Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn
Anything we have is from God. If there was something encoded in us such that if we sinned, we would die, only God could have made it thus. Certainly we did not have such power to ourselves. The sin was of course our own choice.
And if God is all-knowing, then He knew we would fail. Yet Yet, He created us anyway.
This plays into the line of thought that the Father created the universe for Christ to redeem it, knowing that sin would abound so that grace could abound all the more.
Well, I do believe that the Church is in turmoil. After all, we were warned to beware of false profits in sheeps clothing - not outwardly ravinous wolves. Its only a matter of time before God straightens things out.
What is the status of a Catholic who directly and openly defies and contradicts and infallible doctrine of the Church? Does that Catholic damn himself to Hell? Is the Pope doomed to Hell because he has asserted that all non-Christians do not go to Hell?
A Catholic who openly defies the Church is an Apostate and yes, should that person die in that state they will absolutely go to hell. As far as the pope is concerned, all I can say to you is that I do not believe everything I see and hear on TV. He is our Holy Father and it is our duty to pray for him because he NEEDS our prayers - not to knock him - ever.
I am not familiar with the Orthodox church but if you do not have personal submission to the pope, then you are outta luck chuck.
I don't disagree with your disquisition on papal authority.
But are you sure - really, really sure - that you have your table of authorities correct when it comes to what is and is not an infallible teaching of the Church?
On the one hand, you have cited to a Renaissance council, the Council of Florence I believe it was, that stated that any outside of the Catholic Church were going to hell. Now, you stated that this was an ecumenical council. But when I go on line and look at the Catholic Encyclopedia, or at a nice Catholic website where they have all the decrees of all the ecumenical councils (except Vatican II), Florence is not among them. This causes me to worry about the basis of authority on which you are reposing the assertion that all non-Catholics go to Hell. You think this came from an ecumenical council. But the Catholic Church does not think that the council you cited was an ecumenical council.
Both of you cannot clearly be right, so I am wondering on what authority you find Florence to be an ecumenical council.
Now, since the Church itself does not call this an ecumenical council, there is still the possibility of an ex cathedra statement of the Pope on a matter of faith and morals that is, according to Vatican I, infallible.
I have sought, utterly in vain, for a list of infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is disturbing in the extreme that I can find no such list at all, anywhere. The Church has never published one, and no Catholic on the vast worldwide web has ever attempted such an undertaking either. You will search in vain for a list of infallible doctrines of the Catholic Church. You will find partial lists, containing different things.
This is even more disturbing, in light of what you've asserted.
Here is why. You have asserted that a certain council of the Church, which the Church does not consider one of the 20 ecumenical councils, stated a doctine that all non-Catholics go to Hell. That the council was at best a local council seriously vitiates the claim of church-wide authority, however, if it was the Pope who said so, ex cathedra, on a matter of faith and morals, that would seem to save the doctrine...if the Pope's statement really qualified as an infallible pronouncement.
But nowhere, not in any place, is there a list of infallible doctrines. It practically seems to be suit-to-taste. So, YOU claim that it's an infallible doctrine based on the authority of a Pope (do you have the actual text of what he said, in the original language, so that we could consult it?) There's no reference anyone can turn to to verify if the Church considers that infallible or not, just general principles.
But then there is another Pope, John Paul II, a great and Holy man, and a whole council of Bishops from around the world who worked for ten years on the new catechcism. This was promulgated under a direct invocation, by the Pope, of his papal authority and the solemn Teaching Authority of the Church. When I read those words of authority and think about what is involved, what do I see? I see the Pope and the Teaching Authority of the Church, solemnly assembled, proclaiming with specificity this particular book as sound doctrine of the faith and morals of the Church. The Cathechism was promulgated with enough solemnity and bells and whistles that a reasonable person could look at this, its sources (the Pope himself and the Magesterium) and its content (the faith and morals of the Catholic Church), and the purposeful solemnity from the official Seat of Peter with which it was promulgated,
and one could apply the Vatican I standards and say that the Cathechism is an infallible proclamation of the Church.
