Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?!

[Neithan]

I will never cease to be amazed how often Augustinianism passes itself off as Catholicism.

St Augustine, pray for us! You taught the church so much, but this doctrine of yours articulated above continues its lamentable stranglehold on too many members of Christ’s body.

Could you elaborate on this (or should we start a new thread)?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Maybe you’re right. I can’t speak for Qwerty nor does she need me too. But I understood her to be starting with what her conscience confirms within her that God must be (at least as good as a decent earthly father) and filtering the interpretations thru that filter within her conscience. That’s why I praised her inclinations.

Yes. Your understanding is correct.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Qwerty was objecting to was a god who engages us on a transactional level, whose love is conditional, who would possibly treat his children worse than a decent earthly father would treat his own. If I interpreted her correctly, then I stand behind her. The image of God as vindictive, petty, conditionally loving and transactional is so bizarrely off-base that it cannot be admitted within the realm of possible Catholic understandings of God.

Yes, again. Correct.

 

[Magnanimity]

Could you elaborate on this (or should we start a new thread)?

Oh, this has been a topic of interest for me going back here at least a year. If you search “Augustine” “Hell” with me as the poster, it’s almost embarrassing just how many entries show up. Here’s one.

 

[Neithan]

So you believe in universal reconciliation? I don’t think that’s within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy; but I’m not absolutely certain of that.

 

[Magnanimity]

So you believe in universal reconciliation? I don’t think that’s within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy; but I’m not absolutely certain of that.

Eh, it’s not so simple as that. So, I don’t follow DB Hart in his belief that he’s very assured of universal salvation. I’m more cautiously optimistic, a la Von Balthasar and St Maximus. See a cool quote of his here.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Well, I hope that is not the case. And I doubt the Catholic Church makes that argument. The Sacraments–all of them–give one a better means to attain to heaven according to the Church; but who exactly will go to heaven and who not is something I think the Church would say depends in the final analysis solely on the mercy of G-d.

 

[Gorgias]

Looks to me @Gorgias that Qwerty is insistent that God is loving and merciful and that God would never be vindictive, hateful, petty. She couldn’t be any more correct about that.

Sure, but “never vindictive, hateful, petty” wasn’t what was in play. What was in play was a different question. If we want to answer the question “what time is it?” with the response “blue”, then we can’t say that the question’s really being addressed, can we?

It’s highly likely that a lot of people who ignored the Lord throughout their entire lives may well try to present themselves as his friends in the last act

I think that this passage is more strongly directed than simply “those who ignored the Lord”. It seems to point to those who “did their own thing”, but did it “in the name of the Lord” – it’s these whom Jesus is addressing in that passage!

It seemed plain to me that what Qwerty was objecting to was a god who engages us on a transactional level, whose love is conditional, who would possibly treat his children worse than a decent earthly father would treat his own.

That’s just the point, though: the Church doesn’t teach that “God’s love is conditional”. He continues to love, even when he is unloved. (That doesn’t mean that consequences for such behavior are evidence of a lack of love on God’s part.)

Along those lines, God doesn’t “treat His children worse than a decent earthly father would treat his own”, unless by that you mean a father who allows all kinds of bad behavior and never addresses it. If that’s what you mean, then we’d have to have a talk about whether that’s the definition of a ‘good father’.

I will never cease to be amazed how often Augustinianism passes itself off as Catholicism.

Did you catch the line he wrote a sentence or two later, though, which demonstrates that it’s not ‘Augustinianism’ that he’s asserting? Here it is again:

Neithan:

It does not mean the same thing as being in formal communion with the bishop of Rome. It is a mystical and invisible reality of supernatural grace that we cannot entirely see

There is a difference in having never heard about Jesus and his plan for salvation, as opposed to having heard it, but rejecting it.

Agreed. And still another difference between “having heard, but rejected” and “having heard, recognized as truth, but failed to accept it.”

