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

[Della]

Melchior:

Scripture is abundantly clear that one must have faith in Him and the one who has heard the Gospel (most everyone in this day and age) is reasonsibel to believe it. There is nothing complicated about “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved”. This is foundational. That is why your church uesed to send out missionaries - they had a sense of urngency to reach those who have not heard out of concern for their souls.

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.

Now it just seems like well Christ atoned for everyone and anyone can come to Christ by being really really nice to people. It seems as if the focus has shifted from “Gte the message out” to “I’m okay your okay”.

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.

 

[DreadVandal]

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

The exception became the rule at Vatican 2. I need to go read the full context of all of the Holy Father’s words, but on the face of it, its a bit disconcerting. I would assume though that the Pope is talking about those who, in a state of invincible ignorance, cooperate with the grace they do receive.

 

[Melchior]

Matt16_18:

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 …

And you assume I am a fundamentalist too? Sorry I am an Anglo-Catholic. I believe in infant baptism think the “sinners prayer” is as silly as you do. I don’t belileve in altar calls and othe Sacramental substitutes anymore than you do.

It is amazing to me how Catholics hate to be misprepresented yet you, with no evidence whatsover, assume I am a fundamentalist and mock what I don’t even believe.

Mel

 

[son_of_Our_Lady]

Melchior:

Son of our lady,

We shall know them by their fruits.

Can a man’s good works save him? Not according to scripture and tradition. Faith without works is certainly dead. Works without faith is also dead.

The woman is praying to a false god. And false piety is not true love of God it is blind ritual. If she hates Jesus it is because she is a sinner. Ignorance does not excuse sin. It never has.

That is why there are degrees of reward in Heaven and punishment in Hell. Not all sinners are as bad as other. But all sinners desrerve Hell. That God saves any is pure mercy.

Okay but your first sentence contradicts your implications in scenario #2.

It is true that God does not want anyone to go to Hell. It is also true that everyone deserved to go to Hell. He does send people to Hell. he is the judge. They deserve Hell who end up there, but it is the judge who sends them there. After all Hell is not so much the absence of God (God cannot be absent from anywhere) so much as is the wrath of God.

We don’t know but God does. And we also know what scripture, thre fathers and previous popes have said. And it is certainly true that we know what it takes to end up in Hell and therefore people need to be warned (the churches mission) not comforted into damnation.

This is serious business.

Mel

In my post I did not state what judgment each scenario recieved, I just stated that each person was to be judged by Christ. I also did not ask anyone to judge the scenarios, but it appears you may have started the groundwork for your judgements against them… I don’t know if you were trying to judge or not, but please be careful if you judge people; it may turn out badly for you.

Our actions cannot merit heaven, but our actions can merit hell.
Heaven is a gift that Christ paid the price for our entry, but our actions in this life reflect the decisions to enter or not.
Hence - We can never earn heaven, but we can earn hell by rejecting heaven -

Either way I stand by my conviction that God does not send people to hell. We have free will, and if we choose to follow God then we have the opprotunity to spend eternity with Him. If we choose sin and disobedience, then we choose hell- we reject God- God will judge us based on our decisions, but we are solely responsible for going to hell. God does not make the decision, we do, He only approves our decision becasuse He repects our freedom and He is Just.

It appears that you are totally focused on God’s infinite Justice, and completly ignoring His infinite Mercy. I’m the first to sign up for the “Err on the side of caution and don’t presume on God’s Mercy” petition, but I think it is offensive to underestimate Gods equally infinite Mercy.

In Christ,

SofOL

 

[Melchior]

MonicaC:

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

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

 

[Melchior]

Redbandito:

Do you believe Moses and Elijah are in Heaven? If so, did they have to believe in Jesus Christ in this life? If not, how do you explain the Transfiguration?

Old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah and we look back. Plus they followed what was revealed at the time. Apples and oranges.

Mel

 

[Orionthehunter]

DreadVandal:

The exception became the rule at Vatican 2. I need to go read the full context of all of the Holy Father’s words, but on the face of it, its a bit disconcerting. I would assume though that the Pope is talking about those who, in a state of invincible ignorance, cooperate with the grace they do receive.

Why even comment if you haven’t read his full words? We criticize Sola Scriptura Protestants all the time of taking scripture out of context or misinterpret it and then we are willing to comment on our Holy Father without either reading the entire text or applying proper theological scrutiny to the words.