Now, those who don't like parts of the new catechism would strenuously disagree, because they, like you, would say that the Cathechism purports to overturn infallible doctrines of the Church. But then we are right back to the problem that there is no codex of infallible doctrines of the Church. In YOUR eyes, applying the standards, the doctrine that all non-Catholics go to hell is an infallible doctrine because it was promulgated by a Pope at a council. But I remember earlier Church regional councils at which a Pope pronounced some book or other that later became part of the Bible anathema. So, was the earlier in time right? Does our Bible contain non-canonical works because later Popes overruled earlier Popes?
If I really need to drudge up the list of councils and differening positions of different popes in the history of the canon in order to make this point, I will. The early Councils were contradictory, and some Popes pronounced the ananthema on those who ascribed to some books that later were admitted to the canon.
Now, the standard Church position would be that these Popes were not speaking ex cathedra. But then, was the Rensaissance Pope who said that all non-Catholics burn in Hell himself speaking ex cathedra? How do you know? This current pope certainly seemed to be speaking ex cathedra when he promulgated the Catechism.
Why do you think that this Pope and all those Bishops got it wrong, and for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, used the Teaching Authority of the Magesterium of the Church and the authority of the Papacy to disregard and overrule a previously infallible doctrine?
Do you think that the Pope and the cardinals and archbishops from around the world were ignorant of the issue? Why do you think you are a more informed theologian than they are?
What makes you so sure that your interpretation of the Council of Florence and the medieval Pope who condemned all of humanity outside of the Catholic Church to the flames of Hell spoke infallibly, while Pope John Paul II and the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals in our day has - for the first time in the history of the Church - committed a collossal error that jeopardizes the stability of the faith itself?
On what AUTHORITY do you override the Pope, the Curia, the Cardinals and the Archbishops, Bishops and Prelates from around the world who worked for ten years on the catechism?
THEY did not think that the proclamation of the medieval pope you cite, that all non-Christians go to Hell, was an infallible statement.
Quite obviously they think it was an error, and that they have corrected the error authoritatively.
You think they err.
Please cite the authority on which you conclude this.
It would help to know, very specifically, the conditions under which the Renaissance pope made his statement. Was it in a letter? Was it in an argument? The words are there, but what were their specific provenance? Who were they aimed at?
I focus on these things, because we probably don't have all the details. But we DO have all the details of what the current Vicar of Christ on Earth said and how and why. The Renaissance Pope may or may not be in conflict with the current one. Clearly the current Cathechism of the Catholic Church says that non-Christians may go to heaven. Clearly that is the opposite of an old doctrine.
Has the Church erred in reversing an infallible doctrine?
Or have YOU erred in applying the language of infallibility, and stubbornly insisting that something is infallible which the Church itself has never declared infallible?
Certainly the Church doesn't make it any easier by not publishing a list of infallible doctrines...or is that, perchance, what the cathechism really is?
This doctrine certainly is infallible. No one here is questioning that. There is no possibility that schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans can be saved while they wallow in their errors and reject the Church and the Truth she offers.
Where it becomes problematic is in its application by some to people the Church does not condemn. For example, to people who have never been evangelized. It is hardly just to condemn someone for not being a Catholic when they have never heard the good news preached to them.
I know that the Roman Church held to the doctrine that even the decrees of an Ecumenical Council are not dogma unless accepted by the Church as a whole at least through the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
This is not so. The doctrine on Infallibilty is very clearly written and easily read from Vatican Council I. I won't post all the particulars here but heres a link. If you do read it, notice that the dogma is again repeated by Pope Pius IX in his Profession of Faith.
The Roman Church holds to a two fold doctrine on infallibility. The proclimination at Vatican I concerns the teaching office of the Pope, in his capacity as shepherd and father of all Christians. In addition to this, the Church believes in the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils "ex sese" - of themselves, because a valid Council inerrantly witnesses to the teaching of Christ when they explain matters of faith. The consent of the Churches is not necessary because it is the particular Churches through their head, the Bishop, which make up the Council. Hence, by consenting to its acts, they necessarily consent to its teaching by the very act of their teaching it.
St. Athanasius noted: "[The Father's at Nicea] ... wrote concerning Easter: 'The following has been decided.' And it was at that time decided that all should comply. But concerning matters of faith, they did not write: 'It has been decided,', but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon they confessed how they believed. This they did in order to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was of Apostolic times; and that what they wrote was no discovery of their own, but is simply that which was taught by the Apostles." (Letter Concerning the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, AD 361)
And the Council of Chalcedon wrote to Pope Leo: "For if were two or three are gathered together in His name, He says He is there in the midst of them, how much more will He not show His companionship with five hundred and twenty priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him to their own home and affairs, when you, as the head to the members, showed your good will through those who represented you?"
