Gandhi in hell?

[donmaximuso27]

1. No. Gandhi could not boast about recieving the Eucharist. But, then again, neither can we.
2. Can he boast making the world a better place through prayer? Well, I don’t know. He certainly made the world a better place,
   . Gandhi said that, “Prayer is not an old woman’s idle amusement. Properly understood and applied, it is the most potent instrument of action.” and that “Prayer is the key of the morning and the bolt of the evening.” and that, “Prayer has been the saving of my life. Without it I should have been a lunatic long ago. My autobiography will tell you that I have had my fair share of the bitterest public and private experiences. They threw me into temporary despair, but if I was able to get rid of it, it was because of prayer.”
3. A life of contemplation? No, Gandhi was more inclined towards action, not that action is by any means superior to contemplation.
4. I would hardly call Gandhi’s works secular. After all, where there is love, there is God. And he didn’t get anyone out of poverty. He did, however, plant the seeds of peace.
5. Well, actually, I personally can say that encountering Gandhi led me to deeper contemplation about my religion, and to begin my discernment towards monasticism. He was not a Catholic, but he has helped me look deeper into Catholicism, and sparked an interest in monastic life. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. (not a fan of MLK), “Jesus gave me the message; Gandhi gave me the method.” And for that, I will be eternally greatful to him.

The works of the Church should never be compared to the works of Gandhi. Gandhi once stated, as a response to a question to whether or not he was a Hindu: “Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.”

“What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty.” (source: his autobiography)

“As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”

“The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.”

Gandhi, when speaking of religion, only supports relativism and this whole “we are all equal” theology nonsense. Why not look for inspiration from the saints, who not only did greater works then Gandhi, but did them solely for the glory of God, through Christ and the Church. This is true inspiration. I do not deny Gandhi’s contribution to the world in helping poverty and inhumane acts in India. Still, his relativism only separates God and His people. Eternal salvation is the all-important goal for all God’s people. While he did save people from poverty, at the same time we had saints that gave themselves over to poverty. While he saved people from inhumane acts, we had saints that gave their lives for Christ, who suffered every inhumane act possible to be a martyr and true disciple of Christ. Clearly, the saints are the true inspiration, both because of their works and true faith in Christ. Gandhi can never compare.

 

[elt1956]

He certainly didn’t love everyone. Wasn’t it Gandhi who said to someone “I like your Christ but not your Christians”?

I think this statement of Gandhi needs to be taken in the context of what the “Christians”, especially the British, were doing to his country at that time. Gandhi had quite a fight on his hands as do we all to keep our thinking straight and our faith strong. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

He certainly didn’t love everyone. Wasn’t it Gandhi who said to someone “I like your Christ but not your Christians”?

Yes. So maybe that’s enough to make him a Christian, de facto but not de jure, or a member of the “invisible Church”.

We really don’t know. There were flaws with Gandhi’s political ideas, for instance the flag of India, absurdly, contains a spinning wheel, symbol of Gandhi’s Luddism. His legacy kept India back for many years. But he was a great man, and a serious moral thinker. No doubt about that. His is the hard case that tests the doctrine. Is Gandhi himself saved? We cannot say, but we can have reasonable confidence that God in His mercy and justice will find a way. Could Gandhi’s ideas provide salvation for mankind? That’s easy to answer. No they could not, they are too interlarded with human folly.

Question and I don’t mean to be confrontational about this, but whose human folly was it, Gandhi’s or everyone elses. What do you think. Peace.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

The works of the Church should never be compared to the works of Gandhi. Gandhi once stated, as a response to a question to whether or not he was a Hindu: “Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew.”

“What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty.” (source: his autobiography)

“As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”

“The sayings of Muhammad are a treasure of wisdom, not only for Muslims but for all of mankind.”

Gandhi, when speaking of religion, only supports relativism and this whole “we are all equal” theology nonsense. Why not look for inspiration from the saints, who not only did greater works then Gandhi, but did them solely for the glory of God, through Christ and the Church. This is true inspiration. I do not deny Gandhi’s contribution to the world in helping poverty and inhumane acts in India. Still, his relativism only separates God and His people. Eternal salvation is the all-important goal for all God’s people. While he did save people from poverty, at the same time we had saints that gave themselves over to poverty. While he saved people from inhumane acts, we had saints that gave their lives for Christ, who suffered every inhumane act possible to be a martyr and true disciple of Christ. Clearly, the saints are the true inspiration, both because of their works and true faith in Christ. Gandhi can never compare.

