIC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 08:15 am |
|
God's peace. NotCatholic, not a single one of your quotes was written in light of the Reformation. Today's Christian landscape is fractured and splintered into thousands of different sects, all competing with the Church for first place. Yet there is only ONE faith and ONE baptism. The Bible says so, and the Church teaches it. This means that these sects, if they practice valid Trinitarian baptism (=most of them), are part of the One True Church--even if they have deviated wildly in terms of doctrine and practice.
I admit that it is very easy to think that the Catholic Church teaches indifferentism or universalism, but it does not. God has extended his grace to mankind with astonishing condescension, "bending over backwards" in his efforts to save us from our stupidity, stubborness, and what the old Puritan Jonathan Edwards called our "sottish indifference" towards sin. God draws the line when at length, he holds us accountable for something where we could have followed his gracious leading and chose not to. If the result of that transgression is mortal sin and we do not repent, then--and only then--are we damned.
Can we, who know better, do anything about this? Remember the Fatima vision: Souls dropping into hell like snowflakes, because no one will pray for them. Think of that and pray before casting aspersions on the Church! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
Last edited on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 08:18 am by Br_Carlo
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 06:13 pm |
|
From my book, The One-Minute Apologist (pp. 90-91). Bracketed comments were in my manuscript but not in the paperback edition of the book.
* * * * *
The Church teaches that all non-Catholics will go to hell
But Jesus said “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink.” [Jn. 7:37]. Anyone who believes in Jesus can be saved
The One-Minute Apologist Says:
The Catholic Church has never held that only its official members can be saved. But we believe that all are saved through the Church in some fashion, whether they are aware of it or not.
What do Catholics mean by “no salvation outside the Church”? This issue is a bit complicated and confusing, and so it needs to be carefully explained. Catholics believe that the Church is central to God’s plan of salvation (1 Tim. 3:15: “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”), the earthly instrument through which, by the Holy Spirit, saving grace flows. Thus it benefits a man’s prospects for salvation to be part of that Church, in order to partake of those saving graces most fully.
But not everyone is Catholic, and not every non-Catholic is personally culpable for not being one. For this there are many reasons: ignorance, bad personal experiences, a formation in erroneous teachings, not enough time or opportunity to be received, life-long adherence to other seemingly correct Christian traditions, and so forth. Something along these lines is indicated in biblical passages such as Romans 2:11-16:For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Catholics do believe it’s possible, then, to not be an official member of the Church and still go to heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas explains the Church’s teaching in such cases:If, however, some were saved without receiving any revelation, they were not saved without faith in a Mediator, for, though they did not believe in Him explicitly, they did, nevertheless, have implicit faith through believing in Divine providence, since they believed that God would deliver mankind in whatever way was pleasing to Him. [, . . .]
With regard, however, to Cornelius [Acts 10:1-4], it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.
[ (St. Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]: Summa Theologica, II, II, a. 2 q. 7 ad 3; 3 / II, II, q. 10, a. 4 ad 3 [in some editions ad 4] ) ] A Protestant Might Further Object:
But what about Pope Boniface VIII and his famous bull, Unam sanctam (1302)?
That document stated: “Outside of which (the Church) there is neither salvation nor remission of sins. . . . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation.”
[The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) reiterated this.]
The One-Minute Apologist Says:
As with anathemas, these words are directed at other Christian churches, not individual souls, in order to make a theological point. As a point of historical fact, the Church has always painstakingly defended the valid workings of grace in non-Catholic churches. German theologian Karl Adam, in his 1924 book, The Spirit of Catholicism, elaborates on these questions: [But, we may ask, does that mean that all heretics and non-Catholics are destined to hell? . . .] To begin with, it is certain that the declaration that there is no salvation outside the Church is not aimed at individual non-Catholics, at any persons as persons, but at non-Catholic churches and communions, [in so far as they are non-Catholic communions.] Its purpose is to formulate positively the truth that there is but one Body of Christ and therefore but one Church which possesses and imparts the grace of Christ in its fullness. [ . . .]
Wherever the Gospel of Jesus is faithfully preached, and wherever baptism is conferred with faith in His Holy Name, there His grace can operate . . . The Church . . . upheld the validity of baptism in the Name of Jesus conferred by heretics [the fourth-century Donatists]. And it was Rome, Rome that is so violently attacked for her intolerance, and Pope Stephen, who [even at the peril of an African schism] would not allow heretical baptism to be impugned.
[. . . The Jansenists in the seventeenth century . . . advocated the . . . principle that “outside the Church there is no grace” (extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia). But again it was Rome and a pope that expressly rejected this proposition.]