It appears from your post that the Roman Church considers the Council of Florence to be an Ecumenical Council (the East doesn't, of course, but not for the usual reasons). If this is so, and since it is manifestly clear that the Church in the East never accepted the decisions of that Council, by what right would Rome still hold to those decisions?
Because they (infallible declarations) are binding on all Catholics for for all time.
That's not really a good answer. We would consider the Council of Florence binding because it was accepted by all the Bishops participating, both east and west. The later repudiation by the eastern Bishops came after they returned home. The major reasons for the repudiation was (1) dissimulation by the eastern Bishops on order of the Roman Emperor to not discuss the real issues at hand, especially the teachings from the east at the Council of Blachernae in 1285, and the Palamite Councils in 1341-1351, (2) a one-sided imposition of Latin theological terms onto the Greeks. The people of Constantinople saw right through this, as did St. Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus.
It gaining acceptance by the Greeks of it again, it would be necessary to interpret the decrees in such a way that they are in harmony with the beliefs of both sides and without the use of prejudicial terminology.
Not sure what you are referring to here. No pope, AFAIK, has ever lifted any anethemas. Maybe Pope VI did, I'm just unaware of it.
Paul VI lifted the anathemas. The anathemas were only ever on the men of 1054 - Patriarch Cerularius and Cardinal Humberto (name correct?).
Your obviously well-educated in these matters.
You have said that the terms of what is infallible and are clear from Vatican I. Can you refer us to a source that lists the infallible doctrines of the Church? I have never found anything close.
It seems to me that, given the particular authority of the See of Peter, and the belief in the protection of the Holy Spirit, the infallible doctrines of the Church are essentially divine revelations. The Holy Spirit has protected the men who sat in these councils and that chair and made these decrees so that they COULD NOT ERR.
And since Catholics do not use the Bible the way Protestants do, as the ultimate statute book, but rely instead on the Traditions and Teaching Authority of the Church, that what this really comes down to, in its fundamentals, above all is the infallible doctrines of the Church. Assemble those, and you have the extension into post-biblical times of the direct and abiding revelatory presence of God, specifically protecting the Church from error. Infallible doctrines are, in a real sense, divine revelations and ought to be treated as such.
Therefore, it is primordial...one would think...that there would be a list of infallible doctrines.
Here, Stubborn and I have gotten into a hairball because he says it's infallible that all non-Christians go to Hell. But I read the Pope and the Magesterium speaking with the Teaching Authority of the Church in the Catechism saying just the opposite.
So, we've come down to a battle of authorities.
You will permit me to express skepticism that when the Pope and the whole council of Bishops that worked on the Catechism for a decade solemnly proclaim doctrines, on the one hand, and individuals claim that the Pope and Bishops have all erred and violated an infallible doctrine, that perhaps the latter claimant needs to check his facts again.
The Catechism does not say that all Jews go to Hell.
You did.
Who is right? The Pope or you? And why should I believe you? I know the basis of his authority, and the authority of the bishops and prelates and cardinals who promulgated the catechism. What is yours?
He's also the one who said we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven. Incidentally, he also said made belief equally essential for salvation, but infants are unable to believe (or disbelieve) regardless of whether they've gotten wet.
But the reason I brought up Jesus is that He suffered physical death, which according to you means He was born with sin in Him.
Cardinal Humberto (name correct?).
Humberto Da Siva Candida from an old Venetian family. He was the envoy of the Pope and when he presumed to excommunicate the Patriarch by leaving an excommunication order on the altar at Agia Sophia, he almost assuredly had exceeded his authority from Rome.
Whereas, Catholicism holds that Adam and Eve were perfect, fully formed human adults, capable of rational judgment and knowing right from wrong, Orthodoxy holds that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong and were therefore innocent. They did not know their nakedness, nor were they ashamed of it. They were like children. The idea of becoming child-like as a way of returning to God is not alien to Christian teaching.
