Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 Corinthians 2:8 “Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.”

Those that crucified Christ were invincibly ignorant, ergo St John Chrysostom (even if he is speaking only of those that crucified Christ in that quote) denies the idea of invincibly ignorant people being saved.
 
Anyone on planet Earth from any religion can mortally sin.

If they mortally sin and die unrepentant in that state they go to Hell.

Anyone who is invincibly ignorant and tries his bet to follow the natural law which is written on every man’s heart can die in a state of grace and go to heaven if he doesn’t die in a state of mortal sin.

God judges you by what you know.

ANYONE who knows the truth of the Catholic faith and refuses to accept it after being prodded by the Holy Spirit to accept it committs mortal sin and goes to Hell.

Only God can make all of these judgements as to who is culpable and who isn’t.

Anyone who isn’t formally united to the Catholic church and makes it to heaven due to invincible ignorance WOULD accept the Catholic faith if they KNEW the truth of it.

God will judge who that applies to and who it doesn’t apply to–

but the bottom line is in Heaven where we will have full knowledge–

EVERYONE is Catholic!

Other religions have the possibility of making it to heaven but if some of those people do make it to heaven they WILL be Catholics once they do know the truth.

All of those people in Hell will be FORMER members of many religions and even agnostics and atheists–but they will all be there due to dying in a state of mortal sin.

FAITH ALONE will not save if the state of grace that comes from it is INTERRUPTED by mortal sin and the person dies before being repentant for that mortal sin!

No exceptions!
 
“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
 
Zekariya said:
1 Corinthians 2:8 “Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.”

Those that crucified Christ were invincibly ignorant, ergo St John Chrysostom (even if he is speaking only of those that crucified Christ in that quote) denies the idea of invincibly ignorant people being saved.
Click to expand...
Actually, brother, I think this is saying the exact opposite. It says that because the Jews in His day actually knew Jesus and His message, then they were culpable for his crucifixion, having rejected Jesus and His message. This passage would actually support the principle of invincible ignorance.

It should be noted that invincible ignorance is not your run-of-the-mill ignorance. Invincible ignorance is specifically that type of ignorance that occurs because you have absolutely no opportunity or circumstance by which to obtain that knowledge. The scriptural passage quoted above indicates that Jesus, though he died for the sins of the whole world, was not willing to assign the culpability for his crucifixion to those who did not know of Him or His message.

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Zekariya,
Zekariya said:
I am aware that St John Chrysostom didn’t consider invincibly ignorant to be able to attain salvation. He quotes Christ saying, .“If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father”. You can’t worship someone that you have no knowledge of. He obviously did not consider monotheistic non-Christians to worship the same God that we worship.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t we take this in the context of the fact that the Jews of His day actually received His message and rejected it? This does not seem to condemn those who never had the opportunity to know Jesus or His message.

This brings up an interesting question: If one does not know of Christ Himself, but accepts His message (i.e., one receives the Gospel message but does not know it came from Christ), could that person still obtain salvation? It should be noted that some of the Indian peoples in Mexico encountered by the Spaniards had a moral/religious monotheistic system uncannily similar to Christianity. These same Indians even venerated the cross. Quetzalcoatl was the one who gave these Indians their religion. Quetzalcoatl was, according to their writings, a white man with a beard who wore a tunic adorned with crosses. Some historians theorize Quetzalcoatl was actually a European priest who was shipwrecked in Mexico and spread the Christian Faith hundreds of years before the Spaniards came. One can imagine that the priesthood could not continue because the priest had no authority to ordain. Though the passage of time wiped the memory of the original source of these teachings (i.e., Jesus Christ), these certain Indians lived their lives according to these teachings. Were these Indians deprived of salvation just because the name of Christ was forgotten, and they had no opportunity to obtain the Sacraments, even though they lived according to His teachings?
Also his blaming the Jews of his day was a rhetorical form used back then:
Click to expand...
“According to Patristics’ scholars, opposition to any particular view during the late fourth century was conventionally expressed in a manner, utilizing the rhetorical form known as the psogos [Greek: blame], whose literary conventions were to vilify opponents in an uncompromising manner; thus, it has been argued that to call Chrysostom an “anti-Semite” is to employ anachronistic terminology in a way incongruous with historical context and record.” - Wilken, Robert Louis. 1983. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century.
Click to expand...
OK, so St. Chrysostom was not violating Scripture (i.e., trying to assign to the Jews of his day the guilt for the sins of their fathers), but merely using a certain rhetorical method to get his point across. That’s plausible.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Actually, brother, I think this is saying the exact opposite. It says that because the Jews in His day actually knew Jesus and His message, then they were culpable for his crucifixion, having rejected Jesus and His message. This passage would actually support the principle of invincible ignorance.

