M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I believe so. But we Christians and Jews love to put G-d in a box, don’t we? He is not, however, bound by the rules He gave to us and His mercy is indeed infinite.
- Status
A
Arwing
Guest
It is a type of evangelism - one which Pope Francis is clearly not a fan of. I agree with what he says that attempting to persuade someone directly will often be ineffective and perhaps even detrimental in some cases, but he’s certainly not saying Catholics aren’t obliged to lead others to Christ and His Church.
Last edited:
E
Eddie18
Guest
This is why I mentioned it’s rare. A quote from Pope Pius IX:
Singulari Quadam, December 9, 1854: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.”
This confirms non-Catholics are assumed not to be saved, however invincible ignorance would relieve them from guilt in the particular matter. However, even though not guilty for being in the wrong religion, the person’s soul would still need to be in the state of grace to be saved, and the only way this can be done for those outside the church is through perfect contrition.
Though the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that perfect contrition is difficult and few can hope to obtain pardon of their sins this way, making it more of a rare situation:
“Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Singulari Quadam, December 9, 1854: “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood; but, on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God.”
This confirms non-Catholics are assumed not to be saved, however invincible ignorance would relieve them from guilt in the particular matter. However, even though not guilty for being in the wrong religion, the person’s soul would still need to be in the state of grace to be saved, and the only way this can be done for those outside the church is through perfect contrition.
Though the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that perfect contrition is difficult and few can hope to obtain pardon of their sins this way, making it more of a rare situation:
“Contrition, it is true, blots out sin; but who does not know that to effect this it must be so intense, so ardent, so vehement, as to bear a proportion to the magnitude of the crimes which it effaces? This is a degree of contrition which few reach; and hence, in this way, very few indeed could hope to obtain the pardon of their sins. It, therefore, became necessary that the most merciful Lord should provide by some easier means for the common salvation of men; and this He has done in His admirable wisdom, by giving to His Church the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
When it comes down to it, who He sends to Heaven or Hell is totally up to Him. He might save ALL non-Christians. He might save NONE. We have no way of knowing, because we are limited by faith and reason, whereas God is beyond faith and reason.
The charitable thing to do is to treat all people, Christian or non-Christian, as children of God who might well be going to Heaven, just to be on the safe side.
G
goout
Guest
Pointing out that we don’t save ourselves. We are saved in the context of the community, and that community is The Catholic Church.
If we presume to save ourselves by perfect contrition, we are fighting uphill. Likewise if we presume to save ourselves by being baptized and attending Mass, we are fighting an uphill battle.
Point is, we don’t save ourselves by works. We are saved by Christ, and our full cooperation with his grace.
I’m not sure how this equates to your assertion that salvation for those outside the visible confines of the Church is “rare”. You don’t know that.
What is “rarity” in the kingdom of God?
If we presume to save ourselves by perfect contrition, we are fighting uphill. Likewise if we presume to save ourselves by being baptized and attending Mass, we are fighting an uphill battle.
Point is, we don’t save ourselves by works. We are saved by Christ, and our full cooperation with his grace.
I’m not sure how this equates to your assertion that salvation for those outside the visible confines of the Church is “rare”. You don’t know that.
What is “rarity” in the kingdom of God?
Last edited:
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
Exactly. It could be 100% saved. It could be 0% saved. Or anywhere in between. Only God knows. I think Eddie is trying to figure out the mind of God, which is futile, because we humans have only faith and reason, and God is beyond faith and reason.
E
Eddie18
Guest
We know who is saved and not saved objectively speaking because the Catholic Church gives us guidelines through Revelation. We can’t just ignore Revelation.
I just came across a fantastic explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia of the absurdities of religious indifferentism:
Catholic Encyclopedia - Religious Indifferentism
“All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error. The constituent elements of a religion are beliefs to be held by the intellect, precepts to be observed, and a form of worship to be practiced. Now – to confine ourselves to the great religions of the world – Judaism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, and the religions of India and the Orient are in direct antagonism by their respective creeds, moral codes, and cults. To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth and falsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth. If we deny this we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason. Turn to the ethical side of the question. Here again there is conflict over almost all the great moral issues. Let an illustration or two suffice. Mohammedanism approves polygamy, Christianity uncompromisingly condemns it as immoral. If these two teachers are equally trustworthy guides of life, then there is no such thing as fixed moral values at all. If the obscene orgies of phallic worship are as pure in the sight of God as the austere worship that was conducted in the temple of Jerusalem, then we must hold the Deity to be destitute of all moral attributes, in which case there would be no grounds for religion at all. The fact is that this type of Indifferentism, though verbally acknowledging the excellence and utility of religion, nevertheless, when pressed by logic, recoils into absolute Indifferentism. “All religions are equally good” comes to mean, at
bottom, that religion is good for nothing.”
