Please, Catholics, tell me you disagree with the Pope on this!

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

This is not my intent at all. It simply true that teachers are held to greater accountability and I would thing the suprme teacher on earth would take greater care to be clear about the gospel and not be so ambiguous. Statements liek this will give people false hope.

He needs to Preach Christ clearly not be politically corrrect.

Mel

That whole statement is conditional upon the false assumption that he is attempting to politically correct. Simply begging the question. You seem to assume the very thing you are trying to prove an awful lot.

 

[MonicaC]

Melchior:

Um no. He was speaking to an audience about mankind.

Mel

I really worry about your persumptions on others salvation? Do you really feel that God could turn away his own child who loves him unknowingly God is all Knowing.

I look at as one who has a child who is born of some type of defect and cannot love its parent fully due to some mental or phyical problem. Does the loving parent thow him out because of this or does the parent know his childs limitations and love him anyway.

God is the PERFECT parent

I will pray for your softening of heart.

Monica

 

[Melchior]

Gerrygarvin:

If you were blind you would not have sinned.

Mel, it seems to me you are the one we should be incredulous towards. Taking us to task for not believing that God dooms people to hell simply for not knowing the Bible. You’d have us believe that aborted and unbaptized babies are all being eternally punished, for having unloving parents. And that everyone born in primitive Amazon Rainforest tribes will be damned simply because they were born in the wrong place. it seems to me like you are the one who needs a better understanding of the Biblical Jesus. Here’s a good starting point:

He was against being cruelly arbitrary.

This has nothing to do with “Salvation by Works.” Of course we beleive that it is God’s grace that saves those that Benedict described.

I do believe in God’s grace, partiucularly towards the truly innocent who have no awareness of good or evil. The only ones who fit that category as far as I can tell are babies.

Look my entire point is that the church used to think it was it’s mission to go and tell everyone the Gospel. No pope before 1960 would have given the impression that people are okay without Jesus. Saying that there are exceptions to the rule are fine. But when the exception gets touted as the rule, as many of you folks seems to be saying, it is a contradiction of 2000 years of teaching from your church.

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

smelton:

I know at times it seems us protestants condem people to Hell for God… I can assure you that I for one will let God determine who makes it to heaven.

You say that, but then you participate in a thread like this. It is all well and good to say you will let God make that determination, but then you contradict that by saying it is not possible for anyone to go to Heaven without saying the sinner’s prayer. You have just personally condemned all explicitly non-Christians to Hell, which is completely contrary to your claim that you will let God “determine who makes it to heaven”.

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Ignorance does not excuse sin. It never has.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

1792** Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person** cannot be imputed to him**. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”

 

[MonicaC]

Melchior:

Well, Monica, it is clear who you, in your Supreme opinion (to use your condescending words) believe is saved in your scenario. So who is playing judge now?

I point our Jesus teaching and it is my opinion and I am judging. You give specific scenarios with an obvious judgement of your own and accuse me of judging?

BTW, everything I am saying you seem to support in with the three verses in your tag line.

Mel

I never made a judgement on who was going to heaven. I believe they both are, but one was actually doing more than the other.

You tend to judge to much.

How about we just let GOD BE GOD?

 

[Melchior]

YinYangMom:

God is imprinted in every human being.
It is within His discretion how to bring that soul home to Him, not ours.

That’s one way to avoid culpability for not spreading the gospel. He actually did tell the church how to bring souls to Him. Something to the effect of Go into ALL the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And teaching them to obey all I have commanded you.

Mel

 

[Melchior]

smelton:

I know at times it seems us protestants condem people to Hell for God. Some seem to even revel in this idea. I can assure you that I for one will let God determine who makes it to heaven. I think protestants are mis-read and sometimes mis-guided. I truely believe in the scriptures and believe they are truth. I think if anyone who says anything against truth then it should be analyzed. I’m not saying that is the case here but I just wanted to say I for one am heartbroken that there will be people in Hell.

Amen and ditto.

 

[YinYangMom]

Melchior:

That’s one way to avoid culpability for not spreading the gospel. He actually did tell the church how to bring souls to Him. Something to the effect of Go into ALL the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And teaching them to obey all I have commanded you.

Mel

Of course the Church is to help bring souls to Him - by spreading the Good News. It is **only **by the grace of the Holy Spirit that those to whom the Church reaches are able to see God and recognize the Truth. The Church cannot force belief on anyone.

You and I are instruments of Christ, not Christ Himself. Of course we respond to the call to evangelize but have you been 100% successful yet? I know I haven’t been able to convert every person I’ve evangelized to…it’s not within my power to get them to believe or not…that’s God’s realm.

Heck, even Thomas had to touch the wounds himself in order to believe in the risen Christ…and then, Jesus invited Thomas to touch him. He didn’t grab Thomas’ hand and shove it into His wounds.

 

[Gerrygarvin]

Melchior:

That’s one way to avoid culpability for not spreading the gospel. He actually did tell the church how to bring souls to Him. Something to the effect of Go into ALL the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And teaching them to obey all I have commanded you.

