Does Matthew 25 contradict Catholicism?

[erikd]

From my earlier post:

I used the 90% figure based on books and articles I read about that time (late 60’s and early 70’s) when Catholic couples were first confronted with the changes that were occurring and the Church’s response. I have more recent attributable numbers that I will provide in a minute. First, however, the 90% figure was in reference to how many affected couples might consider or did consider the Church’s teaching a burden, as underlined. Not that they violated that teaching, for as we know many complied and do try to comply, but with a struggle. You can see the evidence for that in many of the threads on CAF. I realize after the fact that I should have left that number out, as it tended to confuse my point.

Now on to some surveys.

A 2005 survey, reported on Beliefnet, said that 63% of Catholics disagreed with the Church’s position on artificial birth control, while 10% weren’t sure. That means about a quarter agreed. Unfortunately the survey did not break the numbers down as to age and marital status. A 2008 Beliefnet survey showed very similar results, with 74% of Catholics saying that the use of artificial birth control methods was not sinful, and that 59% reported having used them.

A 2008 survey of Catholics indicated that 75% thought one could be a good Catholic and disagree with some of the Church’s doctrine. 61% said it was proper to use one’s conscience to make a decision on a moral issue.

In a 2005 Gallup survey reported on the American Enterprise Institute site, 78% of surveyed Catholics said artificial birth control was acceptable, and 94% of ALL respondents accepted it (consider that some of those 94% were likely FORMER Catholics, which is a whole other topic).

Finally, the survey I found most interesting and reflective of my memories of coming of age and getting married right after *Humane Vitae *was a survey of Priests done for the National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood. Of younger priests, 48% said that one could reject some Church teachings and remain faithful to the Church, while 72% of Vatican II era Priests (at least those still alive and active) held that position. WOW! Remove all those Priests for apostasy, and talk about Priest shortage!

So we have a big disconnect between what the Vatican Magisterium teaches and what many, many Catholics and Catholic Priests think is acceptable. “Rome, I think we have a problem.”

A survey reported on the USCCB site says that 3.5% of women ages 15-44 have EVER used NFP, a reduction from seven years earlier. They reported a 70% rate of satisfaction with NFP, with the biggest issue being abstinence.

To relate all this to the Original question, does the use of artificial methods of controlling birth appear in any way to violate the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 25? Or the Sermon on the Mount? Well, according the great majority of those on the Papal Commission back in the 1960,'s, including theologians, Cardinals and Bishops, the answer was no.

So they and about 75% or so of Catholics are in agreement (as the Bishops at the Council would likely have been as well, which is why that particular subject was removed from their consideration).

Chauncey:

Thank you for the research, as it is very enlightening. If it is in fact correct, it tells me that the Priests ought to say more on the matter in their homilies as it appears many Catholics are not educated on this matter. Remember that the Church is not a democracy where the majority opinion determines the rule. In fact, the rules may be difficult to follow at times, but God Himself told us to take the narrow road. The fact that contraception is intrinsically evil is explained in Genesis and Deuteronomy. If you look back to post #52 you’ll see the link I left for you.

As far as your comment on the “Papal Commission back in the 60s” could you perhaps offer some evidence? Because the evidence I have is quite to the contrary. Humanae Vitae explicitly states that contraception is intrinsically evil, and this document was released in the 60s (1968 to be exact). Perhaps you have other writings you’d like to share? Also, what did you think of the faith tract on contraception?

 

[chaunceygardner]

So you’re in agreement with me? It seems that way. St. Paul also summarized the commandments into the commandment that Jesus gave us:

For this, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, You shall not covet; and if there be ANY OTHER COMMANDMENT, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, (o. logos) namely, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
Romans 13:9

You characterized these as “some simple rules based on the first two Commandments” but now you’re agreeing with me that maybe instead of simple rules these requirements for eternal life might include following all of the commandments? I’m confused as to your answer, though I believe the Scripture is clear on the matter.

So you’re still in agreement that the commandments need to be followed, not just some simple rules right? I guess I’m still confused.

