Feigned Ignorance vs. Unintentional Ignorance

[underacloud]

I see this issue somewhat in the example of marriage.

So staying faithful to an eternal bond in marriage for an example is very difficult for a non-Christian. But, for a Christian, there is the added incentive of grace given through the sacrament of marriage as well as other sacraments, and even through the knowledge of the importance of marriage obtained through the church.

This does not to say that a non-Christian could never have a successful marriage till their death (the issue is somewhat different here because non-Christians do not share a bond the same sense Christians do. But nevertheless, the breaking of a marriage does lead to disorder in the relationship between man and a woman). A non-Christian couple might have been exposed to the teachings of the Church and it might have appealed more to the law written in their hearts. So their deep conviction to achieve a lasting marriage could pull them through. Though that can still happen but the chances are slimmer and there maybe many faith based impediments (their own faith might allow divorce or not give marriage any prominence).

Now it also does not mean that all Christians would have a successful marriage till death. It just means that if a Christian should have chosen to accept the graces given through the sacrament, they would certainly be able to respond to God. The article of faith here would be that God would never have given an obstacle so big that it was not possible to be overcome through the available graces. The reason why we fail is because we reject his grace.

Doesn’t this example support what I’ve been saying, that there are benefits of the sacraments beyond the binary issue of salvation? Marriage is not a sacrament about salvation per se.

In fact, baptism is deemed the only neccessary sacrament for salvation, and there are technicalities (eg baptism of desire) to allow for salvation for those who do not recieve this sacrament in the normal manner.

I’m happy to agree that scripture, tradition, and the writings of many saints suggest that salvation is less likely for those outside the Church…but I’m still going to leave it up to God in the end.

So why should we evangelize,convert or bring in to communion? Because it would give everyone the best access to all the possible grace that one could have from God.

I completely agree.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Doesn’t this example support what I’ve been saying, that there are benefits of the sacraments beyond the binary issue of salvation? Marriage is not a sacrament about salvation per se.

I only gave marriage as an analogy. So salvation would be represented by a “marriage till death do them part”.

In this sense, I still hold that without access to the full graces available through the church, the chances are slim.

I’m happy to agree that scripture, tradition, and the writings of many saints suggest that salvation is less likely for those outside the Church…but I’m still going to leave it up to God in the end.

I am not sure I disagree in leaving everything up to God in the end. I mean, that is essentially what we all do in the end.

But what I am saying is that when you say “it is up to God in the end”, it implicitly seems to suggest that you would rather hold to the proposition that “there is equal chances of salvation no matter which faith (or lack there of) you belong to”. The only reason why I oppose your view is because of this implicit connotation.

As far as divine revelation and Church teaching goes, it seems logically necessary to state that salvation is slim outside the church. The unfairness aspect usually comes because we think

1. IF a person had x,y,z experience, he would have been Catholic and saved
2. God knows that and would save him

The above reasoning is a bit problematic because it assumes that either

a) God in his foreknowledge did not know that
b) Or knowing this contingent truth about the person in his foreknowledge, he still decided to not let the person act it out in his actual life

The (a) is of course obvious to be false from doctrine.

Now (b) might seem fine at first glance. But there is a bigger issue with it. IF God does make decisions to simply save based on contingent truths that were not actualized, one could make a valid argument that God should not create any human beings and put them through any suffering to begin with. He should create us directly in heaven or hell.

 

[Eufrosnia]

underacloud:

…

Actually, disregard my final argument in the last post. I just realized myself that the argument is rather weak

But I do think that the chances are slim. I would say that before Jesus established the Church, people did have a chance of being saved but it was slim. The law was there but grace was not there in abundance. So there were few who made it.

Therefore, I think that those who are non-Catholics i.e. not part of the church of Christ or in some shape or form separated from it, live similar to those who were before Christ. Hence a slimmer chance. The more one is in communion with the Catholic church, the more chances one has of salvation due to the graces available.

(Also, one as a Catholic can know the moral law correctly without having to wade through ones own personal distorted perceptions of it. So you have the law and grace as a Catholic.)