[ (The Spirit of Catholicism, 1924, Doubleday Image edition of 1954, translated by Dom Justin McCann, 175-177)]
[The Church speaks of "implicit desire" or "longing" that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church.] Non-Catholic Christians know Christ, but they do not know his Church. In their desire to serve him, they implicitly desire to be members of his Church. [Non-Christians can be saved, said John Paul, if they seek God with "a sincere heart." In that seeking they are "related" to Christ and to his body the Church . . .
(Fr. Ray Ryland, “No Salvation Outside the Church,” This Rock, Vol. 16, No. 10, December 2005)]
For further in-depth reading, see;
Dialogue on "Salvation Outside the Church" and Alleged Catholic Magisterial Contradictions (Particularly in the Middle Ages; With Emphasis on St. Thomas Aquinas's Views)
Dialogue: Does "Salvation Outside the Church" Disprove Catholic Claims (By Internal Contradiction)?
The Catholic Church's View of Non-Catholic Christians (Karl Adam)
On Salvation Outside the Catholic Church (Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.)
Last edited on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 06:15 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
NotCatholic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| First Name: | NotCatholic | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal,none |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 09:59 pm |
|
I admit that it is very easy to think that the Catholic Church teaches indifferentism or universalism, but it does not.
Well I'm not so sure about that anymore the church does seem to teach both indifferntism and universalism, but I'm not a Catholic and I'm for sure not going to try to tell you what you believe. I don't understand your view oh well moving on.
God Bless!
____________________
The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves-Willem De Kooning
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 211 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 11:46 pm |
|
NotCatholic wrote: So your saying that yes you must be a Catholic to be saved.
1. Yes
NotCatholic wrote: but if you truly have no idea that you need to join the Catholic church you can still be saved.
2. See 1.
What do I mean? Everyone who gets to heaven does so through, and in the Catholic Church. Period. This includes Abraham, Moses Elijah, Sts. Peter & Paul, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta and hopefully, eventually you (and me )
The Church quite simply holds itself to be the "Body of Christ" cf 1 Corinthians 12:27 perhaps if you interchange this phrase with the words "Catholic Church" some of these statements of the Church might make more sense to you.
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of Christ, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].
Saint Gregory the Great: "The body of Christ teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved." [Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)].
Innocent III and the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215 A.D.): "There is only one body of Christ, outside of which no one can be saved." [Cap. I; De fide cath.; DS 802 (CH 159)].
Reformulated like this these truths seem self evident. So the question then becomes "Are those who claim to be Catholic the only members of the body of Christ?"
We hold Elijah to be a good Catholic boy (who listened to his mother and ate all his vegetables). Does Elijah's ignorance of his membership in the Catholic Church prevent him from being 'saved'? No.
John 6:53 KJV says "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." Now I ask did Elijah eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood? For that matter was Elijah baptized? cf Mark 16:16 Did he confess Jesus as Lord? cf Romans 10:9 or comply with any of the "requirements" for salvation laid out by Christ? Yet scripture tells us that he was able to hitch a ride to heaven, and didn't even have to die first.
How do we reconcile this seeming inconsistency? We could come down with an interpretation that says that Elijah can't be in heaven if he did not somehow meet the requirements laid out by Jesus. We could come down on the other side and say well Elijah got to heaven without confessing Jesus as Lord etc so I don't have to either. The Church rejects both of these interpretations.
1 Timothy 2:3 "...God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
If God wants it it must be possible. It must be possible for all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth who is Jesus Christ, even Elijah, even some Amazonian native living 3000 years ago. How? I don't know, and neither does the church. But I have my suspicions.
But where does that leave us. We live in a point in history where Jesus has issued his requirements. The Church that Christ established has issued clarifications on these directives. To willfully and knowingly disregard what Jesus has taught either directly (Words of Christ in red) or through his Church (The rest of the bible, & the Magesterium) is to put one's self outside the 'body of Christ'. Notice I said Knowingly. Knowing "that's what Catholics believe" and knowing "that's what's true" are two different things.
I hope that has helped you more than it confused me
Regards Dave
Last edited on Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 11:52 pm by DrDave
|
|
|
NotCatholic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| First Name: | NotCatholic | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal,none |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 12:30 am |
|
hope that has helped you more than it confused me
I'm going to re read everything again. 
____________________
The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves-Willem De Kooning
|
|
|
NotCatholic
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| First Name: | NotCatholic | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Pentecostal,none |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 12:41 am |
|
How do we reconcile this seeming inconsistency? We could come down with an interpretation that says that Elijah can't be in heaven if he did not somehow meet the requirements laid out by Jesus. We could come down on the other side and say well Elijah got to heaven without confessing Jesus as Lord etc so I don't have to either. The Church rejects both of these interpretations.
I need to add their is no Inconsistency because Elijah was under the old convenat and not the new convenat as we are.
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you Luke 22:20
Last edited on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 12:47 am by NotCatholic
____________________
The attitude that nature is chaotic and that the artist puts order into it is a very absurd point of view, I think. All that we can hope for is to put some order into ourselves-Willem De Kooning
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 01:27 am |
|
Saint Augustine and the Council of Cirta (412 A.D.): "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ." [Epist. 141 (CH 158)].
