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

[deb1]

Fidelis:

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.

Well, I didn’t want to spend several of these little boxes that we post in by writing the whole book of Romans. I agree with you also that we shouldn’t take the bible out of context. But, I am confused as to when I did that? If so, I am sorry. Even reading the whole book of Romans this has always seemed like one of the verses that support the Catholic stance on invincible ignorance. BUt, not being either a biblical scholar or a very experienced Catholic, I admit that I might be completly wrong.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

ignorance isn’t repentance either.

 

[mark_a]

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI.

…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them to be citizens of Jerusalem, on the condition, however, that, living in Babylon, they do not seek pride, outdated pomp and arrogance.

It “works” for me!!

 

[debras56]

I could be wrong, Mel, but I am wondering what you are afraid of? Possibly that those neighbors you find yourself unable to love as you love yourself will end up in Heaven with some of the “goodies,” too?

 

[kev7]

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

Just before christ died he turned to the theif beside him and said, "“TODAY YOU WILL BE WITH ME IN PARADISE”

The penitent thief admitted that he had done wrong: “We are receiving the due reward of our deeds” . He had no desire to save face any more; he had no more will to assert himself. He was here and laid open before the God he feared and there was no way to hide has guilt. I know people right now who are in trouble. But instead of laying down their self-righteous defenses, they are devising every means to finagle and distort so as to appear innocent and cool. The penitent thief gave it up. It’s a hopeless tack, anyway, before an all-knowing God!

Why would Christ not give us all one last chance to come to him when he makes himself known to us at death?

 

[YinYangMom]

jpete79:

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.

While it is His desire that we get to all these people in order for them to know Him and to love Him before they die, this is not always practical. God, in His mercy, does not condemn the person waiting for one of us to get to Him when that person has the longing in his heart to know God. While the person may not know the word “God” to attach to his longing, God knows his heart and hears the person calling to Him. That God would still allow this soul entrance into heaven despite the fact that we, His servants, either failed to share the News with him or was unable to reach him in time, is quite logical.

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 further back. Paul, as Saul, was killing Christians and yet God not only offered salvation to him, he appointed him as one of his apostles! There, is an example even beyond what the Pope was alluding to, of God’s mercy. The Pope is saying a person who longs for truth, love, that ‘something more’ (God) can be granted salvation by God. And yet, Saul wasn’t anything like the innocents surrounded by the evils of Babylon - he was one of the participants of the evil - and yet, God chose Him. God revealed Himself to him. If we have evidence that God would so choose such a sinner, why is it difficult to fathom He’d bestow mercy on the kind-hearted?

 

[sandusky]

deb1:

so how in your opinon does this verse coincide with Romans 2 14-15? They were, after all, written by the same author in the same letter, so they must not be contradicting one another

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.

I am not Catholic

2:14 by nature do … the law. Without knowing the written law of God, people in pagan society generally value and attempt to practice its most basic tenets. This is normal for cultures instinctively to value justice, honesty, compassion, and goodness toward others, reflecting the divine law written in the heart. law to themselves. Their practice of some good deeds and their aversion to some evil ones demonstrate an innate knowledge of God’s law—a knowledge that will actually witness against them on the day of judgment, as Paul says, "their actions either accuse, or excuse; either way, they bear the guilt of their lawbreaking, even if they don’t know the law. (see Rom 1:20).

2:15 work of the law. Probably best understood as “the same works the Mosaic law prescribes.” conscience. Lit. “with knowledge.” That instinctive sense of right and wrong that produces guilt when violated. In addition to an innate awareness of God’s law, men have a warning system that activates when they choose to ignore or disobey that law. Paul urges believers not to violate their own consciences or cause others to (13:5; 1 Cor. 8:7, 12; 10:25, 29; 2 Cor. 5:11; cf. 9:1; Acts 23:1; 24:16), because repeatedly ignoring the conscience’s warnings desensitizes it and eventually silences it (1 Tim. 4:2). See 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2.

IMHO, what He is saying is not in keeping with biblical teaching on what one must do to be saved.

Faith is required, ignorant, or not.

 

[Fidelis]

deb1:

Well, I didn’t want to spend several of these little boxes that we post in by writing the whole book of Romans. I agree with you also that we shouldn’t take the bible out of context. But, I am confused as to when I did that? If so, I am sorry. Even reading the whole book of Romans this has always seemed like one of the verses that support the Catholic stance on invincible ignorance. BUt, not being either a biblical scholar or a very experienced Catholic, I admit that I might be completly wrong.

Oh no! I wasn’t talking to YOU, dear deb1! I was agreeing with you! The passage you quoted was right on–I just think it makes your point even clearer when you put the quote in ever a larger context – and it does. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Melchior]

debras56:

I could be wrong, Mel, but I am wondering what you are afraid of? Possibly that those neighbors you find yourself unable to love as you love yourself will end up in Heaven with some of the “goodies,” too?

How did you know?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thanks to all who participated.
This thread is now closed.