Is Mother Teresa "Not Saved" because she seemingly embraced other religions?

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

Bryan_Joseph

Guest
How can I best respond to my Protestant friend who says that Mother Teresa is “not saved” because she said that (and I’m paraphrasing) ‘…Buddhists should be the best Buddhists they should be, Muslims the best Muslims, and Jews the best Jews…’

He is obviously interpreting this to mean that Mother Teresa is saying that all religions are equal, and therefore she isn’t preaching that Jesus Christ is the 1 true lord and savior.

For reference my friend belongs to what I think is a non-denominational christian sect that I think has some Methodist undertones.

Thanks,
Bryan
 
How can I best respond to my Protestant friend who says that Mother Teresa is “not saved” because she said that (and I’m paraphrasing) ‘…Buddhists should be the best Buddhists they should be, Muslims the best Muslims, and Jews the best Jews…’

He is obviously interpreting this to mean that Mother Teresa is saying that all religions are equal, and therefore she isn’t preaching that Jesus Christ is the 1 true lord and savior.

For reference my friend belongs to what I think is a non-denominational christian sect that I think has some Methodist undertones.

Thanks,
Bryan
whats your interpretation of that quote?
 
Of course not! Mother Theresa recognized that no matter what she did, she couldn’t make everyone in the world convert to Christianity. In light of that, of course she should call people of other religions to be the best people they can be. She didn’t say that Buddhism holds the same amount of Truth as Christianity, but no one can say that it holds no truth whatsoever. She is calling those people who will not convert to cling to the truth that their religions contain and be the best they can be.
 
Alex-
I guess, very simply I think Mother Teresa was not addressing the diverse audience AS a Catholic or Christian who was attempting to convert them by this speech, but rather as a human. Saying that no matter what your faith, be the best person you can be.

I would like to be able to respond to my protestant friend a little more insightfully and even convincingly than that though.
 
Of course not! Mother Theresa recognized that no matter what she did, she couldn’t make everyone in the world convert to Christianity. In light of that, of course she should call people of other religions to be the best people they can be. She didn’t say that Buddhism holds the same amount of Truth as Christianity, but no one can say that it holds no truth whatsoever. She is calling those people who will not convert to cling to the truth that their religions contain and be the best they can be.
Thanks. That’s more insightful than what I came up with.

Another thing that comes to mind, is that even Jesus didn’t forcefully convert others when He could have. The example that comes to mind is in John 6, 52 when "The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?. At this point these followers left him. Jesus could have converted them if it was the Father’s will. He certainly had the power to.

Maybe this is apples and oranges, but to me I’m ok with Mother Teresa’s words, I just want to be able to articulate it like an apologist would.

Thanks,
Bryan
 
I think what Mother Teresa was saying was actually *much deeper *than “be the best person you can be”. Your friend would be correct that she deviated from Christian theology if that was her message. The primary message of Christianity is that we are powerless without the supernatural intervention of God to live lives that are in harmony with God, so we cannot be the best person we can be and escape the curse of sin and death.

Mother Teresa was expressing the view of the Catholic Church that all religions contain some light. Other religions have the equivalent of OT types and shadows to lead them to the true light. This is beautifully expressed in the gospel of Luke in the nativity story, where the Magi see the sign of the King of Jews through the star. This was a sign that Christ was born not just to be Messiah of the Jews, but to be the light of the world to the Gentiles.

What’s really important about the above point is that just as those who were born prior to Christ were judged according to the light they had been given, and according to their own culture and morality, as well as natural law (Romans 1-3), so those that are not Christian today, and through cultural pressure cannot overcome the psychological barriers to conversion, are also judged according to the light they have been given.

(We also see this in I Corinthians 8:4, where Paul discusses eating meat sacrificed to idols. He states that those who believe it is a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and who do eat the meat, have in fact sinned against their own consciences. In a large part, the external rules are not as important as the heart’s will. You can see that what MT says in this quote is actually consistent with I Corinthians 8:4. Those who are strongly indoctrinated in Hindu notions of sin should remain true to those convictions.)

(Also remind your Protestant friend that though Paul tells us there is nothing instrinsicly wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols, in the book of Acts we are told that the Church made the decision to prohibit eating these things as well as strangled things. This is actually an excellent example of the teaching authority of the Church determining the value of Scripture, rather than Scripture being a magical book with absolute truths about good and evil, and that Scripture determing all meat that has been strangled is forever intrinsicly evil.)

And here is that light- and this is really important, because Protestants in my experience have a very difficult time comprehending this. That the light came into the world, and they knew it not. That light is love, and Mother Teresa personified Jesus and that love by becoming His hands. When Hindus respond to Jesus in Mother Teresa, they HAVE HEARD THE GOSPEL.

Protestants are very confused about the role of thinking and mental understanding and “correct theology” in salvation. None of that matters. It is the souls response to light and to love. It is the grace of the sacrament that saves. Not brilliant reasoning and understanding of “correct Christian theology.”