I am sorry you are still confused; I truly did not think it was that complex. As Jesus says in Matthew, as referenced, it can be boiled down to the First two Commandments. Jesus did not give a long, long list of rules, laws and checklists for His disciples to follow. He gave us some very simple commands, and THEN expects us, using our God-given intellect and free will, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to understand and internalize those simple rules and apply them in our lives. The other commandments and instruction that He gave us expand on the basics, and are examples for those who may be a little slow to pick up on it. So yes, the other commandments and teachings are valid and are subsets of and expand on those first two.

There are many times in the Gospel that Jesus points out someone or tells stories about people who understand that basic message and apply it in their lives. A great many of them we would call sinners! Sinners who, based on the teachings of the Catholic church today, would not have a chance of attaining salvation, but Jesus says again and again, that they are saved. No checklist, no litmus tests of adhering to doctrines; just a fath-filled understanding and application of Jesus’ message.

**As in Matthew 25. **

Actually this decision was made with the Apostles and the whole Church (Acts 15:22) and it was adressed to the Churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23). The entire Church made the decision, which means the decision was for the entire Church. It would be silly for Bishops from a certain area to not follow the decision made for these three Churches, as the Church was one and universal (or Catholic) and therefore always followed, as She still follows, one teaching. Please remember why Church councils are called: usually to address heresy. The Council of Trent, for instance, was called to address the heresy put out by the reformers. The decisions of that council didn’t just apply to the people in Austria (where Luther lived) they applied to the entire Church.

I underlined some of what you said, for they are certainly points of contention for me, and for every Church historian that I have read.

If you read Paul’s letter to the Galatians where this is brought up, you will see some disagreement between the two accounts. Considering that Acts is an “as told to” document and the author was almost certainly not there, while Paul most certainly was, Paul’s account is usually given primacy regarding what happened. Paul says he met with just a few of the Apostles (James, John, Peter) over one issue. Even if it was more public than that, it certainly was not a council where leaders of the different communities were invited to participate. The decision may have been applied to the entire church at some point, but it was intended for the church communities that you mention, all in one area of Asia Minor.

The Church always acted as one following one teaching. Doctrinal issues were not, historically, as divided as you might think because doctrines taught by the Church were universally understood by most people. It wasn’t until later, with the development of languages that people began to misunderstand the teachings of the Holy Writ. The Church has always been here to correct and instruct, but many did not listen. The reformation (or the defection as I refer to it) was a perfect example.

“Always followed one teaching” also cannot possibly be supported by the facts. You yourself mention the early councils, which occurred to settle DIFFERENCES in theology and practice among the various churches, to determine universal doctrine, or to settle on the Canon of Scripture. All that in itself tells us that there was not “one teaching” that everyone followed, at least not for the first few hundred years of the Church. That is clear from the story we are discussing about Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and continues beyond that. The most obvious example is the doctrinal differences that eventually led to the Nicene Creed and the definitions of who Jesus was and His relationship to God. There was great disagreement over these issues, with some Bishops denouncing each other, arresting people, and all kinds of nasty stuff.

Why so many people want to make their faith so complex is truly beyond me. Jesus tells us to love God with all our hearts, our minds and our souls, and to love others as we love ourselves. EVERYTHING that is important and necessary follows from that. What is essential? What is done to us, or what we do? What we are told, or what we say? Jesus tells us that it isn’t what we take in that will harm us, but what comes out of us, what we do and say. And He expects us to have those two key commandments in mind in everything we do or say. The understanding of this should be the easy part; the difficult part is living up to the expectations He created for us.

 

[sidbrown]

Hi Sid

You claimed that the nowhere in the Bible (I took that as meaning the entire Bible not just St. Matthew 25) is birth control prohibited. I showed you a faith tract that explained where that teaching is located. What did you think of this tract?

I think I was referring to Matthew 25, and what Jesus said there concerning who will and who will not be saved.
the faith tract that you mentioned does not touch upon Mathew 25, further there are different interpretations to the sin of Onanism as mentioned in the Bible.

 

[chaunceygardner]

The fact that contraception is intrinsically evil is explained in Genesis and Deuteronomy. If you look back to post #52 you’ll see the link I left for you.

