Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
For me?
“17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” - Jesus
“28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”...35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” - Jesus
“4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” - Paul
“According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” - Peter
AMEN.
If any Muslims are converted and saved, it is through Jesus, of course. Didn't I explain that everyone in Heaven is Catholic?
But, as regards an eternal God, a "plan," is an oxymoron
Kosta, you are not familiar with the term "plan" (or "economy" of salvation, are you? The Catechism has a whole section on it: Paragraph 2. Jesus Died Crucified , scroll down to "II. CHRIST'S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD'S PLAN OF SALVATION". At the end of it there is another reference to the universality of God's plan:
God takes the initiative of universal redeeming love604 By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins."408 God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."409
605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God's love excludes no one: "So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."410 He affirms that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many"; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us.411 The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: "There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."412
408 I John 4:10; 4:19.
409 Rom 5:8. 410 Mt 18:14.
411 Mt 20:28; cf. Rom 5:18-19.
412 Council of Quiercy (853): DS 624; cf. 2 Cor 5:15; I Jn 2:2.
Of course I am familiar with the economy of salvation. The Orthodox know better than to confuse that with planning. Economy is not planning; it's managing. Plan is a draft.
We’ll be sure to edit the Catechism as you suggest then.
Why shoud I edit Catholic Catechism, Alex? You know very well what oikonomnia means. Why preted it means something else? Besides, the way the Bible is written God doesn't even manage.
oikonomnia = oikonomia
I don't see what is so good about "economy", it is an awkward term, at least given the modern connotations.
I am not sure I follow you, Alex. What does consilium have to do with God "planning?"
I don't see what is so good about "economy", it is an awkward term, at least given the modern connotations
The "economy of our salvation," in short, is how God revealed himself to man, namey as three different Hypostatic realities, and how each reality revealed what man should do to be saved. That's all. That's not "planning"; that's doing.
Needless to say, the economy of man's salvation is about as much a corruption of Judaism as Mormonism is of Christianity.
Why can't the Catholic Church just cut through the fluff and simply say something like this: "Through the teaching of Christ, we believe that the Church is a sure way to heaven. How others fare in that respect has not been revealed to the Church"?
I fully agree, and I'm sure theologically that is what the Catholic Church wants to say. However, I also believe during its history - especially when it was a significant political power - that it used the current wording to maintain control. "Once you've been exposed to the Catholic Church, you better not step outside the bounds of the Catholic Church or you're not saved. Why, even those Muslims we're fighting will be saved, but YOU won't because you left!" Powerful words of control, indeed!
Your summary gives a tacit "approval" to searching God via other ways. Other branches of Christianity, or even other religions could be considered as an acceptable path to salvation, and thus why stick with obedience to the words and dictates of the Catholic Church?
A lot of the Catechism is, I believe, a result of the Church's previous interest in being more of a worldly power than a spiritual one. And unfortunately, because of the Church's position that its teachings are infallible (again, I believe this stemmed from its desire to maintain worldly control over recalcitrant princes and kings), it is awfully hard to change without blowing its own credibility. Pride stops the Church from correcting its previous errors.
I am sure some Catholics would say that, but not all, and certainly not the Magisterium. I also find that, on the one hand, they say Muslims are included in the plan of salvation, but on the other hand they add a stipulation—rather, a rationalization—that a Muslim who was saved actually, consciously or not, "converted" in his heart, and died a "Catholic!" As they say: everyone in heaven is a Catholic.
As far as the Protestants are concerned, as long as they have been baptized in what is perceived to be a Catholic baptism, they are actually "Catholics" even if they don't exclude yourself form the visible Church by being rebellious.
There is also way too much "legalese" involved, but, hey, that is understandable considering how Christianity was put together: you had to make sense of things that were stitched together from things that had nothing to do with each other. Expecting it to be straight forward is simply not realistic.
This apparent open minded approach of the Cathoic Church on closer scrutiny reveals that all "true" religions are really closet Catholic faiths, and that those who are saved are "Catholic" even if they never heard of Catholic or know what Catholic means. That way the Church can insist that only "Catholics: go to heaven without appearing hegemonistic or chauvinsitic.