Mel

and which protestant church is it that is has done more to make disiples of all nations, than the Catholic Church? doesn’t seem to me like we’ve ever been trying to weasel out of this obligation.

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

I do believe in God’s grace, partiucularly towards the truly innocent who have no awareness of good or evil. The only ones who fit that category as far as I can tell are babies.

Look my entire point is that the church used to think it was it’s mission to go and tell everyone the Gospel. No pope before 1960 would have given the impression that people are okay without Jesus. Saying that there are exceptions to the rule are fine. But when the exception gets touted as the rule, as many of you folks seems to be saying, it is a contradiction of 2000 years of teaching from your church.

Mel

Oh, but Mel, you have gone against your own teaching. “There are none righteous, no not one”. That includes babies by the Evangelical/ Fundamentalist definition. We are all born into original sin, so nobody is innocent. Can’t have it both ways partner.

The Church still sends missionaries everywhere. Ever heard of Mother Theresa? And nobody is saying people are okay without Jesus, but you. Quit trying to argue this ridiculous point. It’s simply not what Pope Benedict or the Church teach.

 

[Fidelis]

deb1:

Romans 2: 14-15 For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having the law are a law unto themselves. 15 Which show the works of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the means while accusing or else excusing one another.

Sheesh, what part of this is so hard to understand (see it in context, verses 1:16 through 2:16)? We don’t pit one verse of Scripture against another (Matthew 25:19 vs. Romans 2:14-15) or ignore one passage at the expense of others, we take the WHOLE of Scripture into consideration.

 

[Melchior]

MonicaC:

OH this is the part I really wanted to comment on. The part in red just reminds that to those who have much, much is expected. Those of us who know Our Lord, it has always been taught to me that we will be expect more. So with that said those who have not been told about God will not be expected as much. But with that said that doesn’t mean that they can now go through life acting the fool. If they have been told of Jesus, then it is their choice to either open that gift or refuse it.

I told this to my husband once who was raised with no religion, and really had no clue who Jesus was. But when he and I got married I did share with him what I knew. It was hard for him at first, but you know ten years into our marriage he decided that he wanted to open that gift. I asked him one day why he was going to RCIA and his response was that he kept thinking of when I told him about “to those who know, much will be expected.” He said he could not go on pretending he didn’t know.

Just another thought.

And certainly not a bad thought. This makes more sense (to me anyway) than what some others have been saying. Not that agree with all the implications - but your husbands example is a good one. I had a similar expereince with my wife. Course she was an Orthodox raised New Ager when we met - but did not have a clue about the Gospel at first.

I don’t want people to go to Hell. Honest. But for the grace of God… But I am just concerened about mixed messages is all. I have much love for you Catholics and Benedict. In fact I said to my wife about a year and a half before JPII died that if Ratzinger ever became pope we would become Catholics. I was half joking. Only half though.

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

Amen and ditto.

Amen and ditto? How can you agree with his statement, when you sit here and condemn all explicitly non-Christians to Hell? Your posts are completely contrary to this claim. Your doctrine leads you to judgment, but since you know judging is wrong you try and back track. Well, which is it? Are you saying all non-Christians are going to Hell, and thereby judging? Or are you saying, that we can’t possibly know how God dispenses His mercy, and thereby agreeing with the Church?

 

[Matt16_18]

Redbandito:

Oh, but Mel, you have gone against your own teaching. “There are none righteous, no not one”. That includes babies by the Evangelical/ Fundamentalist definition. We are all born into original sin, so nobody is innocent. Can’t have it both ways partner.

Good point.

The fundamentalists are definitely inconsistent when it comes to the fate of their own infants that died before they ever said the “sinners prayer”. Funny how they don’t seem to have a problem proclaiming that “pagan” infants are in Hell along with all their ancestors …

… nobody is saying people are okay without Jesus, but you. Quit trying to argue this ridiculous point. It’s simply not what Pope Benedict or the Church teach.

 

[Melchior]

Redbandito:

Oh, but Mel, you have gone against your own teaching. “There are none righteous, no not one”. That includes babies by the Evangelical/ Fundamentalist definition. We are all born into original sin, so nobody is innocent. Can’t have it both ways partner.

The Church still sends missionaries everywhere. Ever heard of Mother Theresa? And nobody is saying people are okay without Jesus, but you. Quit trying to argue this ridiculous point. It’s simply not what Pope Benedict or the Church teach.

No I am not. If you look at my ohter posts (okay I admit there are way too many) I said I believe there is an exception to the rule. And I said I trust in God’s mercy for the unborn. Not that I am convinced that all those who died young are in Heaven. I have alot more hope for the children of Christians because they are part of a covenant family than I do for those children of pagans. This is truly a mystery.

As for Mother Theresa, as much as I respect her she was a medical missionary and made some pretty eye raising statements about the salvation of pagans.