As far as your comment on the “Papal Commission back in the 60s” could you perhaps offer some evidence? Because the evidence I have is quite to the contrary. Humanae Vitae explicitly states that contraception is intrinsically evil, and this document was released in the 60s (1968 to be exact). Perhaps you have other writings you’d like to share? Also, what did you think of the faith tract on contraception?

It is generally agreed that the passage from Genesis has nothing to do with the status of contraception per se, as anyone who reads it can readily see.

I would suggest you read some Church history from the start of Vatican II into the early 70’s. The basic story is that the Council would have included something on birth control in the Vatican II document The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, but they were prevented from doing so. A small commission was created to examine the issue of birth control. Paul VI expanded that commission, and when he found out what they had approved, quashed their report. He then promulgated Humanae Vitae. The commission report was unofficially made public. Supposedly, about 80% of the members of the commission voted in favor of the final report.

An interesting aspect of the report is that the commission felt that they were proceeding in a way that agreed with the Pope’s intent:

In the present study, dealing with problems relating to responsible parenthood, the Holy Father through his ready willingness to enter into dialogue has given it an importance unprecedented in history. After several years of study, a commission of experts called together by him, made up for the most part of laymen from various fields of competency, has prepared material for him, which was lastly examined by a special group of bishops.

Here is some of the background the commission gave for its recommendations:

The regulation of conception appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible, open and reasonable parenthood in today’s circumstances. If they are to observe and cultivate all the essential values of marriage, married people need decent and human means for the regulation of conception. They should be able to expect the collaboration of all, especially from men of learning and science, in order that they can have at their disposal means agreeable and worthy of man in the fulfilling of his responsible parenthood.

  It is proper to man, created to the image of God, to use what is given in physical nature in a way that he may develop it to its full significance with a view to the good of the whole person. This is the cultural mission which the Creator has commissioned to men, whom he has made his cooperators. According to the exigencies of human nature and with the progress of the sciences, men should discover means more and more apt and adequate so that the "ministry which must be fulfilled in a manner which is worthy of man" (Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, II, c.1, par.51) can be fulfilled by married people. 
 This intervention of man into physiological processes, an intervention ordained to the essential values of marriage and first of all to the good of children is to be judged according to the fundamental principles and objective criteria of morality, which will be treated below.

They addressed the issue of reconciling their recommendations with prior Church pronouncements. Here is a part of that:

The large amount of knowledge and facts which throw light on today’s world suggest that it is not to contradict the genuine sense of this tradition and the purpose of the previous doctrinal condemnations if we speak of the regulation of conception by using means, human and decent, ordered to favoring fecundity in the totality of married life and toward the realization of the authentic values of a fruitful matrimonial community.

 The reasons in favor of this affirmation are of several kinds: social changes in matrimony and the family, especially in the role of the woman; lowering of the infant mortality rate; new bodies of knowledge in biology, psychology, sexuality and demography; a changed estimation of the value and meaning of human sexuality and of conjugal relations; most of all, a better grasp of the duty of man to humanize and to bring to greater perfection for the life of man what is given in nature. Then must be considered the sense of the faithful: according to it, condemnation of a couple to a long and often heroic abstinence as the means to regulate conception, cannot be founded on the truth.

 A further step in the doctrinal evolution, which it seems now should be developed, is founded less on these facts than on a better, deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life and of the conjugal act when these other changes occur. The doctrine on marriage and its essential values remains the same and whole, but it is now applied differently out of a deeper understanding.

“Doctrinal evolution”, and a “deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life”. “No condemnation” because it wouldn’t be founded on truth! WOW! Sounds so…Christian; so…Jesus like; so…inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Read this document and compare it with Humane Vitae and the polemic on your link. No contest. This one is full of true understanding of the human condition and of the Gospel message. It does not presume that because an earlier Pope declared something to be true, that it couldn’t change. That was where Paul VI had a problem, with reversing a decision of an earlier Pope, not necessarily with the issue itself. Millions of Catholics and the Church itself suffer because of it.

