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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melchior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Redbandito:
No, not really. It shows another loophole you have left in your argument. Not only have you made an exception for unbaptized babies, you have also made it for faithful Jews, whom did not know Christ. Just take the next logical step brother and you will be there.
I could not let this one go. I am sorry but this is an absurd response. You asked a question and I answered it. It the assumption I think we all (except you) is that we are referring to the AD world not the BC world. You really have no idea what this logic thing is you keep referring too.

Read this carfully too. I am arguing AS I SAID FROM EARLY ON the normal means of coming to salvation. It is common sense to assume I am referring to those living under the New Testament.

Go have a drink on me. And please go get a logic book and read it so you will stop abusing it.

Mel
 
40.png
Redbandito:
What is your definition of baptism of desire? If it is understood correctly, then your whole argument in this thread would be null and void. That is precisely what Benedict and all of us would argue is the means by which a non-Christian, ignorant of the Gospel would be saved. Please define this doctrine.
Quick definition: Theif on the Cross. Or anyone who desires to be baptized but dies before they are able too.
 
40.png
Redbandito:
Wow! Calling someone Chief is the MOST offensive name? I think I could come up with a few worse. All the same, my apologies. It certainly wasn’t meant to offend you. And I am cool with agreeing to disagree. God bless.
Lol! It is kind of an inside bartender joke. I guy comes up and says “Yeah let me have two Buds, Cheif”. There is something about it in that context that makes every bartender want to jump over the bar.

Anyway I know this got a bit heated and I was a bit of a wise____ to you in recent posts. I am sorry for that. Nothing personal. I just need to go play with my kiddies and get of this dang word machine!

Peace, brother.

Dave
 
Ran into a great quote by C. S. Lewis (admittedly not a Catholic) today that sums up the Catholic position quite well:

“We . . . know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know him can be saved through him.”–Mere Christianity.
 
40.png
Melchior:
You assume all of mankind are God’s children. No all those who are baptized into Christ are God’s children. And yes I include those who have a baptism of desire. Bin Laden is not a child of God. He is a creation of God. But until He repents he has not receieved the adoption into God’s family that we have.
Do you not believe that every human soul has the imprint of God?
 
40.png
Melchior:
Quick definition: Theif on the Cross. Or anyone who desires to be baptized but dies before they are able too.
It seems to me it is those people in the midst of Babylon of which the Pope was speaking. Those who in the midst of such rampant evil still long for good, for what is right, in essence - God.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Okay, thank you for engaging what I actually wrote and not labeling me a Fundamentalist and attacking what I never said. 😃
Well, labeling really doesn’t help us understand one another, does it? So, I try not to do it. And I just hate defending words I never said, too–it’s such a waste of time.
Your position is well reasoned and I can respect it. I am not sure I agree totally, but I certainly do in part and agree with the spirit of it. I just wish the Pope would be so clear when He speaks in public is all.
Blessings,
Oh my! I never thought I was a better teacher than the Holy Father! :o But seriously, he’s in a hard position, isn’t he? No matter what he says some people will not understand, others will take his words out of context, and still others will shoot down anything said by the Roman Pontiff (none of these people are you, dear Mel).

The Holy Father’s words are always meant to be taken within the context of the whole of Catholic teaching from Peter right down to Benedict XVI. Only within the full context of Church teaching, the documents in which they appear, and to whom they were addressed and why can we truly understand what he is trying to convey. Catholics tend to take all this into account, without actually articulating that that is what they are doing. It is the Catholic understanding within the whole context that tells us what the pope is saying. Do you see what I mean? 🙂
 
40.png
Della:
But, it doesn’t say that ONLY those who have knowledge of Christ will be saved, does it? No, it doesn’t. The SURE way of salvation is faith in Christ as Savior. For those who never heard of him or have been fed a lot of misinformation about him, his redemption is still in effect. What the Church teaches is that if these good people had known of Christ as he truly is and had had the opportunity to do so, they would have sought out Christian baptism. No one is saying we shouldn’t evangelize. Indeed, in order to MAKE SURE of others’ salvation we are morally obligated to share the Gospel with them, for how easy can it be to serve and love God and one’s neighbor without the aid of Church and the Sacraments established by Christ.

