Buddhism Dialogue at our church

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Vouthon: I fundamentally disagree with you Gary and I think that, perhaps by accident, you are slighting the Church.

Good Morning Vouthon: My apologies for the delayed response - I was out doing errands yesterday. No slight if the Church was intended.

The Church, especially since Vatican II, has developed a thoroughly inclusive understanding of soteriology in relation to other faiths, that has an explicitly theological foundation and is not “political and business positions”.

I have read the statements you posted before. I agree that they are well written, and they reflect all of the elements I would have hoped for them to cover, however, it doesn’t change my thinking on their nature or intent.

The church does not have a “public relations” agenda that is substantially different from its actual doctrines. If it did, then it would be failing in its mission to preach the truth.

The Church, like any large organization, has a public relations agenda, and press office, and a PR adviser to the Pope. The Church is keenly aware that positions and statements on such matters are closely scrutinized, and very sensitive to the fact that two religions in particular, (and their attending nations with large constituencies) closely monitor every Vatican statement for any hint of a slight toward them. I think the statements are magnificent, and in fact present the truth on such matters. It does not mean that I think that Sadhus and Fakirs will be teaching their ideas at CCD classes at your local church anytime soon. And I’m not suggesting that they should, either. That is the topic of discussion.

Many Catholics are not thoroughly accounted with the minutiae of church teachings, nor should one expect them to be, especially in such an opaque field of study as the salvation of non-believers and the “seeds of the word” doctrine of the Fathers which sees truth in other faiths implanted by the Holy Spirit.

This is an area where I have encountered a good deal of confusion among my fellow Catholics. I have been on numerous threads about the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church. In considering this dilemma, I would take your next post for example, wherein you present the Church as the Body of Christ. If you say that the Church is the Body of Christ and then go on to explain Apostolic Succession as you also did in the same post, and then consider that most Catholics have the understanding that Christ is the way, the truth and so on, and no one comes to the Father except through Christ, I think the mental synopses are easily made from there as to the veracity of other religions. It’s problematic if we recognize the true connection that all religions have with God. The Church is at an interesting crossroads in regard to such matters, and at some point, I think it will have to go one way or the other.

By the way, I also agree that the Church is the Body of Christ. The difference between myself and most people I have met on this forum is that I think all of creation (every person, every creature, every rock, tree, star, solar system, galaxy and so on are the Body of Christ). The body of Christ is the fabric into which all individual and collective experience is woven, or at least this is my personal perception of what God has revealed to me.

This is not a statement of PR bluff.

I agree. Social and political realities aren’t bluff.

He expressing a theological statement. If he is teaching error here then he is failing as a pontiff. Lumen Gentium is a dogmatic constitution and it explains that the Holy Spirit operates outside the church among non-believers. This is the document which states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. A dogmatic constitution of the Magisterium and not some paper produced by the Vatican City State.

I am aware of the statement, and I agree with the statement. My experience has been that what is circulated internally both directly and indirectly is something else altogether. I very much look forward to seeing that change.

 

[Vouthon]

The Church, like any large organization, has a public relations agenda, and press office, and a PR adviser to the Pope.

Of course but this is entirely separate from the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

Magisterial documents (encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, papal general audiences etc.) are intended to educate Catholics in their faith. Only as a subsidiary aspect are they for “all men and women of good will”. Official church statements from the magisterium cannot be anything other than faithful expositions of our doctrinal beliefs. They are theological, sometimes pastoral, but never to do with “business”, “diplomacy” or “political” considerations.

I think that you are confusing the church as a divine institution with the Holy See as a sovereign entity under international law with diplomatic relations.

This is an area where I have encountered a good deal of confusion among my fellow Catholics. I have been on numerous threads about the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church. In considering this dilemma, I would take your next post for example, wherein you present the Church as the Body of Christ. If you say that the Church is the Body of Christ and then go on to explain Apostolic Succession as you also did in the same post, and then consider that most Catholics have the understanding that Christ is the way, the truth and so on, and no one comes to the Father except through Christ, I think the mental synopses are easily made from there as to the veracity of other religions.