 

[erikd]

I am sorry you are still confused; I truly did not think it was that complex. As Jesus says in Matthew, as referenced, it can be boiled down to the First two Commandments. Jesus did not give a long, long list of rules, laws and checklists for His disciples to follow. He gave us some very simple commands, and THEN expects us, using our God-given intellect and free will, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to understand and internalize those simple rules and apply them in our lives. The other commandments and instruction that He gave us expand on the basics, and are examples for those who may be a little slow to pick up on it. So yes, the other commandments and teachings are valid and are subsets of and expand on those first two.

Okay, let me approach this from another angle. I’m going to ask you several yes or no questions, please try to limit your answers to yes or no:

1: Would you say that the third Commandment, keeping the Sabbath, also applies to the Lord’s Day (referencing Sunday, the day of our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead)?

2: If your answer is yes, would you be willing to expand your list to three and not two?

3: If your answer is yes, would you say that one ought to keep the Lord’s day Holy?

4: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the Church ought to stress that Sundays are days of worship?

5: If your answer is yes, what would you say about the God loving people who chose to work (either for an employer or around the house) without necessarily going to Church or performing some sort of worship?

6: Do you agree that the ten Commandments needed to be interpreted, as they were by Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount?

7: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the living breathing authority on earth that Christ Himself established should be resonsible for interpreting and correcting faulty interpretations of those who chose to interpret incorrectly?

Just like the Jews misinterpreted the Law of Moses, and Jesus corrected them, so Christians today misinterpret the law of faith, at which point the Church, established by God Himself, has a duty to correct or to make known the errors. The Church does this through councils and / or conferences, and lets the faithful know the way of God more accurately, just as Aquilla and Priscilla did in Acts 18:26.

You see, this could go a really long way. The Church gives us rules to follow because they are worthwhile for our daily lives. For instance, the Church tells you to go to confession, not only because it is so prescribed within the Holy Scriptures, but also because it is the first remedy to cutting all attachment from sin within your life. Most non-Catholics will claim that confession is nowhere to be found within the Bible, yet I have still to meet the one person that Scripturally convinces me of this fact.

There are many times in the Gospel that Jesus points out someone or tells stories about people who understand that basic message and apply it in their lives. A great many of them we would call sinners! Sinners who, based on the teachings of the Catholic church today, would not have a chance of attaining salvation, but Jesus says again and again, that they are saved. No checklist, no litmus tests of adhering to doctrines; just a fath-filled understanding and application of Jesus’ message.

Okay, I’ve asked you to prove many things in our short time of acquaintance, and outside of the polling stats you provided (with absolutely no references) you are reference free once again. Can you point me to the Church teaching that states, as you so eloquently pointed out, that there are people who “would not have a chance of attaining salvation” from the Catechism, Church council, Papal Bull, etc.

Continued on the next post

 

[erikd]

Continued from previous post

If you read Paul’s letter to the Galatians where this is brought up, you will see some disagreement between the two accounts. Considering that Acts is an “as told to” document and the author was almost certainly not there, while Paul most certainly was, Paul’s account is usually given primacy regarding what happened. Paul says he met with just a few of the Apostles (James, John, Peter) over one issue. Even if it was more public than that, it certainly was not a council where leaders of the different communities were invited to participate. The decision may have been applied to the entire church at some point, but it was intended for the church communities that you mention, all in one area of Asia Minor.

Actually Luke, who wrote Acts, was with Paul for many of his missionary journeys and had witnessed first hand some of what he wrote about. It’s true that some things were not witnessed by him, but many were. On what authority are you suggesting that he was not there, or is this merely an assumption?

Also, I can tell you that the Apostles had authority passed down from Jesus over the entire Church, so really one Apostle could have made a decision that would stand for all Churches, not just the ones mentioned. However, since the Apostles were Catholic, they gave the Church the blue print for how these things were to be handled. I’ve explained this already so I won’t clog up this post redundantly explaining myself.

“Always followed one teaching” also cannot possibly be supported by the facts. You yourself mention the early councils, which occurred to settle DIFFERENCES in theology and practice among the various churches, to determine universal doctrine, or to settle on the Canon of Scripture. All that in itself tells us that there was not “one teaching” that everyone followed, at least not for the first few hundred years of the Church. That is clear from the story we are discussing about Paul’s visit to Jerusalem and continues beyond that. The most obvious example is the doctrinal differences that eventually led to the Nicene Creed and the definitions of who Jesus was and His relationship to God. There was great disagreement over these issues, with some Bishops denouncing each other, arresting people, and all kinds of nasty stuff.