We can see, therefore, that MT presented Christ fully to those who were dying and who were Buddhist and Hindu. The responded on a soul level to her love and care.
 
There is always a problem when people pick and choose quotes and quote out of context. I think this one shows Mother’s intentions:

time.com/time/reports/mot…a/t891204.html
Friends of yours say you are disappointed that your work has not brought more conversions in this great Hindu nation.
Mother Teresa’s response:
Missionaries don’t think of that. They only want to proclaim the word of God. Numbers have nothing to do with it. But the people are putting prayer into action by coming and serving the people. Everywhere people are helping. There may not be a big conversion like that, but we do not know what is happening in the soul.
What do you think of Hinduism?
I love all religions, but I am in love with my own.
And they should love Jesus too?
Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.
I also think it’s important to ask these people making this judgment who they think have converted more people to Christianity. Mother Teresa or them? I’m quite confident that Mother Teresa has converted more to Christianity than any of us could hope to ever do!
 
From my blog:

When some of the writings of Mother Teresa was made public, it revealed she had gone through (as St. John of the Cross did) a ‘dark night of the soul’.
Fundamentalists had a gleeful feeding frenzy. I remember one fundamentalist almost giddy with excitement: “See! This proves it! Mother Teresa is in Hell!!”.** It is extremely important to fundamentalists that Mother Teresa be in Hell. If Mother Teresa is not burning in Hell, that would make their belief/doctrine false; hence she must be burning in Hell.**

And, I might add they are not above taking her words out of context to prove it.
 
Tell him what Fr Groeschel always says. It is not up to us to decide how God chooses to reveal Himself to others…I doubt if your friend is anywhere near as holy as Mother T.
 
The quote, if accurate, is problematic. She shouldnt have sai it in my opinion.
And why is that?

The quote from Bear06 gives the whole context of MT’s statement. The Church did not find the statement problematic, given her beatification, and I would venture to guess that those who approved the beatification are better theologians than the majority of people on this board.

If you consider yourself a better theologian, or with more understanding than the Vatican, maybe you could explain how you came to such knowledge.
 
I think what Mother Teresa was saying was actually *much deeper *than “be the best person you can be”. Your friend would be correct that she deviated from Christian theology if that was her message. The primary message of Christianity is that we are powerless without the supernatural intervention of God to live lives that are in harmony with God, so we cannot be the best person we can be and escape the curse of sin and death.

Mother Teresa was expressing the view of the Catholic Church that all religions contain some light. Other religions have the equivalent of OT types and shadows to lead them to the true light. This is beautifully expressed in the gospel of Luke in the nativity story, where the Magi see the sign of the King of Jews through the star. This was a sign that Christ was born not just to be Messiah of the Jews, but to be the light of the world to the Gentiles.

What’s really important about the above point is that just as those who were born prior to Christ were judged according to the light they had been given, and according to their own culture and morality, as well as natural law (Romans 1-3), so those that are not Christian today, and through cultural pressure cannot overcome the psychological barriers to conversion, are also judged according to the light they have been given.

(We also see this in I Corinthians 8:4, where Paul discusses eating meat sacrificed to idols. He states that those who believe it is a sin to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and who do eat the meat, have in fact sinned against their own consciences. In a large part, the external rules are not as important as the heart’s will. You can see that what MT says in this quote is actually consistent with I Corinthians 8:4. Those who are strongly indoctrinated in Hindu notions of sin should remain true to those convictions.)

(Also remind your Protestant friend that though Paul tells us there is nothing instrinsicly wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols, in the book of Acts we are told that the Church made the decision to prohibit eating these things as well as strangled things. This is actually an excellent example of the teaching authority of the Church determining the value of Scripture, rather than Scripture being a magical book with absolute truths about good and evil, and that Scripture determing all meat that has been strangled is forever intrinsicly evil.)

And here is that light- and this is really important, because Protestants in my experience have a very difficult time comprehending this. That the light came into the world, and they knew it not. That light is love, and Mother Teresa personified Jesus and that love by becoming His hands. When Hindus respond to Jesus in Mother Teresa, they HAVE HEARD THE GOSPEL.

Protestants are very confused about the role of thinking and mental understanding and “correct theology” in salvation. None of that matters. It is the souls response to light and to love. It is the grace of the sacrament that saves. Not brilliant reasoning and understanding of “correct Christian theology.”

We can see, therefore, that MT presented Christ fully to those who were dying and who were Buddhist and Hindu. The responded on a soul level to her love and care.
I think you’ve made some very good points.
 
It’s also important to note that MT was under legal restrictions that prohibited her from seeking conversions in India. She would have not have been able to do her work if she had openly baptized all of the dying.

She was relying on the dying’s response to Jesus in the sisters initiating a desire for baptism, and thus an internal conversion.

Many people criticized her for not 1) doing more complex medical work to save people’s physical lives (usually secular critics) and 2) not trying to openly convert the people she was working with.

