Posted on 12/08/2009 11:41:52 AM PST by Gamecock
I just came from a funeral service for an aunt of mine who was a staunch Catholic. I came out of that religion about 25 years ago after reading for myself what the Bible had to say. My question surrounds the actuality of salvation for all the millions who still practice Mary worship and so forth. Knowing that one cannot serve two masters, I wonder at how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way, while they continue to believe that the church of Rome is solely responsible for their eternal welfare.
Answer:
Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord and only Savior. Thank you for your question.
Unless a person is clearly outside the pale of the Christian faith, I do not believe that you can judge the "actuality" or "reality" of someone's salvation. You may judge the "credibility" of their faith; or you may question the "probability" of someone's salvation. You may also ask, as you have done, "how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way."
None of us, however, can truly say that we are perfect in knowledge or practice. We are always growing both in wisdom and in the grace of God. Is it possible for someone who prays to Mary to be a true Christian? In other words, can someone who is truly saved be in error on such an issue?
Conscious compromise of God's truth can be serious and deadly, but we also see from Scripture that in his mercy God may (and does) choose to accept less than perfect understanding and obedience, even of his own people. (Indeed, isn't the salvation and the perseverance of the saints dependent upon that fact?) There will be growth in understanding and holiness, but perfection must await our going to be with Jesus or His return to take us unto himself (see 1 John 3:2).
In the Old Testament, consider Asa in 1 Kings 15. He removed the idols from the land, but he allowed the high places to remain. The high places were clearly unacceptable. But the text states that Asa was loyal to the Lord his entire life. How could this be? Had he not seriously compromised?
What about the New Testament? Consider the Corinthians. Was the church at Corinth an exemplary church? Did they not have many doctrinal problems, e.g., concerning the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the resurrection? (See 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 15.) Did even the apostles fully understand? Even though what they wrote was protected from error, did they not grow and mature in their own understanding and obedience? Wasn't it necessary at one point, for instance, for Paul to rebuke Peter for his inconsistency? (See Gal. 2.)
My point is not to defend the doctrinal aberrations of Rome. I do not believe such is possible. I think, however, that people generally follow their leaders. They learn from them; they consider their arguments rational and coherent.
For example, consider devotion to Mary. I read Jarislov Pellikan's Mary Through the Centuries and I cannot get past page 10 before I am wondering why the author is so blind to the fallacies of his arguments. However, if I were not being so critical and I were already predisposed to the position, then his arguments would perhaps seem irrefutable. So then, we should boldly, patiently, and compassionately discuss these matters with our loved ones, praying that the Holy Spirit will grant them more understanding.
Whatever we may judge in terms of the "actuality" or "probability" or "possibility" of a person's salvation at the end of life is, in the end, academic, for God is the one who can look at the heart and only he can truly judge. (He is the One, in fact, who has chosen his elect.) "It is appointed to man once to die, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27), but "Today is the day of salvation" (Heb. 3:13). We should work, therefore, the works of him who sent us while it is light and point our neighbors and loved ones to Christ.
For myself, I too was a Roman Catholic. In the past six months, I have attended the funeral of two uncles and one aunt whom I loved very much. I had opportunity at each funeral to speak a word of testimony regarding the Savior. I stood in the pulpit of the church in which I had served mass as a young boy and in my eulogies spoke of my faith in Christ.
Was it as detailed as I wish it could have been? No, but I am thankful for the opportunity God gave. Do I believe that my family members went to heaven? For one I have hope; for the others, I have little hope. Upon what is my hope based? It is always and only grounded in Christ and the Gospel.
We may define Christianity broadly by including as Christians all who confess the Apostles' Creed. We may define Christianity narrowly by including as Christians only those who confess our particular denominational creed. We need to exercise care, because, if we are too narrow, we may find ourselves excluding someone like Augustine. On the other hand, if we are too broad, we may find ourselves including many who should be excluded.
Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.
I recommend that you read the book Come out from among Them by John Calvin. I found it very helpful and it addresses somewhat the question that you have raised.
I hope that my answer helps. You are free to write for clarification. May our Lord bless you.
It seems at a shallow glance that the bloodline can be asserted because the decisions are made by the head of the church.
OR by "ecumenical" councils, for which we would say the conference in Acts is the precedent. This conference resulted in an encyclical which begins remarkably with "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..."
one can imagine a leader who would stray from God’s path, and imagine adherants to the faith who see the true way rebelling against the leadership,
And so what comes under examination is the existence and nature of God's promise to the Church. And it may be helpful to mention (again) that Catholics have no problem with the idea of Popes in hell. It's not so much themselves as their rare doctrinal definitions which are protected from error.
Flippantly, I keep thinking of Rush saying, "It ain't bragging if you can do it." I think that's wrong. Facts are not the only thing which make a statement a "boast." If the Church thought it was her own merits which sustained her, that would be self-serving.
