Pagans need not convert: Can someone help me understand?

[Julia_Mae]

As an outsider, one thing I have noticed on this boards are how everyone seems to find anti-Catholicism everywhere in our society (which a lot of times I really don’t see myself), and yet the people I hear making the most anti-Catholic statements are the Catholics themselves on CAF…

We are a contentious buncha rabble, aren’t we? :slapfight:

But every time someone says Christians are a bunch of sheep who just believe what the Pope says, you only have to point them to CAF.

It’s not actually a bad thing. God wants everyone to be saved. This is the teaching. And God makes a place for everyone, l meets us where we are. Some folks really cannot wrap their heads around certain mystical ideas about God. He can only be a well - Old Guy in the Sky, is how I put it. They cannot conceive of God as spirit, as something so far beyond our h ken that we must accept we are clueless, except for what Jesus shows us. They need that wise individual at a drawing board designing the Universe. And that’s okay.

Some of us are so far out in the Twilight Zone we can hardly manage to acknowledge any boundaries at all. These folks don’t understand the enormous gift that the Law was and is. They don’t get that Law is freedom. They are okay, too.

People are flawed, people want to control each other. People want to be in charge and be boss and make everyone just like them.

God is not people. He just wants us to be with Him in joy forever and provides a Way for all that is really the same way but relative to where you are looks different. It’s not.

We get into trouble when we take our eyes off God and start looking at each other. “No, don’t walk like that! You have to hop on every third step!!”

But here’s the thing: we are all loved and all wanted and all part of the One, Holy, Universal Church of Jesus Christ.

That’s pretty cool. That’s what you can learn at CAF. Know what? Even atheists are here. That’s pretty cool, too.

 

[Lormar]

I’ve read so many of your posts wherein you admonish people for a lack of charity. Yet on this very thread you have talked down to people and at the very least have strongly implied that posters are more Protestant than Catholic, or that posters are using a supposedly Protestant mindset. This is your opinion, and it is not conducive to growing in holiness or helping anyone else in growing in holiness.

I’ve been on CAF for three years. Never in those three years have I known Brother Jay to be condescending or rude or lacking in charity.

If you find his posts so, maybe you should look into yourself and ask why. I can relate to how you are feeling and I know his posts used to bother me, but the problem wasn’t his posts. It was me.

 

[johnnyc176]

Why is it so hard for us accept that persons not explicitly Catholic can be saved?

I am reminded of Mt 20:15

I don’t think it’s a matter of acceptance rather an understanding. Again…the OP is teaching a CCD class and trying to teach the faith, granted to young Catholics, but it is still a form of evangelizing. For me…that is my concern for the teaching in question. How do we apply this teaching in evangelizing? Who are we evangelizing and why? Someone mentioned that they see this topic come up often on these forums and wondered why. Obviously it can cause some confusion. You know… a couple of pretty good theologians recently had differing opinions on a topic directly related to this…‘will many be saved’.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2383#.ULyN6LY7f7Q.facebook
,
renewalministries.net/wordpress/?p=348

Are we called to accept the Church’s teaching? Absolutely. But without question?

Part of my Sunday Scripture was Luke 4:14-21. Jesus in the Synagogue. Think He was concerned about offending anyone? We are called to defend the faith vigorously. Are we not asked to proclaim the truth just as vigorously?

 

[clem456]

I don’t think it’s a matter of acceptance rather an understanding.

I think it’s a matter of

1. acceptance
2. hopefully understanding

Sometimes understanding comes first, sometimes not.
Acceptance is not optional, understanding (in my case anyway) is something that needs to be worked at.
As an RCIA catechist, I find it difficult to fully understand everything, harder yet to articulate it well to prospective Catholics. Who of us fully understands the Trinity, the resurrection, the economy of salvation?
1st thing…I must accept the teaching of the Church, and go from there. If I do not accept certain things, I have CHOSEN NOT to understand.

IMO most of the disputes here are due an unwillingness to accept.

 

[PJM]

=SantaGemmaPrega;10281076]I teach 6th grade CCD using a very well-known publishing company’s CCD book.
My father teaches 8th grade CCD using the same company’s 8th grade version.
Both have the papal imprimatur in the front cover.
I came across some striking text which seems to contradict my understanding of the Roman Catholic faith and of what I have previously read.

