only one correct religion with the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ggarcia19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course we are to witness you silly goose. There’s a difference between your definition of “invincible ignorance” and St. Thomas Aquinas’. 😃

Hmm… I wonder why aborted babies end up supposedly in limbo rather than heaven right away (or rather now no limbo but there is surely “hope” for their salvation) - why is there even slight doubt for their salvation… is it invincible ignorance? Now hmmm… now what is the difference between sufficient and efficient grace… I wonder how that works? Our Lord certainly gave St. Paul an efficient grace when He knocked St. Paul down when he was still Saul. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. I just don’t know. 🤷 :eek: 😊
PR is correct I’m afraid. Your view is not the Catholic
view. If it were the game would be up for everyone who
ever stayed in a motel room with a Gideon edition and
didnt immediately run for a baptismal font.
 
drac,

. You are assigning assumptions to me which are incorrect.

. First, the purpose of reading is to understand. Reading without understanding is of no benefit to mankind. When communicating one’s understanding, that is called dialogue. That people have different understanding is normal.

. Second, the assumption that “all Native Americans” believe this or that is a gross generalization, for there exists a wide variety of beliefs among Native Americans.

. [Quran 10:47] And: “And We certainly sent into every nation (Ummah) a messenger…”
. This includes Native Americans, a great many of whom worship the One God, and are definitely not idol worshippers. Such a prejudice is pure racism on your part.

. I think the “Him” part went right over your head. Go back and read the post. Please think a little deeper on this. (I mean no insult).

. As you state that “Jesus never died”, where did He go? and how is He to return, according to the traditions you subscribe to, and did you inherit these traditions are come by them independently and objectively?

. When I read that verse of the Quran which says: “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself”, my sense of it is that it not referring to His physical body, but rather His Soul, and that Allah also raised Muhammad (PBUH) to Himself, not physically, but His Soul also. I separate the physical “Him” from the eternal Him.

. I do not associate partners with God. The souls of our ancestors are not All-Seeing or Omnipotent. It seems that you are looking for an opportunity to accuse someone of being deficient according to your position, thus exalting yourself above others. Go beyond that, and enter into a dialogue with other God-fearing souls who have come from other traditions than yourself.

.
Yes, upon further research after my post, I realized that I had made an error about native beliefs. I understand that it was a gross generalization and I deeply regret the error. Unfortunately, this forum has a time limit when it comes to editing one’s post (I didn’t know this at the time). I can’t edit posts that are over 20 minutes old. I’m deeply sorry, to you and to everyone else, for generalizing that all native tribes were full of Shamanism/Idolatry. That’s simply unaccaptable behaviour on my part and I humbly ask you to please forgive me.

I know you don’t think you associate partners with Allah, but I believe that you do (for the record, I believe that christians do as well). It’s not that I want to insult anyone-- I’m just staying true to the Islamic concept of Tawheed. Anyone who doesn’t believe in Tawheed is, as far as I’m concerned, wrong.
 
Yes, upon further research after my post, I realized that I had made an error about native beliefs. I understand that it was a gross generalization and I deeply regret the error. Unfortunately, this forum has a time limit when it comes to editing one’s post (I didn’t know this at the time). I can’t edit posts that are over 20 minutes old. I’m deeply sorry, to you and to everyone else, for generalizing that all native tribes were full of Shamanism/Idolatry. That’s simply unaccaptable behaviour on my part and I humbly ask you to please forgive me.

I know you don’t think you associate partners with Allah, but I believe that you do (for the record, I believe that christians do as well). It’s not that I want to insult anyone-- I’m just staying true to the Islamic concept of Tawheed. Anyone who doesn’t believe in Tawheed is, as far as I’m concerned, wrong.
drac,
. We all make errors on occasion, speaking to relieve some inner prompting quickly to get something off our chest. No big deal, buddy, and the rapidity with which you offered an obviously sincere apology resonates well with the heart…

. As to “associating partners with Allah”, when I affirm that “there is no God but God”, this should suffice for you in Light of the Words of the Prophet: "Say not to every one who meeteth you with a greeting, “Thou art not a believer”

. As to Tawheed, I agree that the Trinitarian doctrine has created three Gods, however much they dance around it, rationalize it, or play shell games. No, Allah is above all created things, above all egress and regress, has no peer or partner.

. If I may be permitted to address this important subject with words far more eloquently stated than my own:

. "And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven.

. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” And in like manner, the words: “Arise, O Muhammad, for lo, the Lover and the Beloved are joined together and made one in Thee.” He similarly saith: “There is no distinction whatsoever between Thee and Them, except that They are Thy Servants.”

. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” These Essences of Detachment, these resplendent Realities are the channels of God’s all-pervasive grace. Led by the light of unfailing guidance, and invested with supreme sovereignty, They are commissioned to use the inspiration of Their words, the effusions of Their infallible grace and the sanctifying breeze of Their Revelation for the cleansing of every longing heart and receptive spirit from the dross and dust of earthly cares and limitations. Then, and only then, will the Trust of God, latent in the reality of man, emerge, as resplendent as the rising Orb of Divine Revelation, from behind the veil of concealment, and implant the ensign of its revealed glory upon the summits of men’s hearts."

from the link: bahaullah.com/bahaullah-writings-god-part1.html

. Looking forward to your comment.
. Salaam
.
 
Of course we are to witness you silly goose. There’s a difference between your definition of “invincible ignorance” and St. Thomas Aquinas’. 😃
As I have not articulated my definition of “invincible ignorance” here it’s odd that you would say that it’s different from St. Thomas’.

Perhaps you could give us Aquinas’ definition, and we can go from there.
Hmm… I wonder why aborted babies end up supposedly in limbo rather than heaven right away
Can you please cite the Magisterial document that proclaimed Limbo as a definitive teaching?
but there is surely “hope” for their salvation)
Egg-zactly. ***Now ***you are proclaiming that which is Catholic! 👍
  • why is there even slight doubt for their salvation… is it invincible ignorance?
Are you familiar with the Catholic belief that we must be baptized in order to be joined to Him? That’s why we can’t be assured of their salvation.
Now hmmm… now what is the difference between sufficient and efficient grace… I wonder how that works? Our Lord certainly gave St. Paul an efficient grace when He knocked St. Paul down when he was still Saul. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. I just don’t know. 🤷 :eek: 😊
You appear to be rambling here. Not sure the relevance of the above comment. 🤷
 
As I have not articulated my definition of “invincible ignorance” here it’s odd that you would say that it’s different from St. Thomas’.

Perhaps you could give us Aquinas’ definition, and we can go from there.

Can you please cite the Magisterial document that proclaimed Limbo as a definitive teaching?

Egg-zactly. ***Now ***you are proclaiming that which is Catholic! 👍

Are you familiar with the Catholic belief that we must be baptized in order to be joined to Him? That’s why we can’t be assured of their salvation.

You appear to be rambling here. Not sure the relevance of the above comment. 🤷
What is invincible ignorance? If a person of average IQ all things being equal reads the New Testament and rejects Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior - at their death they would be condemned by our Lord to hell. No? 🤷🤷:eek:👍:D:blush:🤷
 
As I have not articulated my definition of “invincible ignorance” here it’s odd that you would say that it’s different from St. Thomas’.

Perhaps you could give us Aquinas’ definition, and we can go from there.

Can you please cite the Magisterial document that proclaimed Limbo as a definitive teaching?

Egg-zactly. ***Now ***you are proclaiming that which is Catholic! 👍

Are you familiar with the Catholic belief that we must be baptized in order to be joined to Him? That’s why we can’t be assured of their salvation.

You appear to be rambling here. Not sure the relevance of the above comment. 🤷
Just curious. Ever hear of myers-briggs? I am an INTJ. Which of the 16 personality types are you?
 
What is invincible ignorance? If a person of average IQ all things being equal reads the New Testament and rejects Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior - at their death they would be condemned by our Lord to hell. No? 🤷🤷:eek:👍:D:blush:🤷
I can’t imagine how you would claim to know whom God condemns.

That is above our pay grade as Catholics.

Even the Magisterium, men ordained by God to consecrate the Most Holy Eucharist, with the power to effect transubstantiation, don’t even claim to know whom God condemns.

The CC has never declared a single person to be in hell.

That should speak volumes about what we as a people ought to be saying about whom God condemns.
 
I can’t imagine how you would claim to know whom God condemns.

That is above our pay grade as Catholics.

Even the Magisterium, men ordained by God to consecrate the Most Holy Eucharist, with the power to effect transubstantiation, don’t even claim to know whom God condemns.

The CC has never declared a single person to be in hell.

That should speak volumes about what we as a people ought to be saying about whom God condemns.
:amen:
 
I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?
While Judaism believes it is the one true religion, it also believes, at the same time, there are many paths to G-d. Judaism does not find these two statements contradictory.
 
While Judaism believes it is the one true religion, it also believes, at the same time, there are many paths to G-d. Judaism does not find these two statements contradictory.
I have always felt there is something wrong with the idea that there are paths to God. It sounds too much like we the created, create the paths, and therefore God is okay with us. I do not believe it is a path, I believe it is a door. He knocks we open.
 