But both goals, for this large group of people in the Indian slums, were not realistic under the circumstances. If she had not done the work she did, then nothing would have been done for them.

Don’t underestimate the soul’s response to Jesus in a sister who is consecreated and doing God’s work. It is not the same thing as a random person helping someone (though of course it is good for a random person to help someone).

We trust that children, when they are infants, respond on a soul level to their baptism, though they cannot understand it. The same principle was at work here.
 
Mother Teresa is a canonized saint. Canonized saints are in Heaven.
 
Tell him what Fr Groeschel always says. It is not up to us to decide how God chooses to reveal Himself to others…I doubt if your friend is anywhere near as holy as Mother T.

I thought that the Church teaches that there is only one True, revealed word of God. If that is the case, how and why would God reveal himself differently?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just want to understand something that sounds to good to be true.
 

I thought that the Church teaches that there is only one True, revealed word of God. If that is the case, how and why would God reveal himself differently?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just want to understand something that sounds to good to be true.
What the Church teaches is more complex than that. What you have stated is what fundamentalists teach, not Catholics.

The Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life." (Catechism #843)

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, as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism #847)

If you give the matter any intelligent thought, it becomes obvious how immoral and nonsensical the idea that people who lived before Christ or who are barred from receiving Christ are automatically condemned. The Church believes this is never what Scripture has taught.
 
If you give the matter any intelligent thought, it becomes obvious how immoral and nonsensical the idea that people who lived before Christ or who are barred from receiving Christ are automatically condemned. The Church believes this is never what Scripture has taught.
Does that apply for those who lived after the time of Christ?
 
Mother Teresa is hardly the first person to practice the idea of bringing people to the One, True, Faith by encouraging them to look at their own faith. We Catholics are mighty shrewd. 👍

Fulton Sheen also suggests taking the truth found in the horrible,awful Koran (and yes there is some believe it or not) and use it to bring people to the Faith. He points out that missionaries have already softened the hearts to hear the words their are saying through their charitable acts.

This is from Fulton Sheen’s “Mary and the Moslems”. It’s worth a whole read but these parts are pertinent:
It is our belief that this will happen not through the direct teachings of Christianity, but through a summoning of the Moslems to a veneration of the Mother of God.
The Koran, which is the Bible of the Moslems, has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception, and also, in her Virgin Birth. The third chapter of the Koran places the history of Mary’s family in a genealogy, which goes back through Abraham, Noah, and Adam. When one compares the Koran’s description of the birth of Mary with the apocryphal Gospel of the birth of Mary, one is tempted to believe that Mohammed very much depended upon the latter. Both books describe the old age and the definite sterility of the mother of Mary. When, however, she conceives, the mother of Mary is made to say in the Koran; “O Lord, I vow and consecrate to you what is already within me. Accept it from me.”

When Mary is born, the mother says: “And I consecrate her with all of her posterity under thy protection, O Lord, against Satan!”
The Koran passes over Joseph in the life of Mary, but the Moslem tradition know his name and has some familiarity with him. In this tradition, Joseph is made to speak to Mary, who is a virgin. As he inquired how she conceived Jesus without a father, Mary answered: “Do you not know that God, when He created the wheat had no need of seed, and that God by His power made the trees grow without the help of rain? All that God had to do was to say, ‘So be it, and it was done.’”
The Koran has also verses on the Annunciation, Visitation, and Nativity. Angels are pictured as accompanying the Blessed Mother and saying: “Oh, Mary, God has chosen you and purified you, and elected you above all the women of the earth.” In the nineteenth chapter of the Koran there are 41 verses on Jesus and Mary. There is such a strong defense of the virginity of Mary here that the Koran, in the fourth book, attributed the condemnation of the Jews to their monstrous calumny against the Virgin Mary
Many of our great missionaries in Africa have already broken down the bitter hatred and prejudices of the Moslems against the Christians through their acts of charity, their schools and hospitals. It now remains to use another approach, namely, that of taking the 41st chapter of the Koran and showing them that it was taken out of the Gospel of Luke, that Mary could not be, even in their own eyes, the most blessed of all the women of Heaven if she had not also borne One who was the Savior of the world.
I’m pretty sure that Mother Teresa has read Fulton Sheen. This might even be where she got her ideas.

So, basically, Mother Teresa was not one called to the “Convert now!” tactic. Some are and some aren’t. Now, I don’t know if the Church will canonize her (she has not been canonized yet - only beatified) but I’m pretty confident that they won’t condemn her. If they did, a whole lot of saints would have to be condemned too. I mean, Dark Night of the Soul, using the truth in their religion to bring them to Christ, extreme acts of charity, etc. She’s in pretty good company.
 
Mother Teresa is a canonized saint. Canonized saints are in Heaven.
She is?:hmmm:

I know that she was beatified, but I was unaware that she had been canonized yet. Beatification is the last step prior to canonization. I did not know that the last step had been accomplished as yet.

When did that happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top