Did Mahatma Gandhi going to heaven?

[GaryTaylor]

The payback comment was in response to your comments questioning why anyone would bother being Christian if one could get to heaven without being Christian. {{You seem to think}} that if it is not impossible for non-Christians to go to heaven being Christian is not worthwhile. That is not my view, and I don’t think that viewpoint is consistent with the Church’s teaching.?

You pretending to know what I think when that my friend is impossible. I was simply asking you a question. Which you btw spent a great deal of time avoiding till this post. And your right its not consistant with CC teaching. And I’ll explain further if you give me a moment.

My Church does not teach that there are many paths to heaven. My Church - the Catholic Church - teaches that Christ is the only path to heaven. But the Church also teaches that Christ may extend his saving Grace to those that are not Catholic. He saves who He deems is to be saved - not who we deem should be saved. That teaching is not inconsistent with any of the references you posted.?

Well there you have it. The Popes bull was the start of Ecumenism and the dialogue with Islam. Which BTW continued with JP-II and also now with Benedict at Assisi also JP-II, and the issues he has had in other areas. And here you see my point when you say “Christ May” extend His saving Grace to those other than Christains. But we in fact do not know that. As I stated earlier “We Know where the Church is, We do not know where it is not.” And that is exactly what I stated earlier? Right?

Who God save’s, is by His mercy alone which I’ve already been through. And I also stated I have no doubt about Ghandi and his Soul. I simply am not in any position to state he is in Heaven. On the contrary as I posted above he rejected all religion except Hindu. I don’t know where that leave’s him, I hope in heaven he was a great man.

Why do you keep referring to “your” Church and “my” Church as if it they were not the same Church? The teaching I am referring to is the teaching of the Catholic Church - what teaching are you referring to?

Its a simple question which is nothing to become defense about. My question is simply have you heard The Popes Encyclical ever taught in your church? I have never heard this, very much on the contrary. Sorry if you find it offensive. The Gospel being preached has nothing to do with ecumenism.

And as I stated I have not heard much differnet CC teaching, but some that would lead one to believe other than what what might be exactly true. The Mass in the churchs are different from TLM etc. I believe some you receive a lukewarm message and others you here the hard core truth. I know, I attend three chuchs here as I stated. Two because one is my wifes and other fits a time slot for me. Now I could go into this also at length but its safe to say they are different. Just the Ash wednesday Mass was completely different at the two church’s. The Mass at my parish was a complete Mass, Homily, Ash’s, Communion, and Lent Mass cards. My wifes was 10-minutes with Ash’s? You tell me are they all the same?

Has nothing to do with the point of the Mass being valid. They are just are different depending what Mass you attend and where. And this is how mixed messages happen.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The here and now is a Good Point and does relate to Ghandi so let me expand.

At the Passion Pilate said to Christ, “What is Truth”?

How little we understand of this Sovereign Truth on earth. If we are to learn and in any way grow like our God and King. We would do well to walk earnestly in His Truth. We must walk in Truth in the presense of God in everyway possible. We must not desire to be reputed better than we are. In all we do we must attribute to God what is His and all is His.

To seek after Truth is everything. When we do this we make a small account of the world. For this world is nothing but lying and falsehood, and for that reason it cannot and will not endure as it is. Thus the obstacle becomes self

Ghandi did understand this but sought His idea of God in a very different way, that I’m not familiar with. Was it Truth? I don’t know I follow OT-NT and thats my Cross as I stated.

Why does Christ love the virtue of Humility? Because God is the Soverign Truth and to be humble is to walk in truth. For it is true to say that we have no good in ourselves, only misery and nothingness. When we understand this, then we find Truth which is God. I know Ghandi understood this, but I don’t know what he knew to be God and how real that was? I’m sure he found something real. Did it equate to “I AMs” Kingdom? I don’t know.

