Being a part of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter ErricFiggy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ErricFiggy

Guest
A friend and i were talking about the one true Church and it’s relationship with all the other religions in the world. I told him that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth, but acknowledges that other religions hold some truth, but. He asked me if a person who was raised Budhist all his life and then eventually passed away would go to Hell for not accepting Christ. I told him that person would not go to Hell(assuming that they lived loving and upright lives) because they never had a chance to accept Him, through no fault of their own. He then asked told me that he wonders why we don’t just let everyone be; in other words, why not let the devout Budhist man be Budhist, and why not let the devout Hindu man be Hindu. Why try and convert them? I didn’t really know how to respond, so I simply told Him that it’s our responsibility as Catholics to tell the whole world about Jesus; if that devout Budhist man did end up going to Heaven, he’d be looking at Jesus and thinking “who’s this guy?”

I struggled a bit in this discussion. What could I have done better? What would you have said?
 
I would say:

The buddhist is saved by his obedience to natural law and his “implicit” desire to come and know Jesus Christ (had he known about him).

God’s Catholic Church is the ‘best chance’ at getting to heaven because she is the primary instrument God uses for salvation (aka Sacraments).

Leaving the buddhist would be denying him fullness of truth (more truth) and allowing him to continue erroring in significant matters (such as Heaven or Reincarnation).

This is probably not theologically correct, but what I would have said.

Kindly,

James
 
ErricFiggy said:
A friend and i were talking about the one true Church and it’s relationship with all the other religions in the world. I told him that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth, but acknowledges that other religions hold some truth, but. He asked me if a person who was raised Budhist all his life and then eventually passed away would go to Hell for not accepting Christ. I told him that person would not go to Hell(assuming that they lived loving and upright lives) because they never had a chance to accept Him, through no fault of their own. He then asked told me that he wonders why we don’t just let everyone be; in other words, why not let the devout Budhist man be Budhist, and why not let the devout Hindu man be Hindu. Why try and convert them? I didn’t really know how to respond, so I simply told Him that it’s our responsibility as Catholics to tell the whole world about Jesus; if that devout Budhist man did end up going to Heaven, he’d be looking at Jesus and thinking “who’s this guy?”

I struggled a bit in this discussion. What could I have done better? What would you have said?
Click to expand...
People are missing the point when we say that they are saved for living as good a life as they can, with not knowing Christ. We don’t know that for sure. We trust them to Christ’s mercy but who knows? It’s “almost” impossible to go through this life without hearing of Jesus Christ so invincible ignorance doesn’t apply much in this world anymore.
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
People are missing the point when we say that they are saved for living as good a life as they can, with not knowing Christ. We don’t know that for sure. We trust them to Christ’s mercy but who knows? It’s “almost” impossible to go through this life without hearing of Jesus Christ so invincible ignorance doesn’t apply much in this world anymore.
Click to expand...
Agreed! No one can know the extent of God’s mercy, but no one should ever bank on that as their ‘ticket to Heaven’. I think this teaching was geared more towards Pacific islanders during the Age of Exploration who lived on their island and had no knowledge of Christ, as no missionary had ever been out there to teach them. In this digital age where everything is global, you are right, it is pretty much near impossible to not have heard of Jesus.
 
Ditto those who said we don’t know for sure. :o Safe play is to bring them to the Eucharist.

I’d also like to add a couple other things. The more that receive the Eucharist, there is greater witness to the truth of the faith as well. The more human beings that are licitly receiving the Eucharist, the more power is involved. I don’t just receive the Eucharist for myself. The body of Christ is intimately united. When we pray at the Liturgy, we pray for those even not present, throughout the “whole world,” in union with that sacrifice taking place at the mass. We want as many persons receiving the Eucharist because that magnifies, if you will, the power of grace throughout the world, and helps mystically draw other souls to the body of Christ.

See articles: How the Eucharist Benefits the World or Vatican Aide: The Whole World Benefits from the Eucharist.
 
PLEASE NOTE: The doctrine of invincible ignorance does NOT say that a person who leads a “good” life (whatever that is) but never knows Jesus will automatically go to heaven.

The ordinary means of salvation is Christian Baptism. Invincible ignorance is an extraordinary (not ordinary) means. The Church has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how it works - we have NO IDEA what sort of criteria God uses (he hasn’t told us). Maybe the person must lead an astonishing life of heroic virtue (instead of simply a “good” life) and die in a heroic manner (saving other people). Maybe only a half-dozen non-Christians have EVER met this criteria. Maybe nobody ever has. We don’t know if one single non-Baptized person has ever seen heaven.

We KNOW how Baptism (and Confession) works - it is a 100% guarantee. We have NO IDEA how invincible ignorance works - it might be a 0.00000000001% guarantee - nobody knows.