I’m not debating Gandhi’s religious beliefs. He was a Hindu. That’s all that needs to be said. However, none of the Saints (as far as I know) gave us a way to deal with social injustice, other than war. In my eyes, Gandhi gave us a missing piece of the puzzle. St. Charles Borromeo didn’t give it to us, St. Pius X didn’t give it to us, and Bl. Pope Urban II definately did not give it to us. Gandhi taught us how to deal with oppression lovingly. There were a thousand other blundering idiots in India who advocated violent revolution, but Gandhi said no. His way won, and he did not have to shed a drop of blood to do it. He changed the world. If I had to guess, I would think that while Christ would go with Augustine’s theology, He would have gone with Gandhi on terms of social revolution. Gandhi’s non-violence stemmed from his belief in God. His goal in life was to “See God face-to-face.” If anyone asked me how to get to Heaven, I would give them the Bible and the Saints. If someone asked me how to conduct social revolution, I would undoubtedly hand them a copy of “The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi.”

 

[Teflon93]

1. What did Gandhi boast about? From what I’ve read, he was an extremely humble man. Also, Gandhi was hardly blinded from the evils of Nazism, he was just not convinced that killing was the way to deal with it. I disagree with him on this point, I think war against the Nazis was entirely justified. But Gandhi’s opposition to War was out of love, misguided as it might have been.

For starters, consider the offending quote regarding Christians. Not the mark of a humble man. Gandhi’s formative experience in South Africa is hardly the mark of the humble—remember that the source of his outrage was a personal offense against him over a rail ticket. It was events like these which prompted Churchill to refer to him as “a seditious Middle Temple fakir”. It was a question of honesty and authenticity to some effect; Gandhi came to asceticism quite late in life and one may understand that such conversions are met with some skepticism.

There’s not much evidence I’m aware of that Gandhi opposed the war out of love—as I recall, he actually had agreed to call off civil disobedience and support the government in 1939 or so but when confronted by members of his own party who insisted upon a more radical, anti-British line switched his position to one of “We will not support the effort until the British pull out of India first.” That isn’t love, but realpolitik.

1. Right, and I believe that Gandhi’s work indeed pleased God. His failure to accept Christ probably angered God. But I trust in God’s goodness, and God’s justice. If Gandhi is in Heaven I will rejoice for him as I will for every other soul that is saved. If he is not, well, justice will have been done, and I will grieve for him as I will grieve for every other damned soul, if not more so.

Absolutely—a very orthodox Catholic position. I hope he’s in heaven as well; I simply object to his condescension toward Christians, itself likely an artifact of his hatred of the British.

1. I do not operate under this fallacy. Gandhi had immense faith in God, just not the correct understanding of Him.

Which is precisely why I referenced Marcus Aurelius, noblest of the pagans, and whose “Meditations” reflect a keen moral awareness lacking unfortunately knowledge of God. If Gandhi’s in, Marcus surely must be.

1. I’m not judging by contributions to society. I’m judging by apparent personal character. Gandhi was humble, faithful, self-denying, and loving to a fault. Winston was a jerk, plain and simple. As Louis Fiscer put it, Churchill would have died to keep Britain free, but he refused to give anyone else that right.

Churchill was the jerk who kept us out of jackboots; Gandhi’s hatred of the British is what blinded him to the monstrous evil of Hitler and Tojo. I don’t think Gandhi’s political enemies would agree with your characterization of him, whereas even most of Churchill’s enemies possessed a grudging respect for him, Lady Astor notwithstanding.

Personal taste of course has no bearing on salvation. If jerks be denied heaven, even granting your premise, then some saints are on the outside looking in.