And the Catholic Church has never stopped sending out missionaries, and never will. We can’t get into every place because of government interference and ignorance, but we have evangelized nearly every spot on earth, and will continue to do so until Christ returns. All that this teaching is saying is that we human beings cannot judge anyone’s salvation because who will be saved is entirely up to God. It is a guard against being judgmental and presumptuous not a discouragement of evangelization.

Not at all, as I wrote above. There is many a nominal Christian (both Protestant and Catholic) who will be horribly surprised to learn that their lukewarm faith and inaction (sins of omission) have cost them their salvation. And, there will be many a surprised, but happy to now know who it was they were truly serving with their self-sacrificing love all those years persons, who will enter into the joy of their Lord. It is not for us to judge the heart of another, but it is for us to be sure we did all we could to see to it that others hear of Christ so they can be morally certain of their salvation as they serve him with the graces God gave them.
John 3:16-18 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. {17} For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. {18} He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Acts 4:12 [Peter telling the crowd about Jesus] “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

Hebrews 9:22, “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.”

These sound pretty clear to me…

If we could go to Heaven through this idea of Invincible Ignorance, then why would God let Christ come down at all? It isn’t logical to think that He would sacrifice His only son (especially in that horrific manner) if we only had to be good-willed people.

Also, why would Christ tell His disciples to go to all nations if all nations can already receive salvation (especiall in the knowledge that the disciples would endure the same hatred from the world that Christ did)? Again this is not logical.

I will tell you, I weep over the people of this world. The fact is that we have people blinded by the world. Muslims, hindus, buddhists and even men and women in our own Churches may not know Jesus Christ. People groups of Africa and Asia and elsewhere have NEVER had the Gospel spoken or read to them and I cry at night realizing that they may or may not ever hear God’s words.

If you want an example of a man who realized this; look at Paul. He was there to save and preach to those who have never heard the Gospel. Look at the area he covered without any means of public transportation; that is astounding. Look at what he went through; beatings, prison, shipwrecks, yet he continued to preach the Gospel. He knew his business was to save through Christ’s name and he had an urgency knowing that every minute counted in that business. If this idea of salvation without Jesus Christ was there, Paul (and none of the other disciples) would have gone through the torment they went through. There would be no urgency in spreading the Word of God if salvation could be acheived any other way.

Can God reach the unreached through supernatural means? Sure. But looking through the Bible, especially after Christ, how often did we see any supernatural experiences? It was rare.

Mel,

I also want to congratulate you on looking into your heart and searching for God there.

I also want to tell you not to let anyone say that you cannot properly interpret what another man says. God gave your intelligence to you so that you CAN USE IT…

I will be praying as you continue onward in your quest for understanding. I also pray that this heartfelt searching for truth continues to the top of your Church itself.

God Bless,
Jim
 
40.png
Melchior:
It seems as if the invincible ignorance thing keeps getting broader and broader. I mean how is this not simply salvation by works alone? Statements like these make me wonder when universalism will start to be okay in Rome.

I find this greatly troubling. I thought Benedict would balance out some of these JPII ideas. Whatever happened to faith in and following Christ as the only way (or normal means) of Salvation, except for the possibility of certain exceptions known only to God?

When did the possible exception become the rule?

Mel
I couldn’t agree with the pope more. Where in scripture does it say that only believing Christians will go to heaven? That would rule out aborted infants, the severely retarted, and children who die before the age of accountability. Only those who have heard the gospel and knowingly rejected it – the disbelievers of whom Christ spoke – are singled out by scripture as incurring the condemnation of Hell. The merely ignorant are not counted among the disbelievers. Even C.S. Lewis wrote in his Mere Christianity that the bible never says that those who don’t know the gospel will automatically go to hell. This is not a uniquely Catholic observation here. Only Calvinists believe otherwise.