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

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

Did you not write this, "Scripture is abundantly clear that one must have faith in Him and the one who has heard the Gospel (most everyone in this day and age) is reasonsibel to believe it. There is nothing complicated about “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved”. What you have essentially said is that all who don’t believe, as you define belief, shall not be saved. That is the implication. I didn’t put those words in your mouth. Don’t be defensive because I called you on your inconsistency.

Furthermore, I never judged your intent. I stated a fact, which is that the doctrine you espouse leads you to make a judgement (the ultimate judgment in fact). You may not intend this. I have no idea about that. What I do know is that when you say that only explicitly believing Christians may be saved (whether your conditions be solely faith, repentance, baptism, or all of the above), you have categorically eliminated all others from salvation. It may not be your “intent”, but as you said earlier, “it amounts to the same thing”.

I have addressed the real issue Mel. And I certainly would not slap a label on you. You have done that yourself Chief. My father in law is a Baptist minister and I have a great deal of respect for that denomination. It is you have left the subject and tried to make this personal. Stay on topic.

I have never stated that you do hate Catholics. In fact, it never crossed my mind. Thanks for clarifying that though. And I certainly never said you have an agenda. I have simply pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in your reasoning. I have asked a couple of questions that you have left unanswered. So, instead of trying to shift the discussion from topic, why don’t you go back and answer them. Maybe we could get somewhere.

 

[Melchior]

Matt16_18:

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

WHO SAID ANYTING ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISTS OTHER THAN YOU??? Can you stop putting words in my mouth?

Here is some evidence for you that the Christians (including Catholics!) should have hope for their children.

*1 Corinthians 7:14

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.*

Not saying that this is cut and dry. But it does give a reasonable hope to grieving Christian parents (who after all intended to baptize their child). This gives me more hope for the believers child than the unbelievers child who all I can do is speculate about and pray. Imagine that a “fundamentalist” praying for the dead!

Mel

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

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

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.

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

And you assume I am a fundamentalist too? Sorry I am an Anglo-Catholic.

No, I didn’t assume you were a fundamentalist. I was making an obsevation about the fundamentalists Protestants that I know.

Let me rephrase my question for you. Why would a pagan infant be more deserving of Hell than the infant of Anglican parents?

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

Old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah and we look back. Plus they followed what was revealed at the time. Apples and oranges.

Mel

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.

 

[Melchior]

Redbandito:

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.

If I am a Fundamentalist you are a Universalist according to your logic. Scripture gives the parameters, not me. What is revealed is easy to understand, what is not is where we can say there is a mystery. I never said I could prove exceptions from scripture did I? But I did prove a heck of a lot more than you did. Your the one who embraces the contradiction of professing Christ yet embracing Universalism. You are unsure of what is revealed and you are equally certain about what is not. That, brother, is not a good place to be.

Merry Christmas.

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

WHO SAID ANYTING ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISTS OTHER THAN YOU??? Can you stop putting words in my mouth?

Here is some evidence for you that the Christians (including Catholics!) should have hope for their children.

*1 Corinthians 7:14 *

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Not saying that this is cut and dry. But it does give a reasonable hope to grieving Christian parents (who after all intended to baptize their child). This gives me more hope for the believers child than the unbelievers child who all I can do is speculate about and pray. Imagine that a “fundamentalist” praying for the dead!

Mel

Mel

Mel, you did not use the word Fundamentalist, but you did make that statement. He did not put words in your mouth. Recall saying this earlier, “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.”?

 

[Matt16_18]

son of Our Lady:

We have free will, and if we choose to follow God then we have the opprotunity to spend eternity with Him. If we choose sin and disobedience, then we choose hell- we reject God- God will judge us based on our decisions, but we are solely responsible for going to hell.

Which is exactly what the Catechism teaches:1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

 

[Melchior]

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.

Okay, thank you for engaging what I actually wrote and not labeling me a Fundamentalist and attacking what I never said.

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,

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

If I am a Fundamentalist you are a Universalist according to your logic. Scripture gives the parameters, not me. What is revealed is easy to understand, what is not is where we can say there is a mystery. I never said I could prove exceptions from scripture did I? But I did prove a heck of a lot more than you did. Your the one who embraces the contradiction of professing Christ yet embracing Universalism. You are unsure of what is revealed and you are equally certain about what is not. That, brother, is not a good place to be.