 

[underacloud]

I am not sure I disagree in leaving everything up to God in the end. I mean, that is essentially what we all do in the end.

But what I am saying is that when you say “it is up to God in the end”, it implicitly seems to suggest that you would rather hold to the proposition that “there is equal chances of salvation no matter which faith (or lack there of) you belong to”. The only reason why I oppose your view is because of this implicit connotation.

My position/view is simply that I do not know. I don’t think it’s fair to conclude or presume that I want to hold the position that chances are or must be equal no matter one’s faith.

The more I know God, the less I know. I do not wish to presume either way in this matter. I agree that it may be the case that chances of salvation outside of the Church are slim, yet not unfair. I do not understand exactly how this operates, but accept that it may well be the case. I even accept that everything we know suggests that it is the case. But I do not find, in the strictest sense, that it is logically necessary, nor divinely revealed.

 

[Eufrosnia]

My position/view is simply that I do not know. I don’t think it’s fair to conclude or presume that I want to hold the position that chances are or must be equal no matter one’s faith.

This I disagree. You do know, as a part of logical reasoning, that belonging to the church means more access to Grace. You also know that Salvation is through Grace. So even relatively speaking, why is it hard to admit that Catholics have a higher chance?

The more I know God, the less I know. I do not wish to presume either way in this matter. I agree that it may be the case that chances of salvation outside of the Church are slim, yet not unfair. I do not understand exactly how this operates, but accept that it may well be the case. I even accept that everything we know suggests that it is the case. But I do not find, in the strictest sense, that it is logically necessary, nor divinely revealed.

This mentality is very commendable but can also be the path to a false (unnecessary) humility.

Why do you think that this is not divinely revealed? Would you admit that divine revelation states the necessity to be God’s children and lead a moral life? I would say you would be hard pressed to disagree.

So given that one must live a moral life, how hard can it be for a non-Catholic, who either has millions of thoughts/philosophies to choose from and have no sacramental grace, no idea of asking for intercessory prayer from saints, to achieve such a thing? Ask yourself the following. If you put a child in our current culture today without any Catholic instructions, what is the chance that he/she would grow up to live a good moral life? What are the chances that he would even care about searching for God or any other higher form of truth?

This really comes down to how much importance you want to give to the role of the church’s sacraments, teachings, and its presence.

It is true that one cannot logically conclude from the importance of the church that NO ONE outside the church is saved. In fact, a certain priest was excommunicated for insisting on the very position. But it is just as bad a position to claim that we simply do not know the value or importance of being Catholic and that everyone might have equal chance of being saved by adhering to whichever thought process they are currently in.

 

[underacloud]

Why do you push this issue? Why are you trying to force me into the contrary position so you can argue the point?

I tell you I don’t hold a certain position…you say that you disagree. Apart from being a poor debating tactic, it’s quite rude.

If this is an issue where the Church requires the faithful to hold a certain position, show me the relevant Church doctrine so I can assent to it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Why do you push this issue? Why are you trying to force me into the contrary position so you can argue the point?

I tell you I don’t hold a certain position…you say that you disagree. Apart from being a poor debating tactic, it’s quite rude.

If this is an issue where the Church requires the faithful to hold a certain position, show me the relevant Church doctrine so I can assent to it.

The reason why I disagree was explained though. I didn’t simply say “I disagree”, no?

Now as for why I care, I care about this issue because I feel that those who hold this position in general tend to be lukewarm when it comes to the issue of evangelizing. I also see it as something they should be if they truly believe their position.

So yes, you, or someone else might say, “I hold this position but I fiercely evangelize” and they probably are engaged in fierce evangelizing. BUT, what they say and do contradicts their position.

If you truly believe that everyone outside the church has just as much odds of salvation as those in communion with the church, or that it is up to God, then there is really no need/urgency to evangelize. The very fact that you would insist that evangelizing is necessary must also mean that there are better odds if you have been evangelized.

