Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really do think it a sad development when Catholics can know the past, and see the present, and instead of showing how they don’t contradict, and actually carefully reading and showing the understanding, not just from a single document, but multiple and Theologians and the lives of the saints…actually thumb their nose at the constant understanding and go along with this “one liner” mentality. What good is it to claim obedience to one document today and to ignore the teachings of the churches Theologians, the lives of her saints and the documents of yesterday.

Your brand of Catholicism is ultimately schizophrenic. You don’t see a seamless integrated whole of every era, you see one thing- today.
 
You want to know what happened to catechesis? Read from post 427 onward. It’s a perfect example.

Recycling the documents of Vatican II WITHOUT an explanation as to how they are to be integrated into tradition leading to rupture.
 
Last edited:
I guess the key here is whether what was underlined is future contingent on acceptance of the Gospel or not contingent upon that. If it is, then the salvation of those who are invincibly ignorant is dependent on their eventual acceptance of Jesus, the Trinity, and the Church. If this does not happen, they cannot be saved. I wonder whether this would include Protestants as well as non-Christians.

So my question to you is how does the Pope, the CCC, and the Magisterium of the Church interpret this statement from Lumen Gentium? Is there an official meaning that has been clarified for all to understand?
 
Last edited:
Look at how God acted in the lives of the saints. Of course those living in invincible ignorance CAN be saved. We see evidence of this throughout church history where people were miraculously bilocated to teach ignorant Indians the faith, as happened with Venerable Mary of Agreda.

Actually, there is a perfect work to describe this- By the Theologian Francisco de Vitoria on the discovery of the Native Americans and their relation to invincible ignorance. I didn’t invent this.

“And it is certain that
the Jews who were away from Judaea, whether they were in sin or not, had
invincible ignorance about baptism and about the faith of Christ. Just as
there could at that time be a case of invincible ignorance on this matter,
so there may also be nowadays among those who have not had baptism declared
to them. But the mistake which the doctors in question make is in thinking
that when we postulate invincible ignorance on the subject of baptism or of
the Christian faith it follows at once that a person can be saved without
baptism or the Christian faith, which, however, does not follow. For the
aborigines to whom no preaching of the faith or Christian religion has come
will be damned for mortal sins or for idolatry, but not for the sin of
unbelief, as St. Thomas (Secunda Secundae, as above) says, namely, that if
they do what in them lies, accompanied by a good life according to the law
of nature, it is consistent with God’s providence and He will illuminate
them regarding the name of Christ, but it does not therefore follow that if
their life be bad, ignorance or unbelief in baptism and the Christian faith
may be imputed to them as a sin.”

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Indis_De_Jure_Belli/Part_2

The point he is making is that if they die without faith they will be damned for mortal sins, but not for the sin of unbelief, because their ignorance is invincible, therefore it excuses the sinfulness of their unbelief, but does NOT justify them since they have these other mortal sins for which they will be damned, given they DIE in this ignorance.

Go to the link and do a word search for invincible ignorance and read what comes up. The debate was whether all unbelief has the nature of sin. It does not. Yet the ignorant are not saved by the non-sinfulness of their unbelief.
 
Last edited:
I understand what you’re saying. However, if they do NOT have belief (for which they are not being condemned), do they KNOW they have committed mortal sins by natural law alone? If they do NOT know they have committed such sins, then have their sins met all the criteria of being MORTAL sins?
 
Last edited:
Yes, by virtue of our conscience we are capable of commiting and WILL commit mortal sin. But it’s actually a moot point because remember it is De Fide that original sin ALONE is enough to send one to hell and punishment. And they all exist in the condition of original sin, and as they obtain the age of reason they commit mortal sin eventually.

From the Ecumenical Council of Florence-

“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

What remission of original sin will you find amongst the worship of the Sun God of the Aztecs?
 
This should help as well, from Session 6 of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, on the beginning of Justification.

This is the starting point for EVERYONE as taught by the magisterium of the Church-

CHAPTER I.

On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to justify man.

The holy Synod declares first, that, for the correct and sound understanding of the doctrine of Justification, it is necessary that each one recognise and confess, that, whereas all men had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam-having become unclean, and, as the apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as (this Synod) has set forth in the decree on original sin,-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
 
So you are saying that if one is brought up in a non-Christian religion, does NOT accept Jesus as Divinity or the Church as His “mediator” (give me a better word), but DOES repent of what are considered mortal sins by the Church, one will nonetheless go to hell, no questions asked, no leniency by Jesus whatsoever, because one does not have faith in the Catholic religion (to atone for the mortal sins) and also because one has not escaped original sin (which one may not even know about or believe in)?