Merry Christmas.

Mel

What in the world are you trying to say here? So, you are back to the very beginning of your circular argument? You have also neatly avoided the topic again. Nice attempt to turn it though. Again, you are arguing the unproven ASSUMPTION as if it is proven. Can you really not see the absolute faulty logic in that?

 

[Melchior]

son of Our Lady:

In my post I did not state what judgment each scenario recieved, I just stated that each person was to be judged by Christ. I also did not ask anyone to judge the scenarios, but it appears you may have started the groundwork for your judgements against them… I don’t know if you were trying to judge or not, but please be careful if you judge people; it may turn out badly for you.

Our actions cannot merit heaven, but our actions can merit hell.
Heaven is a gift that Christ paid the price for our entry, but our actions in this life reflect the decisions to enter or not.
Hence - We can never earn heaven, but we can earn hell by rejecting heaven -

Either way I stand by my conviction that God does not send people to hell. We have free will, and if we choose to follow God then we have the opprotunity to spend eternity with Him. If we choose sin and disobedience, then we choose hell- we reject God- God will judge us based on our decisions, but we are solely responsible for going to hell. God does not make the decision, we do, He only approves our decision becasuse He repects our freedom and He is Just.

It appears that you are totally focused on God’s infinite Justice, and completly ignoring His infinite Mercy. I’m the first to sign up for the “Err on the side of caution and don’t presume on God’s Mercy” petition, but I think it is offensive to underestimate Gods equally infinite Mercy.

In Christ,

SofOL

Believe me SofOL,

I rely on His mercy and am amazed that He saw fit to allow me the grace of Baptism and faith. I am certainly a rottten sinner and if I ever have trouble presuming on His grace it is only because I unworthy I know I am of it. I want everyone to be saved (while admitting to a few exceptions in my less holy moments- Hitler, those who slaughter the unborn, Zarqawi, Bin Laden). But holding a conviction does not mean I love the implications of that conviction.

Peace,

Mel

 

[Melchior]

Redbandito:

Did you not write this, "Scripture is abundantly clear that one must have faith in Him and the one who has heard the Gospel (most everyone in this day and age) is reasonsibel to believe it. There is nothing complicated about “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved”. What you have essentially said is that all who don’t believe, as you define belief, shall not be saved. That is the implication. I didn’t put those words in your mouth. Don’t be defensive because I called you on your inconsistency.

Furthermore, I never judged your intent. I stated a fact, which is that the doctrine you espouse leads you to make a judgement (the ultimate judgment in fact). You may not intend this. I have no idea about that. What I do know is that when you say that only explicitly believing Christians may be saved (whether your conditions be solely faith, repentance, baptism, or all of the above), you have categorically eliminated all others from salvation. It may not be your “intent”, but as you said earlier, “it amounts to the same thing”.

I have addressed the real issue Mel. And I certainly would not slap a label on you. You have done that yourself Chief. My father in law is a Baptist minister and I have a great deal of respect for that denomination. It is you have left the subject and tried to make this personal. Stay on topic.

I have never stated that you do hate Catholics. In fact, it never crossed my mind. Thanks for clarifying that though. And I certainly never said you have an agenda. I have simply pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in your reasoning. I have asked a couple of questions that you have left unanswered. So, instead of trying to shift the discussion from topic, why don’t you go back and answer them. Maybe we could get somewhere.

Redbandito,

This is very important so please read it carefully. I bartend part time. And one thing you must never ever call a bartender is “Chief”. It is the most offensive thing one could call me.

Okay. We are just going to have to agree to disagree I think you have skillfully evaded what I am getting at. I think my reasoning is perfectly consistent with scripture and tradition. I think you are dreaming if you think I have fallen into the word traps you think I have. But hey it’s you dream you do as you like.

Peace and have a blessed weekend.

Mel

 

[Redbandito]

Melchior:

Redbandito,

This is very important so please read it carefully. I bartend part time. And one thing you must never ever call a bartender is “Chief”. It is the most offensive thing one could call me.

Okay. We are just going to have to agree to disagree I think you have skillfully evaded what I am getting at. I think my reasoning is perfectly consistent with scripture and tradition. I think you are dreaming if you think I have fallen into the word traps you think I have. But hey it’s you dream you do as you like.

Peace and have a blessed weekend.

Mel

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.