The problem is "how much disagreement" is "necessary"? The Bible clearly states that those who are false teachers are in danger of eternal damnation. The NT condemnations all apply to heretics and those who refuse to convert to Christ - not those who are ignorant. How much do we press the issue regarding the question of heretics? How much do we cling to "he who hears you hears Me and he who rejects you rejects Me and the One who sent Me"? I don't think the Church has answered that decisively.
if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation
That is Biblical. But a mortal sin is a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual. Doesn't it go without saying that such an individual is damning himself?
Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation.
Naturally, that is not an absolute rule, because we don't believe that men who never heard of the Eucharist are automatically condemned, unlike our Calvinist friends who believe people are condemned before they were born...(what a disgusting idea) Again, if one is fully aware of the teaching of the Eucharist and refuses it, what is the level of relationship that exists between God and the individual? Refusing God's revelation is treading on dangerous ground.
As I think about it specifically now, I know it's a fact that some of whatever negative "feelings" I have toward the RCC is based on the fact that I know that most of them believe I am doomed to hell, barring an unusual miracle. Knowing for certain my love for Christ and His gift of my faith, I have a natural reaction. :)
A person has eternal life if Christ abides within them. This occurs, we know, when they are obeying the commandments. All the rest leads us to better improve this relationship. I believe Jesus said that the Spirit will blow where HE wills and if Gentiles can obey the law written on their heart without the Eucharist, then obviously, this is not an absolute LAW. But if one refuses to receive what God has made available, one can only wonder what is going on regarding their "relationship".
What we all need to remember is that such rules are made to lead us to God. But in the end, we cannot subject God to any laws.
Regards
That's fair enough and must be true, given notable CINOS who take communion and publicly advocate abortion, etc., from positions of power. Of course, Bill Clinton calls himself a Southern Baptist (and is welcomed in some churches), so I ain't throwing rocks. :) I would pay to see the reaction of my pastor if Clinton's "people" contacted him to set up an appearance at our church. :)
FK: "if anyone dies under guilt of mortal sin (i.e. without absolution) then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation."
That is Biblical. But a mortal sin is a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual. Doesn't it go without saying that such an individual is damning himself?
Well, now I sure am glad I added you to the ping list in my very recent post to Kosta on this. :) I do agree with you that people are responsible for damning themselves with regard to salvation. Our difference is whether God allows that to happen after salvation is objectively held.
And, given your exact words, I have a question. For a sin to be mortal, does a person have to understand that it entails "a willful separation and ending of the relationship between God and the individual"? I mean, I can understand anyone saying to himself "I know God's not going to like this but.....", then committing a mortal sin, but not having any clue of the consequences as put forth by (you here, or) the Church. Just as an example, could two Catholics commit adultery under identical circumstances and for one it would be a mortal sin, but not for the other, and it's all based on how well each knew his own faith?
FK: "Or, if someone dies without having taken the Eucharist (a certain number of times?) under Catholic beliefs then he is presumed damned, without special dispensation."
Naturally, that is not an absolute rule, because we don't believe that men who never heard of the Eucharist are automatically condemned, unlike our Calvinist friends who believe people are condemned before they were born...(what a disgusting idea).
Whenever I use a term like "special dispensation", I include things like people who have never heard, the young, the mentally ill, etc. For all main points, I am talking about people who have fair access. ...... Double predestination is a disgusting idea? :) Well, all of us know good people whom we call friends, who also happen to be unbelievers. Many of them would consider much of what God did in the OT, "disgusting". :) God's ways are His own.
Again, if one is fully aware of the teaching of the Eucharist and refuses it, what is the level of relationship that exists between God and the individual? Refusing God's revelation is treading on dangerous ground. (emphasis added)
Indeed. While I am not so bold as to claim full awareness, I can say that I have learned much about the Eucharist as practiced by the Church. However, I can also say that I honestly know that I have not received anything I could call as a revelation from God on the subject to cause me to accept the Church's view on the matter. It hasn't been revealed to me, spiritually. I don't even say defiantly that it never will, for who would I be to deny a revelation from God? (I would be a lost person.) It just hasn't happened yet. So until then ....... :)
But if one refuses to receive what God has made available, one can only wonder what is going on regarding their "relationship".
This builds on the same theme. Of course, the Eucharist is "available" to me, physically. Yet, I have no honest leading, that I perceive, from the Lord to partake appropriately. OTOH, does the doctrine of invincible ignorance include the possibility that God has not made it "available" TO ME, e.g. through God-given understanding?