Judging salvation

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I appreciate your taking the time, Rory, to adduce the case for the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. I reject that doctrine but I accept that you believe it and obviously with much intensity. I daresay this is the most controversial of issues but your approach has been most reasonable. In fact, it is my considered (but not infallible ) opinion that you have conducted yourself with dignity and courtesy and that you’ve set a good example for both Catholics and Non–Catholics. I commend you for your graciousness. And I should like to add that I think you are a credit to yourself, your Church, and the LORD you serve. I’ve no further comments on this issue so if you wish to address or correct anything in any of my posts feel free to do so. I’ll let you have the last word. May God grant you many years!

Respectfully,
Hey Mick,

I have appreciated your respectful, amiable, cordial, and amicable responses. This is my first exchange with an Orthodox believer and I think I probably hid my ignorance about you better than you have realized.

I would like to clarify my usage of the word infallible as I used it in our discussion, especially as I was arguing that other groups have the ability to infallibly define what they teach. You kept saying how you could agree except for the word infallible. That showed me that we have different ideas of the meaning of infallible. You attach a necessity of truth to it that I do not.

To take a different kind of example, I would posit that Leo Tolstoy was the infallible interpreter of what his books meant to him and what he intended to teach by them. Now there is no way that all of the ideas which he believed in and changed his mind about over the course of his long career could be true. But that is the point. Infallible teaching is that teaching which without doubt is in the mind of an authoritative teacher.

Whether one accepts an infallible teaching as true depends on your estimation of the authority, or the arguments and evidence for the proposition. I am probably not as zealously attached to the usual Catholic understanding of the doctrine as my time here may have led you to believe. Whether I have explained myself adequately or not, I think there is room in Vatican I to understand a softer, less alarming kind of infallibility which could ultimately lead to a clarification that could be reconcilable with Orthodoxy.

My zeal is in being attached to whatever Church the post-apostolic martyrs were part of. I am convinced that they were benefactors of apostolic succession and a sacramental priesthood. It seems to me that both of our communions inherit a share in this. If the Catholics are wrong about Vatican I and all the later councils are questionable, we still have that to which I am vehemently attached and which is a good, beautiful, and true vehicle of ordinary grace. I love the Catholic Church. I don’t love doctrines.

Of course I do not concede that we are wrong, but I would not be disconcerted if in my lifetime Rome directed a reevaluation of papal infallibility, not some kind of liberal thing that opens up the door to new age priestesses, but that opens the door to a complete reunification with the East. I don’t kid myself. My reasons for being Roman Catholic instead of Orthodox are geographical and cultural. I would never separate myself from the Latin Church on the basis of doubts that the Orthodox are “more correct”. I think we are right and you are wrong, but not intensely, not strongly. I would have to learn a lot more about you. At this time, I rejoice when Christians and sinners turn to Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Thanks for giving me the last word!

Yours in Jesus and Mary,

Rory

 

[PRmerger]

If the Catholic Church is truly not judging, shouldn’t number 14 read something like “might not be saved” or even “likely won’t be”? But “could not”?

I think that use of the phrase “could not” is not judgmental at all. In fact, if you consider that the document could have used “would not”, it will highlight the great forbearance and temperance of the statement as written.

Imagine this: *Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, **would not *be saved.

 

[PJM]

[QOTE]Originally Posted by CMatt25
Hi Rory, perhaps as long as what they define as mortal sin doesn’t depart from what Scripture says it is. For instance, holding someone up at gunpoint and murdering them, sure, I think we’d agree clearly sin. Not obeying a bishop who says you must attend Mass on a weekday Holy Day of Obligation or else you are committing mortal sin and face hell for that, I’m not as certain.

Friend, as is often the case; assusing “Catholics” if this or that is in reality denying Jesus Christ. Perhaps yov’ve heard of the Commandments?

Exo. 20:
And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. "You shall have no other gods before me.”
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day”"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain. “
4. "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
5. "You shall not kill. “
6. "You shall not commit adultery”.
7. "You shall not steal”.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
9. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; or property”
10.“you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbors.”