 

[Teflon93]

I’m not debating Gandhi’s religious beliefs. He was a Hindu. That’s all that needs to be said. However, none of the Saints (as far as I know) gave us a way to deal with social injustice, other than war. In my eyes, Gandhi gave us a missing piece of the puzzle. St. Charles Borromeo didn’t give it to us, St. Pius X didn’t give it to us, and Bl. Pope Urban II definately did not give it to us. Gandhi taught us how to deal with oppression lovingly. There were a thousand other blundering idiots in India who advocated violent revolution, but Gandhi said no. His way won, and he did not have to shed a drop of blood to do it. He changed the world. If I had to guess, I would think that while Christ would go with Augustine’s theology, He would have gone with Gandhi on terms of social revolution. Gandhi’s non-violence stemmed from his belief in God. His goal in life was to “See God face-to-face.” If anyone asked me how to get to Heaven, I would give them the Bible and the Saints. If someone asked me how to conduct social revolution, I would undoubtedly hand them a copy of “The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi.”

Gandhi was blessed with Christian enemies. Passive resistance and nonviolence against the Nazis led to the camps and ovens. Kolbe is a far better example for Christians, dying as he did in the place of another in a Nazi concentration camp.

One wonders what Gandhi would have said of him.

Gandhi’s legacy in India unfortunately was poverty, violence, and war; all of which Nehru gets blamed for, Gandhi, like Kennedy, having been martyred and therefore placed above reproach. It is one of history’s little ironies, such as the fact that slavery would most likely have been abolished in America in the 1830s has we not successfully revolted against British rule ourselves.

Heroes are heroes, but all but Christ are imperfect. It does them no service to ignore their vices, overcoming which, after all, is what makes them heroic in the first place.

Shall we paper over Blessed Mother Teresa’s stubborness or St Augustine’s lustfulness? Only if we prefer paper saints to real ones.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

For starters, consider the offending quote regarding Christians. Not the mark of a humble man. Gandhi’s formative experience in South Africa is hardly the mark of the humble—remember that the source of his outrage was a personal offense against him over a rail ticket. It was events like these which prompted Churchill to refer to him as “a seditious Middle Temple fakir”. It was a question of honesty and authenticity to some effect; Gandhi came to asceticism quite late in life and one may understand that such conversions are met with some skepticism.

**I don’t consider it offensive. It’s true. Many Christians were, and are, very unlike Christ. Also, I’ve read Gandhi’s autobiography, Louis Fiscers biography of him, and am currently working on his grandson’s biography of him. I am convinced that his outrage was not over a personal insult, but rather genuine discontentment over inequality. Also, whatever he was in South Africa, he was a completely different man by the time of his death. Also, Gandhi turned to asceticism in the 1920s. That’s about 25 years before he was killed. More than a quarter of his life. **

There’s not much evidence I’m aware of that Gandhi opposed the war out of love—as I recall, he actually had agreed to call off civil disobedience and support the government in 1939 or so but when confronted by members of his own party who insisted upon a more radical, anti-British line switched his position to one of “We will not support the effort until the British pull out of India first.” That isn’t love, but realpolitik.

I disagree. I have gone through a considerable amount of Gandhi’s words, and he clearly states he hates no one, and that he does not hate British things merely because they are British. I’m not sure about the events regarding 1939. From what I’ve read, Patel, Nehru and pretty much everyone else, save Abdul Ghaffar Khan, turned from Gandhi when it came to Indian participation in WWII. I will have to read more.

Absolutely—a very orthodox Catholic position. I hope he’s in heaven as well; I simply object to his condescension toward Christians, itself likely an artifact of his hatred of the British.

Again, I have gathered that he did not hate the British in any way.

Which is precisely why I referenced Marcus Aurelius, noblest of the pagans, and whose “Meditations” reflect a keen moral awareness lacking unfortunately knowledge of God. If Gandhi’s in, Marcus surely must be.

Possibly. I tend to take a broader view of invincible ignorance than some, thus my belief that Gandhi is in Paradise.
Churchill was the jerk who kept us out of jackboots; Gandhi’s hatred of the British is what blinded him to the monstrous evil of Hitler and Tojo. I don’t think Gandhi’s political enemies would agree with your characterization of him, whereas even most of Churchill’s enemies possessed a grudging respect for him, Lady Astor notwithstanding.

