D
divinefaith
Guest
For your information, believing non-Catholics have no chance of getting to heaven is a heresy itself. Afterall, the Catholic Church does teach Baptism by Desire. Stop judging others!
- Status
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Baptism by desire would make you Catholic though. The “desire” part of Baptism by desire must occur before death.
Everyone in heaven is Catholic. However, the living aren’t always able to tell who is Catholic when they die. A man who has been Jewish or Buddhist or Atheist almost all his life, my convert and be baptized by desire on his deathbed, all of which may go unseen and unheard to those around him.
Everyone in heaven is Catholic. Not every Catholic goes to heaven.
Pax and God bless
D
divinefaith
Guest
So if the Jewish, Buddhist or Atheist didnt desire in his/her heart to become Catholic on their deathbed because they still believe their faith to be true then yes, they can still get to heaven for abiding by their faith. This might come under invincible ignorance where one knows their faith to be true.
I really am sick of some people here on CAF claiming all non Catholics go to hell simply for being non Catholic. Dont know if that’s what you’re implying but a few others have.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
I don’t understand. How is it a heresy? I’m not saying it isn’t, I just want the proper sources. Because if that is the case and it is a heresy, then that seems to contradict:
Now, again, interpret them as you wish. Just putting the info out there for you to mull over
I can also recall the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam saying that only those subject to the Roman Pontiff can attain salvation. Though, I haven’t looked up on this, so disregard this for now.It was a condemned error to believe the aforementioned. He said it in the “Syllabus of Errors”.
~ Pius :knight1:
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
No man (or woman) can go to heaven without being baptized. Baptism of desire, means exactly what it sounds like…the person desires to be baptized. If the Jewish or Buddhist or Atheistic person, is abiding by that faith, then they do not believe in the Holy Trinity and it would be difficult to see how they would desire to be baptized in the name of God they don’t belive in.
The Catechism of Trent is very helpful in understanding Baptism of Desire. It specifically refers to catechumens who desire the sacraments, but die before being able to do so. Now that may not be the only case where it applies, but it is certainly a far cry from someone who denies belief in the Trinity.
Pax and God bless.
G
gentle_atheist
Guest
Syllabus of Errors – the list of statements that Pius IX condemns. It can be confusing because the reader may not realize that these are statements that Pius IX is condemning, not supporting.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
D
divinefaith
Guest
Is this your belief as tradionalists? coz I’m sure the Church is teaching otherwise.
W
Warrenton
Guest
As you know from my previous posts, I am pretty old school when it comes to “nulla salus.”
That said, you are totally correct. The doctrine is best understood as a limitation on human knowledge, which is how I understand the doctrine. The medieval Franciscans, Dominicans and Benedictines, puzzled on the fact of righteous Muslims. Call any of those old schoolmen “heretics” and they would have handed you your head!
I live in area where “fundamentalism” is quite strong. My son attended a school run by evangelicals. I have had many dear friends of that persuasion. On a practical level, there is so much we share. If one reads certain writings of the puritans, for instance, it’s amazing how “catholic” it sounds. Evangelicals number in the millions, and of course, they are attached to their forms of worship and their traditions. Imagine how they feel cozying up to a Church that numbers in the billions. Even while they agree with us in our moral rigour, and our adherance to a (more or less) fundamental reading of scripture, naturally is fear on their part that closer formal unity will erase their identity. That’s human, and the love of ones neighbor and community is in fact a deeply Catholic concept.
We need to seek the common ground, for all our sakes.
No purpose is served by lambasting Protestants, even if there may be excellent reasons to lambaste Catholics who seek to Protestantize the Catholic Church.
As we previously discussed on the SSPX thread, I surmise that the resolving many of these old rifts will result from a redefinition of the role of the papacy. I suggest that the actual power that the pontiff, or more specifically, his court, rises and ebbs through history. The trend is not an end in itself, and I disagree that the pontificate is “evolving” to some theoretical state of perfection where the pope makes all decisions and every man, woman and child on earth promptly obeys. Rather, the power of the papacy (and I include “Rome” for this purpose) exercises more or less control based on the needs confronting the Church. In this manner, the pope’s authority is “more” Christ like. Christ could have dealt with Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin like the Father dealt with the Sodomites. But he didn’t, because in his love and wisdom he restrained his power, even unto death. That, to my thinking, is the form and pattern for the Vicar of Christ. It permits discretion, encourages debate and tolerance. I do not see that it “reduces” the majesty of the pope in the least.
Castigating other Christians? Let’s remove the mote from our own eye fist.
S
severus68
Guest
I am not sure who you are addressing this to but yes, the Church does not say all non Catholics go to hell. I would rather spend my time develping my own spirituality and let God decide who goes to heaven.
B
Bl_Pope_Pius_IX
Guest
Define “traditionalist”, please. Also, which teaching is contrary? Again - not saying there isn’t one, but I just don’t know of any
~ Pius :knight1:
R
Rence
Guest
And the fact that most don’t know this is a great thing IMOHO…and probably a few others as well.
Obviously, it’s not doing today what the it always did…
Well, priests are definitely not excommunicated and declared heretics for having modernist tendencies, this is obvious as well.