What the pope explained has been clearly taught since Second Vatican Council (Tradition) which elaborated on Paul’s teaching (Scripture): that persons who – through no fault of their own – have never heard the gospel, and who have responded in repentance in the only way they know how to the Holy Spirit’s conviction of sin, can be counted among the predestined for heaven. The Holy Spirit, after all, is poured out on all men (Acts 2:17). It is a corrective judgement for when the Church is unable to, refuses to, or is prevented from being where God called her to be to reach sinners at a specific place and time in history.

This salvation is so clearly an act of grace, and not based on the work of man, for it is despite their ignorance that God still saves them. It is the same type of judgement that applied to all those who lived before Christ, who repented when Jesus decended into Hades after his death on the cross and before his resurrection to preach the gospel to them.

The same criteria will be used for those living in the present age, but are not blessed with hearing the gospel on earth. Their hearts will be judged as if they would have been receptive to the gospel had they heard it. This is what Paul meant in Romans 2:13-16
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
The pope merely described in his speech the visible marks of those very same people of whom Paul wrote: Gentiles who do instinctively the things written in their hearts, whose consciences will be judged according to the gospel through Jesus Christ. The ignorant whose hearts are nonetheless hardened by their sins and are therefore not receptive to the gospel will be reprobated, while those who repent the only way they know how despite not hearing the gospel will be saved by Christ and Christ alone.

Mike
 
40.png
Melchior:
Quick definition: Theif on the Cross. Or anyone who desires to be baptized but dies before they are able too.
This is pretty close to what we would agree with. The only thing it lacks is the person who through no fault of their own has not been baptized, but if they knew what it was, would have been. With that being said, it would represent the Catholic position and exactly what Benedict stated.
 
40.png
Melchior:
I could not let this one go. I am sorry but this is an absurd response. You asked a question and I answered it. It the assumption I think we all (except you) is that we are referring to the AD world not the BC world. You really have no idea what this logic thing is you keep referring too.

Read this carfully too. I am arguing AS I SAID FROM EARLY ON the normal means of coming to salvation. It is common sense to assume I am referring to those living under the New Testament.

Go have a drink on me. And please go get a logic book and read it so you will stop abusing it.

Mel
Mel, in this response, you are extremely close to the Catholic definition and understanding. We would agree with you on the “normal” or “ordinary means”. We just allow for more exceptions. Our point is summarized in your response about infants. We rely on the mercy and grace of God. Nothing more. Thus, if grace is truly a FREE GIFT, than we cannot earn it, EVEN BY HAVING FAITH. Furthermore, God can give this to whom he chooses. So, while we can be certain that the person in a state of baptismal grace will be saved (although this is again for God to judge), we cannot be certain that someone who has not received a baptism of water would not have received it if he knew it necessary (hence, baptism of desire). Understand?
 
40.png
Melchior:
Lol! It is kind of an inside bartender joke. I guy comes up and says “Yeah let me have two Buds, Cheif”. There is something about it in that context that makes every bartender want to jump over the bar.

Anyway I know this got a bit heated and I was a bit of a wise____ to you in recent posts. I am sorry for that. Nothing personal. I just need to go play with my kiddies and get of this dang word machine!

Peace, brother.

Dave
No, need for an apology. I did not take it personally. I know that I am direct, and that can turn people off. It is my character defect, not your’s. I apologize for any perceived disrespect. A great theologian I know has told me, “there is no truth outside of love”. I think it is hard to express love in a debate over the computer. Body language, affect, and tone of voice are lost via the internet. However, I am glad that we understand each other a little better now. God’s blessings.
 
40.png
Melchior:
Um no. He was speaking to an audience about mankind.

Mel
His audience had the benefit of divine revelation—or are you saying that he was speaking to pagans? Gee, I thought he was speaking to Jews. All I’m saying is that his audience had the benefit of divine revelation, yet he was pointing out that even with that benefit, the road to destruction was still broad. I suspect the more knowledge and understanding we are given, the broader that road gets, as our responsibilities and culpability increase. I’m just not going to define the size of the road for those who have never heard the gospel or who may have heard it poorly proclaimed.
 