Crusader13:

The problem is many use this as a loophole

The question is not whether some use it as a ‘loophole’ of sorts, but whether it actually is one. Important distinction.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m more cautiously optimistic, a la Von Balthasar and St Maximus.

The problem, though, is that Maximus endorsed apokatastasis, which is a doctrine that the Church rejects. Moreover, I think that, if you were following von Balthasar, you’d phrase it as he does – rather than being ‘cautiously optimistic’, you’d simply ask the question “does God save all?”. After all, universalism, too, is rejected by the Church.

So, you’re not exactly placing yourself in a good position, vis-a-vis Catholic teaching, no?

 

[o_mlly]

The problem, though, is that Maximus endorsed apokatastasis, which is a doctrine that the Church rejects. Moreover, I think that, if you were following von Balthasar, you’d phrase it as he does – rather than being ‘cautiously optimistic’, you’d simply ask the question “does God save all?”. After all, universalism, too, is rejected by the Church.

So, you’re not exactly placing yourself in a good position, vis-a-vis Catholic teaching, no?

I think there is a difference worth noting between the doctrine of apocatastasis and universalism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

Apocatastasis

All souls, all impenitent beings that have gone astray, shall, therefore, be restored sooner or later to God’s friendship.

Apocatastasis as defined above includes all beings which would include Satan. But Luke tells us:

Jesus said, “I have observed Satan fall like lightning* from the sky (Luke 10:18).

Universalism is defined as “all men will be saved” and although is not a doctrine to be held by the virtue of faith, it is one, as von Balthasar believes, may be held by the virtue of hope. The Catechism agrees.

1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: “Lord, let me never be parted from you.” If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God “desires all men to be saved” ( 1 Tim 2:4), and that for him “all things are possible” ( Mt 19:26).

1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for “all men to be saved.”

If one hopes in an event, it would be cognitively dissident to simultaneously believe that it is also impossible.

 

[stpurl]

I see your point here, but the fact is, as human beings we are limited to human understanding of justice, mercy, etc. While these things reflect God’s own attributes which are perfection, it does not necessarily mean that what we think of as ‘perfect love’ as humans would be perfect love from GOD.

As a human being, we are not perfect. We can never be perfect on our own.

So God gave us the opportunity to choose perfection through becoming ‘one of us" in His own Son. Because of Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection, we can choose to unite ourselves to someone who is truly human and truly God.

But look at Jesus. He chose to suffer and die for us.

Our ‘human intellect’ would say, “How unnecessary! God could have ‘redeemed us’ by simply wiping out Adam and Eve’s fault and could have given us all perfect natures again.”

Are we ‘smarter’ than God? Are we more fair and more loving? Did God, in accepting Jesus’ sacrifice, show Himself ‘less loving’ than a human father?

Is the incompleteness of love then something human, or is it God who is not completely ‘love’?

I’ll trust Him.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But I understood her to be starting with what her conscience confirms within her that God must be (at least as good as a decent earthly father) and filtering the interpretations thru that filter within her conscience. That’s why I praised her inclinations.

You can praise what you want and people can think what they want.
Our consciences and our understanding of God and love are imperfect.
I think stpurl said it well.

 

[Gorgias]

I think there is a difference worth noting between the doctrine of apocatastasis and universalism.

Yeah. Only one of them posits that at least some will taste hellfire before getting herded into heaven, wholesale.

 

[GLam1761]

I firmly believe that God Loves, but also God Hates, it
is biblical!! God hates sin, He hates differing weights
and unrighteousness and EVIL. He therefore made us
in His image and can make us into Jesus’ Image. see
Rom. 8:29 But concerning the Catholic Church, I belong
to it b/c SHE is my Mother!!(Gen. 3:15) Her teachings are
Christ’s teaching thru the Apostles and prophets, and
it’s like walking on water to follow them, but that is why
we have the Sacraments of Eucharist and Reconciliation
and the Mass to strengthen each other’s faith and encourage
one another(Heb. 10:24-25)