From the 6th grade book:
“Jesus Christ, through his grace, can still save people who are not members of the Church. Jews respond to God’s revelation in the Old Testament. Muslims - followers of Islam - believe in one God of Abraham and his descendants. As Catholics, we recognize and respect the value of other religions. As Catholics we recognize and respect the value of other religions.”

From the 6th grade teacher’s manual:
“These two religious groups - Jews and Muslims - are especially important to us. Jews follow the same faith practiced in Israel in Old Testament times. Abraham is their father in faith. Muslims practice Islam. Abraham is their father in faith too. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham…We’ve read about some people who have different views of Christ, but they may still seek God with a good heart. The Church tells us that those good people will be saved too. All people who seek the truth with good hearts can be united to God.”

From the 8th grade book:
The Church is catholic or open to everyone, because it has been sent by Christ to the whole human race. So even those who don’t believe in Jesus are related to the Church.
The Jewish people have already given a positive response to God’s call in the Old Testament. Muslims are included in God’s plan of salvation because with us they adore the one, merciful God. Because it is catholic, the Church has a bond with all people through God, who created the world and everyone in it.

Can you please help me to reconcile what this text wants me to teach with the following:

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #16,17
Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation …Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ- CONDEMNED

HAD TO EDIT for space.
NOT all text are equal:

Use only that easily convey the truth in its entireity and with clarity.

Here’s what the Catechism teaches:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

**780 **The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men

**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.***

HERE’S THE "KICKER"

**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

My friend you seem to know the Faith. Do as your consciece is telling you to do. BE SURE your right; then teach the singular truth clearly.

Thanks for asking,

Pat

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think it’s a matter of acceptance rather an understanding. Again…the OP is teaching a CCD class and trying to teach the faith, granted to young Catholics, but it is still a form of evangelizing. For me…that is my concern for the teaching in question. How do we apply this teaching in evangelizing? Who are we evangelizing and why? Someone mentioned that they see this topic come up often on these forums and wondered why. Obviously it can cause some confusion. You know… a couple of pretty good theologians recently had differing opinions on a topic directly related to this…‘will many be saved’.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2383#.ULyN6LY7f7Q.facebook
,
renewalministries.net/wordpress/?p=348

Are we called to accept the Church’s teaching? Absolutely. But without question?

Part of my Sunday Scripture was Luke 4:14-21. Jesus in the Synagogue. Think He was concerned about offending anyone? We are called to defend the faith vigorously. Are we not asked to proclaim the truth just as vigorously?

If I may, I’d like to address your post on two fronts.

First – there a difference in understanding between Father and Dr. Martin. Both are right. Father is reading the Doctor’s footnote and responding to it as it appears in the book. Dr. Martin, on the other hand, had something else in mind when he inserted the footnote. But it’s a footnote. Footnotes are not lengthy. They leave room for the reader to interpret. That’s what I see as happening here.

Second – Are we call to accept the Church’s teachings absolutely? YES. We profess this when we say “I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches”

Does this mean that we cannot ask questions? NO. Here is the difference between what Dr. Martin seems to have intended and what Fr. Barron understood. The statement in the footnote, “This requires and explanation” sounds authoritarian. Here is a lowly theologian asking the pope toe explain himself. Well, the truth is that popes don’t have to explain anything to the faithful Their authority is unquestionable, unless they’re heretics.

However, upon reading Dr. Martin’s response, he’s words are not saying what he means. What he really means is, “Will your holiness please explain the gap between what you have said and what Vatican II said?” That’s a legitimate question and it’s very polite.

From there it’s up to His Holiness to either answer the question or simply say that he will not answer the question, because it’s not important enough for him to spend time on it.

If he answers it, we must accept his answer. If he ignores the question, we must accept that his statement is true as is that of Vatican II and between the two statements there is a link that we cannot see and that pope is too busy to deal with it. He just have to trust that he knows what he’s talking about. Why would we do this? Because there is nothing in his statement contrary to the faith.

I would like to add a OBSERVE NOTE

I would draw everyone’s attention to how Fr. Barron wrote his article and how Dr. Martin responded and compare it to the dialogues that we have here on CAF. Does Father Barron throw Dr. Martin under the bus? Not at all. He simply points out that Benedict XVI is the pope and the safest course to take is to go with the pope.

Does Dr. Martin attack Father for not understanding his meaning? He does not. He reaffirms his respect for Father, for the Church, for the Holy Father and he explains why he even asked the question in the first place and clarifies what the question is.