I think that it is actually fairly simple: the Church is the Body of Christ and there is no salvation without the church. However her ‘members’ are not all corporeally of her, while some of those who are physically members are spiritually far from her. Therefore membership in the church cannot be reduced to the parish register.

By the way, I also agree that the Church is the Body of Christ. The difference between myself and most people I have met on this forum is that I think all of creation (every person, every creature, every rock, tree, star, solar system, galaxy and so on are the Body of Christ). The body of Christ is the fabric into which all individual and collective experience is woven, or at least this is my personal perception of what God has revealed to me.

You are not wrong. In his divinity Christ is universally present throughout the cosmos. However the church is His body in a special sense distinguished from his general presence, just as the Eucharist contains the fullness of his divinity, body and blood in a manner distinct from his universal presence in the rest of creation. They are both supernatural gifts of grace, whereas God is also present by nature. One should distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.

What you said above reminds me of the thought of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Benedict also praised, in an address back in 2009:

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God.

I am aware of the statement, and I agree with the statement. My experience has been that what is circulated internally both directly and indirectly is something else altogether. I very much look forward to seeing that change

Could you elaborate please brother?

This is a dogmatic constitution. If one is not faithfully teaching the contents of such a highly authoritative exposition of the Catholic Faith, then a serious failure is taking place.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Vouthon; Of course but this is entirely separate from the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

They are theological, sometimes pastoral, but never to do with “business”, “diplomacy” or “political” considerations.

Hello Vouthon: I disagree with that, however, you can see it as you will.

I think that you are confusing the church as a divine institution with the Holy See as a sovereign entity under international law with diplomatic relations.

Enter, business, diplomacy and politics. We know there are politics in the Vatican both internally and externally as interfaces with heads of state, and the leaders of other religions.

I think that it is actually fairly simple: the Church is the Body of Christ and there is no salvation without the church. However her ‘members’ are not all corporeally of her, while some of those who are physically members are spiritually far from her. Therefore membership in the church cannot be reduced to the parish register.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but it sounds like something profound might be in there.

You are not wrong. In his divinity Christ is universally present throughout the cosmos. However the church is His body in a special sense distinguished from his general presence, just as the Eucharist contains the fullness of his divinity, body and blood in a manner distinct from his universal presence in the rest of creation

.

Can you explain the special sense? If we brand it and package it, we have to be able to define it.

They are both supernatural gifts of grace, whereas God is also present by nature. One should distinguish between the natural and the supernatural.

I do not believe in anything supernatural. Anything that happens is natural, even though it may be incredible, amazing, rare or contrary to common experience. For instance, if there are such things as ghosts, they are natural by virtue of their existence, or if there is such a thing as ESP or telepathy or any of the things we call supernatural, they are natural, not supernatural.

What you said above reminds me of the thought of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Benedict also praised, in an address back in 2009:

I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, although I have to read his work slowly and carefully, as he seems to have been running a on much higher version or release of human intellect than me. I am running on patches and upgrades, whereas he was running on the full blown package with administrative rights, as is the case with most sages, shamans and seers.

Could you elaborate please brother?

This is a dogmatic constitution. If one is not faithfully teaching the contents of such a highly authoritative exposition of the Catholic Faith, then a serious failure is taking place.

Maybe that’s another thread.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Sochi]

Of course but this is entirely separate from the teaching authority of the Magisterium. …I think that you are confusing the church as a divine institution with the Holy See as a sovereign entity under international law with diplomatic relations.

