Are non-Christian religions acceptable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eddie18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger that.

ETA it doesn’t mean I agree they won’t be. I don’t think heaven is populated by only Catholics.
 
Last edited:
And really, why is it difficult to say if we believe in what we have and work with sincerity, God will provide that faith without which we cannot be saved?

That’s awesome news! That means Christ
Doesn’t turn away any who turn to him!

I think it’s because of what it means for us in our personal lives given what we have seen.

We do not trust his justice to be GOOD. And we are not inclined to worship it as such.

I think this entire topic demonstrates that.
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference between acceptance and tolerance.
Ie:Christians should be respectful of people following other religions and be kind and tolerant to other religions but at the same time not believe/accept those religions as being “ultimate truth”.

I’m not much of a follower and not really live Catholicism in practice but I never seem to quite understand the criticism towards Pope Francis by some members on CAF.
Shouldn’t people keep in mind that Pope Francis was not “elected” in the same way as like a politician,but his “election” was guided by the Holy Spirit and his leadership of the Catholic Church is not just as a “mere human” but under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

I have never heard Pope Francis say anything that was unorthodox and I personally think when someone takes issue or is confused,that they should “look inward” as often I think the issue is with their own understanding or if they are following Catholicism “to the letter of the law” as opposed to the spirit.
Then their reality gets “shaken up” and they don’t know how to deal with it.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
original sin ALONE is enough to send one to hell and punishment.
Click to expand...
How does this apply to unbaptized babies. I understand that there is an exception made there. If there is an exception made there, thenwhy is it not possible that an exception can also be made for aborigines?
 
There is no exception. People imagine one but there isn’t.I recommend starting a new thread. People won’t like this one anymore.
 
StAugustine said:
The Buddhist will not be saved because he does not have the virtue of faith, without which it is impossible to please God,
Click to expand...
According to Pope John Paul II " The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."
Also according to Pope John Paul II, Buddhism is a great world religion. How can Buddhism be a great world religion if all Buddhists will go to hell and no Buddhist can be saved?
 
Last edited:
Aquinas elucidates that as being the internal illumination of faith given to those who fulfill the natural law.
 
Nope. None. The issue is this-

What is the nature of their punishment?

From Augustine to Aquinas (800 years) it was believed they were punished in fire to a lesser extent. Then arose the opinion that they were punished only in a spiritual sense with the pain of loss, then arose the opinion that they were punished solely by not seeing God in Heaven, but they didn’t suffer. St. Thomas took this view and said not only did they NOT suffer, they had a kind of happiness, but not the happiness in heaven.

All four views consist in a fundamental fact- infants who die in original sin alone do not go to heaven, they go down into a region of hell where they are punished. The difference in opinion is in the nature of the punishment, not in the fact that they don’t go to Heaven. The Church never taught they went to heaven EVER. The fathers and Theologians together after Aquinas are unanimous (with a unanimity that is infallibly certain) that they don’t go to heaven. Any one of the four views is Catholic.

Regarding the current CCC saying the Church entrusts them to the mercy of God, that says nothing more than the Church is disposed to place their fate in Gods hands, it says nothing about their fate. Note in that section of the catechism the complete lack of any footnotes. There is absolutely no appeal to any kind of tradition for such an act, it’s a pure novelty.
 
Last edited:
“StAugustine said:
All four views consist in a fundamental fact- infants who die in original sin alone do not go to heaven, they go down into a region of hell where they are punished.
**
Click to expand...
**

That is not what Pope Benedict said. "the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to Hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable.”
Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 401.
Also, the Vatican has posted a document which says:
"The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation. "
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
 
Last edited:
Many contain truths also shared by Catholics. So, you decide. Is truth good enough?
 
Last edited:
As long as they’re not those absurd, snuffling, bandy-legged, no-neck pugs. Ick.
 
Okay, first, the decision you reference is by a committee with zero magisterial authority.

Second, the state of Natural happiness in Limbo is the position of Aquinas. Limbo is in hell. It’s a part of hell. The outer edge actually.

I’ll stick with the unanimous consent of the saints and the dogmatic definitions.

Also the Synod of Carthage in 418 in which St. Augustine Participated has this as one of its canons. This synod was promulgated by Pope St. Zosimus and sent to the eastern bishops to be signed, which means it represents the mind of the Church-

“Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, "In my Father’s house are many mansions "is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from tiffs life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: “Except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven,” what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.”
 
Not a Catholic teaching perhaps, but my reason and emotion both tell me that if innocent infants who have died without having any personal sin do not go to heaven directly (with no purgatory required), then none of us does. On this matter, I agree wholeheartedly with the late Billy Graham. Whatever happened to the spirit of the law in Christianity?
 
Last edited:
Also the official teaching is contained in the Prior Roman Catechism, up to 1991.

Necessity of Baptism

If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that the law of Baptism, as established by our Lord, extends to all, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Infant Baptism: It’s Necessity

That this law extends not only to adults but also to infants and children, and that the Church has received this from Apostolic tradition, is confirmed by the unanimous teaching and authority of the Fathers.

Besides, it is not to be supposed that Christ the Lord would have withheld the Sacrament and grace of Baptism from children, of whom He said: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such; ° whom also He embraced, upon whom He imposed hands, to whom He gave His blessing.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

Infants are not excepted from the necessity of baptism.
 
The error in your thought is that a person is born innocent. We are each born in a state of being implicated in the sin of another. The whole of humanity is born into a state of open rebellion and subjugation which objectively deserves punishment.

That’s ALL Trent, session 5 if you wish to review.

And again, it’s an acceptable opinion to believe they are happy. Just not supernaturally happy in Gods presence. But as he told St. Bridget of Sweden in a private revelation- “They are closer to my mercy than to my judgment.”
 
Last edited:
Have you been arguing with people all day? This thread has kind of been active lately.
 
Last edited:
Because the Vatican sponsored it. But it’s ultimately meaningless because the entire work tells you everything I said here, THEN says the Theologians wanted to think differently and so they want a different conclusion.

Literally. It’s worthless. Those are all the reasons to reject it. No authority has promulgated the “findings” (what have they found?) and the historical honesty of the first half basically undercuts the second half. That’s why you heard almost nothing about it like a month after it came out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top