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?
Read James 2 closely - the first 15 verses or so. Are we any less guilty than whom James was writing to 2000 years ago? Humanity may be more technologically inclined, but we still are the same wounded creatures.
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.
The New Testament is very clear on this. Men fall. Even AFTER receiving God's Word!!!
Fate has never, nor will it ever, be a Christian idea. Such is the mindset of the "Reformed" Protestant theology. One is saved (fated) before even being born. I think if you read about ancient cultures, you will find that one of Christianity's greatest draws was that it broke free from such a mindset. That men's salvation was determined before they were born. It gave hope to the poor, the malcontent, the everyday "joe's" of the world who barely got by in THIS life.
Christianity teaches something different. It teaches that man CAN COOPERATE with that almighty Creator and come into union with Him if man follows the lead of this Creator. Calvinism is just another system that moves man back into paganist ideas of fate. Does this "take away" from the Sovereignty of God? Only in the mind of those who believe they are fated to eternal life before they were born...
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?
I believe faith is not an exercise in black and white logical rules. The Roman Catholic Church went through that sort of period - and frankly, it stifled love and forgiveness. You are asking me to return to a Pharisaical understanding of our relationship with God... A relationship that is judged by dotting our "i's" and crossing the "t's". Perhaps you are aware of the Jewish Talmud and it extensive rules laid out for everything situation done in society. The Talmud is the place to look for such detailed rules. Fortunately, the Canon of the Catholic Church is not in the Western mold of tort law.
To simplify my answer to you - I do not know. Only the individual can judge whether his relationship is merely wounded or is destroyed with God. The Church, the Body, the community, has rules of thumb to judge from the outside looking in. But they are not absolute. I have found in my dealing with the Catholic Church this : that it has many rules - but it is very flexible in adhering to them. Again, we are not a tort-law society. Pastorally speaking, the Church must reach out to people. Sometimes, interpretation of these rules are given latitude by the priest - that is the point that Christ makes, I believe, in expressing Christ's love to people, such as the adulterous woman in John's Gospel. The "rules" would have Jesus throw the first stone. He didn't. But the "rules" are still there for us to follow.
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.
That is comparing oranges and apples.
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 ....... :)
Fair enough. God says in John 6 that He sends such faith to those whom He will - and Jesus also says it takes the Spirit, not the flesh, to understand it.
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?
I suppose it depends on what you would require for God to have "revealed it" to you. Some atheists require a divine visitation before they believe... I don't know what you would require, but I think the evidence is there for those who are seeking the truth.
Regards
And how do you know it is not YOU and not the Lord who is leading in that perception? Adam certainly thought it was God Who set him up with Eve.
What they did was their act of wilful disobedience. We know when we commit sin. We know what is morally wrong because we are all Christians. We can't claim "invincible ignorance," FK.
You can't be a Christian and commit adultery and say "I didn't know..."