He who understands this is most pleasing to Sovereign Truth, because he is walking in Truth. May God grant us the Grace never to fail to have this knowledge of self. When the soul knows this and truly understands self then its experience is happiness in Him the Lord. Not of this material world. This is nothing but the test. And Ghandi understood that.

I don’t deny him that. But I don’t know Ghandi’s God? I do know God is the creator of all this, all life, He is the Author of this. We live by His Will and Mercy “ONLY”. All the time.

In this sense I understand Ghandi and the connection of all mankind. But I’m a strict follower of Bible and Church. My life has bought me to that truth very clearly and abruptly. The Cross.

Now shall we talk Islam? Since this seems to be an issue with ecumenism?

 

[elvisman]

The payback comment was in response to your comments questioning why anyone would bother being Christian if one could get to heaven without being Christian. You seem to think that if it is not impossible for non-Christians to go to heaven being Christian is not worthwhile. That is not my view, and I don’t think that viewpoint is consistent with the Church’s teaching.

My Church does not teach that there are many paths to heaven. My Church - the Catholic Church - teaches that Christ is the only path to heaven. But the Church also teaches that Christ may extend his saving Grace to those that are not Catholic. He saves who He deems is to be saved - not who we deem should be saved. That teaching is not inconsistent with any of the references you posted.

Why do you keep referring to “your” Church and “my” Church as if it they were not the same Church? The teaching I am referring to is the teaching of the Catholic Church - what teaching are you referring to?

The Catholic Church teaches that others may be saved if they are invincibly ignorant of the Truth. That is not a guarantee - and it is certainly not something that you would want to advocate as a Catholic. The fervent hope of the Church uis to see that ALL come to a knowledge of the fulness of truth.

Whereas, ther is SOME truth in all religions, going around telling people that they can be saved outside the Church is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. There is only ONE way to heaven - and that is by the finished work of Christ on Calvary. ALL are saved BY Him - THROUGH his Church.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Gary,

I think you misunderstand TMC’s point. Although I disagree with the “can be saved anywhere” business, I would have to defend the point he was making at the start. (I think the only reason his position took a radical move was because of your militant advocation that you knew whether Ghandi was in Hell.)

All he was saying that we cannot know whether or not somebody is saved or damned. “Not as man does God see, because the Lord looks into the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

In any case, Catholic doctrines are more than mere words, they are Truths of Life. For example, take the Protestant who believes they are saved by Faith Alone. This same Protestant will probably LIVE the Catholic doctrine of Salvation by Faith and Works. Meaning, he will do more than just believe. And he says prayers for the dead (Purgatory) by saying, “God, rest his soul.” He asks his deceased loved ones to watch over them (Communion of Saints). Etc… So, what does he believe more: what he practices or what he preaches?

I am not advocating that they are saved. What I am saying is that perhaps some Protestants (and even non-Christians) are more Catholic than they say. (Disclaimer: I am not saying they are, but nor am I saying they are not.)

But again, it is not for us to know whether or not somebody went to Heaven, nor is it our place to do the condemning as you seem to be doing, Gary. Except for those saints canonized by the Church. But notice that the Church has never once proclaimed that anybody is in Hell (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Let God do the judging, not us doing the condemning.

Moral of my story is this: We do not and cannot know whether anyone is in Hell

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary,

I think you misunderstand TMC’s point. Although I disagree with the “can be saved anywhere” business, I would have to defend the point he was making at the start. (I think the only reason his position took a radical move was because of your militant advocation that you knew whether Ghandi was in Hell.)

All he was saying that we cannot know whether or not somebody is saved or damned. “Not as man does God see, because the Lord looks into the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)

In any case, Catholic doctrines are more than mere words, they are Truths of Life. For example, take the Protestant who believes they are saved by Faith Alone. This same Protestant will probably LIVE the Catholic doctrine of Salvation by Faith and Works. Meaning, he will do more than just believe. And he says prayers for the dead (Purgatory) by saying, “God, rest his soul.” He asks his deceased loved ones to watch over them (Communion of Saints). Etc… So, what does he believe more: what he practices or what he preaches?