Again, I have gathered that he was in no way blinded to the evil of the Axis powers. Of course his enemies wouldn’t agree with my characterization of him. However, I think Pope John Paul II would.

Personal taste of course has no bearing on salvation. If jerks be denied heaven, even granting your premise, then some saints are on the outside looking in.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Gandhi was blessed with Christian enemies. Passive resistance and nonviolence against the Nazis led to the camps and ovens. Kolbe is a far better example for Christians, dying as he did in the place of another in a Nazi concentration camp.

St. Maximilian Kolbe happens to be my Confirmation Saint. He is a brilliant example for Christians, even more so than Gandhi. I am, however, asserting that Gandhi was a great man and should be the reference point for civil resistance to social injustice, not genocide. Satyagraha does not work against animals.

One wonders what Gandhi would have said of him.

Gandhi would have praised him, undoubtedly.

Gandhi’s legacy in India unfortunately was poverty, violence, and war; all of which Nehru gets blamed for, Gandhi, like Kennedy, having been martyred and therefore placed above reproach. It is one of history’s little ironies, such as the fact that slavery would most likely have been abolished in America in the 1830s has we not successfully revolted against British rule ourselves.

**Gandhi is not beyond reproach in any way. He was blatantly wrong on things, this is obvious. However, Gandhi’s legacy is no more one of poverty, violence, and war than Martin Luther King Jr.'s is one of gangs, rape, and rap culture. It’s not their fault. As for Nehru, I’ll leave him to the historians as I don’t know much about Indian politics after Gandhi. **

Heroes are heroes, but all but Christ are imperfect. It does them no service to ignore their vices, overcoming which, after all, is what makes them heroic in the first place.

This is true, but I’m not ignoring his vices.

Shall we paper over Blessed Mother Teresa’s stubborness or St Augustine’s lustfulness? Only if we prefer paper saints to real ones.

 

[elt1956]

The questions begs since his quote was brought up and I actuallyed used his quote as a signature for a while.

WHICH CHRISTIANS ARE HE TALKING ABOUT?

Could be he was talking about the “Christians” who were controlling his country and the economy. Peace.

 

[Brian777]

how so? muslims, for example, do not worship jesus. ok, pagans do not worship jesus, but instead of the one god of muslims, they have seperate. and we have no problem with muslims. just because pagans believe in more than one god does not mean they dont love him, even if they dont realize that it is one god that exists. also, you cant expect everyone to believ the same thing. just because you believe one thing, does not mean that others are “bogus” because they dont agree. when jesus died, there were still pagans. many were bad, as is obvious from scripture, but not all. it is not as if every pagan knew about christ the moment he died. no, they lived on, not knowing of him, but many still loved god. many were peacefull, loving people. sure, they had many customs we would not agree with, but their right and wrong were different. today pagans are different. they dont have nearly as many taboos. is it unfortuante to be pagan, and not know chirst? yes. but is it a one-way ticket to hell? no.

im not even going to put my personal opinion on here let Dogma speak for itself…

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, Ex-Cathedra (Infallible) 1441
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics (protestants) and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Id prefer not to speculate on Church Dogma.

 

[Teflon93]

Pope_Noah_I:
Well, now you’ve gone and done it—I find myself agreeing with you on every point in your last two posts. I can’t claim to know Gandhi’s heart in terms of how he viewed the British; his own words evince no particular hatred of them, and his own party time and again showed a marked willingness to use him when convenient and go their own way when not. That certainly seems to be what happened at the outset of WWII.

All of which goes to show why we can’t know the disposition of someone else’s soul—God alone can look into our hearts and judge them.

You picked a wonderful saint—if only someone would give his story the cinematic treatment so that many more people would have an awareness of what Kolbe did!

 

[donmaximuso27]

im not even going to put my personal opinion on here let Dogma speak for itself…

Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, Ex-Cathedra (Infallible) 1441
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics (protestants) and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Id prefer not to speculate on Church Dogma.