Friend th Bishops are just Pontificating what Jesus Himself demands, NOT just Catholics; but everyone

As for Holyday’s Obligations: You might recall that the Jews hd such day’s themselves.

READ Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18…

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Cmatt25,

I think part of the problem lies in where you cut paragraph #14. The real answer lies in that same paragraph, but, just above it… Here, let me show you…

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

If the Catholic Church is truly not judging, shouldn’t number 14 read something like “might not be saved” or even “likely won’t be”? But “could not”?

///////// Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.

Look at that first sentence… basically, if you know that Christ is speaking the Truth - and reject His Message - then what would be the basis for your salvation since you have flatly refused to believe the Son of God Himself, Cmatt25?

How is saying A) only God judges but then saying B) a baptized believer in Christ can not be saved whose conscience moves them in a different direction on some details and they as a result either don’t enter or don’t remain fully accepting, not judging and not 2 completely polar opposite statements? Aren’t Catholics judging a fellow baptized believer in Christ to hell by saying they can not then be saved unless they do x, y, and z or else repent accordingly in the Catholic Sacramental manner?

Maybe an example would be helpful. If you look at Matt 22:10-14 - the man without a wedding garment. Here is the passage:

10
The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests.
11
But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12
He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
13
7 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
14
Many are invited, but few are chosen."

While the first part of the story is usually well remembered - the invited guests that chose not to participate, this part of the story bears a particular focus for all of us. There really was a particualr dress code at these weddings - and those who listened to Chrsit tell this story knew exactly what He was talking about. To be at the wedding without the proper dress was a pointed and direct insult to the host - because these wedding garments were given out at the door before entering the feast.

By extension, just being at the feast (or in a chuch building) and refusing to do what is requried (wear the wedding garments - or, more specifically, obey the Laws of the Church) is a direct insult to the One Who founded the Catholic Churhc - Jesus Christ.

This is not an incidental matter - but one that goes to the very heart of our Catholic Faith. Either we believe what Christ said - or we don’t. And, if we don’t believe, the Church is clearly pointing out that such behavior will merity eternal damnation. Is this any different from the Mother warning her child that if he plays with matches he WILL BE BURNED - there is no doubt here, is there? At least there is no doubt on the part of the Mother!

God bless

Tom

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Reading this pink font sent me into a psychadelic land of strawberry fields and walruses!

Here’s an excellent post from itjustdave1988 that sums up what exactly we Catholics are bound to believe regarding: obedience and Church infallibility:

Ask your Protestant friends if they believe it is God’s will that a child obey his parents. Is so, why? Are the parents infallible? Or is it because all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the father as superior to the son is God-given? And disobedience to God-given authority is not in accord with God’s will, not in accord with the virtue of charity?

Thus, if a son is bound to obey his father who is always fallible, then why is it that we presume we can disobey our lawful pastors simply because they are not ALWAYS defining things infallibly?

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.

Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…

Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”

Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.

By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.

 

[CMatt25]

Hi again CMatt,

The Church can not know and makes no claim to know among those who are outside of the visible Church, whether they are guilty of “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ.” This teaching is benign, almost toothless. I can’t know the hearts either, but it seems unlikely that very many of those who stay outside the Catholic Church or of those who would leave would ever qualify for “knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ.”

My other concern is about why you keep saying that this sin, if it has ever been committed, would have to be sacramentally repented. That is contrary to the mercy of God and the teaching of the Church. Obviously, those outside the Church are not going to avail themselves of the ordinary means of grace and salvation via the Sacraments. But the Church definitively teaches that God is not bound to the Sacraments.

