Is the Roman Catholic Church and the body of Christ one and the same?

[clem456]

Sometimes is may be a matter of invincible ignorance and the error is not imputable.

Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable.

Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

I’m asking more along the lines of what it means to be an atheist and whether claiming a-theism doesn’t imply an informed decision against God. The Church holds that God honors free will. I have never heard the Church claim that atheism falls inot the category of ignorance. Francis has said something along the lines of atheist -could be- saved, which is not the same thing as claiming atheism is ignorant of God.
.
Of course, on an individual basis imputability can’t be determined, by me anyway.

 

[chimo]

Hello again brother!

Yes I do understand what you are trying to say, but some clarity may help here. First I do agree that the worst evil committed by humanity was the murder of the Son of God; yet there is a huge difference between this one instance and all the others. With Christ, I believe God Himself willed it so such great good could come about! He wished to redeem his Creation from sin itself! It is the only thing that God hates after all.

Now with regards to the other instances, I do believe that God tolerates evil to happen so that a greater good can come about. I just don’t believe that God would have willed the world wars, communism, or numerous other disorders of sin to occur. He only tolerates such things so good may come about.

I assume that is what you meant when you said God allows…

Yes that is true. God does not will the evil. God however can use evil to bring forth a good. I guess what I was referring to in the crucifixtion of His Son is the teaching about Redemptive Suffering which the Catholic Church has brought forth for us. The Catholic Church has understood this teaching better than any other Church and we need to thank the Catholic Church for giving us this greater understanding. I sense God responds to any type of undeserved sugfferings by granting to us incredible graces. This is why when we offer the sufferings of our Lord Jesus to the Eternal Father He is so moved by what His Son went through that He cannot refuse to send out incredible graces to us.

 

[chimo]

In Jesus’ case it’s not like God used His death for a greater good.
It’s more that God had planned from the beginning of time to redeem us and Jesus was the method of redemption based on the sacrificial system and the need for God to redeem us Hmself since sinfull man could not.

Regarding the rest - don’t hold your breath.

Fran

I believe I was referring to the teaching of Redemptive Suffering which the Catholic Church had developed so beautifully for us. It is only the Catholic Church who has developed the teaching of Redemptive Suffering for us. No other Church even the Eastern Churches had ever thought of it. In Redemptive Suffering the Eternal Father is so moved whenever there are undeserved sufferings that He will always respond to it by giving out incredible graces. This then is what the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus means to the Eternal Father. What the Catholic Church has done it has beautifully understood that Sacrifice with words we can all relate to. So instead of talking using juridical words which St. Paul often uses the Catholic Church has given us the means to understand what this Sacrifice means to God in understanding how He responds to it using simpler concepts. Whenever we offer the Sufferings of our Lord Jesus to the Eternal Father, He is ever so moved to give us graces. This is what happens at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy every time we come to it. We go because the Sacrifice is there to move the Eternal Father to grant us His incredible graces. He is ever so moved by the Sufferings of His Son. This is the teaching we need to explore more because God is ever so moved by it.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I believe I was referring to the teaching of Redemptive Suffering which the Catholic Church had developed so beautifully for us. It is only the Catholic Church who has developed the teaching of Redemptive Suffering for us. No other Church even the Eastern Churches had ever thought of it. In Redemptive Suffering the Eternal Father is so moved whenever there are undeserved sufferings that He will always respond to it by giving out incredible graces. This then is what the Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus means to the Eternal Father. What the Catholic Church has done it has beautifully understood that Sacrifice with words we can all relate to. So instead of talking using juridical words which St. Paul often uses the Catholic Church has given us the means to understand what this Sacrifice means to God in understanding how He responds to it using simpler concepts. Whenever we offer the Sufferings of our Lord Jesus to the Eternal Father, He is ever so moved to give us graces. This is what happens at the Mass and the Divine Liturgy every time we come to it. We go because the Sacrifice is there to move the Eternal Father to grant us His incredible graces. He is ever so moved by the Sufferings of His Son. This is the teaching we need to explore more because God is ever so moved by it.

This is a good way of understanding it. Also, our sufferings and daily works are added to the Mass at the offeratory.

I would go so far as to say that God loves the sacrifice of Jesus and we love Him and so God loves us. The perfect circle.

Fran

 

[friardchips]

This is a good way of understanding it. Also, our sufferings and daily works are added to the Mass at the offeratory.

I would go so far as to say that God loves the sacrifice of Jesus and we love Him and so God loves us. The perfect circle.

Fran

Agreed. A circle is key shape here.