Yes, you’re right, there was disagreement amongst the people and even some Bishops. The disagreements were, however, related usually to understanding things such as the Trinity or much later transubstantiation. The beliefs in these doctrines were already embedded onto the hearts of the believers, but the Councils needed to define the definitions so as to teach the ways of God more correctly. Take for instance Transubstantiation: The belief was always that the consecrated bread is the Body of Christ, and the consecrated wine is the Blood of Christ, people just didn’t know how. The definition to describe the act did not happen until over 1000 years later, when the 4th Council of the Lateran took place in 1215. It was always believed to be so, but not defined until 1215. How about the assumption of Mary? We see many apocryphal historical writings which claim that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven and even that she was crowned as Queen over heaven and earth. This was believed by the earliest of Christians, but not defined until 1950. So to say that people acted differently, as they do today within the many protestant denominations, would be an unfair and inaccurate comparison.

Why so many people want to make their faith so complex is truly beyond me. Jesus tells us to love God with all our hearts, our minds and our souls, and to love others as we love ourselves. EVERYTHING that is important and necessary follows from that. What is essential? What is done to us, or what we do? What we are told, or what we say? Jesus tells us that it isn’t what we take in that will harm us, but what comes out of us, what we do and say. And He expects us to have those two key commandments in mind in everything we do or say. The understanding of this should be the easy part; the difficult part is living up to the expectations He created for us.

I agree with you about the last part, living up to the expectations is an incredible task for the holiest of men. However, we are all called to holiness, and finding our perfect holiness within our lives is an admirable task to pursue. I believe that when the Church defines the Words of Jesus, that this can make you more holy. I believe that when the Church canonizes a saint, one can know Christ more fully by knowing about the life of a particular saint. You see, we have so many different ways of knowing God and seeing God, not just on paper but in real life. I don’t understand why people object to seeing God in action and limit themselves to the Bible only?

 

[sidbrown]

Okay, let me approach this from another angle. I’m going to ask you several yes or no questions, please try to limit your answers to yes or no:

1: Would you say that the third Commandment, keeping the Sabbath, also applies to the Lord’s Day (referencing Sunday, the day of our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead)?

2: If your answer is yes, would you be willing to expand your list to three and not two?

3: If your answer is yes, would you say that one ought to keep the Lord’s day Holy?

4: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the Church ought to stress that Sundays are days of worship?

5: If your answer is yes, what would you say about the God loving people who chose to work (either for an employer or around the house) without necessarily going to Church or performing some sort of worship?

6: Do you agree that the ten Commandments needed to be interpreted, as they were by Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount?

7: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the living breathing authority on earth that Christ Himself established should be resonsible for interpreting and correcting faulty interpretations of those who chose to interpret incorrectly?

Just like the Jews misinterpreted the Law of Moses, and Jesus corrected them, so Christians today misinterpret the law of faith, at which point the Church, established by God Himself, has a duty to correct or to make known the errors. The Church does this through councils and / or conferences, and lets the faithful know the way of God more accurately, just as Aquilla and Priscilla did in Acts 18:26.

You see, this could go a really long way. The Church gives us rules to follow because they are worthwhile for our daily lives. For instance, the Church tells you to go to confession, not only because it is so prescribed within the Holy Scriptures, but also because it is the first remedy to cutting all attachment from sin within your life. Most non-Catholics will claim that confession is nowhere to be found within the Bible, yet I have still to meet the one person that Scripturally convinces me of this fact.

Okay, I’ve asked you to prove many things in our short time of acquaintance, and outside of the polling stats you provided (with absolutely no references) you are reference free once again. Can you point me to the Church teaching that states, as you so eloquently pointed out, that there are people who “would not have a chance of attaining salvation” from the Catechism, Church council, Papal Bull, etc.

Continued on the next post

But suppose that someone performs all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25 but does not go to Mass on December 8. Will that person be saved or not?