Do we really believe that God's anger rests on people before they die? I think that he loves all people, even his enemies. I think that what separates them or makes them likely to meet anger and justice for their sin, is their choice to refuse redemption, therfore, it is not that God is angry so much as that they reject mercy? But I think God still loves unbelievers and is not heaping anger at them. But I probably misunderstand something here.
Saint Gregory the Great: "The holy universal Church teaches that God cannot be truly adored except within its fold; she affirms that all those who are separated from her will not be saved." [Moral. in Job. XIV,5 (CH 158)].
It does seem like we undertand this differently today because we do believe that other relgions have shadows of truth in them and that they in some wy are praying to and worshipping God. But is this only because they are somehow invisibly Catholic?
Remember the Fatima vision: Souls dropping into hell like snowflakes, because no one will pray for them.
I struggle with the apparition mesages (not the apparition and miracles themselves which I accept, but I wonder how this squares with our theology, which I thought was a pre-requisite for the church accepting an apparition as worthy of belief) but the issue I have here is that people might go to hell because we do not pray for them. How could God allow someone to go to hell who would have repented if someone had prayed for them. That does not seem fair. I know our prayer is important in participating with God's will, but what if Dave was supposed to pray for me, and if he did, I would repent. But Dave does not pray for me and so I go to hell. That does not seem quite right to me, because how could God allow me to choose hell when it depended on someone else not doing their job?
I would like to think that though we are somehow responsible for our part in saving others and that when we live bad lives it may keep some away, I also can not think that someone who would have went to heaven will go to hell because some individual failed. I would imagine God would find another way to save them.
But as David said, it is not for me to judge. I just struggle with this because I accept the Fatima revelations, yet I do not believe this statement to be true. Other than a passage about watchmen in the Old Testament, I just have a hard time dealing with the pressure of knowing that souls could go to hell because I did not realize that I needed to pray for them, and I will get to my afterlife someday and know that some poor soul is in hell because of me.
Brian
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 02:27 pm |
|
Hi Brian,
. . . the issue I have here is that people might go to hell because we do not pray for them. How could God allow someone to go to hell who would have repented if someone had prayed for them. That does not seem fair.
You're assuming several things here that do not follow.
First, it's not a matter of God "allowing" somone to go to hell. If they go there it is because they wanted to live without God. Like C.S. Lewis once wrote with great insight, "the doors of hell are locked on the inside."
Second, all grace, including that conveyed through prayer, comes from God. Since God knows everything (including even possibilities and contingencies and all possible outcomes), then if He foreknew that Person A would not pray for someone else, then He could easily "arrange" things in His Providence so that Person B would do so.
Third, in the final analysis, whether we are saved will always depend on God's grace, but it is our decision whether to accept this grace or not. The grace will be provided. It doesn't depend on another person, so that if they fail, we go to hell. It just doesn't work that way. That would be contrary to God's mercy, to let eternal salvation rest on the week reed of third parties.
I know our prayer is important in participating with God's will, but what if Dave was supposed to pray for me, and if he did, I would repent. But Dave does not pray for me and so I go to hell.
No; I would express it rather, that "Brian did not accept the grace and the free option of going to heaven that God provided for him, and so went to hell." We all stand before God alone, in the end, as many old folk songs point out. "You got to walk that lonesome valley by yourself," etc.
That does not seem quite right to me, because how could God allow me to choose hell when it depended on someone else not doing their job?
You're right; it ain't right. This is merely a human way of looking at things, but God has a completely different perspective.
I would like to think that though we are somehow responsible for our part in saving others and that when we live bad lives it may keep some away, I also can not think that someone who would have went to heaven will go to hell because some individual failed. I would imagine God would find another way to save them.
Yep. You anticipated my answer; and I am answering as I read. You answered your own question!
But as David said, it is not for me to judge. I just struggle with this because I accept the Fatima revelations, yet I do not believe this statement to be true. Other than a passage about watchmen in the Old Testament, I just have a hard time dealing with the pressure of knowing that souls could go to hell because I did not realize that I needed to pray for them, and I will get to my afterlife someday and know that some poor soul is in hell because of me.
Our task is to pray. We know that for sure. It's not in our hands who is saved and damned. We can help provide the avenues of grace and blessing that God has for each individual. Their own final destiny rests with them and with God. We are to pray, do good works, love, and share the Good News with others. Then we know that we are fulfilling our responsibility and holding up "our end of the bargain," so to speak. How I look at it is that these good things make the path easier for others to follow, but do not determine their path; let alone whether they go to heaven or hell.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 02:46 pm |
|
brian wrote: Remember the Fatima vision: Souls dropping into hell like snowflakes, because no one will pray for them.