It should be noted that invincible ignorance is not your run-of-the-mill ignorance. Invincible ignorance is specifically that type of ignorance that occurs because you have absolutely no opportunity or circumstance by which to obtain that knowledge. The scriptural passage quoted above indicates that Jesus, though he died for the sins of the whole world, was not willing to assign the culpability for his crucifixion to those who did not know of Him or His message.

What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
If you want to say that “then they were culpable for his crucifixion”. This seems to say that all the world has heard (ergo everyone is culpable):

Romans 10: 15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things? 16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the whole world.
 
Christ has revealed himself Paul on the road to Damascus. Why can’t he reveal himself (as himself, not anonymously) to peoples that don’t know him? Muslims have been converted by visions of Christ. Why would God just leave people with a monotheistic hint?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Acts 17:16 NASB

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols. (Acts 17:16).

This is beginning of the of the context. And Paul was not commending them if worshipping the true God, for he says they worshipped the unknown God in ignorance. Paul does not find here an article of true religion, rather he taught that the ‘‘unknown God’’ that they worship is actually ‘‘unknown’’ to them! In other words they were correct to out unknown there and Paul used this as a way to speak to them about the God they do not know and teach then so that they might known. For goodness sake, this passage is anything but answer form of the current teaching that all men from any pagan religion can be saved through their obedience moved by grave.
Click to expand...
They. didn’t know him, true. That’s what the Apostle says. But they did worship him, even if it was done in ignorance. That’s my point. I don’t believe at all in Mohammed’s claims or any divine origin for the quran. But even if he made it all up deliberately like some cult leader, that’s a different matter from what Muslims believe. They believe in the Creator of all. They know that he’s one, invisible, immaterial, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Now, this is the being they turn to five times a day. This is the one they adore in their minds and hearts. Well, that is also the being I pray to! There’s only one of those.

I believe that Muslims have a twisted view of him; plus they have a very limited understanding like the Jews who don’t know that this being is a. Trinity and has visited the world of men. I believe they need Jesus to be saved, that is a matter of Christian faith. We all do. But can we really put binds on the Lord’s hands and demand that he Christ save them in the exact same way that he saves us? Isn’t he God? I just don’t believe that the same God who so willingly became a zygote in Mary’s womb and a criminal executed on the cross in such a humiliating way would be willing to let a single one of the souls he died for simply perish for lack of opportunity or lack of knowledge that they did not even choose to be in. Those two just don’t fit.

Also, if we say that they would perish like that, we are basically placing the salvation ofthese souls in an absolute way solely in the hands of other human beings. If it weren’t for the reformation, most Europeans would never have left for other continents to evangelize them. I don’t believe that Christ’s arms are so short. I can say that I don’t know the how. The church teaches that “in ways known only to God” he can bring them “to faith that saves” who through no fault of their own have not come to the church.

I once heard a priest explain it in the metaphor of a pool. The church is like a pool filled with water that God has constructed. in the world for all everyone to come and drink or clean themselves or find healing. Kinda like the pool of shilloam (don’t recall the spelling) in the Gospels. No body is forced to come to this saving pool.They can refuse and die in hunger or their ailments. But there are those like that poor fellow who can’t go to the pool because they have some incapacity. Perhaps no one has told them about the pool, perhaps they’re crippled and can’t willingly go to it (think of babies who die or grow up mentally retarded or otherwise incapable of learning or choosing the truth). God can bring them to the pool and he can take the water to them where they are. He’s not limited to the four sides of that pool and its boundaries. We just don’t know how God intends to save them, we know it’ll be through Christ however he does it. All grace comes to us through him even if we don’t know it in our minds.
 