Well then they should try firing people out of the Church again, and see if it works. But I think the reason why they don’t do this anymore is because our people have evolved over time, and thus, it would not work today. People living in today are not the same as those who have lived in previous times.
But I thought you said the Inquisition was still going on today? If it’s already going on today, why would it need to be set up again?
W
Warrenton
Guest
Who are “our people” and what have they evolved into?
R
Rence
Guest
People who live in a free world, like the US, and they have evolved into people living in countries that afford them the freedom and liberty to basically do whatever they want as long as they don’t break secular laws. That’s a whole lot more freedom than what was given to those who lived during the Inquisitions. In fact, those folks didn’t have very much freedom or rights at all. Freedom of religion gives people the choice of religion (or no religion). When Obama won the election, a priest scolded the congregation and said anyone there who voted for Obama sinned and needed to go to Confession. Quite a few people walked out. Many who stayed were obviously annoyed, and talked about it on the way out after Mass, and that was only one vote. I can imagine the indignant annoyance at being ‘put to the question’ by an Inquisition
I wouldn’t put up with it for a minute, and I’m one of the conservative ones where I live.
W
Warrenton
Guest
Interesting. I don’t consider the people who live in the so-called free world “my people.”
I also don’t consider them to have evolved in any particular manner. They merely have traded one set of freedom for another. And if what you want is forbidden by the secular laws, then the freedom isn’t even worth that much.
People no longer have the freedom to bind themselves to a permanent marriage. All marriages are now conditional.
Men, at least, no longer have the freedom to insist that their children will actually be born.
People do not have the freedom to have their religion respected.
They do not have the freedom to raise their children as they wish.
The secular laws enforce some freedoms, but they deny others.
We may dispute whether some freedoms are better, or more popular than others. But the fact is clear: the protection of certain freedoms entails the denial of others.
A
aquinasg
Guest
A
aquinasg
Guest
Sorry about that
Which ones? Did any of them say Muslims can be saved? As we discussed on my “Salvation” thread, they would have come to belief in Christians doctrines before death in order to be saved (although angels could reveal this to them, according to Aquinas)
R
Rence
Guest
Well, since I live in a free world, people who live here with me are my people. And I am happy and grateful to be living in a free world.
It’s impossible to not evolve over time. Everything changes in some way over time.
That’s usually and indicator that a person wants to control the freedom of another person, rather than lack freedom for him or herself…
I have the freedom to bind myself to a permanent marriage if that’s what I want to do. But no, I don’t have the right to direct the actions of others. That would be beyond my rights. Why should I have the right to direct the actions of others? I am happy to direct my own actions.
You’re right. They can’t control the actions of another person. They should be concentrating on the gift of freedom that gives them the right to direct their own actions…and inactions.
I feel that my religion is respected. I’m very sorry for you if where you live, you are made to feel that you don’t have the right to choose and practice your religion. I don’t know anyone in real life who has issues with respect for their chosen religion, not where I live…
This one is new to me as well. I don’t know anyone in real life who doesn’t have the freedom to raise their children as they wish.
I’m pretty happy with the secular laws where I live. They give me a lot of freedom and don’t constrain me in ways that bother me. It doesn’t bother me that I can’t micromanage another person. They have to follow the laws too. Not being legally allowed, for example, to steal someone else’s property has never really been an issue with me. I’ve never been hindered by our laws against killing other citizens…and I suspect that law has protected me as well.
One can reword that as: My rights end where another person’s rights begin. I can’t think of any rights that I don’t have that directly influence me. But I can think of many that prevent me from controlling others. But then, I like those laws because that means someone else can’t force their ideals on me as well…
W
Warrenton
Guest
I may have in mind a later period in history - I’m still looking. In the meantime, this article (the first part) synopsizes some of the patristic thinking on it, and some of the biblical underpinnings of the query: ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm
Ahttp://outsidethechurchnosalvation.blogspot.com/2009/06/fr-brian-harrison-on-implicit-faith-in_28.htmls regarding the the scholastic work in the high middle ages, but also in the 1400s. You’ll have to search around on the blog for more specific references than to St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.
Have fun, and let me know what you find!
W
Warrenton
Guest
Change is not the same as evolution.
How so? Freedom is simply the power to do something. Perfect freedom would be the power to do anything, no strings attached.
No, you have the power to bind yourself to a conditional marriage.
If two willing partners contract a permanent union, then they both transfer the freedom to enforce the union to the other.
It is the same thing as a mutually binding contract. You do not have this freedom under the current law of marriage.
This is subjective. Objectively speaking, respect requires the acknowledgment of the truth about something. The United States fails to acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, and that the purpose of the life is to achieve salvation.
The state says children must go to school. The state says children may not work except under certain conditions. The state says you cannot use corporal punishment except in ;imited circumstances. The state says a non-custodial parent cannot insist that the child is brought up or attend the Church. If anyone disagrees with these proposistions, then that person will find his or freedom curtailed.
We are not talking about the law of homicide.
We can’t really re-word it that way. In any event, we aren’t debating whether you like the status quo or not. We are only debating whether freedom entails being able to enter into mutually binding agreements. One definition of a slave is a person who has no control over other people, and who is totally subject to other people’s law. The freedom you describe could be reworded: the condition of being a slave with a very long chain. Even a golden chain.
- Status