Sorry, have little time right now, but: Vouthon, you seem to be advocating that there is some sort of schizophrenia in the Church. For practical purposes, the Church is the Church and mincing it 's parts is an avoidance of history and fact. The Vatican is a State and it and the Church are one. Politics? that’s a good start, but let’s then admit the part of the Church in European and World history, its intimacy with some governments and leaders. And business? Best I know the celibacy of priests, a relatively recent event, is strongly tied to the retention of Church property. Also “fish on Friday” had to do with the then Popes tees to the fish markets in Rome. The sale of indulgences? Etc, etc, etc.

I think that it is actually fairly simple: the Church is the Body of Christ and there is no salvation without the church. However her ‘members’ are not all corporeally of her, while some of those who are physically members are spiritually far from her. Therefore membership in the church cannot be reduced to the parish register.

Excellent! Dig deeper! Much deeper!

What you said above reminds me of the thought of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Benedict also praised, in an address back in 2009:

Love Chardin! The very title of his book got me on a path of inquiry I revel in to this day!

 

[frobert]

… we need some rules, guidelines, to scale the heights meaningfully and successfully.

Agreed, rules and guidelines are helpful but there is a fine line between spiritual guidance and spiritual guard. Gary is more about guiding while some others have assumed the role of guard ready to beat down any divergence from ‘their’ belief system and proclaim it untrue.

 

[Sochi]

Agreed, rules and guidelines are helpful but there is a fine line between spiritual guidance and spiritual guard. Gary is more about guiding while some others have assumed the role of guard ready to beat down any divergence from ‘their’ belief system and proclaim it untrue.

Yep. Why doesn’t this site have a “like” button!

 

[Vouthon]

Dear brother Gary,

I appreciate the time you are taking to discuss these matters with me, as I do with our friend Sochi.

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, but it sounds like something profound might be in there.

.

Consider the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X.

"…27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation…"

***- Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism (1910) ***

Almost 2,000 years before Pope St. Pius X, Augustine of Hippo referred to the fact that the “City of God” cannot be identified squarely with the corporate body of baptized members belonging to the “Church” on earth. Indeed he noted that there were many “wolves” within the body of the Church, who dwelled in mortal sin and so were not among the “blessed” . Likewise there were many “sheep” without, who although not bodily members of the church were spiritually “within” her and consequently among the “blessed”. In his On Baptism he states that some baptized Christians “may be considered…more truly to have been baptized without”, whilst others physically outside the church may spiritually be within her, to the extent that “all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark”.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explains the body and soul of the Church as follows:

“Question: In what does the Soul of the Church consist? Answer: The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints”.

“Question: In what does the Body of the Church consist? Answer. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government”.

The place of the heart is what is key, not the body. This is where the ancient doctrine of baptism by implicit desire comes in.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Vouthon:

"…27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation…"

• Pope Saint Pius X, Catechism (1910)

Good Afternoon Vouthon: Thank you for the response and for all the resources you have taken the time to share. I think the quote from Pius X can be construed to be in conflict with the message from JPII on the same matter, wherein JPII recognizes that other faiths that have nothing to do with Christianity in fact have their own valid paths to God. This is how I construe what he says at least. In the quote above, from Pius X, it appears that you have to be either in the Church or have some desire to take part in at least some variation of the sacrament of baptism in order to be saved. To me, the statement is rather ambiguous on whether or not you can be saved by seeking the truth and doing God’s will as best you can. Does one supersede the other? It’s hard to say. I can’t tell whether he is saying that you have to seek baptism or if it suffices to seek the truth and do the best you can. The latter is more in line with what St. Peter said on the matter, but again, it seems ambiguous. That said, I have my own opinion on the matter, and it tends to agree more with the wide open stance you posted before. from JP II. Specifically, I do not believe that you have to be Catholic or Christian to be saved, nor do I sincerely believe that we have to be saved. I do not perceive that I was ever lost.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Vouthon]

Sorry, have little time right now, but: Vouthon, you seem to be advocating that there is some sort of schizophrenia in the Church. For practical purposes, the Church is the Church and mincing it 's parts is an avoidance of history and fact. The Vatican is a State and it and the Church are one. !