 

[erikd]

It is generally agreed that the passage from Genesis has nothing to do with the status of contraception per se, as anyone who reads it can readily see.

I would suggest you read some Church history from the start of Vatican II into the early 70’s. The basic story is that the Council would have included something on birth control in the Vatican II document The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, but they were prevented from doing so. A small commission was created to examine the issue of birth control. Paul VI expanded that commission, and when he found out what they had approved, quashed their report. He then promulgated Humanae Vitae. The commission report was unofficially made public. Supposedly, about 80% of the members of the commission voted in favor of the final report.

An interesting aspect of the report is that the commission felt that they were proceeding in a way that agreed with the Pope’s intent:

Here is some of the background the commission gave for its recommendations:

They addressed the issue of reconciling their recommendations with prior Church pronouncements. Here is a part of that:

“Doctrinal evolution”, and a “deeper and more correct understanding of conjugal life”. “No condemnation” because it wouldn’t be founded on truth! WOW! Sounds so…Christian; so…Jesus like; so…inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Read this document and compare it with Humane Vitae and the polemic on your link. No contest. This one is full of true understanding of the human condition and of the Gospel message. It does not presume that because an earlier Pope declared something to be true, that it couldn’t change. That was where Paul VI had a problem, with reversing a decision of an earlier Pope, not necessarily with the issue itself. Millions of Catholics and the Church itself suffer because of it.

Perhaps all this hapenned because the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to err by allowing the successor of St. Peter to make a good decision (St. Matthew 16:18-19) that protected life, while overruling another decision that destroyed life. I would tend to think that every Christian would put their own selfish physical needs below those of an actual human life, but maybe I’m wrong. Remember, science today tells us that life begins at conception. Artificially stopping that conception is what the Church taught against in order to fulfill God’s plan of man being fruitful and multiplying, rather than contracepting.

 

[erikd]

But suppose that someone performs all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25 but does not go to Mass on December 8. Will that person be saved or not?

Sid, God can forgive any sin and any sinner. With true repentance and the Grace of God, salvation is achievable by all.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid, God can forgive any sin and any sinner. With true repentance and the Grace of God, salvation is achievable by all.

True, but suppose that the perosn does not repent of not going to Mass on December 8, then would that person be saved, even if he had performed all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25.
This is where I see a problem between what is mandated for salvation by Matthew 25, and what the Church mandates. How are we then to interpret Matthew 25 ?

 

[erikd]

I think I was referring to Matthew 25, and what Jesus said there concerning who will and who will not be saved.
the faith tract that you mentioned does not touch upon Mathew 25, further there are different interpretations to the sin of Onanism as mentioned in the Bible.

I must have misunderstood, though your quote was “nowhere in the Bible” and that’s why I led you to that faith tract. Also, if you’re a Catholic, as your description states, this matter is really not up for debate. The Catholic Church puts matters of life at its utmost importance, and this is certainly one of those matters. Protestants have the luxury of making things up as they go, Catholics don’t. We have a Magisterium and a Papacy that ensures we are error free. I would invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2370.

 

[erikd]

True, but suppose that the perosn does not repent of not going to Mass on December 8, then would that person be saved, even if he had performed all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25.
This is where I see a problem between what is mandated for salvation by Matthew 25, and what the Church mandates. How are we then to interpret Matthew 25 ?

Sid, keep in mind that God Himself built the Catholic Church. This is a historical fact, supported in history and Scripture. If you stand against the Church you stand against God. You’re asking about Dec. 8 which is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is one of the 8 days of obligation. If you miss this day due to no fault of your own, uncontrollable circumstances, you would have probably wished you were there and God will not hold you accountable for things that are out of your control. If you don’t go out of a hatred for God or His Church, than you have already separated from God and Hell is a separation from God. If you don’t go because you don’t understand why this is a Holy day of obligation, then you are being ignorant (and I use that word with all due respect and I am not calling you ignorant) and there are instances where this could be excusable because you did not know better. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

To put it plainly, as a Catholic you adhere to Church teachings because that is what you are called to do. If you disagree, you may not be truly Catholic and that in itself is a separation from God. Whether the separation is enough to separate you permanently is a truth that is written on your soul and only God can know the answer.