I am not advocating that they are saved. What I am saying is that perhaps some Protestants (and even non-Christians) are more Catholic than they say. (Disclaimer: I am not saying they are, but nor am I saying they are not.)

But again, it is not for us to know whether or not somebody went to Heaven, nor is it our place to do the condemning as you seem to be doing, Gary. Except for those saints canonized by the Church. But notice that the Church has never once proclaimed that anybody is in Hell (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

Let God do the judging, not us doing the condemning.

Moral of my story is this: We do not and cannot know whether anyone is in Hell

My brother, first off there isn’t a post on this thread where I condemned Ghandi. I don’t know where Ghandi is. (name removed by moderator) doesn’t like my tone but wanted to call me a Protestant right from the jump. And the argument on ecumenism is “weak” and it doesn’t represent the Catholic Church in Mass and Gospel. Nor are we as Catholics trying to blend Islam into Christainity. Peace is our goal, to stop the violence, if our life appeals down the road than thats fine. If not God Bless them.

Have you ever heard this taught at Mass, the “One” paragraph from Pope Pauls homily or 841? Of course you didn’t because it doesn’t happen. So (name removed by moderator) should be offended now, he bought this up? So he should be offended because I ask if its taught in his parish? JP-II took his lead on Ecumenism from that Doctrine. And thats what that one paragraph is talking about. If you actually read the other 80 paragraphs it becomes apparent on the Churchs Stance. The Pope makes it abundantly clear.

Gregg listen, when we speak its not you talking to I or TMC or (name removed by moderator) thats just the known. Look how many follow these posts. Whats the message we want to give about the CC? Thats its teaching there are many paths to Heaven, we don’t kmow who’s in Heaven? From church teaching anyone can be saved without accepting Christ? Thats the message for the world?

So if you do say that, that also thus means. We are not sure of the path there, and we do know some who are there, its factual from Bible and the Mystics and Apparitions. We do know where the path of Christ and the Church leads, it is Salvation if you can live in a state of grace. We don’t know where those are who reject the Bible and Scripture are. Ghandi? How could I possibly state he is in Heaven when I know he rejected Christianity? I don’t know that. I know where salvation is. not where it it is not.

George Washinton was a Free Mason who when he died had a Rosary in his hands? Did he go to heaven? Was he a bad man? He was President? He was also a Free Mason for his entire life and rejected the scripture? I don’t know where he went. I do know where salvation is.

And that is the message we are sending out here…

Jesus Christ saves and His Church is the Catholic Church started 2000 years ago with Peter and the Apostles. The missionary work and ecumenism is an entirely different process.

The Catholic Church catchs enough slack for its efforts in ecumenism. Now we should give a mixed message? I don’t think so.

Now I don’t ever come here to argue with Catholic’s, you’ll never see that. This started when I was called a Protestant for speaking the Truth? So where did the Rub really start? With me talking Truth? Then TMC wanted to promote that idealism through the church at Mass with Pope Pauls bull with “one paragraph of ecumenism” in the entire history of Church teaching? Which doesn’t happen at Mass “anywhere”, and after two pages He admitts it.

Then what we should get "offended because I mention the Truth that the church Mass’s vary and maybe someone actually maybe heard “the many paths to Heaven theory”? Please, now we want to be Catholic after promoting that other drival?

The actual Bull you want to read is where Children are spoken on. I forget which one it was. When the question arrise’s of what happens to children who are not Baptised. There the Pope expands on salvation and who is saved and how.

But since we are talking Pope Paul VI “Lumen Gentium” lets read “this paragraph” shall we?

“This holy Council “first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful”. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

 

[tomarin]

George Washinton was a Free Mason who when he died had a Rosary in his hands? Did he go to heaven? Was he a bad man? He was President? He was also a Free Mason for his entire life and rejected the scripture? I don’t know where he went. I do know where salvation is.