Actually, I would disagree respectfully

The Vatican City state is not the Church. It is a political, earthly state that enables the Church to freely conduct its affairs and preach the Gospel without interference from other governments, as with national churches in other denominations.

The Church was founded by Jesus and built up by the Apostles. Did the Early Church have temporal authority?

The Church existed prior to the Vatican City. It is not something intrinsic to it.

Politics? that’s a good start, but let’s then admit the part of the Church in European and World history, its intimacy with some governments and leaders. And business? Best I know the celibacy of priests, a relatively recent event, is strongly tied to the retention of Church property. Also “fish on Friday” had to do with the then Popes tees to the fish markets in Rome. The sale of indulgences? Etc, etc, etc.

None of this is up for dispute. The church exists in this world and individuals who are of it have been corrupted by worldly practices. However none of this is of its essential nature which is spiritual and oriented towards heavenly beatitude.

Dante Alighieri, the great Catholic poet, explained this in his 14th century tome on political philosophy, De Monarchia.

 

[Vouthon]

From Vouthon:

Good Afternoon Vouthon: Thank you for the response and for all the resources you have taken the time to share. I think the quote from Pius X can be construed to be in conflict with the message from JPII on the same matter, wherein JPII recognizes that other faiths that have nothing to do with Christianity in fact have their own valid paths to God. This is how I construe what he says at least. In the quote above, from Pius X, it appears that you have to be either in the Church or have some desire to take part in at least some variation of the sacrament of baptism in order to be saved. To me, the statement is rather ambiguous on whether or not you can be saved by seeking the truth and doing God’s will as best you can. Does one supersede the other? It’s hard to say. I can’t tell whether he is saying that you have to seek baptism or if it suffices to seek the truth and do the best you can. The latter is more in line with what St. Peter said on the matter, but again, it seems ambiguous. That said, I have my own opinion on the matter, and it tends to agree more with the wide open stance you posted before. from JP II. Specifically, I do not believe that you have to be Catholic or Christian to be saved, nor do I sincerely believe that we have to be saved. I do not perceive that I was ever lost.

Thanks,
Gary

Dear brother Gary

Thank you for an insightful critique of the source. If I may make a few counter-arguments:

The two sources do not actually conflict. Both work within the same framework of doctrines and from the same foundation, namely:

1. The differentiation between the “soul” and “body” of the Church
2. The recognition that salvation is not limited to those bodily within the Church
3. The doctrine of “baptism by implicit desire” or “baptism of the spirit” which holds that a person outside the body of the Church can still attain to salvation through spiritually being a member of the Church through their purity of heart, faithful adherence to the natural law as known to their conscience and their openness to truth

Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope St. Pius X believed that one had to be a member of the “Church” to attain to salvation, yet both also rejected the idea that the “Church” could be limited or reduced simply to the visible, corporate body of baptised Christian believers.

St. Pius is not suggesting that one has to “seek for baptism”. Baptism of desire can be had “implicitly”, which means by a person who has no actual explicit desire to partake of the visible sacrament of baptism or become incorporated into the Church as a formal member.

Lefebvre, the extremist SSPX schismatic founder, despite his traditionalism, actually explained this doctrine very well:

"…There are three ways of receiving baptism: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of the martyrs who confessed the faith while still catechumens) and baptism of desire.

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

***- (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics) ***

Lefebvre rejected the Second Vatican Council, however he did not reject this age-old doctrine of the Church, nor do his SSPX group despite their other errors.

This is the very same theology underpinning the teaching of Pope Pius XII on baptism of desire and the teaching of the Holy Office (the old name for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith) in 1949 when it condemned the heresy of Fr. Feeney who claimed that salvation could be granted only to baptized Catholics:

Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

“**It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church **, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit… God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to conform his will to the will of God.”

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Agreed, rules and guidelines are helpful but there is a fine line between spiritual guidance and spiritual guard. Gary is more about guiding while some others have assumed the role of guard ready to beat down any divergence from ‘their’ belief system and proclaim it untrue.