Frankly, the scenario Hermann portrays is inconsistent with a God who will suffer so that our miserable souls can live. We don't have children expecting them to be perfect. We know they will grow into human beings if raised with love and gentle guidance and even punishment, but a loving one. But we don't want brain-dead children who simply cling us. We want them to love us freely -- and to get there, like theosis, it takes time. Theosis is spiritual growth, spiritual coming of age, becoming like Christ, as our children become like their parents, carrying on and internalizing their values and, in turn, raising their own children in love.
Thus, what happened in the Garden was a consequence of our childishness, an act of an innocent child disobeying a Parent, and wondering off where he was told not to go. Once separated from God, their souls died, and with it their bodies. Unable to return on thir own, lost in spiritual darkness, they had children in their own image, whose soul was dead and whose bodies were corrupt.
Of course God knew this would happen but it was necessary that He allow it to happen, not to set us up but because without sin we could never grow up spiritually. So, there is no guilt, no punishment -- just consequence. For how can an innocent child be guilty of sin if he or she doesn't know right from wrong? And are we guilty as parents for letting them learn life through idsappointment and failure, or do we create 45-year-olds living with their parents?
And, by all accounts, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong until they ate the fruit. Otherwise, humans would be slaves to their own ignorance and their dependence on God would not be love. It is indeed an awesome engineering flowchart!
There is no such thing. The compendium book "Denzinger" is a sort of substitute for this with quasi-official status.
The Catechism does not say that all Jews go to Hell. You did.
No, I never used the word all. I said everyone who wallows in error and refuses to enter the Church will be condemned. "There is no possibility that schismatics, heretics, Jews, or pagans can be saved while they wallow in their errors and reject the Church and the Truth she offers." This is precisely what is said in #846 in the Catechism. Those who know the Church and refuse to enter it cannot be saved.
Now then, the notion of the possible salvation of non-Catholics always boils down to these persons being in ignorance of the truth. But this cannot be their ultimate condition!
First of all, faith in Christ is the sine qua non of salvation, because it IS eternal life. St. John 17.3 - "Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." See also the Catechism #161. Its extremely difficult to understand how people who do not believe in the concept of a redeemer could enjoy the salvation offered in Christ.
Secondly, the Church is very clear about this necessity of faith for the ignorant. #848 talks about how "God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him". They are not being saved in ignorance, but through special revelation to bring them into the necessary condition where they will know Christ so that they might love Him.
Thirdly, the Church is also very clear that "God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of truth" and "Salvation is found in the truth." (Catechism, #851). Ignorance is not salvific! This is because salvation is not a reward for being good, but is the condition of union with Christ in grace. As is explained further in #851, while a good but ignorant person may be already on the way towards salvation, they do not yet have it, and the only ordinary way they will get it is the Church going out to meet the desire they have by giving them the truth.
Non-Christian religions are an admixture of truth and error. Some, such as Hinduism and Shamanism, are perversions of the original natural religion God gave to Adam. Others, such as Islam and modern Synagouge-Judaism, are quasi-Christian heresies that grew out of extreme distoritions or rejections of the message of Christ. When we talk optimistically about how some such a one might possibly be saved, we must realize the weight of error that seperates most of these people from the basic truths about God. Additionally, there is the consideration of their lacking the ordinary means of grace - the Sacraments. Because of these enormous difficulties, it is far better not to speculate, but rather to assume without judging individuals that non-Christians are lost, and are in desperate need of the Gospel. Certainly God may save those among them who are His. But He has not chosen to reveal this to us. All He has revealed to us is the missionary mandate of preaching and baptizing, and the urgency of the spiritual condition of non-Christians.
We don't deny the primacy of honor that the Pope holds and has held among other Patriarchs. That is mandated by Ecumenical Councils. But, the Pope had no juridical power over other Patriarchs, only in Latin Christianity. To claim otherwise is to admit ignorance of the first one thousand years of the Church. And to claim that our salvation depends on whether we "submit" to the Pope or not is making the Pope a little more than he wishes to be (I hope!).
We don't submit to the Pope juridically, because we never have. We don't reject the Pope. We simply cannot be in communion because the Catholic Church no longer teaches the same theology. That is not our doing; we teach what we taught for the last 2,000 years, nothing more and nothing less.
As for any reconciliation -- it seems to me it is the Pope who is asking for it more than the Orthodox. But if the Church is torn because of papacy, and the corner you painted yourselves in by making it a dogma on which you cannot backtrack, that is your doing, not ours.