The two men speak to each other as scholars, as gentlemen and as Christians. There is no hostility in their manner. We need to learn from this kind of dialogue. I believe that even more important than the one single point about heaven and hell, the most important point for us is the charity and respect between the speakers.

If we spoke this way to each other, somethings wouldn’t be so complicated and turn into battles.

 

[JReducation]

=SantaGemmaPrega;10281076]I teach 6th grade CCD using a very well-known publishing company’s CCD book.
My father teaches 8th grade CCD using the same company’s 8th grade version.
Both have the papal imprimatur in the front cover.
I came across some striking text which seems to contradict my understanding of the Roman Catholic faith and of what I have previously read.

From the 6th grade book:
“Jesus Christ, through his grace, can still save people who are not members of the Church. Jews respond to God’s revelation in the Old Testament. Muslims - followers of Islam - believe in one God of Abraham and his descendants. As Catholics, we recognize and respect the value of other religions. As Catholics we recognize and respect the value of other religions.”

From the 6th grade teacher’s manual:
“These two religious groups - Jews and Muslims - are especially important to us. Jews follow the same faith practiced in Israel in Old Testament times. Abraham is their father in faith. Muslims practice Islam. Abraham is their father in faith too. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the God of Abraham…We’ve read about some people who have different views of Christ, but they may still seek God with a good heart. The Church tells us that those good people will be saved too. All people who seek the truth with good hearts can be united to God.”

From the 8th grade book:
The Church is catholic or open to everyone, because it has been sent by Christ to the whole human race. So even those who don’t believe in Jesus are related to the Church.
The Jewish people have already given a positive response to God’s call in the Old Testament. Muslims are included in God’s plan of salvation because with us they adore the one, merciful God. Because it is catholic, the Church has a bond with all people through God, who created the world and everyone in it.

Can you please help me to reconcile what this text wants me to teach with the following:

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #16,17
Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation …Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ- CONDEMNED

As I always tell people. We don’t need to reconcile these things. The truth is that the amount of reading and research that has to be done in order to reconcile them would be enough for a degree.

It’s like any other discipline. We accept that the person who makes the statement has been reviewed by his peers and they have found his position to be satisfactory.

If a book has a Nihil Obstat – it means that those scholars who reviewed the book found nothing in it that contradicts the faith of the Church.

In other words, they have done the leg work for you.

If it has an impirmatur – it means that it may be published as is. There is no need to add anything or take anything out.

There may be a big hole in the middle and there will always bee. As I said before, the ideas and teachings that have come between point A and point X are too many to print them in one book, especially one that targets a young population. Only a person who is interested in the history of theological thought would be interested in those details. Those persons are not many. It’s doubtful that such a book exists. Instead there hundred of short statements and decrees around with which the popes are familiar.

If the Church says “let it be printed, because it has no errors” we just trust the Church’s judgment and teach what’s in it… We can embellish. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we don’t contradict.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If the Church says “let it be printed, because it has no errors” we just trust the Church’s judgment and teach what’s in it… We can embellish. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we don’t contradict.

I was thinking something about the OP’s question: She isn’t you. She can’t just teach what’s in the book because kids are going to ask for explanations and so are their parents. I’m thinking the OP needs to take this to her Pastor and have a serious conversation. I don’t think as adults we can be wishy-washy about these things or project doubt. You said okay to embellish but not contradict. Of course. But how, if you are in sincere doubt as to the Truth, can you even take on this role?

Someplace we have to add the inestimable value of being united in the Church. The question is always going to arise: then why do I have to be Catholic?

 

[JReducation]

I was thinking something about the OP’s question: She isn’t you. She can’t just teach what’s in the book because kids are going to ask for explanations and so are their parents. I’m thinking the OP needs to take this to her Pastor and have a serious conversation. I don’t think as adults we can be wishy-washy about these things or project doubt. You said okay to embellish but not contradict. Of course. But how, if you are in sincere doubt as to the Truth, can you even take on this role?

Someplace we have to add the inestimable value of being united in the Church. The question is always going to arise: then why do I have to be Catholic?

That’s what I mean by embellish. If the question is asked, what is the difference between this and that, then one can say that there have been many discussions and a lot of thought on this subject over the years. As time goes by the Church has a greater understanding of herself and her place in the world.