I think the correct interpretation here would be souls falling into hell because no one prayed for them during their life. At the moment of death, the decision is made and cannot be changed. However, I do believe that prayer can soften the hardest heart and open it to God's grace if the pray-er prays hard enough, and the pray-ee is willing. We've even seen it on this forum, when anti-Catholic spouses are suddenly and unexpecteddly open to learning more about the faith. I believe that prayer can increase grace, but the pray-ee must still be open to accepting it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 720 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 02:52 pm |
|
I like your answer. But what seems uneasy to me is that we both seem to be disagreeing with what is revealed that the Blessed Virgin is reported to have said. Or that she meant it in a more motivational way, even though the statement is not theologically true? But I thought in order to approve apparitions that the theology should be correct and in harmony with church teaching, but we both seem to be saying that a person is not going to go to hell just because another person did not pray to them, and the message seems to imply the opposite. Now I do not know the exact apparition quote but I have seen similar things and I am basing it on Br. Carlo's quote. It seems to imply that if someone would pray for certain souls they would go to heaven, therfore the reason they are going to hell is not their rejection of grace, but our negligence, therfore contradicting the agreement you and I and C.S. Lewis seem to have going. The only way I can seem to reconcile this, is that the message is more a motivatioal tool and not meant to be taken literally, but it wants to warn us to do ur part in saving others. But it still seems questionable to me.
Remember the Fatima vision: Souls dropping into hell like snowflakes, because no one will pray for them. Think of that and pray before casting aspersions on the Church! Blessings, ~Br_Carlo~
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 04:13 pm |
|
Or that she meant it in a more motivational way, even though the statement is not theologically true? . . . The only way I can seem to reconcile this, is that the message is more a motivational tool and not meant to be taken literally
I like this way of expressing it. The second sentence is better than the first, in my opinion. It isn't that what Our Lady was saying there is "not true"; rather, one has to interpret it correctly. Remember, a common teaching method among the Jews was the strong compare and contrast motif, or the hyperbole. "If your eye offends you, pluck it out." "If you have enough faith, you can remove this mountain," etc.
Books like Proverbs and Psalms present a stark contrast between the "evil, wicked fools" and the "righteous" and the "wise." That's proverbial language, though, which intends to convey generalities. We all know that human beings are quite the mixture of good and evil and often are more like "shades of grey" rather than pure and righteous and holy vs. utterly evil and wicked. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the famous Orthodox writer and dissident against Communism stated that "the line between good and evil runs through every human heart."
It is the extreme contrast that is the motivational tool to reform behavior and to express the urgency and importance of action on behalf of others. In this matter, there is indeed a relationship between our prayers and graces always caused and offered by God through us to others. The same applies to penitential works, and even suffering (redemptive suffering). God designed things that way, so that we can all be involved in the marvelous process of His graces. He wanted salvation and redemption to be a community or organic effort, not a bunch of atomistic individuals. We help each other. We are "our brother's keepers."
I think we can, therefore, quite possibly interpret Mary's words as "if no one prays for a soul, that soul will go to hell." But that someone need not be restricted to individual persons. It is a collective notion: "every soul needs the assistance of prayer [general]; therefore you [particular; part of the collective] should pray." It doesn't logically follow, however, that if we as individuals fail to pray for an individual person, that that person will go to hell, because, as I said before, God in His Providence will simply cause or urge another person to do so.
And even then, a person could receive all kinds of graces through prayer and what not, yet still reject God and salvation, because God gave us the free will to do so, so that following Him would be a meaningful choice, not a question of God's pressing a button and our not being able to refuse, as if we were robots. After all, look at Satan himself: he was in heaven with God and had everything he could possibly need or want. But he wanted to be in God's place, so it wasn't enough for him. Causation in such matters of final salvation is not striclty a matter of us (i.e., we as individuals) and them.
Or, on a more human level: we have all seen families where two children were raised the same way, yet one rebels and gets into heavy sin, while the other stays faithful to the Church and Christian moral teachings. Free will . . . both were given the same "graces" so to speak, by the parents, but the outcome was different because they decided in the end which way they would go.
The final destiny of the person rests on his or her acceptance or rejection of God and His grace.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 04:53 pm |
|
I don't want my last sentence to be construed as a denial of election or predestination, or espousal of Pelagianism (the heresy holding that we can save ourselves). I wrote:
"The final destiny of the person rests on his or her acceptance or rejection of God and His grace."
And I'll clarify further now:
We know that God predestines those who will be saved, to salvation, yet (paradoxically) not without their choice and free will assent. How this works out in fine detail is a matter of debate in Catholic theology, between Thomists and Molinists (and I am, by the way, of the latter camp). But (in Catholic teaching, in contrast to Calvinist) He predestines no one to hell. Catholics deny the doctrine of double predestination.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 10:31 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