My point (and I do have one) is that, from our POV we think (a) that essential characteristics of "THE" Church are unity, universality, holiness, and apostolicity, and therefore (b) The Church which calls itself "Catholic" is the one bona fide (and sola fide?) ;-) development of the original company of apostles and disciples. We might as well call ourselves the Holy Church, the One Church, the Apostolic Church, but, of course, the issue at question was jurisdiction, so "universal" won out.
And that leads to one more observation. ALL the doctrines articulated in conciliar and papal definitions were controversial.
In this connection the teaching function of the papacy has a function which blurs our modern distinction between judging and leading. (And could be construed as more Biblical in that respect, see Judges and Ps 72?) That is, when disputes arise, whether about circumcision in the first century, or in later ages how to talk about the Eucharist, councils are called or the Pope is consulted to resolve the issue.
This adumbrates the issue of doctrinal "development." It's not that a bunch of guys in Rome have too much time on their hands. It's that Nestorius says Mary cannot be called "God bearer," because the divine nature of Jesus could not be born, and then a bunch of other people say, "Yes, she can too," (because Jesus is not two things but one) and the controversy results in the emperor saying, "You all get together and settle this," and another step is taken in Christology.
If I understand Scholastic realism correctly it leaves reason unaffected by the fall. Aquinas taught that reason was something added to Adam even before the fall. In this sense then reason as an abstract power is something alongside God himself. It almost makes God a quadrinity(?).
If this analysis is correct, if man is affected by the Fall only in his will and emotions, it affects theology differently than if it affected his reason, will, and emotions.
So if grace interacts with just will and emotion versus reason, will, and emotions our understanding of how grace works will differ between these two anthropologies.
So in the Romanist schema can we say that Mary’s reason was exemplar and an example of the highest form of reason?
ping for later response: I’m nowhere near my resources at the moment and this appears to require a documented response from classical and Scholastic sources.
Why would yours be correct and not theirs? Good question. This is pretty much where it comes down to how you take what the Bible says about the Church, and clearly there's some disagreement there. (News, huh?)
We think the Church is protected, so that even if Theodosius and the bishops in question have dubious motives, the result of their deliberations will be reliable.
Incidentally, the Anglicans (not the homosexual ones, they don't care at all about authority) say that truly ecumenical councils are authoritative but there are none, they say, after 1054. I mention this because of the adoption of many Sola Scriptura folks of Trinitarian doctrine. To US that seems like picking and choosing among councils. I gotta knock off for a while. See ya.
What a crock of crap! Sounds like there are more than a few “religious” people who seem to have the same mindset as muslim sects like the Sunnis and Shiites. Before all protestant denominations were even thought of there was the CHRISTIAN Catholic church.
You just stomped across the limits of my meagre knowledge. I don’t even feel comfortable winging it. I hope some feelthy papist smarter ‘n me is watching this. I’d love to see how the discussion goes.
If the hotshot Thomists are at Mass this PM, I’ll ask them too.
Ahem. As a former sheep farmer, I resemble your remark about stables. If they are well maintained and bedded with good straw even the poop and the pee helpt the bedding compost and warmth comes up from under the clean straw on top.
So poo on you! Nyah! ;-)
I look forward to hearing how the “feelthy papists” respond.
Its impossible that simply quoting an approved source like a Papal Encyclical, the Catechism of Trent, the Summa, St. Alphonsus de Liquori, or an Ecumenical Council "contradicts" the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I'll say again, if you want to know Catholic teaching on a given topic, consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You seem to really be speaking of YOPIOC here - Your Own Personal Interpretation of the Catechism, since you are the one claiming it contradicts the Magisterium and Doctors of the Church.
I think I'll pass on your "invitation" to indulge in contradicting the Magisterium by twisting the Catechism.
Which spiraled into the ROMAN Catholic church, not even close to what the Christian faith is.
Interesting that you claim to be above the religious wars and then launch a diatribe yourself.
Ah, but I didn't say quoting, I said using.
You seem to really be speaking of YOPIOC here - Your Own Personal Interpretation of the Catechism, since you are the one claiming it contradicts the Magisterium and Doctors of the Church.
No, I'm not.
I think I'll pass on your "invitation" to indulge in contradicting the Magisterium by twisting the Catechism.
I made no such invitation.
This is getting towards Clintonian definitions of "is".
I "used" them by "quoting" them in large excerpts.
since you are the one claiming it contradicts No, I'm not.
Contradicts was your word. See #720: "you are using them to contradict the Catechism".
You are claiming that "using" say, the Summa, by simply providing a large excerpt, "contradicts" the Catechism.
OK. IN reading your post, a rather strained hypothetical popped into my head.
Suppose, and it’s a stretch, that the Pope convened a council, and after much deliberation, determined that the current “Church X” sect of Christianity was, in fact, the one most closely following what God intended. And so, they ruled so as to align Catholic teaching and doctrine with “Church X”.
In my mind, that would suggest that “Church X” was in fact the “true church”, and had claim to the bloodline, rather than the Catholic Church, who again by external observation would appear to have strayed off the tracks (which lead to the foundation of “CHurch X”) and has only now come back onto the tracks by rejoining the beliefs of Church X.