There is a wonderful story told by Abbe Trucho in his biography of the Cure of Ars, St. Jean Vianney, that is fully compatible with the teaching of the Church regarding the way we may hope for the salvation of ANYBODY. The good saint saw a poor lady in deep grief in his church one day. Her husband, a blasphemer who disregarded his wife’s pleas to be reconciled with the Catholic Church, had leapt from a bridge, committing suicide. This was the cause of her grief, having almost no hope for his salvation. The Cure, however was given insight from God into the final condition of things for this soul. It would seem that unknown to his wife, the man had once or twice passed a statue of the Blessed Virgin which he had allowed his wife to keep in their home, and he secretly prayed an Ave without anyone’s knowledge, while continuing with his obstinate ways, even up to the point of almost final despair. Consoling the woman, who had never even revealed the cause of her grief, the Cure not only knew the cause, but could comfort her with the revelation that before he struck the water, a miracle of perfect contrition was permitted her husband as a favor for having said those secret Aves, and though in purgatory, he was saved and would be in heaven forever!

You have to agree that is a wonderful story. Even if one doesn’t have the faith to believe the story it illustrates what some of us have been trying to say to you about the merciful teachings of the Catholic faith. The Church would have us hope for every soul that has ever died. That doesn’t mean it is always a good hope. Assuredly, the poor widow in the story above had many miore reasons to fear than to hope for her husband. But no one knows how many who lived their lives in opposition to the Catholic Church have been saved in ways similar to the suicide described in the biography of the Cure of Ars. Our Lady of Fatima admonishes us to add to the prayers of the Rosary, “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save all souls from hell, ESPECIALLY THOSE MOST IN NEED OF THY MERCY.”

CMatt, you seem to think the Catholic Church is in conflict with the merciful and good God who wills the salvation of every soul. It is truly painful for me to see a struggling brother so apparently blind to the love for all men that is manifested in this and all the teachings of the Catholic Church. I am trying very hard because it seems to me, that if you continue to have these unnecessary misgivings, you will not remain Catholic. You can’t love the Church while thinking she is harsh and judgmental. These are serious charges that you raise against her. Allow me to summarize for now how I understand the question you have raised.

#1) The Catholic Church does not judge the hearts of men.
#2) Those outside the Catholic Church may be saved non-sacramentally.
#3) Those inside the Catholic Church may be saved non-sacramentally.
#4) Any guilt associated with Lumen Gentium 14, is contingent. It is contingent on something that no one can know except God, namely, the level of knowledge required to be responsible and accountable to be affiliated with the Catholic Church. Since the guilt is acknowledged to be contingent upon information that no one has except God, it is erroneous to assert on the basis of this teaching that the Catholic Church is guilty of “judging salvation.”

God bless you dear brother. I’ll keep you in prayers.

Rory

Hi Rory, are you sayng someone who once was a fully practicing Catholic who believed the Church was necessary, but no longer does, can be saved without repenting for no longer believing such? And the Church documents about “could not be” are wrong?

And confession to a priest or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick are not necessary to repent?

I sincerely thank you for trying so hard, for your patience, blessings, and prayers. God bless you as well. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Hey…Prayer request …Got to go…My DIL and grandbaby were in a bad car crash…She is pretty rough …thanks
She is a believer…

Hiskid, will send my prayers upward tonight in my bedtime prayers for your DIL and grandchild and will keep them in my prayers. May God bless and comfort all of you.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Gurneyhalleck1,

It sounds like getting a correct idea about what Catholics mean when they speak about infallibility would be appropriate at this time… Here is a link you may find both helpful and instructive:catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

God bless

Tom

Infallibility is a tricky thing and interpretations of it vary from bishop to bishop, from apologist to apologist, from CAF forum member to member…many think there have only been TWO infallible statements by the Church. I’ve heard a legion of priests tell me that. And yet you’ll hear ten different opinions by ten different people.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Hi Rory, are you sayng someone who once was a fully practicing Catholic who believed the Church was necessary, but no longer does, can be saved without repenting for no longer believing such? And the Church documents about “could not be” are wrong?

And confession to a priest or the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick are not necessary to repent?

I sincerely thank you for trying so hard, for your patience, blessings, and prayers. God bless you as well. Peace.

Hi again CMatt,

I appreciate your struggles. I’m giving it at least one more shot. I enjoy the writing exercise too so I’m not complaining.