Our Church remains stable and at peace relative to Western Christianity, which is torn and deteriorating by the day. I have said it before and I will say it again: what's in it for us to reconcile with churches beset with all the problems? Just so that we can commiserate?
Reality check: the Orthodox are not beating down the Vatican doors asking for "readmission."
As to whether or not the Council of Florence was eccumenical in nature or not, the catholic encyclopedia cites it as being the 17th Eccumenical Council. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
As to not being able to find a list of ex-cathedra or infallible decrees, there is no complete list but I suggest you read Vatican Council I document that infallibly defines Papal infallibilty. http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#INTRODUCTION
In regards to the catechism, Vatican I teaches ~ For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
The re-formulation in the catechism is OBVIOUSLY a new doctrine, it is not a matter of interpreting, it is new. It is not infallible, it contradicts the origianl meaning and is error.
It is obvious that the dogma of No salvation HAD TO BE RE-FORMULATED in order to change its meaning - which Vatican I condemns.
When I took CCD classes, I assumed that Purgatory was eternal. But there are only four Last Things: death, judgment, Heaven and hell.
The solution to the problem of infants dying before receiving baptism that makes the most sense to me is that God would give these children a chance to choose for or against Him before death. This would not negate the necessity of Baptism nor would it conflict with His ordaining will, expressed in Scripture, that all men be saved.
Sometimes He does and sometimes He doesn't. The natural law which is written on the human heart never changes. That is, all people at all times know that murder, adultery, lying, murder and theft are wrong.
OTOH, God's plan for salvation has unfolded over time. God will not hold people responsible for what they do not know or are unable to do, since He is just. Moses did not need formal baptism to enter Heaven since the sacrament had not been instituted. Nevertheless, his salvation was made possible by Christ's redemptive death on the Cross, just as ours is. Moses' choice to follow God's Will to the best of his ability probably constituted an informal type of baptism.
This ties into the question of the salvation of non-Christians:
Can Non-Christians Be Saved?
By Kenneth J. HowellOBJECTOR ONE: Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that there can be no salvation outside the Church? Does that mean that no people of other religions can be in heaven with God? What gives the Catholic Church the right to think it can judge whether non-Christians will be saved?
CATHOLIC: The Catholic dogma is indeed that outside the Church there is no salvation, but your interpretation of what this dogma means is flawed. The Church does not presume to know who will be in heaven with God. It makes no judgments in this matter whatsoever. The ancient phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (literally, "outside the Church no salvation") has been a widely accepted principle since the earliest days of Christianity. Since the Church has no authority to deny long-established principles, it cannot simply throw out time-honored truths to suit the current fads of thinking.
OBJECTOR ONE: But if the Church makes no judgments of any person, that is inconsistent with the principle that outside the Church there is no salvation. That principle says quite clearly that anyone who is not Catholic will not be saved.
CATHOLIC: No, the principle says that the Church is the necessary instrument for people to find salvation. The Second Vatican Council affirmed that the Catholic Church is the "sole Church of Christ" that Christ established on the earth (Lumen Gentium 8). In the teaching and sacramental ministry of the Church, Jesus Christ is made known to the world for the salvation of the human race. No one would have access to Christ’s salvation if the Church were not in the world. In that sense the Church is necessary. But Christ’s salvation is not limited to the boundaries of formal membership in the Church. In other words, we know from Christ’s teaching in the Bible that the Church is necessary, but the Church holds out hope for those outside the Church that they too may be saved.
OBJECTOR TWO: I have to disagree with both of you. I believe Scripture makes it abundantly clear that there is no other name under heaven than Christ himself by which one can be saved. Acts 4:12 makes that clear. The Catholic Church’s dogma is confused. It places too much emphasis on the Church and not enough on Christ himself. But then the Second Vatican Council, if what you say is true, claims that the Church, rather than Christ, is necessary and at the same time says that people who don’t accept Christ can still be saved.
CATHOLIC: Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.
OBJECTOR ONE: Wait a minute. If you agree with this Fundamentalist that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation, then you are judging non-Christians. You’re saying they cannot be saved.
OBJECTOR TWO: But if you say that non-Christians can be saved, then you’re denying the necessity of Christ coming into the world to save sinners. Your position is clear: People outside of Christ can be saved. But this is also clearly wrong. The Catholic position is really confused because it says that Christ and the Church are necessary for salvation while also saying that people outside of Christ and the Church can be saved.