Implicitly, you would also be advocating the position that God never really indicated the need for anyone to be part of the Church. Because if he did, it would imply that salvation is more likely for someone who is in the church because he has pleased God. So when you say it is “up to God”, that too is a problematic statement thought it might seem a more humble one.

So I do not mean to offend you. I just think that your position can be dangerous to hold.

 

[underacloud]

If you truly believe that everyone outside the church has just as much odds of salvation as those in communion with the church…

Again, this is NOT my position.

…that it is up to God…

This is my position. And I’m pretty sure you’ll have a hard to arguing against it.

…then there is really no need/urgency to evangelize. The very fact that you would insist that evangelizing is necessary must also mean that there are better odds if you have been evangelized.

Evangelizing is necessary because God ordered it.

As I’ve said before, the sacraments and the Church are not only about salvation, they are also about being as close to God as possible. So salvation is not the only issue here. If it was I could see your logic. But it’s not.

If we follow on with this discussion, it generally leads to speculation about the number of the damned vs the saved. Since God has not chosen to reveal much about this matter, I chose not to trouble myself too much with it in an abstract sense. I acknowledge the need for evangelising and the role of the Church in the salvation of anyone who is saved, whether they are sacramentally baptised members or saved via another route.

I just think that your position can be dangerous to hold.

My position of leaving judgement up to God is dangerous?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Evangelizing is necessary because God ordered it.

So God, according to you, just randomly said “evangelize”? I mean surely, context indicates that the need to evangelize is for salvation, no?

As I’ve said before, the sacraments and the Church are not only about salvation, they are also about being as close to God as possible. So salvation is not the only issue here. If it was I could see your logic. But it’s not.

I am not arguing about whether the sacraments exclusively are for salvation. The fact is that sacraments are PRIMARILY for salvation.

If we follow on with this discussion, it generally leads to speculation about the number of the damned vs the saved. Since God has not chosen to reveal much about this matter, I chose not to trouble myself too much with it in an abstract sense. I acknowledge the need for evangelising and the role of the Church in the salvation of anyone who is saved, whether they are sacramentally baptised members or saved via another route.

No you do not need to speculate. All you know is that it is difficult to be saved and that much is almost abundantly made clear in the Bible itself and Tradition.

What you are doing is creating this unnecessary sense of “I don’t know, its up to God”. The truth is NO, God has made it clear what your best chances are. Do you agree on that or no?

Or do you consider that the entire conclusion of Church Tradition and Scripture is that God hasn’t made it clear why it is important to evangelize but he just gave a direct order?

My position of leaving judgement up to God is dangerous?

Yes, because you pretty much make it sound like God hasn’t revealed anything about the matter on what the best chances are which is false. According to you, evangelizing is based on some direct obedience to a command no one understands.

 

[underacloud]

So God, according to you, just randomly said “evangelize”? I mean surely, context indicates that the need to evangelize is for salvation, no?

You love putting words into my mouth. Please stop.

I am not arguing about whether the sacraments exclusively are for salvation. The fact is that sacraments are PRIMARILY for salvation.

But your argument only logically holds if they are exclusively for salvation. If there is another purpose, then your conclusion does not hold.

No you do not need to speculate. All you know is that it is difficult to be saved and that much is almost abundantly made clear in the Bible itself and Tradition.

See…the discussion heads exactly where I said it would…now you say that it is abundantly made clear…no wait, you say “almost”…

“almost abundantly made clear”? I’ll stick with leaving it up to God.

What you are doing is creating this unnecessary sense of “I don’t know, its up to God”. The truth is NO, God has made it clear what your best chances are. Do you agree on that or no?

God wants everyone to be part of His Church and to know Him as best they can. He isn’t just interested in saving us, He is interested in loving us.

So even, hypothetically speaking, if everyone was saved anyway, He would still want them all brought into His Church and to receive the graces of the sacraments.

Or do you consider that the entire conclusion of Church Tradition and Scripture is that God hasn’t made it clear why it is important to evangelize but he just gave a direct order?

I have already said that I’m happy to agree that scripture, tradition, and the writings of many saints suggest that salvation is less likely for those outside the Church. I’ve agreed that there are ways in which circumstances, free will, and God’s will can be harmonised in a way that is still fair.