Again, there is also dogma on invincible ignorance, which the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that those who do not know the truth of the Church, or who cannot by some other will hear the Gospel message, will go to hell. You simply cannot place this Bull Cantate Domino universally on non-Catholics. God is the only judge and the only one to see each individual. He is the only one who truly knows whether a non-Catholic knows the truth of the Church and still refuses to join it, or if a non-Catholic by some other power cannot hear the message of Christ. It is not right as the servants of God to judge the state of anyone’s soul.

 

[Brian777]

What is the Catholic Church’s offical teaching on this now?

BTW interesting name “Ivan”; do you Identify yourself with him?

that quote, which I also posted is infallible Dogma, therefore the teaching does not change, now the understanding might change, but not the dogma itself. Today Catholics should understand that all those who willingly reject the Truth or become malicious to it, regardless of their own faith and works, as well as all those who leave the Church in denial of the Truth will suffer divine punishment. God’s mercy is all encompassing, but some of us, well actually most of us just don’t want it.

Here is an example of being malicious towards the Truth…

remnantofgod.org/ read your fill of it everyone. Its disgusting and has Satan written all over it!

Here is the official Church teaching re-worded by Lumen Gentium, Vatican II form the Catechism…

845
To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846
How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

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

 

[Brian777]

Again, there is also dogma on invincible ignorance, which the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that those who do not know the truth of the Church, or who cannot by some other will hear the Gospel message, will go to hell. You simply cannot place this Bull Cantate Domino universally on non-Catholics. God is the only judge and the only one to see each individual. He is the only one who truly knows whether a non-Catholic knows the truth of the Church and still refuses to join it, or if a non-Catholic by some other power cannot hear the message of Christ. It is not right as the servants of God to judge the state of anyone’s soul.

yes i know…this is infallible Dogma applying to anyone who willinlgy rejects or is malicious towrds the Truth. Obviously those men in innocent ignorance cannot be made guilty of their theological errors. HOWEVER, that does not apply to those ignorant of morals, for St. Paul says that the law of God is written upon the heart. When someone who was never preached the Gospel dies, God will ask “Why were you not in communion with my Church?” They can safely say, if its true, that they were completely ignorant of it. This excuse won’t work for morals though. This sis the explanation i formulated FOR MYSELF AFTER MUCH PRAYER AND MEDITATION WHILE VISITING MY LOCAL SEMINARY. tHE BISHOP AND THE RECTOR BOTH TOLD ME THAT I HAD IT RIGHT ON THE DRUMHEAD. (sorry for the caps Caps Lock was on)

 

[donmaximuso27]

yes i know…this is infallible Dogma applying to anyone who willinlgy rejects or is malicious towrds the Truth. Obviously those men in innocent ignorance cannot be made guilty of their theological errors. HOWEVER, that does not apply to those ignorant of morals, for St. Paul says that the law of God is written upon the heart. When someone who was never preached the Gospel dies, God will ask “Why were you not in communion with my Church?” They can safely say, if its true, that they were completely ignorant of it. This excuse won’t work for morals though. This sis the explanation i formulated FOR MYSELF AFTER MUCH PRAYER AND MEDITATION WHILE VISITING MY LOCAL SEMINARY. tHE BISHOP AND THE RECTOR BOTH TOLD ME THAT I HAD IT RIGHT ON THE DRUMHEAD. (sorry for the caps Caps Lock was on)

I completely agree. I simply wanted to clarify invincible ignorance because many times on the forum people dare to judge one’s soul. Again, I was not saying you did this, I simply wanted to clarify the whole meaning of the doctrine.

 

[Brian777]

I’m not debating Gandhi’s religious beliefs. He was a Hindu. That’s all that needs to be said. However, none of the Saints (as far as I know) gave us a way to deal with social injustice, other than war. In my eyes, Gandhi gave us a missing piece of the puzzle. St. Charles Borromeo didn’t give it to us, St. Pius X didn’t give it to us, and Bl. Pope Urban II definately did not give it to us. l

Yeah lets see what Pius X said in regards to violence…(this is one of my favorite quotes from him) [In response to someone who begged him (Saint Pius X) to “go soft” on the Modernists, He retorted]: “Kindness is for fools! They want them to be treated with oil, soap, and caresses but they ought to be beaten with fists! In a duel you don’t count or measure the blows, you strike as you can! War is not made with charity, it is a struggle a duel. If Our Lord were not terrible he would not have given an example in this too. See how he treated the Philistines, the sowers of error, the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the traitors in the temple. He scourged them with whips!”