Now that’s a thread I would enjoy reading!

 

[TMC]

My brother, first off there isn’t a post on this thread where I condemned Ghandi. I don’t know where Ghandi is. (name removed by moderator) doesn’t like my tone but wanted to call me a Protestant right from the jump. And the argument on ecumenism is “weak” and it doesn’t represent the Catholic Church in Mass and Gospel. Nor are we as Catholics trying to blend Islam into Christainity. Peace is our goal, to stop the violence, if our life appeals down the road than thats fine. If not God Bless them.

Have you ever heard this taught at Mass, the “One” paragraph from Pope Pauls homily or 841? Of course you didn’t because it doesn’t happen. So (name removed by moderator) should be offended now, he bought this up? So he should be offended because I ask if its taught in his parish? JP-II took his lead on Ecumenism from that Doctrine. And thats what that one paragraph is talking about. If you actually read the other 80 paragraphs it becomes apparent on the Churchs Stance. The Pope makes it abundantly clear.

Gregg listen, when we speak its not you talking to I or TMC or (name removed by moderator) thats just the known. Look how many follow these posts. Whats the message we want to give about the CC? Thats its teaching there are many paths to Heaven, we don’t kmow who’s in Heaven? From church teaching anyone can be saved without accepting Christ? Thats the message for the world?

So if you do say that, that also thus means. We are not sure of the path there, and we do know some who are there, its factual from Bible and the Mystics and Apparitions. We do know where the path of Christ and the Church leads, it is Salvation if you can live in a state of grace. We don’t know where those are who reject the Bible and Scripture are. Ghandi? How could I possibly state he is in Heaven when I know he rejected Christianity? I don’t know that. I know where salvation is. not where it it is not.

George Washinton was a Free Mason who when he died had a Rosary in his hands? Did he go to heaven? Was he a bad man? He was President? He was also a Free Mason for his entire life and rejected the scripture? I don’t know where he went. I do know where salvation is.

And that is the message we are sending out here…

Jesus Christ saves and His Church is the Catholic Church started 2000 years ago with Peter and the Apostles. The missionary work and ecumenism is an entirely different process.

The Catholic Church catchs enough slack for its efforts in ecumenism. Now we should give a mixed message? I don’t think so.

Now I don’t ever come here to argue with Catholic’s, you’ll never see that. This started when I was called a Protestant for speaking the Truth? So where did the Rub really start? With me talking Truth? Then TMC wanted to promote that idealism through the church at Mass with Pope Pauls bull with “one paragraph of ecumenism” in the entire history of Church teaching? Which doesn’t happen at Mass “anywhere”, and after two pages He admitts it.

Then what we should get "offended because I mention the Truth that the church Mass’s vary and maybe someone actually maybe heard “the many paths to Heaven theory”? Please, now we want to be Catholic after promoting that other drival?

The actual Bull you want to read is where Children are spoken on. I forget which one it was. When the question arrise’s of what happens to children who are not Baptised. There the Pope expands on salvation and who is saved and how.

But since we are talking Pope Paul VI “Lumen Gentium” lets read “this paragraph” shall we?

“This holy Council “first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful”. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”

I am not sure what this rant is supposed to mean. I am not trying to stretch some off-hand comment made in some little known or inconsequential document into something at odds with the deposit of faith. I am referring you to the deposit of faith and the Church’s own teaching documents. Lumen Gentium is not Pope Paul’s document - it is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church approved by all of the bishops sitting in council. Similarly, the Catechism is the official teaching document of the Church, certifed as such by two Popes. It is not Pope John Paul II’s doctrine - it is the Church’s doctrine. The fact that your priest has not read either of them to you from the pulpit doesn’t mean anything. My priest is not in the habit of doing that either. But my priest would readily agree with the teachings found in those documents, and I expect that yours would, also.