But I have also said, and renew my challenge, that if this is an issue where the Church requires the faithful to hold a certain position, show me the relevant Church doctrine so I can assent to it.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You love putting words into my mouth. Please stop.

I am sorry, I didn’t mean to.

But your argument only logically holds if they are exclusively for salvation. If there is another purpose, then your conclusion does not hold.

That is incorrect. My arguments only require that the primary goal of Sacraments be Salvation. Thus the conclusion does hold.

See…the discussion heads exactly where I said it would…now you say that it is abundantly made clear…no wait, you say “almost”…

“almost abundantly made clear”? I’ll stick with leaving it up to God.

So let me understand you properly. Is the conclusion of all the Tradition and Scripture that we really don’t know why we have to be Catholic. But we just have this command by God to evangelize so we do it?

God wants everyone to be part of His Church and to know Him as best they can. He isn’t just interested in saving us, He is interested in loving us.

So even, hypothetically speaking, if everyone was saved anyway, He would still want them all brought into His Church and to receive the graces of the sacraments.

You are giving me your speculation here though. I am asking more of a direct question. Is the conclusion of all our Church teaching that we really don’t know what is the importance of being Catholic for salvation?

I have already said that I’m happy to agree that scripture, tradition, and the writings of many saints suggest that salvation is less likely for those outside the Church. I’ve agreed that there are ways in which circumstances, free will, and God’s will can be harmonised in a way that is still fair.

But I have also said, and renew my challenge, that if this is an issue where the Church requires the faithful to hold a certain position, show me the relevant Church doctrine so I can assent to it.

What you are asking for is like the core belief of any Catholic i.e. that the best chances of being saved are if you are Catholic or communion with the Church. Also, if Tradition and Scripture does attest to the fact, it does make it worthy of assent as well.

The only advantage I can see in holding on to your position is to not feel guilty or moved to evangelize someone, no? I mean where else can your belief even come in to play?

 

[underacloud]

That is incorrect. My arguments only require that the primary goal of Sacraments be Salvation. Thus the conclusion does hold.

As I said, even, hypothetically speaking, if everyone was saved anyway, He would still want them all brought into His Church and to receive the graces of the sacraments. So the command to evangelise would hold regardless of the role of the sacraments in salvation.

So let me understand you properly. Is the conclusion of all the Tradition and Scripture that we really don’t know why we have to be Catholic. But we just have this command by God to evangelize so we do it?

We are Catholic because we accept Jesus as lord and saviour. I’m pretty clear on why I am Catholic, and why it’s a wonderful faith to have. We evangelise to bring others to this faith too. We acknowledge that is it the ordinary means that God has provided for our salvation.

My bolding below…

“CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 **The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord **to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

So, as far as the Church knows, Baptism is the means to salvation and so she continues the mission to baptise the nations. Yet, we acknowledge that God is not bound by his sacraments, so He is free to act in other ways too, as discussed following…

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

The only advantage I can see in holding on to your position is to not feel guilty or moved to evangelize someone, no? I mean where else can your belief even come in to play?

It allows for hope that God will save a great many people. It allows for the mercy of God to extend beyond the ordinary means of salvation. We already know that God’s mercy extends beyond them, but we don’t know how far beyond. I am allowed to hold the hope that His mercy extends very far beyond the ordinary means of salvation. I am even allowed to hold the hope…though not to expect it…that all (or perhaps most is safer) are saved. Your position excludes this hope, which is why I reject it as necessary, while still acknowledging that it is probably true.

 

[Eufrosnia]

As I said, even, hypothetically speaking, if everyone was saved anyway, He would still want them all brought into His Church and to receive the graces of the sacraments. So the command to evangelise would hold regardless of the role of the sacraments in salvation.

So essentially, your point is that we really don’t know why but we are just blindly obeying?

We are Catholic because we accept Jesus as lord and saviour. I’m pretty clear on why I am Catholic, and why it’s a wonderful faith to have. We evangelise to bring others to this faith too. We acknowledge that is it the ordinary means that God has provided for our salvation.