A for Bl Urban II, at the risk of starting a new argument on the Crusades I will say that something of such magnitude could not have been against God’s Will. Especially when the original intent was simply to protect and defend the pilgrims and the Holy sites. It was the Muslims who kept on fighting. Now the later years of the Crusades were anyhting but Holy, but the first is still a Holy effort. You really can’t deny that.

 

[Brian777]

I completely agree. I simply wanted to clarify invincible ignorance because many times on the forum people dare to judge one’s soul. Again, I was not saying you did this, I simply wanted to clarify the whole meaning of the doctrine.

Ok, but one thing about judging. If we know that someone is in heresy or is malicious towrds the Truth, can we not safely say that unless they open their heart to the mercy of Christ, they will suffer and pay for their sins? That woul not judging that’d be simply telling the truth.
What we must be wary of is angry and judgmental admonishing of the sinner. When we admonish the Sinner or counsel the ignorant for that matter, we must do so sternly, yet lovingly, as Christ himself would.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Ok, but one thing about judging. If we know that someone is in heresy or is malicious towrds the Truth, can we not safely say that unless they open their heart to the mercy of Christ, they will suffer and pay for their sins? That woul not judging that’d be simply telling the truth.
What we must be wary of is angry and judgmental admonishing of the sinner. When we admonish the Sinner or counsel the ignorant for that matter, we must do so sternly, yet lovingly, as Christ himself would.

Well, we can never know what the whole truth and knowledge of a man’s heart and mind, not even Martin Luther. God’s mercy and grace may spread to those who appear heretical, yet at their last breath proclaimed their adherence to the truth. Honestly, no person can know another’s state except God. We of course can say by what we know from Scripture and the Church what is the true way to salvation, but we still cannot judge who came back onto that road, for it can happen even in the seconds of death. I agree though, that we must use love to bring those to the Church, and lead by the example of Christ.

 

[HelenRose]

i dont really see how he could be in hell, i mean, he did nothing but embrace everyone, but someone on this site told me he is probably in hell. the person who told me this probably wasnt catholic though, because he says that, “if your not christian, you will go to hell”. i dunno…

Those who write on a forum, myself included, are expressing opinions and nothing more. You can learn a lot listening to various ideas but it is best for you to study and read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand what the Church actually teaches.

We can not know who is or who is not in Hell. We do have a number of men and women whom we are certain are in heaven. There are other souls in heaven which we do not know about. The other souls are in purgatory and possibly there are souls who are in Hell. This judgement is in God’s hands alone.

I would also suggest that you pray for Ghandi.

 

[elt1956]

Again, there is also dogma on invincible ignorance, which the Church teaches. The Church does not teach that those who do not know the truth of the Church, or who cannot by some other will hear the Gospel message, will go to hell. You simply cannot place this Bull Cantate Domino universally on non-Catholics. God is the only judge and the only one to see each individual. He is the only one who truly knows whether a non-Catholic knows the truth of the Church and still refuses to join it, or if a non-Catholic by some other power cannot hear the message of Christ. It is not right as the servants of God to judge the state of anyone’s soul.

There is also Pope John Paul II’s Ut unum Sint, On commitment to Ecumenism in which he says (paraphrased) Those of the Jewish Religion are not heretics, but because of their convenant to God which has never been broken and because they are the foundation of Christianity, they have a special relationship with God. They will be saved in a special manner unknown to us. Also, re: non-Catholics: All Christian Religions have some element of truth as expressed in the Roman Catholic Church. Because of these elements, they are members of the Roman Catholic Faith (don’t “think” he said Mystical Body). Therefore (they do have a means of salvation.) Would have to check on the exact wording of this, but it is something similar. Traditionalists hold that this is heretical, but there is a literal way to translate scripture, which I think most Trads. do and a spiritual translation. Pope John II has spoken and I agree wholeheartedly with his statements. Also don’t know if this is ex Cathedra.