How about Protestants, who believe in Jesus and the Trinity but not the Church? Do they also go to hell because they do not have the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confess their mortal sins?
 
Yeah somehow I don’t think Heaven is only populated by us Catholics. I know plenty of non-Catholics who are actually better people than some Catholics I know.

I seriously doubt my mother is going to Hell.
 
No, you’re misunderstanding.

A child is conceived and born in North America.

He is conceived in original sin and is already subject to death and the devil and under the wrath of God, as taught by Trent.

He grows and reaches the age of reason. Now, if he is aware of his sinfulness and tries to be good, tries to repent and live his life honestly, Christ will bring about his conversion and bring him to faith.

If he continues to deaden his conscience and pursue his idolatry and spit in the face of God, God will punish him by allowing not only to LIVE in ignorance, but to DIE in ignorance with all the weight of his mortal sins on him.

Anyone who is repenting is on a path toward Christ, and we must believe in his faithfulness to those who seek him, As DESCRIBED in Lumen Gentium.

But for those who DIE in the condition of ignorance, this is judgment upon a life of sin. But they CAN be saved if they follow the natural law while they live, For God is faithful and is not mocked.
 
Last edited:
You think there are some people in heaven who deny the truth of the Catholic faith?

Ergo…
 
No, I think there are plenty in Heaven who never knew of the truth of the Catholic faith.

I’m the first to admit I can’t debate theology with you, so I won’t try. But just like I never bought the five solas even as a Protestant (and before I even knew what the heck the five solas actually were), and like I never bought that asking for forgiveness is enough, and that I never understood how anyone could just go straight to heaven (yeah, I believed in purgatory in a way, even as a Protestant), I can’t buy that only Catholics (and dogs! there has to be dogs!) go to heaven.
 
Last edited:
They knew SOME or they would never have had any faith, and NOW they bask in the fullness of truth, ergo NOW everyone in heaven is Catholic. Or you think there is a schism in the communion of saints?
 
I could understand that. I’m not sure if I completely do, and I think that’s okay, but I don’t think Jews are converted at death, for example. I just don’t.

I don’t think there’s any schism in heaven. I don’t think that’s how it works there.
 
Last edited:
How do you (and Christians generally) balance this portrait of humanity as “servants of sin” who are “under the power of the devil and of death” with the Catholic Christian (and Jewish) notion that man was created in the image and likeness of G-d Himself?

BTW, the Law in Judaism was never meant as a means of heavenly salvation. It was and still is meant as a means of earthly salvation in leading a meaningful life of charitable behavior and compassion in our physical life, as well as being a means of sanctification through obedience to God.
 
Last edited:
Actually, there is a story of a man who was a Jew and converted and became a priest. His mother died as a Jew, apparently. And obstinately. YET, she was saved, because in the final moments of her death, Christ showed her the truth and she took it. She told this to a complete stranger to her who told the priest that. And so we see that God granted faith to a person who seemed hopeless, but it was by FAITH that she was saved. Not ignorance.
 
In this sense, that the image and likeness of God in man are reason and our capacity for spiritual growth.

When Adam sin he created a terminal disorder in human nature itself whereby our spiritual life is destined for hell. We have no good that is intrinsically pleasing to God, our potential for recovery cannot exist in ourselves.

BUT the potential was not eradicated, only Deformed. So by relying on someone outside of us who is both God and man, He restores to human nature the potential for becoming like God and gives us power to trample on Satan.

This is the very great mercy of God, and it is not at all austere, but beautiful and profound. The austerity of our condition apart from God needs to be emphasized because we are rather impressed with ourselves.

No, our default operating mode and destination is Hell. But Emmanuel has bridges an impossible chasm for us in his own flesh, the flesh God made his own, restoring to us our ability to LIVE again!
 
Last edited:
And if she was a devout Jew who led a charitable life but did not convert to Catholicism, Jesus would still have damned her for all eternity due to her lack of Christian faith, without the least compassion for her moral behavior as a devout Jew on Earth? Is that what you are saying the Church teaches? I hope not. If so, it would mean that a simple mortal human being such as I have more compassion than Jesus, which is highly unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top