It is my opinion that though one can be saved through invincible ignorance there won’t be a lot of people saved that way.

Why? Because everyone is capable of understanding the natural law which is written on every human’s heart is capable of mortal sin.

Since that is true all of those people–even if they are in other religions or have never even heard of Christ would have just as much chance of going to Hell as anyone else–in other words:

if the road to salvation is narrow and few there are that find it as Christ says

then there should be FEW that find it that only know of the natural law.

now of course there will be baptized children who have not attained the age of reason that will be saved.

there will be baptized people with mental defects who will be invincibly ignorant.

But the total number of invincibly ignorant people throughout all history will be small.

To have heard of the Catholic faith and NOT even inquired of it and thereby being invincibly ignorant is a pretty tall order–

If you believe that happens you believe that the Holy Spirit in a person like that would not even prod them to check it out.

What if a person like that had heard of the scripture that we are to love the Lord with our entire mind? Would such a person be culpable if he never even checked out the Catholic faith if he had heard of it?

Maybe that is possible but the number of people would be incredibly small.

the bottom line is though it is POSSIBLE to be saved and not be formally united to the Catholic Church–the number of people that that applies to is small!

Since it is small we should always try to baptize and evangelize and teach the Good News to everyone!
 
Zekariya said:
Christ has revealed himself Paul on the road to Damascus. Why can’t he reveal himself (as himself, not anonymously) to peoples that don’t know him? Muslims have been converted by visions of Christ. Why would God just leave people with a monotheistic hint?
Click to expand...
But Christ appeared to Paul because he had a missionary plan for him. And if Christ appeared to muslims, they would deny their religion which says Christ is not the Son of God, and they would believe .
 
Marybeloved said:
They. didn’t know him, true. That’s what the Apostle says. But they did worship him, even if it was done in ignorance. That’s my point. I don’t believe at all in Mohammed’s claims or any divine origin for the quran. But even if he made it all up deliberately like some cult leader, that’s a different matter from what Muslims believe. They believe in the Creator of all. They know that he’s one, invisible, immaterial, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. Now, this is the being they turn to five times a day. This is the one they adore in their minds and hearts. Well, that is also the being I pray to! There’s only one of those.

I believe that Muslims have a twisted view of him; plus they have a very limited understanding like the Jews who don’t know that this being is a. Trinity and has visited the world of men. I believe they need Jesus to be saved, that is a matter of Christian faith. We all do. But can we really put binds on the Lord’s hands and demand that he Christ save them in the exact same way that he saves us? Isn’t he God? I just don’t believe that the same God who so willingly became a zygote in Mary’s womb and a criminal executed on the cross in such a humiliating way would be willing to let a single one of the souls he died for simply perish for lack of opportunity or lack of knowledge that they did not even choose to be in. Those two just don’t fit.

Also, if we say that they would perish like that, we are basically placing the salvation ofthese souls in an absolute way solely in the hands of other human beings. If it weren’t for the reformation, most Europeans would never have left for other continents to evangelize them. I don’t believe that Christ’s arms are so short. I can say that I don’t know the how. The church teaches that “in ways known only to God” he can bring them “to faith that saves” who through no fault of their own have not come to the church.

I once heard a priest explain it in the metaphor of a pool. The church is like a pool filled with water that God has constructed. in the world for all everyone to come and drink or clean themselves or find healing. Kinda like the pool of shilloam (don’t recall the spelling) in the Gospels. No body is forced to come to this saving pool.They can refuse and die in hunger or their ailments. But there are those like that poor fellow who can’t go to the pool because they have some incapacity. Perhaps no one has told them about the pool, perhaps they’re crippled and can’t willingly go to it (think of babies who die or grow up mentally retarded or otherwise incapable of learning or choosing the truth). God can bring them to the pool and he can take the water to them where they are. He’s not limited to the four sides of that pool and its boundaries. We just don’t know how God intends to save them, we know it’ll be through Christ however he does it. All grace comes to us through him even if we don’t know it in our minds.
Click to expand...
So the Pagan Athenians were quite possibly were saved before they heard the gospel from Paul?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
So the Pagan Athenians were quite possibly were saved before they heard the gospel from Paul?
Click to expand...
I did not say that. I spoke of two related but separate issues which many readers of the CCC often complain about. I mentioned that in addition to the CCC teaching about the salvation of non-Christians (Issue No.1), many Catholics are also bothered with its assertion that Muslims essentially adore the same God we do (Issue No. 2)- to which latter statement you and Marduk objected, which is why I gave the example from St. Paul to show that it is quite possible for a pagan, a polytheist, and an idolater to worship the true God, much more so Muslims who are strict monotheists with a superior moral code (superior, that is, to the polytheistic pagan morality).