While Judaism believes it is the one true religion, it also believes, at the same time, there are many paths to G-d. Judaism does not find these two statements contradictory.
There are indeed many paths possible to God.

However, there is only one path in which God Himself came down and showed us The Way.
 
St. John of the Cross made a very astute observation about paths to God.

“God leads every soul by a separate path, and you will scarcely meet with one spirit which agrees with another in one half of the way by which it advances.”
  • St. John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Carmelite mystic & Doctor if the Church
Xuan
 
St. John of the Cross made a very astute observation about paths to God.

“God leads every soul by a separate path, and you will scarcely meet with one spirit which agrees with another in one half of the way by which it advances.”
  • St. John of the Cross (1542 – 1591), Carmelite mystic & Doctor if the Church
Xuan
If you are proposing that this means that God leads everyone by different religions (Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc etc etc) and that it doesn’t matter what path you take, as long as it is the path God gave you…

then you have misinterpreted St. John of the Cross.

However, if you mean that each of us has a different path–different crosses, blessings, situations–and those paths lead to the Cross of Christ and therefore, redemption through Jesus, then, you are absolutely correct!
 
If you are proposing that this means that God leads everyone by different religions (Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, etc etc etc) and that it doesn’t matter what path you take, as long as it is the path God gave you…

then you have misinterpreted St. John of the Cross.

However, if you mean that each of us has a different path–different crosses, blessings, situations–and those paths lead to the Cross of Christ and therefore, redemption through Jesus, then, you are absolutely correct!
Hi PR,
Boy, talk about putting words into my mouth. Actually, I didn’t interpret his statement, nor did I “mean” anything other than to simply present his statement for people to read.

The attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ. However, that being said, normally “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

One can call these paths that ultimately lead to God “paths to God” or one can call them “not-paths to God.” Some people seem to like to argue endlessly about this sort of semantics simply for the sake of arguing, which I don’t think is really very constructive and oftentimes not very charitable. So I tend to stay away from those arguments. But the attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ, whether one knows it or not. So believing in Christ and following His teachings can definitely help.

Xuan
 
Hi PR,
Boy, talk about putting words into my mouth. Actually, I didn’t interpret his statement, nor did I “mean” anything other than to simply present his statement for people to read.

The attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ. However, that being said, normally “it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)” (Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue – Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, Instruction Dialogue and Proclamation, 19 May 1991, n. 29; L’Osservatore Romano English edition, 1 July 1991, p. III).

One can call these paths that ultimately lead to God “paths to God” or one can call them “not-paths to God.” Some people seem to like to argue endlessly about this sort of semantics simply for the sake of arguing, which I don’t think is really very constructive and oftentimes not very charitable. So I tend to stay away from those arguments. But the attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ, whether one knows it or not. So believing in Christ and following His teachings can definitely help.

Xuan
With all due respect to Pope John Paul II the
paths St. John of the Cross was speaking
of we’re the paths found in the Catholic Church.
It is only through the intercession of the Holy
Mother Church which contains Christ in His Fullness
that those paths lead to Christ for those outside
the Church.
 
Hi PR,
Boy, talk about putting words into my mouth. Actually, I didn’t interpret his statement, nor did I “mean” anything other than to simply present his statement for people to read.
Of course you had an interpretation. Anyone who is presenting a quote in the context of a discussion is presenting an argument for his position. The quote is there to present your position, and your interpretation of that quote is made manifest in the context of the discussion.
The attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ.
Now, this is where you are very Catholic. 👍
But the attainment of Heaven is ultimately through Christ, whether one knows it or not. So believing in Christ and following His teachings can definitely help.
As is this. :yup:
 
It was my understanding…someone correct me…that that is what ecumenical meant…which was a major tenet of V-2…that those of other faiths were to be respected and that they, the others worshiping elsewhere, with different beliefs were equally capable of salavation…my argument, if you will, has always been, if this were the case, why be Catholic. o,k, so…he more we know the more we are responsible for…but that hardly seems applicable here… I couldn’t ever imagine being anything but Catholic…and I am old enough tio remember being taught that ‘we’ were the one true Church, established by God…comments ?
 
It was my understanding…someone correct me…that that is what ecumenical meant…which was a major tenet of V-2…that those of other faiths were to be respected and that they, the others worshiping elsewhere, with different beliefs were equally capable of salavation…
Per your invitation to correct: you are misinformed. There is** nothing **in V2 documents which state that others who worship with different beliefs are “equally capable of salvation”.

That those who have been uninformed about Christ and His Church have the possibility of salvation is quite different, quantitatively and qualitatively, from what you have posited above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top