Thank you for the kind words Frobert, although I’m not in a position to guide anyone, seeing that I am basically kicking the can down the road to see where it goes. I do trust though that wherever it goes is always home. I think it’s our job to live and to experience, so that’s what I’m doing (as best I can). The nice part is that we all have our own can to kick.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Dear brother Gary

Thank you for an insightful critique of the source. If I may make a few counter-arguments:

The two sources do not actually conflict. Both work within the same framework of doctrines and from the same foundation, namely:

1. The differentiation between the “soul” and “body” of the Church
2. The recognition that salvation is not limited to those bodily within the Church
3. The doctrine of “baptism by implicit desire” or “baptism of the spirit” which holds that a person outside the body of the Church can still attain to salvation through spiritually being a member of the Church through their purity of heart, faithful adherence to the natural law as known to their conscience and their openness to truth

Both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope St. Pius X believed that one had to be a member of the “Church” to attain to salvation, yet both also rejected the idea that the “Church” could be limited or reduced simply to the visible, corporate body of baptised Christian believers.

St. Pius is not suggesting that one has to “seek for baptism”. Baptism of desire can be had “implicitly”, which means by a person who has no actual explicit desire to partake of the visible sacrament of baptism or become incorporated into the Church as a formal member.

Lefebvre, the extremist SSPX schismatic founder, despite his traditionalism, actually explained this doctrine very well:

Lefebvre rejected the Second Vatican Council, however he did not reject this age-old doctrine of the Church, nor do his SSPX group despite their other errors.

This is the very same theology underpinning the teaching of Pope Pius XII on baptism of desire and the teaching of the Holy Office (the old name for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith) in 1949 when it condemned the heresy of Fr. Feeney who claimed that salvation could be granted only to baptized Catholics:

I love the way you reason things Vouthon, and you have shared some very compelling arguments.

Thanks
Gary

 

[Vouthon]

I love the way you reason things Vouthon, and you have shared some very compelling arguments.

Thanks
Gary

Bless you Gary, I have enjoyed my discussion with you thus far and might I add, the immense personal experience and knowledge that you bring to the table.

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Gary,

I appreciate the time you are taking to discuss these matters with me, as I do with our friend Sochi.

.

Consider the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X.

Almost 2,000 years before Pope St. Pius X, Augustine of Hippo referred to the fact that the “City of God” cannot be identified squarely with the corporate body of baptized members belonging to the “Church” on earth. Indeed he noted that there were many “wolves” within the body of the Church, who dwelled in mortal sin and so were not among the “blessed” . Likewise there were many “sheep” without, who although not bodily members of the church were spiritually “within” her and consequently among the “blessed”. In his On Baptism he states that some baptized Christians “may be considered…more truly to have been baptized without”, whilst others physically outside the church may spiritually be within her, to the extent that “all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark”.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X explains the body and soul of the Church as follows:

The place of the heart is what is key, not the body. This is where the ancient doctrine of baptism by implicit desire comes in.

Brother Vouthon,

May I ask you (or any Catholic here for that matter), who is “outside” the Church. From what I can discern, (please correct me if my understanding is wrong), Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Muslim are all within the Church.

What are the criteria from Church teaching that would leave a soul “outside” the Church and thus in jeopardy of salvation?

Thanks brothers and sisters



.

 

[Vouthon]

Brother Vouthon,

May I ask you (or any Catholic here for that matter), who is “outside” the Church. From what I can discern, (please correct me if my understanding is wrong), Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Baha’is, Muslim are all within the Church.

Dear brother Servant

Thank you for your question, you are welcome to inquire anything of me.

Jews, Buddhists, Baha’is and Muslims can be spiritually within the Church, joined to its soul even though not bodily inside her, if they are of good will. If they are not of good will, then they are “outside” the Church both physically and spiritually, just as Catholics living in mortal sin are spiritually “outside” the Church.