I am persuaded that Lumen Gentium #14 is true. Everybody is saved the same way. If you are in a state of grace when you die, you are saved. Mortal sins aren’t something that happens accidentally, or with a good conscience. You probably know the three factors that all have to be present for a sin to be mortal. 1) Full knowledge, 2) Full consent, 3) Serious Matter. Lumen Gentium isn’t saying anything we didn’t already know. The emphasis in LG #14 is upon full knowledge.

I have a good friend who just left the Church. I don’t know that he has committed a mortal sin according to Lumen Gentium #14. What have I said that makes you think I am questioning Lumen Gentium #14? I believe it. It affirms that you have to have full knowledge regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Don’t you see the gigantic gaping hole that leaves for those who leave the Church to possibly be innocent of mortal sin?

You are putting an interpretation on LG #14 that in my opinion, the words will not bear. You seem to think that everybody who ever left the Catholic Church had full knowledge of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation…and left it anyway. Who would do that?

If you left the Church not knowing its necessity for salvation, you aren’t going to repent. If you left the Church knowingly you have to see a priest if you can. But if you fall off the Sears Tower, tell God you love Him (quickly) and ask for His mercy for your sins and see what happens. The Church is not going to teach me that you go to Hell if you make an act of perfect contrition before you hit the pavement.

It seems like you have a rigorous. legalistic approach to the laws of the Church that doesn’t recognize any extenuating circumstances. You talk about “going to Hell” for missing Sunday Mass. Why do you speak like that? It sounds so horrible. All you need is one good reason. Is your stomach upset? Is your car broke down? Are you on vacation? Can you afford the gas money? Are you travelling? Do you have to work? Did your toilet back up? Do you have to take your aunt to the hospital? Did you make a mistake about Mass times? Do you or your wife need to stay home with a sick baby? Did your neighbor’s house catch on fire and you stayed to help get stuff out?

The Church doesn’t even define “good reason”. We get to decide what is a good enough reason. But we start with the premise that we need to go to Mass every week if we can. We need to be close to Jesus through the Sacraments and trusting in His Church. The Church isn’t eager to pass judgment. Christ loves you through His Body, the Church. We condemn ourselves if without a sufficiently good reason, we just get lukewarm toward God, and we don’t care anymore, and we violate our own conscience. These laws of obligation are the Church’s mercy and charity to poor fools like me who would stay home for the 49ers (Joe Montana days, heh.). It tells me that we are to keep the Lord’s Day holy and God isn’t a strict taskmaster, nor is the Church.

Even after that…all you have to is make an imperfect act of contrition and confess. There’s your remedy. Strict taskmaster? Hardly. An easy yoke, a light burden.

Peace be with you CMatt. Please be sure I am wrong about what I think the Church is like before you leave…And pray for me too.

God Bless,

Rory

 

[Hiskid1973]

Hiskid, will send my prayers upward tonight in my bedtime prayers for your DIL and grandchild and will keep them in my prayers. May God bless and comfort all of you.

Thanks Bro…The little guy is fine…Mom had her spleen and gall bladder removed…Brain is swelled and they are sure the extent of the damage…She has been weaned of the anesthesia and we are awaiting her to awake…Her mom played christian music and put an earbud to her ear and watched as heart heart slowed from 106 down to 80 just after a few minutes…Her Docs wanted it to slow so they were glad…

 

[CMatt25]

Hi again CMatt,

I appreciate your struggles. I’m giving it at least one more shot. I enjoy the writing exercise too so I’m not complaining.

I am persuaded that Lumen Gentium #14 is true. Everybody is saved the same way. If you are in a state of grace when you die, you are saved. Mortal sins aren’t something that happens accidentally, or with a good conscience. You probably know the three factors that all have to be present for a sin to be mortal. 1) Full knowledge, 2) Full consent, 3) Serious Matter. Lumen Gentium isn’t saying anything we didn’t already know. The emphasis in LG #14 is upon full knowledge.