An absolute guarantee is far better than a shot in the dark. So let’s tell them about Jesus.
 
DavidFilmer said:
PLEASE NOTE: The doctrine of invincible ignorance does NOT say that a person who leads a “good” life (whatever that is) but never knows Jesus will automatically go to heaven.

The ordinary means of salvation is Christian Baptism. Invincible ignorance is an extraordinary (not ordinary) means. The Church has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA how it works - we have NO IDEA what sort of criteria God uses (he hasn’t told us). Maybe the person must lead an astonishing life of heroic virtue (instead of simply a “good” life) and die in a heroic manner (saving other people). Maybe only a half-dozen non-Christians have EVER met this criteria. Maybe nobody ever has. We don’t know if one single non-Baptized person has ever seen heaven.

We KNOW how Baptism (and Confession) works - it is a 100% guarantee. We have NO IDEA how invincible ignorance works - it might be a 0.00000000001% guarantee - nobody knows.

An absolute guarantee is far better than a shot in the dark. So let’s tell them about Jesus.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
 
thistle said:
I agree with you.
Click to expand...
So do I. The operative word in the Magisterial texts is “may” and not “will”. The big error with respect to EENS today is that some Catholics would offer non-Catholics moral assurance and/or moral certitude of salvation and that is something that the Church has never taught, either past or present.
 
ErricFiggy said:
A friend and i were talking about the one true Church and it’s relationship with all the other religions in the world. I told him that the Catholic Church holds the fullness of the truth, but acknowledges that other religions hold some truth, but. He asked me if a person who was raised Budhist all his life and then eventually passed away would go to Hell for not accepting Christ. I told him that person would not go to Hell(assuming that they lived loving and upright lives) because they never had a chance to accept Him, through no fault of their own. He then asked told me that he wonders why we don’t just let everyone be; in other words, why not let the devout Budhist man be Budhist, and why not let the devout Hindu man be Hindu. Why try and convert them? I didn’t really know how to respond, so I simply told Him that it’s our responsibility as Catholics to tell the whole world about Jesus; if that devout Budhist man did end up going to Heaven, he’d be looking at Jesus and thinking “who’s this guy?”

I struggled a bit in this discussion. What could I have done better? What would you have said?
Click to expand...
I think your friend has put it nicely. The crisis you had is the logic that Implicit Baptism of Desire advocates fail to use. I don’t think there is any Baptism of Desire, but regarless the IMPLICIT Baptism of Desire popularized in the past 100 years really has very little support from Sacred Tradition or Magisterial Definitions.

No one since Pentecost can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. Obviously, therefore, this means that children and infants also cannot get to Heaven without Baptism:
"Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " Jn 3:5
because they are conceived in a state of original sin, which cannot be removed without the Sacrament of Baptism.How much more unlikely is it for adults to be saved without knowledge of Christ?

They were not shown because they did not seek the truth , as Jesus says: " Every one that is of the truth hears my voice." Jn 18:37
"For everyone who asks, receives. Whoever seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door is opened. " Mt 7:8

**Explicit **Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is necessary for those of the age of discernment. Implicit Faith is not sufficient without the Sacrament of Baptism.
 
chypmonk said:
this means that children and infants also cannot get to Heaven without Baptism:
Click to expand...
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church:
*CCC#1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.*The ECFs varied on their views, including the theory of limbo. See quotes in THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
 
MarcoPolo said:
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church:
CCC#1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.The ECFs varied on their views, including the theory of limbo. See quotes in THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED
Click to expand...
If you look up “Limbo” in the CCC in the index it refers you to your quote #1261 thus the mercy of God could be understood as Limbo.

I think it is a teaching of the Church and the Vatican document that you linked to, says that I am allowed to hold this opinion… Which btw is as authoritative as the committee suggesting contraception is OK to Paul VI. I found the whole document weak, but it does say my position is still valid:
#40. In summary: the affirmation that infants who die without Baptism suffer the privation of the beatific vision has long been the common doctrine of the Church"

“#41. Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion)…”
 
MarcoPolo said:
Very good - I would just caution you not to espouse it as if it were a teaching of the faith, when the Catechism states otherwise.
Click to expand...
The Catechism does not teach that all infants who die without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven. As Father Brian Harrison has noted, the Catechism states that we are “allowed to hope,” and not that we are “obliged to hope”:

seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

As I was trying to point out in my now-closed thread, “Is abortion a form of ‘angel making’?”, I believe that there are excellent reasons “not to hope” that all infants who die without sacramental Baptism go to Heaven, lest we view abortion as being some sort of sacramental (and not a Sacrament) that, when it occurs, always confers the grace of Baptism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top