 

[friardchips]

Yes that is true. God does not will the evil. God however can use evil to bring forth a good. I guess what I was referring to in the crucifixtion of His Son is the teaching about Redemptive Suffering which the Catholic Church has brought forth for us. The Catholic Church has understood this teaching better than any other Church and we need to thank the Catholic Church for giving us this greater understanding. I sense God responds to any type of undeserved sugfferings by granting to us incredible graces. This is why when we offer the sufferings of our Lord Jesus to the Eternal Father He is so moved by what His Son went through that He cannot refuse to send out incredible graces to us.

Hi. Just wishing to pick up on a nuance in a few sentences used that makes quite a massive difference when pondered upon. Words make a difference to the meaning they are formed to express.

The Son sacrificed Himself unto death. The Sacrificial Lamb. Prophesied. We are all in the one and same understanding here. But just to make sure we do actually understand the truth here rather than a version of the truth and this is for people looking in to the thread also (if they do?)…

The people who directly murdered The Word Made Flesh were those who put Him to death. The Father did not put the Son to death. Indirectly, we do too, when we sin - He died for everyone’s sins and carried the weight of the world on His shoulders. Point being, He Willed to sacrifice Himself for us, but this was the only, not choice, but action, that could save humankind from death. We can only use the word ‘planned to die’ loosely. Better put, would be to say that He knew, before time, that to save us from death and for us to have a more personal relationship with Him, He knew He would have to die (due to our freewill). But this Will to sacrifice Himself, was the only way He could, in a world of sin. IOW, it was always going to be the choice of humanity, that in a sinful world, Truth would be crucified, yet knowing this, Truth still gave Himself up for us, for our sins. So, we cannot say He “chose to die” or “planned to die”, but rather, He did the only thing a perfectly loving Creator would do - He died because of us, for us. Which would be to let humanity live out its sinfulness to the point of killing its very Bread. You see the subtle difference there? Any other understanding means that He crucified Himself, and this is incorrect. The Will of the Father, in whom He rested, was to allow Himself to be sacrificed, allow the sins of the world to crucify Him. A sinful act, a choice, is still an evil act in itself. We don’t always know why we do things. We have a darkened knowledge to some degree but we can still commit evil. We are not puppets killing in the name of the Creator. Not then and not now. It was prophesied that He would die, not because He planned for evil, but that He had accounted for our sinfulness - “All of them [actions] are written in your book”.

 

[Peter_J]

How is it possible to “come back” to an organization one never was a part of?

It’s not really black and white, you know? Some even go so far as to say that Catholics left Orthodoxy (or vice versa) but that seems to me a stretch and an unhelpful polemic.

But speaking of Protestant “returning” to Roman Catholicism makes a certain amount of sense … Just as we Greek and Oriental Catholics sometimes speak of the possibility of “returning” to Orthodoxy, but I am a lifelong Catholic.

 

[chimo]

Hi. Just wishing to pick up on a nuance in a few sentences used that makes quite a massive difference when pondered upon. Words make a difference to the meaning they are formed to express.

The Son sacrificed Himself unto death. The Sacrificial Lamb. Prophesied. We are all in the one and same understanding here. But just to make sure we do actually understand the truth here rather than a version of the truth and this is for people looking in to the thread also (if they do?)…

The people who directly murdered The Word Made Flesh were those who put Him to death. The Father did not put the Son to death. Indirectly, we do too, when we sin - He died for everyone’s sins and carried the weight of the world on His shoulders. Point being, He Willed to sacrifice Himself for us, but this was the only, not choice, but action, that could save humankind from death. We can only use the word ‘planned to die’ loosely. Better put, would be to say that He knew, before time, that to save us from death and for us to have a more personal relationship with Him, He knew He would have to die (due to our freewill). But this Will to sacrifice Himself, was the only way He could, in a world of sin. IOW, it was always going to be the choice of humanity, that in a sinful world, Truth would be crucified, yet knowing this, Truth still gave Himself up for us, for our sins. So, we cannot say He “chose to die” or “planned to die”, but rather, He did the only thing a perfectly loving Creator would do - He died because of us, for us. Which would be to let humanity live out its sinfulness to the point of killing its very Bread. You see the subtle difference there? Any other understanding means that He crucified Himself, and this is incorrect. The Will of the Father, in whom He rested, was to allow Himself to be sacrificed, allow the sins of the world to crucify Him. A sinful act, a choice, is still an evil act in itself. We don’t always know why we do things. We have a darkened knowledge to some degree but we can still commit evil. We are not puppets killing in the name of the Creator. Not then and not now. It was prophesied that He would die, not because He planned for evil, but that He had accounted for our sinfulness - “All of them [actions] are written in your book”.