40.png
Della:
Well, labeling really doesn’t help us understand one another, does it? So, I try not to do it. And I just hate defending words I never said, too–it’s such a waste of time.

Oh my! I never thought I was a better teacher than the Holy Father! :o But seriously, he’s in a hard position, isn’t he? No matter what he says some people will not understand, others will take his words out of context, and still others will shoot down anything said by the Roman Pontiff (none of these people are you, dear Mel).

The Holy Father’s words are always meant to be taken within the context of the whole of Catholic teaching from Peter right down to Benedict XVI. Only within the full context of Church teaching, the documents in which they appear, and to whom they were addressed and why can we truly understand what he is trying to convey. Catholics tend to take all this into account, without actually articulating that that is what they are doing. It is the Catholic understanding within the whole context that tells us what the pope is saying. Do you see what I mean? 🙂
Okay now that is something for me to chew on. Makes alot of sense. Thank you.

Mel
 
40.png
Redbandito:
This is pretty close to what we would agree with. The only thing it lacks is the person who through no fault of their own has not been baptized, but if they knew what it was, would have been. With that being said, it would represent the Catholic position and exactly what Benedict stated.
Sweet. We are getting closer to understanding.

Mel
 
No one knows how many who are not “christian” will or will not be saved. Those who are truly ignorant etc and who will be saved may be less than one tenth of one percent of everybody, or it could be more or less, no one knows.

What we do kow is that it is absolutely certain that some outside the Christian faith will be saved, so the truth of the matter is the the Pope is correct in the teaching.

Now some may agree or disagree that too often more is made of the statement about invincible ignorance than should be.

I have noticed that the Protestant Churches, expecially fundamentalists and the more extreme traditional catholics dislike the statements etc by the Pope.

Father Damien of the lepers said something along the lines of the following when asked about the different hope of salvation by an anglican. He said that as a catholic he KNEW he could be saved, however he did not know aboutthe anglican. In ohter words live your life according to the Catholic Faith and let God decide whether those outside the Faith can be saved.

Ultimatley that is all that the Pope and various other Popes etc have said.-- Salvation is definately obtainable in the catholic Church, whereas outside the catholic Church we have to leave it up to God knowing that it is harder outside the Catholic faith.
 
40.png
jpete79:
If we could go to Heaven through this idea of Invincible Ignorance …
No one goes to Heaven because they are invincibly ignorant. They go to Heaven because God wills them to have this unmerited gift in spite of their invincible ignorance.

All infants are invincibly ignorant of the Gospel and incapable of accepting Jesus in faith. If professing explicit faith in Jesus was the ONLY way that a person could enter Heaven, then no infant that died could ever go to Heaven.
 
40.png
Melchior:
You assume all of mankind are God’s children. No all those who are baptized into Christ are God’s children. And yes I include those who have a baptism of desire. Bin Laden is not a child of God. He is a creation of God. But until He repents he has not receieved the adoption into God’s family that we have.

I appreciate your prayers. Please do pray for me. But ewhy do you assume because I don’t think everyone is saved and take Jesus at His word that the raod to destruction is wide that my heart is hard. Was His heart hard when He said that. Or do you believe He didn’t really mean it. I pray that God will open your eyes to not doubt the teachings of Christ.

Mel
I am sorry I have always had the understanding that we are all Gods children, because Jesus said so.

If I am wrong please give references

Monica
 
40.png
Melchior:
It seems as if the invincible ignorance thing keeps getting broader and broader. I mean how is this not simply salvation by works alone? Statements like these make me wonder when universalism will start to be okay in Rome.

I find this greatly troubling. I thought Benedict would balance out some of these JPII ideas. Whatever happened to faith in and following Christ as the only way (or normal means) of Salvation, except for the possibility of certain exceptions known only to God?

When did the possible exception become the rule?

Mel

I think the Pope is being very hard on Babylon.​

As to your question - Cornelius in Acts 10 might help.

There is a strong strain of universalism in St.Paul.

I hope that is *some *help to you ##
 
Trust me on this one point: THE SECOND PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY – THE JUDGE – WILL NOT BE FOOLED.

He can read hearts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top