I have a good friend who just left the Church. I don’t know that he has committed a mortal sin according to Lumen Gentium #14. What have I said that makes you think I am questioning Lumen Gentium #14? I believe it. It affirms that you have to have full knowledge regarding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. Don’t you see the gigantic gaping hole that leaves for those who leave the Church to possibly be innocent of mortal sin?

You are putting an interpretation on LG #14 that in my opinion, the words will not bear. You seem to think that everybody who ever left the Catholic Church had full knowledge of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation…and left it anyway. Who would do that?

If you left the Church not knowing its necessity for salvation, you aren’t going to repent. If you left the Church knowingly you have to see a priest if you can. But if you fall off the Sears Tower, tell God you love Him (quickly) and ask for His mercy for your sins and see what happens. The Church is not going to teach me that you go to Hell if you make an act of perfect contrition before you hit the pavement.

It seems like you have a rigorous. legalistic approach to the laws of the Church that doesn’t recognize any extenuating circumstances. You talk about “going to Hell” for missing Sunday Mass. Why do you speak like that? It sounds so horrible. All you need is one good reason. Is your stomach upset? Is your car broke down? Are you on vacation? Can you afford the gas money? Are you travelling? Do you have to work? Did your toilet back up? Do you have to take your aunt to the hospital? Did you make a mistake about Mass times? Do you or your wife need to stay home with a sick baby? Did your neighbor’s house catch on fire and you stayed to help get stuff out?

The Church doesn’t even define “good reason”. We get to decide what is a good enough reason. But we start with the premise that we need to go to Mass every week if we can. We need to be close to Jesus through the Sacraments and trusting in His Church. The Church isn’t eager to pass judgment. Christ loves you through His Body, the Church. We condemn ourselves if without a sufficiently good reason, we just get lukewarm toward God, and we don’t care anymore, and we violate our own conscience. These laws of obligation are the Church’s mercy and charity to poor fools like me who would stay home for the 49ers (Joe Montana days, heh.). It tells me that we are to keep the Lord’s Day holy and God isn’t a strict taskmaster, nor is the Church.

Even after that…all you have to is make an imperfect act of contrition and confess. There’s your remedy. Strict taskmaster? Hardly. An easy yoke, a light burden.

Peace be with you CMatt. Please be sure I am wrong about what I think the Church is like before you leave…And pray for me too.

God Bless,

Rory

Rory, and I indeed have appreciated your patience. Thank you. I was only wondering if you questioned LG 14 because you said it has almost no teeth and that the Church can’t know who could not be saved. Even though it seems to me to give an example of who could not be. But I’ll keep praying on it.

I do see a gap though. Although I suppose who would do that might be someone who previously had full knowledge and believed but then had a change in beliefs later on.

And oh no. I personally recognize lots of extenuating circumstances. And you as well seem to perhaps more than some. Speaking about going to hell for missing Mass does sound horrible. I’ve just been trying to get at how rigorously strict or not the Church is.

Rory, I would never presume you are wrong. You seem very sincere. I indeed pray for you as well, but not because I am sure you are wrong. God bless you my friend. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Thanks Bro…The little guy is fine…Mom had her spleen and gall bladder removed…Brain is swelled and they are sure the extent of the damage…She has been weaned of the anesthesia and we are awaiting her to awake…Her mom played christian music and put an earbud to her ear and watched as heart heart slowed from 106 down to 80 just after a few minutes…Her Docs wanted it to slow so they were glad…

Hiskid, be assured your DIL remains in my prayers as I am sure in everyone’s. I join you in praising God for the little one and the mom’s heartbeat calming. May our Heavenly Father continue laying His healing hands upon her in the coming days and awaken her to a road leading to full recovery. I ask this in the name of our Savior Jesus thru Whom all is possible. Amen.

 

[tweetymom]

Hiskid, be assured your DIL remains in my prayers as I am sure in everyone’s. I join you in praising God for the little one and the mom’s heartbeat calming. May our Heavenly Father continue laying His healing hands upon her in the coming days and awaken her to a road leading to full recovery. I ask this in the name of our Savior Jesus thru Whom all is possible. Amen.

And a big AMEN