In other words this Adam accomplished what the other Adam could not do. This Adam had faced so much like no other but did not run away like the other Adam. In this manner we can see why the Lord Jesus had to go through to set us free. We learn from this great Sacrifice what love is when all the tables were turned against this great love. Thank you for your response. We need to reflect again and again this great love which the Lord had revealed when it was the most darkest.

 

[chimo]

This is a good way of understanding it. Also, our sufferings and daily works are added to the Mass at the offeratory.

I would go so far as to say that God loves the sacrifice of Jesus and we love Him and so God loves us. The perfect circle.

Fran

Yes this is very true. Our own sufferings can reflect His as so many of the Catholic saints have reminded us of.

 

[friardchips]

In other words this Adam accomplished what the other Adam could not do. This Adam had faced so much like no other but did not run away like the other Adam. In this manner we can see why the Lord Jesus had to go through to set us free. We learn from this great Sacrifice what love is when all the tables were turned against this great love. Thank you for your response. We need to reflect again and again this great love which the Lord had revealed when it was the most darkest.

Awesome post.

 

[Vico]

I’m asking more along the lines of what it means to be an atheist and whether claiming a-theism doesn’t imply an informed decision against God. The Church holds that God honors free will. I have never heard the Church claim that atheism falls inot the category of ignorance. Francis has said something along the lines of atheist -could be- saved, which is not the same thing as claiming atheism is ignorant of God.
.
Of course, on an individual basis imputability can’t be determined, by me anyway.

If you cannot determine imputability, then you cannot determine an implied informed decision, because informed decision is not invincible ignorance due to being informed.

 

[clem456]

If you cannot determine imputability, then you cannot determine an implied informed decision, because informed decision is not invincible ignorance due to being informed.

What I am saying in regard to imputability is:
I have no idea if a person who has lived a life choosing a-theism makes it to heaven. It’s not my judgment. I hope and pray that every human being at some point chooses God.

As a truth of the faith however, and I believe the Church agrees if by nothing more than silence, a-theism rejects God. God will not force a person to choose him. It must be hard to have that relationship with God which heaven is, if I choose otherwise.

The passage from Lumen Gentium addresses those who are “sincerely seeking God”, not those who have chosen a-theism.
Seems problematic.

 

[guanophore]

Then what do you think Luther was trying to do?

I agree with you that Luther did not want to start a new Church, and in fact, never saw himself as doing that. He wanted to bring the experience of faith back to the Gospel he read in the pages of Scripture.

The church was basically telling its people that they had to work and pay for salvation. This is why Ephesians 2:8 became the standard bearer for his beliefs. Being saved thru faith by grace and not by works.
He died believing that the host is the body and blood of Christ. You even say the faithful deserved more.

I think it is important not to feed into Protestant mischaracterizations of the Church. The Church never taught that people had to work and pay for their salvation. There were many clerics who were corrupt, and those who were charged with teaching the faith were misrepresenting it for reasons of greed. While I will agree that this misrepresentation was being taught, this fault should not be laid at the feet of the Holy Bride of Christ, but to those corrupted persons attached to her. This was especially rampant where Luther lived.

What do you think was false about his movement?

The “movement” is much too big to respond to in this context. I think the mistake that Luther made was that he did not distinguish between the Holy Bride of Christ, and the corrupted leadership to which he reacted. He conflated the role and purpose of the successor of Peter with the self centered pesons who occupied the office. He could not look beyond the persons misrepresenting the faith to the Doctrine of the Faith that is unsullied by them.

 

[guanophore]

I’m asking more along the lines of what it means to be an atheist and whether claiming a-theism doesn’t imply an informed decision against God. The Church holds that God honors free will. I have never heard the Church claim that atheism falls inot the category of ignorance. Francis has said something along the lines of atheist -could be- saved, which is not the same thing as claiming atheism is ignorant of God.
.
Of course, on an individual basis imputability can’t be determined, by me anyway.

I must admit, the atheists I have met here on CAF certainly seem to be making perfectly informed and willful decisions…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Hi. Just wishing to pick up on a nuance in a few sentences used that makes quite a massive difference when pondered upon. Words make a difference to the meaning they are formed to express.