I just came across a fantastic explanation in the Catholic Encyclopedia of the absurdities of religious indifferentism:
Catholic Encyclopedia - Religious Indifferentism
“All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error. The constituent elements of a religion are beliefs to be held by the intellect, precepts to be observed, and a form of worship to be practiced. Now – to confine ourselves to the great religions of the world – Judaism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, and the religions of India and the Orient are in direct antagonism by their respective creeds, moral codes, and cults. To say that all these irreconcilable beliefs and cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature. Again, to hold that truth and falsehood equally satisfy and perfect the human intellect is to deny that reason has a native bent towards, and affinity for, truth. If we deny this we deny that any trust is to be placed in our reason. Turn to the ethical side of the question. Here again there is conflict over almost all the great moral issues. Let an illustration or two suffice. Mohammedanism approves polygamy, Christianity uncompromisingly condemns it as immoral. If these two teachers are equally trustworthy guides of life, then there is no such thing as fixed moral values at all. If the obscene orgies of phallic worship are as pure in the sight of God as the austere worship that was conducted in the temple of Jerusalem, then we must hold the Deity to be destitute of all moral attributes, in which case there would be no grounds for religion at all. The fact is that this type of Indifferentism, though verbally acknowledging the excellence and utility of religion, nevertheless, when pressed by logic, recoils into absolute Indifferentism. “All religions are equally good” comes to mean, at
bottom, that religion is good for nothing.”
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Yep, he’s a typical Jesuit alright. This is one of the many reasons why I’m becoming Orthodox. Not all Roman Catholics are on board with Francis though, the much more conservative clergy (and lay) are opposed to him. But his influence is still there and it’s extremely frustrating. He is incompetent. Maybe if they get a more conservative Pope next time things will be better.
I would not say this. Roman Catholics do not hold Tradition over Scripture, they view Tradition and Scripture as equal and the Orthodox Church does as well. This is because Scripture and Tradition are essentially the same thing, Scripture is just written Tradition. Both are unchangeable and there is no true distinction between them. Both are inspired. Before there was Scripture, all of it was oral Tradition. Sola Scriptura is a western Protestant heresy that is heterodox.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
He’s incompetent?
What makes him incompetent? I didn’t care for Benedict but I never thought he was incompetent.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
He won’t even clarify his own statements, which are extremely confusing for the faithful at times.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
At the next Consistory, Pope Francis will have stacked the College of Cardinals so that someone like Cardinal Reinhard Marx will be elected over someone like Cardinal Robert Sara. Or maybe they’ll break tradition and vote for a non-Cardinal. The top contender in that case would be someone like Arturo Marcelino Sosa Abascal, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus.
P
Pup7
Guest
That hardly makes him incompetent.
P
Pup7
Guest
I like Sarah, even though I’m a fan of Francis all day long, but he might be too old by the next election anyway.thephilosopher6:
At the next Consistory, Pope Francis will have stacked the College of Cardinals so that someone like Cardinal Reinhard Marx will be elected over someone like Cardinal Robert Sara. Or maybe they’ll break tradition and vote for a non-Cardinal. The top contender in that case would be someone like Arturo Marcelino Sosa Abascal, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus.
S
SnowRose
Guest
I kinda like Cardinal Tagle, he’s young enough, pastoral enough, and not embroiled in … creative worship interpretation like the German contenders.
(Now, I personally agree w what the German etc Catholic church is up to. But it may be WAY to divisive. For now)
(Now, I personally agree w what the German etc Catholic church is up to. But it may be WAY to divisive. For now)
G
goout
Guest
Do you think the crucifixion cause some confusion for the nascent Christian community?
Must have, no one attended that gathering, other than his mother and John.
Confusion is an invitation.
Must have, no one attended that gathering, other than his mother and John.
Confusion is an invitation.
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
I guess it depends on how they use the grace God gives them
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
You never know…
A
anon10271182
Guest
Cardinal Sarah would be a great pope. If only he were ten years younger.
If only Cardinal Arinze were twenty years younger…
If only Cardinal Arinze were twenty years younger…
Last edited:
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
- Status