 

[sidbrown]

Sid, keep in mind that God Himself built the Catholic Church. This is a historical fact, supported in history and Scripture. If you stand against the Church you stand against God. You’re asking about Dec. 8 which is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is one of the 8 days of obligation. If you miss this day due to no fault of your own, uncontrollable circumstances, you would have probably wished you were there and God will not hold you accountable for things that are out of your control. If you don’t go out of a hatred for God or His Church, than you have already separated from God and Hell is a separation from God. If you don’t go because you don’t understand why this is a Holy day of obligation, then you are being ignorant (and I use that word with all due respect and I am not calling you ignorant) and there are instances where this could be excusable because you did not know better. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

To put it plainly, as a Catholic you adhere to Church teachings because that is what you are called to do. If you disagree, you may not be truly Catholic and that in itself is a separation from God. Whether the separation is enough to separate you permanently is a truth that is written on your soul and only God can know the answer.

To sum up then, if you missed Mass on December 8 with full knowledge and sufficient reflection and with full consent of the will, and you did not repent, you would be separated from God and go to hell as a Catholic, even if you performed all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25. So a Catholic should not take Matthew 25 literally?

 

[erikd]

To sum up then, if you missed Mass on December 8 with full knowledge and sufficient reflection and with full consent of the will, and you did not repent, you would be separated from God and go to hell as a Catholic, even if you performed all of the good works as mentioned in Matthew 25. So a Catholic should not take Matthew 25 literally?

If you miss Mass on Dec. 8, you don’t repent, and you have full consent, and you have no valid reason, such as you don’t have a full understanding of what Dec. 8th is (which would really fall under full consent) then you are thumbing your nose at God. Does that mean hell? Only God knows. Remember that if you repent, you may still get to heaven or go through purgatory. However, thumbing your nose at God implies a lack of faith, and faith is absolutely necessary for your salvation.

 

[sidbrown]

If you miss Mass on Dec. 8, you don’t repent, and you have full consent, and you have no valid reason, such as you don’t have a full understanding of what Dec. 8th is (which would really fall under full consent) then you are thumbing your nose at God. Does that mean hell? Only God knows. Remember that if you repent, you may still get to heaven or go through purgatory. However, thumbing your nose at God implies a lack of faith, and faith is absolutely necessary for your salvation.

I don;t think that what you say is in accord with my understanding of Catholic teaching, which is that if you die while you are in the state of mortal sin, then you will go to hell.
My guess is that Catholics should not take Matthew 25 literally because it says there in black and white that those who practice the good works mentioned will be saved, while thos who do not will not be saved. So that was my question concerning the correlation between what is taught by the Catholic Church and what is stated in Matthew 25.
Of course, this is just a guess on my part, since I am not a theologian.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I don;t think that what you say is in accord with my understanding of Catholic teaching, which is that if you die while you are in the state of mortal sin, then you will go to hell.
My guess is that Catholics should not take Matthew 25 literally because it says there in black and white that those who practice the good works mentioned will be saved, while thos who do not will not be saved. So that was my question concerning the correlation between what is taught by the Catholic Church and what is stated in Matthew 25.
Of course, this is just a guess on my part, since I am not a theologian.

I agree with much of what you say, but would reverse one point. And that is, Matthew 25 would be one portion of the Bible I WOULD take literally, simply because it correlates very well with the other key messages of Jesus.

 

[JimG]

Actually, Matthew 25 would seem to make salvation entirely dependent on good works. No mention of faith or faith alone. But that’s another discussion.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Okay, let me approach this from another angle. I’m going to ask you several yes or no questions, please try to limit your answers to yes or no:

Probably can’t do that, but will try.
1: Would you say that the third Commandment, keeping the Sabbath, also applies to the Lord’s Day (referencing Sunday, the day of our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead)?

Not sure what “also applies” means, but this is an OT commandment which Jesus does not emphasize in his teaching. In fact, He himself breaks the commandment.