Despite the many long posts, I am still not sure what the issue is. Are you denying the authority of the Church’s teaching documents, disagreeing with what they say, or do you have some other issue?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am not sure what this rant is supposed to mean. I am not trying to stretch some off-hand comment made in some little known or inconsequential document into something at odds with the deposit of faith. I am referring you to the deposit of faith and the Church’s own teaching documents. Lumen Gentium is not Pope Paul’s document - it is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church approved by all of the bishops sitting in council. Similarly, the Catechism is the official teaching document of the Church, certifed as such by two Popes. It is not Pope John Paul II’s doctrine - it is the Church’s doctrine. The fact that your priest has not read either of them to you from the pulpit doesn’t mean anything. My priest is not in the habit of doing that either. But my priest would readily agree with the teachings found in those documents, and I expect that yours would, also.

Despite the many long posts, I am still not sure what the issue is. Are you denying the authority of the Church’s teaching documents, disagreeing with what they say, or do you have some other issue?

I said everything I have to say on this thread.

Regardless Pope Paul VI promulgated the document. I’m familiar with the process and the involvement of the Jesuits etc.

Here’s a link if the interest is in “exactly” how it was drafted.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1495

God Bless, Gary

 

[ForeverGrace]

I’ve really enjoyed reading the comments here.

My take… scripture says “I and the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.”

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Amen! If someone like Mahatma Gandhi is not with God, what hope is there for me?

Why do you write that, he just practiced non-violence and was the founder of the nation of India?

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi Gary: I perceive that any Hindu who is well schooled in Hindu scripture would upon hearing the story of Jesus, accept Him. The context however, could never be the same as it is for you. A Hindu would look at John 14:6 and say “yes, I understand this, but the illusion of separateness has caused many to miss it’s true meaning.” This man Jesus told people in every way He could that while He was wearing a different man, at His core He was not someone other than them, and they were not someone other than each other. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and He is in every one of us. Without awakening to this realization, and without awakening this Jesus within ourselves, no one comes to the Father, because the Father is in you. He is also in the person next to you. That is where He is to be found. We come to the Father by seeing Him in Jesus and seeing Jesus in ourselves and those around us, and in acting in accordance with this knowledge. So long as He is sought in ceremony, ritual and convention, He will be missed. You would hard pressed to convince many Hindus that it is otherwise, because it couldn’t be simpler to understand. It also couldn’t be harder to accomplish, but who would join a church with so difficult a task to accomplish? This is the unfortunate part of the story I think. It makes it easy for people to cling to the idea that someone else did it for them. I think He only showed the way, but it is a way that is hard to look at.

I know this is not what many Christians believe, but I also think there are a good many who see it. I think St. Francis probably saw it. Anyway, this is how I think most people of my faith would see the issue. I understand how you see it, I respect that, and I’m glad that you’re my friend.

Sufjon

Well, I believe Catholicism (and Christianity in general) do talk about behaving in a Christ-like way. But what you’re saying sounds to me (admittedly not a Catholic, but a Jew) as something neither Catholicism nor Judaism can really accept because it appears to be a kind of pantheism: G-d is in every Man, and perhaps every creature. I believe that in Catholicism and I know that in Judaism, G-d is regarded as a separate spirit, who created everything else, including Nature, the Universe, and Love. Sometimes Christians say G-d is Love, but for Jews even this wonderful sentiment has to be very clearly defined. Thus for Judaism, the notion of a God-head as a collective spirit that has become separated into individual entities which are not really separate, and that through multiple reincarnations can find their way back to the Source, enlightened by their journey of discovery, runs counter to Torah teaching. With regard to Catholicism, I wonder whether the Holy Spirit face of G-d is thought of more as G-d within Man, rather than Jesus.

 

[SedesDomi]

Thus for Judaism, the notion of a God-head as a collective spirit that has become separated into individual entities which are not really separate, and that through multiple reincarnations can find their way back to the Source, enlightened by their journey of discovery, runs counter to Torah teaching.

Not according to Hasidic Judaism.