But, in all fairness, the Evangelicals are no different. They go all over the world to convert people to Christ because they believe one is saved only through him. What differs between the Catholics and the Evangelicals is just the label. Instead of calling the "saved" Catholics, they are called Christians!
How can I give approval to anyone I have no control over? People believe whatever they want to believe. My only objection is how do you search for something you don't know? What is God? How can you recognize God in a form, or word, or occurrence if you can't tell me what God is in his nature or essence?
We know that children are humans because we know what constitutes the essence of humanity (human nature). Once we know what is characteristic of human nature, what makes humans human, we can apply that quality to different forms and call them human. Essence before form!
If we cannot know what makes God God, and we cannot know that, then how can you tell what is from or of God, what is divine? Well, that's easy: people make up a definition and go from there. In other words, they make a "leap of faith."
But, just as Evangelicals are going to "save" infidels by making sure they die Christians, and as Catholics preach that all who are in heaven knowingly or not knowingly "became" Catholics in this lifetime, and as Muslims will either convert or kill those who refuse, it all comes to the same thing: those in heaven will be just like you!
consilium: A conclusion made with consideration, a determination, resolution, measure, plan, purpose, intention
But the Catechism doesn't say a Muslim has to convert
Because formal conversion may or may not happen. We believe in sovereignty of God, who, in His mercy can act in non-ritualistic ways.
When something is built on a premise that it cannot err, because God either dictated it, wrote it, ordained it from freen form any error, or protects it from straying into error, expecting an admission of error in matters of faith is simply a non-starter. No religion will admit error of faith. Every religion in its own eyes is the "true" one. It's much more than pride. It's a matter of survival.
Ok, how can that apply to (our notion) of God? At what "time" did God make that "conclusion" if he, by definition, knew it from all eternity? God, by definition, exists and works outside of time. God, by necessity, simply acts in "eternal present," as "in the beginning God said "Let there be light!' And there was light."
[Kosta: But the Catechism doesn't say a Muslim has to convert]
Alex: Because formal conversion may or may not happen. We believe in sovereignty of God, who, in His mercy can act in non-ritualistic ways.
So what the catechism is really saying is that, by virtue of their Abrahamic faith, the Muslims are also "included in the plan of salvation" which really means that some of them may come to accept Christ and die "Catholic."
That's just a roundabout, politically correct way of saying "there is no salvation outside the Church," isn't it? Like I said, why can't the Catholic Church just cut through the fluff and either state openly what it is saying sub rosa, or just say "We believe that you can be saved if you are Catholic, but God is not limited to choose other options at his disposal which are not revealed to us"?
from freen form = free from
I see your point. First, I need to iterate that all these problematic cases: the ex-Catholics, the Protestants, the Muslims, the Jews, other non-Christians receive in principle the same treatment: their salvation is possible according to their works, uncertain, and extraordinary; whereas the salvation of Catholics, Orthodox, and some others who have access to the valid sacraments of the Church is sure to the extent that they avail themselves of them.
But we know something else: rejection of the truth once received is a serious sin (connected to the cardinal sin of pride). This speaks to your remark: indeed, someone who once was Catholic and fell away has endangered his salvation much more than, for example, some Muslim goat herder who never knew anything outside of his village, and has lead a moral, clean, charitable life the way his mullah taught him.
He did that timelessly, of course. For God, to plan is to act. He is the Word, isn't He?
virtue of their Abrahamic faith
Let us be clear what that virtue is. It is an incomplete revelation of God through the ancient prophets, that the Jews received most directly and the Muslims received in some form as well (they, too, read the Old Testament). That is the plan, apparently, to have these concentric circles of truth around the Word fully revealed to the Church.
That's just a roundabout, politically correct way of saying "there is no salvation outside the Church," isn't it?
I often wish they indeed stayed with the simple formula, "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" and did not tinker with it. However, the elaboration of the Catechism that is under discussion has merits for the changed world. It more clearly explains that all nations and faiths are called to virtue, and everyone will receive a reward for virtue from Christ, often to his greatest surprise.
Please accept my apologies; I didn't mean to say that you were giving tacit approval! Rather, if the Church took the ecumenical position to heart, it would grant such approval implicitly. Thereby releasing its control over its adherents.
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.