If one goes back to the two documents where these statements were made, one would notice that they are talking to Catholics about other people, not about us. It does not apply to us. We have to be Catholic, because to whom much is given, of him much is required. However, other people only have fraction of what we have. They have to work with what they have. As long as they’re sincere about being faithful to what they have of the truth, God will and does use that little bit to save. At the end of the day, it comes down to a judgment that only God can make. Only God can judge another person’s sincerity and fidelity.

 

[HelenRose]

I’m interested to read what folks say: I struggle with this issue too. My heart tells me you can’t go to heaven without knowing Jesus and being a member of the True Faith. How would a person be able to die in a state of grace with out the Sacraments? But there’s all this information saying that “if someone trys to live a ‘good life’ according to his conscience” he’ll go to heaven too. If that’s the case, we might as well leave pagans, Jews, and Muslims alone since it’s encouraging them to become Catholic will just make it harder for them. Did all those Pope’s misunderstood the nature of what it takes to get to Heaven? Did they understand but the layity misunderstood what they said? I can see how some people say the Church has changed it’s teaching. Certainly the Church has the right to do so since it has the “keys to Heaven” but why does it say no teaching has changed?

Is the Church’s statement that non Catholics may go to Heaven infallible?

I would hate to presume God’s Mercy.
and I would hate to presume God’s Condemnation.

We are called to show forth God’s love and the beauty of His Church.

That is our (my) responsibility. I will leave the souls of others in the merciful hands of God and I will do the best I can to love Him and serve Him.

I do not believe that telling pagans and their friends that they are going to Hell really helps all that much. If it is their souls we are concerned about and if we are not concerned about who is right and who is wrong on this subject, we will learn how to love our pagan friends into the Church, we will speak to them kindly of God’s beauty and not push them away by a presumption of God’s mind.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I’ve been reading through this whole discussion, and I think that there needs to be a re-reading of the Holy Scriptures, the Ancient Sacred Tradition of the Church, and all the Councils, Papal Encyclicals, and simple reason.

When Jesus sent St. Paul out into His mission to the Gentiles, we read “I now send you to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:18).

The Lord Jesus assumes that “Gentiles” (in general) are “blind”, live the “darkness of sin” and the “power of Satan”, who also retain the “guilt” and “culpability” for sins which needed the forgiveness of God.

We need to carry this assumption as missionaries of the Lord Jesus, we are sent into a world living in darkness, to seek and save the lost.

That the Church is losing this vision is the reason it cries for it’s horrid statistics and phenominal majorities who don’t attend Mass, who do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, who do not participate in parish ministries, who do not volunteer in missions, who do not evangelize or share the gospel. I have heard one priest after the next complain about the faithlessness in the Roman Catholic Church, but no wonder it is this way. We have lost the story of mission from Christ, that He is light in a dark world, and we being in Him are the light of the world. The world is not already full of light needing more light, it is living in darkness, sin, guilt, and the sentence of death and they need to see the light of the gospel to achieve eternal life.

If there are those who through no fault of their own, who nevertheless seek God with all their heart, can achieve salvation, we must understand this as the exception to the rule that Christ gave us.

For goodness sake, the Lord Jesus was sent into the world to die for sinners. If we all live in righteousness automatically, then Christ died in vain. Justification can only come through the grace of Jesus Christ, and this is not ever revealed to be something attainable (normally or in any standard way) without faith, repentance, and baptism. If it is attained outside the bind of the sacraments, it is God’s business. But if we presume the “state of salvation” upon the world as we know it, we lose the obedience we are to give God the Father in proclaiming the gospel, of which those who do not believe will be condemned.

I see and hear Catholics who have muslim friends, jewish friends, and hindu friends, who have been sharing the gospel with these for years, and will still say that they are saved and fine, going to heaven. How foolish and disobedient to Christ. Our Lord said “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized is saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16). ’

This is not only applicable to those who are happily convinced of the truth of Christ, but then somehow is pardoned for those who just don’t find the truth in it when it is presented. We are to assume that all who reject the gospel when it is revealed to them, are either feeling convicted of the holy spirit (and which they are not showing) or the devil has taken the word out of their hearts (Matthew 13).

If Catholics here wish to disagree with me, please do not complain about the horrid statistics and the need for more catechesis, etc,etc,etc. Because you can have the best theological Catechism in the world, but as long as you have 1 page in there which says that none of this is really required, only to those who are happily convinced, it means absolutely nothing to a dying world in need of life.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

old thread