But by the previous arguments made by others, I would expect the Catholic Church to still claim the bloodline, and maybe even to insist that during the time the Catholic teaching was not in accord with “Church X”, that in fact “Church X” was wrong in it’s teaching, and therefore had no claim to the bloodline.
Now, it is easy to answer this hypothetical by a claim that the Church, being infallible in it’s keeping of the keys of the faith, could not possibly have gotten into such a mess as to require the affirmation of “Church X”.
But if you can postulate the possibility of such a schism, does it not suggest, as I assert, that from an outside observer’s point of view, the claim of the bloodline seems self-fulfilling, and by the definition set forth by Catholics here, has no outcome but to affirm by assertion that the Catholic Church is and always has been the “one true church”?
Because it seems that only by asserting that it is impossible for the Catholic church to ever stray from that path such that it no longer has the “keys” to the church, claimants are simply saying “the Catholic church is the true church because that is the definition of the true church”.
I argue this way because, only if both sides admit the possibility of an error in church doctrine to be sufficient to indicate a break in the bloodline, is there ANY reason to consider what might be the real errors which disprove the claim to be the “one true church”.
Or to put it another way since I’m not sure that was understandable, it is only valuable to start arguing over whether specific acts of the Catholic Church show it has lost claim to the “one true church”, if both sides agree that showing such specific acts to be in error would actually make a difference in the claim to be the “one true church”.
I suspect from what I’ve read, but it is only my opinion, that the claim for the Church is that no error exists, but also that no such error would make a difference in the claim to the bloodline.
IN my argument, I use “bloodline” because it’s one word but can be understood to express the idea of the “one true church tracing it’s lineage back to Peter”. I apologize if any other meaning of “bloodline” causes offense.
My protest of your misrepresentation of my words is Clintonian?
You give Clinton far too much credit.
You are claiming that "using" say, the Summa, by simply providing a large excerpt, "contradicts" the Catechism.
I am not claiming that because "simply providing a large excerpt" is not what you did.
You're not very precise, are you? I did not say the Summa contradicts the Catechism, I said "you are using them to contradict the Catechism."
Yes you are right. I provided TWO large excerpts without comment which caused you to get upset. See my #364 and your #368.
My "use" was quoting two large excerpts without comment.
So you are claiming that simply "using" the Summa via quotation in context is a method that can "contradict the Catechism". In other words, the very words of the Summa, according to you, read or spoken without comment, would automatically contradict the Catechism.
And upon what do you base this wild opinion?
You are a breath of fresh air. Although we disagree on the essence of Christianity at least you are honest about your beliefs.
Not the typical duplicity we see from most Romanists here.
No, the Gospels state quite plainly that men will be judged "according to their works". St. Matthew 25.31-46, St. John 5.29, etc.
If you are given the grace to understand that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ as the instrument of man's salvation, and that unity with her is directly willed by God
You seem to be strongly implying that God does not give the grace of understanding to all men, such that should they pursue it, they would be enlightened by God with the truths of the faith necessary for salvation. This seems very contradictory to 1 Timothy 2.4. Don't you believe that all men are given grace that should they respond, they would gain the necessary understanding and faith?
If you aren't given that grace, or if factors beyond your control make it impossible for you to respond to it, your subjective culpability is lessened.
Why wouldn't you be given such a grace? You are claiming God withholds the grace of understanding from some. That's quite a position out there on a very long limb.
What factors could possibly play into the idea that it is imposisble for you to respond in act to the revelation of Jesus Christ (other than perhaps infancy and imbecility)?
The Catholic Church dogmatically, infallibly says that canonized saints are in heaven. It has never dogmatically, or even authoritatively taught than any human being is in hell. Not Luther, not Calvin, not Thomas Jefferson, not Ted Bundy ... there is, I admit, some debate about Judas Iscariot.
Judas is not merely mentioned as damned in Scripture, but also in the Liturgy of Holy Thursday and Good Friday in the collect of the Tridentine Roman Rite. Mohammad is spoken of in the Roman Martyrology as being damned. Scripture of course has the story of Core and his followers being damned visibly in front of the people in Numbers 16.
Since we don't know that they're in hell, they could be in purgatory on their way to heaven, or already there. So it's absolutely the case that some Protestants could be saved, or many, or all.
Its quite impossible that "many, or all" Protestants are saved. At least not without contradicting Scripture and the Magisterium. But it is this laxidasical attitude among Catholics and the wild assumptions about the salvific powers of heresy, unbelief, and pagan idolatry, that allows them to sit back and assume that everyone is on the right road no matter what religion they are in, and to ignore the need to go out and evangelize non-Catholics by example and word.
It is Catholics like this who are represented by the worthless servant who took his talent (the grace of faith) and buried it in the ground (hid it from the view of other men and refused to share it with them) (St. Matthew 25.14-30).
What?
LOL Who do you think you're kidding?
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.