CATHOLIC: It is not as confused as you imagine. Let’s make some important distinctions: The Church is necessary, as I have said, because no one will be saved apart from Christ. If the Church were suddenly taken out of the world, the knowledge of Christ would be lost. So I agree with our Fundamentalist friend here on the necessity of Christ and the Church for salvation, but he insists also that faith in Christ must be conscious and explicit for a person to be saved. Am I accurate in stating your position?
OBJECTOR TWO: Yes. The Bible says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31). I don’t know so much about belonging to the Church. If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, then the Church is definitely not necessary for salvation. If you mean the Church generically—that is, the body of Christ—then I might agree. But my point is that the Catholic Church can’t logically claim that Christ is necessary for salvation and also that non-Christians have the possibility of salvation.
CATHOLIC: We can claim both because we know from Scripture that Christ and the Church are necessary, but we also don’t know how many people without a conscious and explicit knowledge of Christ may still be united to him in a way known only to God.
OBJECTOR ONE: Let me see if I understand you. Christ and the Church are necessary but the Church also allows that there may be those outside the Church who are united to Christ without knowing that they are united to him. That position is not as harsh and condemning as I first thought but I still think that it comes down to the same thing. You insist on salvation only through Christ.
CATHOLIC: Guilty as charged. The Catholic Church insists on salvation only through Christ because it is the unchanging witness of Scripture and Christian Tradition. We cannot surrender the centrality of Christ or the Church without abandoning our faith and heritage. But you are also right when you say that there may be people who are united to Christ while not being aware of it. We don’t say that we know there are such people. We say that because we don’t know if those outside the Church are cut off from Christ.
OBJECTOR TWO: I agree on insisting on salvation only through Christ, but then you surrender that very belief when you allow the possibility that non-Christians may be united to Christ without faith.
CATHOLIC: We would be surrendering our belief in the necessity of Christ only if we agreed with you that the knowledge of Christ must be explicit and conscious. Since you believe that the only kind of knowledge of Christ that one can have is conscious, I see why you would say that we are surrendering our insistence on Christ and the Church.
OBJECTOR TWO: But where do you get the idea that people can be united with Christ without an explicit faith in him? Certainly not from the Bible.
CATHOLIC: The Bible speaks of a merciful God who wants all to come to repentance and to a knowledge of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). God has established the Church as the means by which all people can come to him. But the question naturally arises about those who never hear of Christ’s salvation through the ministry of the Church. Are they thereby excluded from salvation even though their ignorance is no fault of their own?
OBJECTOR TWO: All people are guilty before God and can make no special claim. Doesn’t the Bible say that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23)?
CATHOLIC: Yes, all human beings are born with original sin (except Mary, but that’s for another discussion), but Paul also said that "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all" (Rom. 11:32). God’s ultimate purpose is not condemnation but salvation. This salvation normally comes through the ministry of the Church as people embrace Christ and the Church he founded. The question before us is this: What about those who are hindered from the normal means of hearing the gospel through the Church’s ministry? If an explicit and conscious knowledge were absolutely necessary, then children who die before they can understand the gospel would be lost. This also applies to people who are mentally disabled and don’t have the capacity to understand the gospel through ordinary use of language. Or again, what about those in world history who never had the chance to hear the gospel?
OBJECTOR TWO: I can’t say. I don’t know what God will do for such people. All we know is what is revealed in the Bible, namely, that faith in Christ is absolutely necessary.
CATHOLIC: We don’t know what God will do for those outside the Church, so it’s best not to presume to judge. We can only hope and pray that God will have mercy on them. That’s why I said that the Catholic Church’s position on this matter is not contradictory. On the one hand, we know that the usual and expected means of salvation is being united with Christ (cf. Rom. 6:1–5), but we also know from the Bible that "the Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love" (Ps. 103:8). We hope that those who, through no fault of their own, never know the gospel in a conscious way may be united to Christ in a way known only to God. We believe that God is sovereign and loving. He will judge people according to their knowledge. If they live in a way that accords with their best knowledge of God, we trust that he will be merciful to them.
It is designed to create controversy on this forum ;~)
LOL
LOL Yea I guess so, and you are the only one to answer correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.