The Son sacrificed Himself unto death. The Sacrificial Lamb. Prophesied. We are all in the one and same understanding here. But just to make sure we do actually understand the truth here rather than a version of the truth and this is for people looking in to the thread also (if they do?)…

The people who directly murdered The Word Made Flesh were those who put Him to death. The Father did not put the Son to death. Indirectly, we do too, when we sin - He died for everyone’s sins and carried the weight of the world on His shoulders. Point being, He Willed to sacrifice Himself for us, but this was the only, not choice, but action, that could save humankind from death. We can only use the word ‘planned to die’ loosely. Better put, would be to say that He knew, before time, that to save us from death and for us to have a more personal relationship with Him, He knew He would have to die (due to our freewill). But this Will to sacrifice Himself, was the only way He could, in a world of sin. IOW, it was always going to be the choice of humanity, that in a sinful world, Truth would be crucified, yet knowing this, Truth still gave Himself up for us, for our sins. So, we cannot say He “chose to die” or “planned to die”, but rather, He did the only thing a perfectly loving Creator would do - He died because of us, for us. Which would be to let humanity live out its sinfulness to the point of killing its very Bread. You see the subtle difference there? Any other understanding means that He crucified Himself, and this is incorrect. The Will of the Father, in whom He rested, was to allow Himself to be sacrificed, allow the sins of the world to crucify Him. A sinful act, a choice, is still an evil act in itself. We don’t always know why we do things. We have a darkened knowledge to some degree but we can still commit evil. We are not puppets killing in the name of the Creator. Not then and not now. It was prophesied that He would die, not because He planned for evil, but that He had accounted for our sinfulness - “All of them [actions] are written in your book”.

This is all perfect. I said all this in a post on another page. He ‘planned’ His death from the beginning. Genesis 3.15. God made a solution for our Sin.

He died BECAUSE of us. If we weren-t around, He wouldn-t have had to die.

Also, Jesus is God so it-s right to say that God sacrificed Himself.

I-m good with the above.

Fran

 

[Vico]

What I am saying in regard to imputability is:
I have no idea if a person who has lived a life choosing a-theism makes it to heaven. It’s not my judgment. I hope and pray that every human being at some point chooses God.

As a truth of the faith however, and I believe the Church agrees if by nothing more than silence, a-theism rejects God. God will not force a person to choose him. It must be hard to have that relationship with God which heaven is, if I choose otherwise.

The passage from Lumen Gentium addresses those who are “sincerely seeking God”, not those who have chosen a-theism.
Seems problematic.

It is possible for an atheist (for example a Buddhist) to have invincible ignorance regarding the Gospel. In an earlier post I gave excerpt form Nostra ateate of Pope Paul VI, regarding Buddhism:

Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

and that Catholics should “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

Modern Catholic Dictionary - Invincible Ignorance

Lack of knowledge, either of fact or law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time or talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable. (Etym. Latin in, not + vincibilis, easily overcome: invincibilis.)

 

[clem456]

It is possible for an atheist (for example a Buddhist) to have invincible ignorance regarding the Gospel. In an earlier post I gave excerpt form Nostra ateate of Pope Paul VI, regarding Buddhism:

Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

and that Catholics should “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”

Modern Catholic Dictionary - Invincible Ignorance

Lack of knowledge, either of fact or law, for which a person is not morally responsible. This may be due to the difficulty of the object of the knowledge, or scarcity of evidence, or insufficient time or talent in the person, or any other factor for which he is not culpable. (Etym. Latin in, not + vincibilis, easily overcome: invincibilis.)

Yes, yes, and yes.
We agree on everything except what atheism is, how it is arrived at, and what the implications are…

I was not aware that Bhuddism was associated with atheism in that way.

 

[Vico]

Yes, yes, and yes.
We agree on everything except what atheism is, how it is arrived at, and what the implications are…

I was not aware that Bhuddism was associated with atheism in that way.

It is also the case with Jainism. (Estimated to be 4 million.)

Six percent of the world is estimated to be Buddhists (360 million).

Theravada Buddhism does not personify or objectify any Supreme Reality, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism hold no belief in a creator God.

by Dr V. A. Gunasekara (conservative Theraveda Buddhist) states:

There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada literature.

budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm

Oxford dictionary, atheism:
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Meriam Webster dictionary, atheism:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

 

[KathleenGee]

Guanaphore, you share my perception of Luther. Even though he was a theologian, and he likewise could not experience Christ’s love in the Church…to the point that he had to create that which fit his needs…it shows me he never encountered the full deposit of faith.

One has to be mature and versed to know what is faith in Christ and who man is. People many times mix up clerics, etc. with Christ and the Church. We are all sinners.

Best help is our personal faith in Christ, He ministering to us in the sacraments, and our beliefs contained in our catechism. No pope can contradict our catechism that is Scripture spelled out in tradition. So many footnotes of our beliefs pertain to Sacred Scripture, the Councils, the saints.

 

[PJM]

Pope Paul VI declared:

And here dear friend is the REAST of the story:

From the Catholic Catechism

CCC #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.” 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."

CCC 846 846 "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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."

CCC #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."

What my friends does this mean?

God Bless you,

Partick