A good, pious Muslim who is dedicated to his faith and believes in its tenets absolutely, is related to the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit, who is the “soul of the Church”, whereas a gravely immoral Catholic who ignores the dictates of his conscience, is “far” from the soul of the Church.

That is why Pope Saint John XXIII once said:

“…If I were born a Muslim, I believe that I would have always stayed a good Muslim, faithful to my religion…”

***- Pope Saint John XXIII (1881 – 1963) ***

It is better to be a “good Muslim”, than “bad Catholic”.

Pope John believed that an upbringing in another religion was a very strong conditioner. He would have remained a “good Muslim”, that is one baptised by implicit desire and incorporated into the Church through following the Will of God as known to his conscience and through the aid of whatever is good and true in Islam.

Here are replies from apologists who were the chairpersons of the 1940s answer to “Catholic Answers”, which aired on radio in the USA:

**Radio Replies (1938, 1940, 1942) **

“Good non-Catholics who, through no fault of their own, have never known the Catholic Church to be the true Church, and who die sincerely repentant of such sins as they have committed, will save their souls.”

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

*Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43. *

What are the criteria from Church teaching that would leave a soul “outside” the Church and thus in jeopardy of salvation?

Their “will”. Do they adhere to the natural law written on their conscience, as best as they can discern it in good faith, or do they care nothing for seeking truth? Do they try, if they believe in God, to conform their will to his or not? Do possess love and express it in deeds of virtue on behalf of their fellow human beings?

According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

**The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) **

“…It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven…”

According to Catholic doctrine, agnostics and atheists who lack an explicit belief in God can also receive the grace of baptism by implicit desire, so this is not something limited to religious people. While their atheism is formally a grave sin, it can be moderated by the circumstances and experiences of their lives.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, noted:

“…Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life…”

***- Vatican II [Lumen Gentium 16] ***

That the above applies to atheists is made clear by reading about the discussions amongst the council Fathers which led to the writing of Lumen Gentium. Atheism and the lack of culpability for the sin of denying God was expressly spoken of, as a result of rejecting a false conception of God caused by believers.

The Catechism further makes this clear:

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."62

In theory therefore it is possible for atheists to receive salvation.

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

Thank you for your question, you are welcome to inquire anything of me.

Jews, Buddhists, Baha’is and Muslims can be spiritually within the Church, joined to its soul even though not bodily inside her, if they are of good will. If they are not of good will, then they are “outside” the Church both physically and spiritually, just as Catholics living in mortal sin are spiritually “outside” the Church.

A good, pious Muslim who is dedicated to his faith and believes in its tenets absolutely, is related to the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit, who is the “soul of the Church”, whereas a gravely immoral Catholic who ignores the dictates of his conscience, is “far” from the soul of the Church.

That is why Pope Saint John XXIII once said:

It is better to be a “good Muslim”, than “bad Catholic”.

Pope John believed that an upbringing in another religion was a very strong conditioner. He would have remained a “good Muslim”, that is one baptised by implicit desire and incorporated into the Church through following the Will of God as known to his conscience and through the aid of whatever is good and true in Islam.

Here are replies from apologists who were the chairpersons of the 1940s answer to “Catholic Answers”, which aired on radio in the USA:

Their “will”. Do they adhere to the natural law written on their conscience, as best as they can discern it in good faith, or do they care nothing for seeking truth? Do they try, if they believe in God, to conform their will to his or not? Do possess love and express it in deeds of virtue on behalf of their fellow human beings?

According to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

According to Catholic doctrine, agnostics and atheists who lack an explicit belief in God can also receive the grace of baptism by implicit desire, so this is not something limited to religious people. While their atheism is formally a grave sin, it can be moderated by the circumstances and experiences of their lives.

Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, noted:

That the above applies to atheists is made clear by reading about the discussions amongst the council Fathers which led to the writing of Lumen Gentium. Atheism and the lack of culpability for the sin of denying God was expressly spoken of, as a result of rejecting a false conception of God caused by believers.