My bolding below…

“CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 **The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord **to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”

So, as far as the Church knows, Baptism is the means to salvation and so she continues the mission to baptise the nations. Yet, we acknowledge that God is not bound by his sacraments, so He is free to act in other ways too, as discussed following…

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Actually, I am not disagreeing with any of this. Only pointing out to you the fact that it is easier to be saved if one is in the Church. Nothing above actually opposes that view and it frankly cannot do so.

Because it is indeed true that those outside have just as good a chance, then there really is no logic to evangelizing. It also reduces evangelizing to a blind command.

It allows for hope that God will save a great many people. It allows for the mercy of God to extend beyond the ordinary means of salvation. We already know that God’s mercy extends beyond them, but we don’t know how far beyond. I am allowed to hold the hope that His mercy extends very far beyond the ordinary means of salvation. I am even allowed to hold the hope…though not to expect it…that all (or perhaps most is safer) are saved. Your position excludes this hope, which is why I reject it as necessary, while still acknowledging that it is probably true.

Actually you are not allowed to hold that. If you hold that, there really is no point of Catholicism. You could also hold that mortal sin is not an issue because God’s mercy can even surpass any obstacle made through that. At this point you are on the verge to denying even the existence of hell.

But if you hold that mortal sin is an issue, then you have to wonder about those outside the church. Which means you have to accept it that they have lesser chance.

I mean honestly, is this not intuitive? As I said before, if you put a kid in the wilderness and asked to be a good person, what are the chances that he will actually keep seeking the truth? He might settle for drugs/sex/alcohol etc. Or he might just adopt a pagan faith that advocates power/wealth etc.

I think Pope Benedict said it well recently when he said that people confuse the church teaching (especially after Vatican II) to simply mean that everyone outside the church has a good chance. He pointed out how that is not true and most outside are more likely to settle for lies and distorted religions as well.

So I still believe that your position does contradict and undermine Church teaching.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It allows for hope that God will save a great many people. It allows for the mercy of God to extend beyond the ordinary means of salvation. We already know that God’s mercy extends beyond them, but we don’t know how far beyond. I am allowed to hold the hope that His mercy extends very far beyond the ordinary means of salvation. I am even allowed to hold the hope…though not to expect it…that all (or perhaps most is safer) are saved. Your position excludes this hope, which is why I reject it as necessary, while still acknowledging that it is probably true.

Actually, if I may ask, do you have someone you love that is outside the church at the moment?

 

[underacloud]

Actually, if I may ask, do you have someone you love that is outside the church at the moment?

Yes…

the rest of mankind!

 

[underacloud]

Actually you are not allowed to hold that. If you hold that, there really is no point of Catholicism. You could also hold that mortal sin is not an issue because God’s mercy can even surpass any obstacle made through that. At this point you are on the verge to denying even the existence of hell.

Actually, I am allowed to hold the hope for salvation of all.

REDEMPTORIS MISSIO

"10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.“19”

Please…again, I renew my challenge…point out the Church teaching that I must obey which contradicts what I have said.

Stop putting words into my mouth or trying to presume you know why I hold such positions. This is a moral theology forum and issues are discussed in an *abstract *sense. You need to stop trying to make it about me or why I believe such-and-such. You need to stick to Church teaching and show me why I must believe what you say.

So I still believe that your position does contradict and undermine Church teaching.

Show me where.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Actually, I am allowed to hold the hope for salvation of all.

REDEMPTORIS MISSIO

"10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.“19”

Please…again, I renew my challenge…point out the Church teaching that I must obey which contradicts what I have said.

Stop putting words into my mouth or trying to presume you know why I hold such positions. This is a moral theology forum and issues are discussed in an *abstract *sense. You need to stop trying to make it about me or why I believe such-and-such. You need to stick to Church teaching and show me why I must believe what you say

Show me where.

What part is so supportive in the above of your position? Who is denying the fact that God wants all to be saved?