You cannot close your eyes to the mixed messages of recent years. I don’t think JPII kissing the Koran did Muslims any favors. He wasvalidating their false beliefs instead of calling them to repentance. You pretend mixed messages have not been sent all you want there is nothing ridiculous about my concerns.

Let him who has eyes to see and all that…

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Not that I am convinced that all those who died young are in Heaven. I have alot more hope for the children of Christians because they are part of a covenant family than I do for those children of pagans.

Why is the baby of a pagan more deserving of Hell than the baby of a fundamentalist Christian?

 

[Melchior]

Redbandito:

Amen and ditto? How can you agree with his statement, when you sit here and condemn all explicitly non-Christians to Hell? Your posts are completely contrary to this claim. Your doctrine leads you to judgment, but since you know judging is wrong you try and back track. Well, which is it? Are you saying all non-Christians are going to Hell, and thereby judging? Or are you saying, that we can’t possibly know how God dispenses His mercy, and thereby agreeing with the Church?

Read what I wrote not what you want to between the lines. I am saying what scripture and your church has traditionally taught. Stop putting words in my mouth and judging my intent. As if I had some hidden intent. I have said repeatedly that there are exceptions to the rule in how God can bring people to himself. But you just want to slap some sort of fundamentalist Baptist label on me to avoid addressing my real concerns.

I consider Catholics true Christians I love the Catholic church. If you have ever seen my other postings I am not some anti-Catholic hack looking to catch Rome in contradicitons. I am truly concerned for souls and for the integrity of the Catholic Church. I am concerned. I don’t have an agenda other than to have some clarification on what seems to be a mixed message that other protestants around the net, with less love for Rome are drooling over.

Mel

 

[Orionthehunter]

Melchior:

I do believe in God’s grace, partiucularly towards the truly innocent who have no awareness of good or evil. The only ones who fit that category as far as I can tell are babies.

Look my entire point is that the church used to think it was it’s mission to go and tell everyone the Gospel. No pope before 1960 would have given the impression that people are okay without Jesus. Saying that there are exceptions to the rule are fine. But when the exception gets touted as the rule, as many of you folks seems to be saying, it is a contradiction of 2000 years of teaching from your church.

Mel

Pardon me if I don’t see the same contradiction. In fact, what the Pope hjas said is consistent with my understanding of this matter.

However, your interpretation of the Pope’s words reinforces my conviction that that we need the Magisterium to properly interpret God’s Revelation (Sacred Scripture, Sacred Teaching, and Sacred Tradition).

Just a few examples:

1. You don’t seem to grasp the theological/Catholic use of the word conscience in the first line. To have a “pure conscience” one must have that conscience conformed to the will and understanding of God.
2. You don’t seem to grasp the use of the Babylon within the context of this messsage. Babylon is a metaphoric place where the noise and distractions of evil are so pervasive and strong the message of the Gospel is hard to discern. But if one in that environment (without benefit of a normal Biblical upraising or exposure) is still able to have/develop (even imperfectly) a “kind of faith, of hope, in the measure that is possible for them in the circumstances in which they live… With this faith in an unknown reality, they are really on the way to the authentic Jerusalem, to Christ… God will not allow them to perish with Babylon, having predestined them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance.”

In the current world, Babylon could possibly be in the most remote areas of Africa. But for Americans, Babylon is likely in the inner cities where children are living in crack houses or on our Indian reservations where the cycle of alcoholism, child abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome create environments damaging to ones soul.

And just because the Pope reminds us of this 2,000 year old Teaching in the Church doesn’t mitigate or lesson our obligation as Christians to do our part to eliminate both the spiritual and temporal impediments to these Children of God from experiencing the Love of Jesus Christ in this world. I think you have read into the Pope’s word an either/or scenario or one supecedes the other. This is not the case. The Church has always taught both side by side each other. And sometimes, based on the realities of the day, I’m sure the Pope has exercised his legitimate teaching authority to bring the focus to one or the other but this doesn’t imply one becomes predominant over the other.

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

No I am not. If you look at my ohter posts (okay I admit there are way too many) I said I believe there is an exception to the rule. And I said I trust in God’s mercy for the unborn. Not that I am convinced that all those who died young are in Heaven. I have alot more hope for the children of Christians because they are part of a covenant family than I do for those children of pagans. This is truly a mystery.

Yes you are Mel, and this paragraph makes it abundantly clear. You stated, “I believe there is an exception to the rule”. My point exactly! You just try to limit it to the people you are confortable with, and in a way that supports your argument. This is completely inconsistent. So, you get to determine who God can make exceptions for? Sure sounds like it from this statement, “I have alot more hope for the children of Christians because they are part of a covenant family than I do for those children of pagans.”

Furthermore, Mel, if you cannot prove those “exceptions” from Scripture, you are doing the exact same thing you have been accusing us of doing. The problem is, you will have to use the very Scriptures we have used to make our points in order to substantiate your’s. You seem to caught up in at best a contradiction, but at worst hypocrisy. Either way, it is not a good place to be. Think about it before you post again, Chief. God bless.