2: If your answer is yes, would you be willing to expand your list to three and not two?
I guess my answer was no, and I will stick with Jesus on this one.
3: If your answer is yes, would you say that one ought to keep the Lord’s day Holy?
See above, but I think one should keep some Holy time for prayer, contemplation and Communion with God. But keeping the Lord’s Word Holy by living a proper life is as, if not more, important.

4: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the Church ought to stress that Sundays are days of worship?The Church will do what it wants, no matter what I think.

5: If your answer is yes, what would you say about the God loving people who chose to work (either for an employer or around the house) without necessarily going to Church or performing some sort of worship? Not a Yes or No question; you are breaking your own rule. Tsk, Tsk. Can’t answer that, as it is really dependent on the person and the situation. What about a doctor who spends 24 straight hours in the hospital caring for people and saving lives, and can’t get to Mass on Sunday? Is reconciliaton necessary? What if she attends Mass during the week?

6: Do you agree that the ten Commandments needed to be interpreted, as they were by Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount? No, not interpreted, since they are clear to begin with. Jesus did not interpret them, He distilled, clarified and prioritized them for his disciples and for us.

7: If your answer is yes, would you agree that the living breathing authority on earth that Christ Himself established should be resonsible for interpreting and correcting faulty interpretations of those who chose to interpret incorrectly? No. First, Christ did not establish a church, people did. Actually, Jewish Christians still had the Temple. Jesus left us the Gospel, and expects every semi-intelligent person who hears it to take it to heart and to follow it. Early Christians formed communities to support and encourage each other in the Way, as Paul points out. They were not anything like the institutional churches of today.

Just like the Jews misinterpreted the Law of Moses, and Jesus corrected them, so Christians today misinterpret the law of faith, at which point the Church, established by God Himself, has a duty to correct or to make known the errors. The Church does this through councils and / or conferences, and lets the faithful know the way of God more accurately, just as Aquilla and Priscilla did in Acts 18:26. Much of what Christians “mis-interpret” is not essential to our salvation and not important to following Jesus. WE, as flawed humans, added so much unnecessary stuff as to obscure the basic truths that Jesus gave us. The Church is unfortunately one of the prime causes of that.

You see, this could go a really long way. I agree. And I still have some Christmas shopping, cookie baking and present wrapping to take care of.The Church gives us rules to follow because they are worthwhile for our daily lives. For instance, the Church tells you to go to confession, not only because it is so prescribed within the Holy Scriptures, but also because it is the first remedy to cutting all attachment from sin within your life. Most non-Catholics will claim that confession is nowhere to be found within the Bible, yet I have still to meet the one person that Scripturally convinces me of this fact.

Okay, I’ve asked you to prove many things in our short time of acquaintance (That is true, you are really quite demanding…are we married?), and outside of the polling stats you provided (with absolutely no references) you are reference free once again. Can you point me to the Church teaching that states, as you so eloquently pointed out, that there are people who “would not have a chance of attaining salvation” from the Catechism, Church council, Papal Bull, etc.

Thanks for the compliment, but this is not about any Church teaching. It is from the Gospels, from the many instances where Jesus spotlights those who come to him in faith: sinners, Centurions, lepers the blind (all representative of NON-CHOSEN people), and who are “saved” or are “close to the kingdom”. No councils or Papal Bull necessary.

Continued on the next post

 

[chaunceygardner]

Perhaps all this hapenned because the Holy Spirit would not allow the Church to err by allowing the successor of St. Peter to make a good decision (St. Matthew 16:18-19) that protected life, while overruling another decision that destroyed life. I would tend to think that every Christian would put their own selfish physical needs below those of an actual human life, but maybe I’m wrong. Remember, science today tells us that life begins at conception. Artificially stopping that conception is what the Church taught against in order to fulfill God’s plan of man being fruitful and multiplying, rather than contracepting.

Too bad that the Holy Spirit didn’t step in a little more often when really needed. Would have prevented a lot of pain and grief. Seems that the Spirit has some very strange priorities.

 

[sidbrown]

Actually, Matthew 25 would seem to make salvation entirely dependent on good works. No mention of faith or faith alone. But that’s another discussion.

Yes. That is my reading of it also.