The Catechism further makes this clear:

In theory therefore it is possible for atheists to receive salvation.

Thankyou for this dear brother.

Apologies for the delay in responding. I did not see your reply. Its a sign of my impending dementia, sight deterioration or both

Bearing in mind, then, what Pope John XXIII said about the Muslims, and your statement that it is better to be a “good Muslim rather than a bad Catholic”, would you say that the Church sees any spiritual difference whatsoever (in the sight of God) between a good Muslim and a good Catholic?

Thanks again brother, and hope those studies are not too straining these days

.

 

[Contarini]

Thankyou for this dear brother.

Apologies for the delay in responding. I did not see your reply. Its a sign of my impending dementia, sight deterioration or both

Bearing in mind, then, what Pope John XXIII said about the Muslims, and your statement that it is better to be a “good Muslim rather than a bad Catholic”, would you say that the Church sees any spiritual difference whatsoever (in the sight of God) between a good Muslim and a good Catholic?

Thanks again brother, and hope those studies are not too straining these days

.

Yes. The good Catholic is living out the fullness of the faith as revealed by God, or at least being a Catholic poses no intrinsic obstacles to doing so. The “best” Muslim (which doesn’t mean someone who is a good Muslim by Islamic standards, necessarily, but someone who is faithful to the light they have received, which may or may not involve being an “orthodox” Muslim, whatever that means) still has false beliefs on essential matters which hinder him/her from truly grasping and living by all that God has revealed, and which cater to his/her sinfulness in potentially fatal ways. Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man. The Muslim doesn’t believe that. Therefore, while he/she may have a genuine relationship with God (through Christ without understanding the fact), the lack of correct belief and practice is going to be a persistent stumbling block.

Just one practical example: the most moral, loving Muslim husband doesn’t have the richness of Christian teaching on sacramental marriage available. Marriage at best will be seen in basically contractual terms, with divorce as an option–and in most forms of Islam, the culturally conservative dictates of shari’a will present a continual temptation to men to abuse their wives and indulge their sexual appetites while looking down on women.

Edwin

 

[Irishgal49]

A monk from a local Zen Buddhist Temple is coming to give a lecture on his faith to the youth of our Basilica which is home to around 17,000 members. I feel like our church is getting close to Universalism with the I’m OK your OK attitude among neighboring religions. I feel like we should be evangelizing to the Zen Buddhists who have no savior beyond themselves. What do you think?

I think it’s wonderful. Think of all the crazy stuff people say that Catholics believe. It’s good for young people to KNOW what someone else believes and why they don’t agree. Then you can have intelligent conversations instead of looking foolish. We should respect all faiths while making it clear we do not agree. I would love to hear this lecture.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I think it’s wonderful. Think of all the crazy stuff people say that Catholics believe. It’s good for young people to KNOW what someone else believes and why they don’t agree. Then you can have intelligent conversations instead of looking foolish. We should respect all faiths while making it clear we do not agree. I would love to hear this lecture.

I wonder how it went.
I am not sure Zen Buddhists beleive anything at all besides
http://www.voiceofdhamma.com/wp-con...ble-truths-1221151556294398-8-thumbnail-4.jpg

and

http://world-history.nmhblogs.org/files/2013/04/noble-eightfold-path.jpg

Not much room for grace in there. It seems like a very lonely path.

How about this?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[anon99031074]

I wonder how it went.
I am not sure Zen Buddhists beleive anything at all besides

and

Not much room for grace in there. It seems like a very lonely path.

How about this?

There is great room for grace in Buddhism. There are many kind, compassionate and enlightened beings who work tirelessly to free all sentient beings from suffering. Some of them within the confines of the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, “to live is to suffer” is not a terribly accurate portrayal of the first noble truth, since freedom from suffering is attainable in this very life, and it does not cause one to die upon attaining it.