Stop confusing things here. The point here is which is the best method of attaining salvation. I already told you that to deny that God wants all to be saved is also WRONG. However, it is illogical to claim that all methods have equal chance (because it is up to God) and still try to evangelize.

So in honesty, the issue here is not even Theological. It is primarily LOGICAL. You hold a irrational position regarding salvation i.e. The church has no idea about which is the best method for Salvation. It is just blindly evangelizing

Am I putting words in your mouth when I claim the following

1. You believe that the Church has not made it clear or have any stance on which the best method of salvation is
2. The Church just blindly evangelizes because Christ asked them to

Which part of the above am I wrong about you?

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes…

the rest of mankind!

I see. Well, the good news is that you already are familiar with what would give them the best chance

 

[underacloud]

What part is so supportive in the above of your position?

That God wants all to be saved and that there is a *real posibility *of such. It’s quite clear.

However, it is illogical to claim that all methods have equal chance (because it is up to God) and still try to evangelize.

Two points here:

a) you repeat the assertion that I claim “all methods have equal chance”. Stop it. I do not and have not claimed such.

b) As I have poitned out, there are still good grounds to evangelise even if all are saved. We want everyone to know God as fully as possible, and that is through the Church.

Take an analogy: My friend and I are driving to the same place. I know a better way to get there and my friend is chosing a longer and less pleasant route. Even though he’ll still get there, I will tell him about my route because it is better.

So in honesty, the issue here is not even Theological. It is primarily LOGICAL.

Having failed to provide any theological basis for your assertion (as I’ve repeatedly asked for), I am quite happy to argue this on a logical basis.

a) We do not know that anyone goes to hell. (see quotes below)

b) For you position to hold (that chances are slimmer outside of the Church) there must be people in hell for a discrepancy in these chances. If the chances are 0% vs 0%, you are wrong.

c) Thus, your position is not certain (even if likely, as I have freely agreed with).

John Paul II: “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.”

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor: “We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell)”.

 

[Eufrosnia]

That God wants all to be saved and that there is a *real posibility *of such. It’s quite clear.

Possibility does not mean that everyone has the best possible chance.

Two points here:

a) you repeat the assertion that I claim “all methods have equal chance”. Stop it. I do not and have not claimed such.

You do not. But it is the direct implication of your position. Because essentially, that might be what God is doing. You say that you don’t know and the Church doesn’t know which way is best.

b) As I have poitned out, there are still good grounds to evangelise even if all are saved. We want everyone to know God as fully as possible, and that is through the Church.

But according to you, this knowing God business is just superficial stuff. It is not necessary at all. So one can just get to know God as much as they want once they get to heaven. They have an eternity.

So no, what you have presented is not good grounds at all. Apart from salvation, it really doesn’t make sense to argue that x,y,z is something you get to know if you are Catholic.

Take an analogy: My friend and I are driving to the same place. I know a better way to get there and my friend is chosing a longer and less pleasant route. Even though he’ll still get there, I will tell him about my route because it is better.

EXACTLY!! There is more chance he will actually reach the destination by following your route because he is less likely to run out of gas or meet some other obstacle while he is traveling.

Hence best chances for your friend is if he/she follows your route. But by saying that its up to God, that makes it such that you really don’t know if your route is better. Maybe its good to just follow that long route and enjoy the scenery.

Having failed to provide any theological basis for your assertion (as I’ve repeatedly asked for), I am quite happy to argue this on a logical basis.

a) We do not know that anyone goes to hell. (see quotes below)

b) For you position to hold (that chances are slimmer outside of the Church) there must be people in hell for a discrepancy in these chances. If the chances are 0% vs 0%, you are wrong.

c) Thus, your position is not certain (even if likely, as I have freely agreed with).

Your premise (b) is false. It is quiet possible that there are zero people in hell right now but it is difficult to reach heaven without the grace received as a Catholic. It was simply the case that everyone till now managed to get to heaven.

Anyway, since your premise (b) is false/doubtful, your conclusion does not follow.

John Paul II: “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.”

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor: “We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell)”.

All of the above only support premise (a) which I do not deny anyway.