Salvation is another matter. It’s about the mercy of God and the choice of the soul for God in as much as the soul is able to choose God, or at least to not reject God (Here I imagine children and mentally retarded persons who may be unable to choose or reject God). Just because someone has not known about Christ doesn’t automatically mean that they’re off the hook for invincible ignorance. In the first place, ignorance must be truly invincible- beyond any ability of the person to achieve. Perhaps they never met a Christian or knew anything at all about our faith, perhaps they have some real incapacity, like children or mentally ill persons- perhaps it’s less obvious but still present even when there are, externally, plenty of opportunities to get this truth-only God can judge in this instance who is truly invincibly ignorant and who is just careless of the truth (seeking and finding truth is a positive duty, so while many people are ignorant, they’re not necessarily invincibly so and may not be excused on that basis).

Also, even if the person is invincibly ignorant of Christianity, that doesn’t let them off the hook in the case of the truth that they do know and can attain to in their state in life. In their regard, these people are personally responsible for the choices they make.

Also, we don’t know how Christ saves the sincere pagans. It could be that he rewards them like he did Cornelius in the book of Acts- perhaps he makes himself known to them at some point in their lives so that they do become Christian, or even at their deathbed so that they die in his embrace- Who really knows? 🤷 It’s not part of the Revelation. The faith of the Church is that* ‘‘in ways known only to God’’* he can bring them to that faith without which none can be saved- and we have every reason to hope that this is in fact what he does. This is the God who died on a cross, after all. Can we really complain about the possibility of him saving the souls he died for-beyond the visible church-when these souls have not rejected him- not even indirectly?

He came so far below for us, knowing of our incapacity to reach up to him- Why do we think those guys are just out his reach? It just doesn’t compute with my faith, knowing the extent that God is willing to go for every man, that a real incapacity would prevent him from going to them where they are, just as he came down below to where we are. Again, it’s a matter of ‘‘We hope!’’- He has not given us any revelation about it. It’s only that we know his power and mercy make it very hopeful for those of us who think like this.
 
Justin Martyr (First Apology of Justin, Chap. XXVIII [150 A.D.]) ‘‘For among us the prince of the wicked spirits is called the serpent and Satan, and the devil, as you can learn by looking into our writings. And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold.’’

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies, 4:28:2 [189 A.D]) ‘‘The penalty increases for those who do not believe the word of God and despise his coming. It is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomever the Lor shall say,‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’’ they will be damned forever.’’ (Notice the reference to Matthew 25:41)

Polycarp 7:1

For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.
 
St John Chrysostom does not teach invincible ignorance:

(Rom. x. 18.) “But I say, Have they not heard?”
What, he means, if the preachers were sent, and did preach what they were bid, and these did not hear? Then comes a most perfect reply to the objection.
“Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”
What do you say? he means. They have not heard? Why the whole world, and the ends of the earth, have heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard? Now can this ever be? Sure if the ends of the world heard, much more must you. Then again another objection. - St John Chrysostom, The Homilies on Romans, Homily XVIII

And…

“Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. 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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
 
Zekariya said:
St John Chrysostom does not teach invincible ignorance:

