For all or for many?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrunoMaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrunoMaria

Guest
A dear friend of mine wrote:
…… Today After the pontificate of John Paul II we have a more open church that wants to invite people to come. Francis is continuing in this line …… pray for more souls to be brought into the Faith.<
How very refreshing! Thanks!

There is one very general difference between European and American Catholics that struck me hard. One too often reads matters of faith in „black and white“ only. Fr. John here also mentioned as non-good sample: „……do so or be in danger of Hell“.
It’s this terrible thread of hell or heresy all the time, which in Europe is much less used, in fact hardly ever, for then THE JOY OF BELIEF get’s lost and runs danger to become a MUST instead of immeasurable richness.

The open Church which invites all people to come, does not do a rightly feared ba another friend, who wrote on Mar 25th, 2015:
………Neither of us seem to like the flippant attitude of some priests that say, “give it to everyone and let God sort it out” as that shows even they do not care about the sanctity of the sacrament any longer.<
which of course would push off many as promptly the question arose:
I wonder about this, especially since I was scared off from taking Communion, seemingly, forever. Makes me both angry and sad.<
Though we never must let any human being push us off belief. But as many clerics, laymen and all Popes keep pointing out: To carry out belief, is very strongly mere private matter between God and every single individual. Church can tell and teach, but never monitor right and wrong of the individual. We all are autonomous, self-responsible towards God. We can’t blame anyone else for our doing.

Now, we still get the opinions:
………… because of free will not all of humanity will enjoy the Grace of Salvation. Now, either you agree or disagree with this statement.
…………If you disagree, however, then kindly explain how this positon is not really Calvin’s ‘Limited Atonement’ heresy<.
I never disagreed to this, why is this said often so threatening? The decisive texts are in RCC ## 605 - 617. In 605 the Church teaches, that Christ died for all - the complete humanity. Since some refuse it, we read in # 608 Christ gave his life as a ransom for many.“ In # 613 we again are told, that "blood of the covenant, was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins“. In # 615 we read, that Christ “bore the sin of many and shall make many to be accounted righteous“. Finally in # 616 Catechism tells: …the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son …. makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all. Emphasis is placed on POSSIBLE.
In superficial reading this might be ambiguous. In German even clearer: kann das Opfer Christi für alle erlösend sein= CAN BE for all. „Possible” goes for both; first the divinity of Christ makes His deed possible, - second possible for all. So; a can be or could be or even could have been - if they wouldn’t refuse it.

#617 and 618 then refers on our other present theme, „communion issue“.

Now as I recited several times, Pope Benedict had a important word on "for many“ in his letter of 24th April 2012 when he said: As to how the Lord, the others - “all” - reaches in His own way, ultimately remains His secret.

I had the replie: „Safe to say that He died for all, but knowing that not all would believe in Him?"

Safe or unsafe though, is actually secondary. Let’s rather try to immerse into Christ’s words, which the world never will comprehend fully, but translate a lifetime. We all will see one day and understand, though never comprehend God fully - never in all eternity. But we should avoid to suspect brethren in Christ of our own or any Christian denomination of heresy, since all of them struggle to grab a patch of Christ’s garment.

If Christ had not died for all, then He had never tried to convert sinners. But as He spoke with all, wanted all to be saved, died for all, ALL had the chance to be saved. But a majority refused, only few enter that door. Would anyone think now that still He died for all; shed His blood for all - even the condemned…
This remains as the Pope put it: … His secret. What’s God’s unfathomable will and counsel, we can not decide.

Whilst Jesus taught these people of His time on earth and all - you and me alike, He easily could have simply planted as belief in all heads. But NO! It takes belief of free will, acceptance and compliance to be redeemed and saved! Many are - not all; for His blood is shed for many - not for all.

Yours
Bruno 🙂
Markus 2,13.jpg
 
A dear friend of mine wrote:
…… Today After the pontificate of John Paul II we have a more open church that wants to invite people to come. Francis is continuing in this line …… pray for more souls to be brought into the Faith.<
The CCC#605 is quite clear that Christ died for all without exception: "The Church following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception. “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”
 
Roman Catholic Catechism in #615+#616 makes it clear (as I stated above) that Christ’s sacrifice is POSSIBLE for all. So, not necessarily inevitable.

So you think in our time Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, ISS, Boko Haram and in history countless of these mass-murderers through Jesus’ redemption are justified and saved?
So you think Jesus was erring when He said His blood was shed FOR MANY and He should have said FOR ALL?
 
Oh, I heard that provocative question so often. Even in the form that: “God must be very limited that He allows all that horror, grief and misery on our world!”
How would you answer that one? - Is it worth-while to answer suchlike at all?
 
Oh, I heard that provocative question so often. Even in the form that: “God must be very limited that He allows all that horror, grief and misery on our world!”
How would you answer that one? - Is it worth-while to answer suchlike at all?
Also, along the same sort of line, the question may be asked, 'why supply a ‘tree of knowledge’, along with limited ability to comprehend it, to an obviously fallible Adam and Eve? Surely if anything can be sure - a recipe only for grief, error and sinfulness, without there also being a correcting ‘hand of God’ available when truly sought after.
 
Roman Catholic Catechism in #615+#616 makes it clear (as I stated above) that Christ’s sacrifice is POSSIBLE for all. So, not necessarily inevitable.

So you think in our time Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, ISS, Boko Haram and in history countless of these mass-murderers through Jesus’ redemption are justified and saved?
So you think Jesus was erring when He said His blood was shed FOR MANY and He should have said FOR ALL?
No, I’m not saying that because Christ died for all without exception that our salvation is automatic. God created us with free will and so we have to cooperate with his grace to be saved. God’s grace always comes first “who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). It is for us either to accept and cooperate with God’s grace and do His will or to reject it and come to judgement and condemnation. Jesus Christ is the universal redeemer of all mankind.
 
It is for us either to accept and cooperate with God’s grace and do His will or to reject it and come to judgement and condemnation.
Would anyone think that God wasted and shed the prescious blood of Jesus Christ for those too who are condemned? He did not. Therefore Christ said on this very das today - Holy Thursday - FOR MANY.
Else Jesus had said for all.
As for the rest, we might relay on Pope Benedict XVI word stated above - in his letter of 24th April 2012 when he said: As to how the Lord, the others - “all” - reaches in His own way, ultimately remains His secret.
 
He she’d His blood for the many who would receive Him; but this refers to the final result, and not to the fact that His sacrifice avails for all mankind. But not everyone wants His sacrifice. Today many are far too proud, thinking themselves wholly independent from God - God cannot give Himself to those who simply don’t.want Him in any way.
 
Proving your point, from St. Faustina’s Diary – **all **have a last chance, however, some reject it.:

“God’s mercy sometimes touches the sinner at the last moment in a wondrous and mysterious way. Outwardly, it seems as if everything were lost, but it is not so. The soul, illumined by a ray of God’s powerful final grace, turns to God in the last moment with such a power of love that, in an instant, it receives from God absolution of sins and remission of punishment, while outwardly it shows no sign either of repentance or of contrition, because souls [at that stage] no longer react to external things. Oh, how beyond comprehension is God’s mercy! But - horror! - There are also souls who voluntarily and consciously reject and scorn this grace! Although a person is at the point of death, the merciful God gives the soul that interior vivid moment, so that if the soul is willing, it has the possibility of returning to God. But sometimes, the obduracy in souls is so great that consciously they choose hell; they [thus] make useless all the prayers that other souls offer to God for them and even the efforts of God Himself…” (Diary, 1698).

God Bless and Peace to all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top