(Rom. x. 18.) “But I say, Have they not heard?”
What, he means, if the preachers were sent, and did preach what they were bid, and these did not hear? Then comes a most perfect reply to the objection.
“Yes, verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.”
What do you say? he means. They have not heard? Why the whole world, and the ends of the earth, have heard. And have you, amongst whom the heralds abode such a long time, and of whose land they were, not heard? Now can this ever be? Sure if the ends of the world heard, much more must you. Then again another objection. - St John Chrysostom, The Homilies on Romans, Homily XVIII
Click to expand...
Well, with due respect to St. Chrysostom’s teaching, I’m pretty sure that my ancestors living in East-Central Africa 300 years and more ago had no idea about anything called Christianity or anyone named Jesus Christ, and I’m pretty sure that they couldn’t either-not without some special miracle. I also believe that this is the whole point of the mission of evangelization-that the world does not know and needs to be told (by Christians) of the good news.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
But Christ appeared to Paul because he had a missionary plan for him. And if Christ appeared to muslims, they would deny their religion which says Christ is not the Son of God, and they would believe .
Click to expand...
For your question that started this tread: Do Eastern Catholics believe anyone can be saved? I would say this, who are we to say who can be saved? In the end Christ will judge who is saved. I think like mardukm said “It’s a matter of emphasis. From my studies, it seems the Latin Tradition is more focused on the probability (laying out the conditions explicitly, though not defining the conditions) that a non-Christian will be saved, whereas the non-Latin Traditons focus more on the possibility that non-Christians will be saved.”

Also I think you miss understood what Zekariya said, he is referring to some Muslims who have converted to Christianity. I also have a question Erick, where you Catholic at one point?
 
Yes I was brought up catholic.

How can Muslims be converted if they do not confess Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Have we forgotten that Islam is a mixture of heretical Christianity, Judaism, and paganism? Muhammad was a false prophet, no? What does the scripture teach about false prophets? And those who follow them?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Yes I was brought up catholic.

How can Muslims be converted if they do not confess Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Have we forgotten that Islam is a mixture of heretical Christianity, Judaism, and paganism? Muhammad was a false prophet, no? What does the scripture teach about false prophets? And those who follow them?
Click to expand...
I take it, you were raised Roman Catholic?

Also I reworded my post, I hope it helps. Also anyone can convert to Christianity.
 
Marybeloved said:
Well, with due respect to St. Chrysostom’s teaching, I’m pretty sure that my ancestors living in East-Central Africa 300 years and more ago had no idea about anything called Christianity or anyone named Jesus Christ, and I’m pretty sure that they couldn’t either-not without some special miracle. I also believe that this is the whole point of the mission of evangelization-that the world does not know and needs to be told (by Christians) of the good news.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is not St John Chrysostom teaching. It is St Paul the Apostle’s teaching:

Romans 10: 15 And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things? 16 But all do not obey the gospel. For Isaias saith: Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. 18 But I say: Have they not heard? Yes, verily: Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the whole world.

The following is directed to no one in particular:

We cannot make God in our own image. I’m sure that you know that God had the Israelites kill the Canaanites (women and children included). Just because we humans have a very modern understanding of love, mercy, and justice, it doesn’t mean that we can change the unchangeable God. If God didn’t save the Canaanites, why would He save your ancestors or mine? Modern society has shaped current ideas on the topics of love and mercy but, has totally removed justice.

I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above. Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above. Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin. - St Thomas Aquinas, who wasn’t marred by political correctness or tried to make God something that God is not.

If God is good and is love and is just, he must punish the sinners. That is why Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise over eating a piece of fruit. A good God does not accept evil. St Peter says, “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.” Christ says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned. [Mark 16:16]”

We can make God into our own understanding of right and wrong but, that doesn’t change who God is. He will still be how he has always been.

Note, this is a website that is against Christianity, however, it does list all of the kinds of death penalties God commanded: evilbible.com/Murder.htm Here is an example: Ezekiel 9:5-7 5 And to the others he said in my hearing: Go ye after him through the city, and strike: let not your eyes spare, nor be ye moved with pity. 6 Utterly destroy old and young, maidens, children and women: but upon whomsoever you shall see Thau [a Cross], kill him not, and begin ye at my sanctuary. So they began at the ancient men who were before the house. 7 And he said to them: Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew them that were in the city.

When people who are invincibly ignorant get the mark of the beast, will people still say that God will save them?

Luke 18:8 I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

If only few find it, how can God be loving and merciful according to today’s standards?

Here is evidence from an Ecumenical Council, though I know that many won’t accept it. Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. If many people are following you in your understanding about God, maybe you aren’t on the narrow path after all?

“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. We also define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world and the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter prince of the apostles, and that he is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians, and to him was committed in blessed Peter the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church, as is contained also in the acts of ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top