Retro-salvation... just asking.

[thirdn6]

If there is such a thing as retro-anything, will there also be something called retro-salvation?

Let me explain…
In view of the on-going ecumenical talks and dialogues, where the main goal (not sure) is to unite all Christians, it occurs to me that if this eventually happens without regards to doctrinal differences, or moral considerations, or appropriateness of conversion from n-C’s, the RCC will just embrace or absorb all Christian faiths and declare once and for all that they no longer are our separated brothers and sisters… because after all we all believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. So let them be in there own respective churches… ‘tis more easy to unite whole churches than disintegrated ones.

Anglicans say they have the ‘Dutch Touch’ (everyone’s happy with this generalization I’m sure) so they really think they have a valid priesthood. Lutherans say errors were committed on both sides and so we’re standing on the same ground and their Eucharist is as valid as ours. I disagree on both but if we can’t agree let’s just embrace, right? If we can embrace one why can’t we embrace ‘em all:grouphug:? Ya?

So to the ecumenists on either side, or any side, why make it so difficult to agree to one another? Theology becomes meaningless… methinks. Throw those books away. Just shake hands and embrace one another. soon the faithful laity will follow. Let the good Cardinal do his thing and everything’s going to be okay! Peace.

Now my questions. Questions to RCC ecumenists, really. How about those who died outside the CC waiting for that eventual unity that didn’t happen in their lifetime? Still has to be considered separated? How about those who were anathemized? Still to be considered heretics? How about those who killed them martyrs long time ago? Will they be forgiven and be in heaven, as well? Like nothing… happened…?

If so… then it becomes a necessity or somewhat obligatory for the RCC to consider or formulate retro-salvation as a doctrine. That is, she’ll go back in time and forgive ALL those people who have died, now in purgatory or in hell, because it is only logical to mirror what is going to happen in the future to what have happened in the past for the good of all. After all… she can bind and loose…

Any (name removed by moderator)ut? Anybody? Thanks…

 

[Nine_Two]

Unity in name alone isn’t unity.

 

[kalt]

If there is such a thing as retro-anything, will there also be something called retro-salvation?

Let me explain…
In view of the on-going ecumenical talks and dialogues, where the main goal (not sure) is to unite all Christians, it occurs to me that if this eventually happens without regards to doctrinal differences, or moral considerations, or appropriateness of conversion from n-C’s, the RCC will just embrace or absorb all Christian faiths and declare once and for all that they no longer are our separated brothers and sisters… because after all we all believe in one Lord Jesus Christ. So let them be in there own respective churches… ‘tis more easy to unite whole churches than disintegrated ones.

Anglicans say they have the ‘Dutch Touch’ (everyone’s happy with this generalization I’m sure) so they really think they have a valid priesthood. Lutherans say errors were committed on both sides and so we’re standing on the same ground and their Eucharist is as valid as ours. I disagree on both but if we can’t agree let’s just embrace, right? If we can embrace one why can’t we embrace ‘em all:grouphug:? Ya?

So to the ecumenists on either side, or any side, why make it so difficult to agree to one another? Theology becomes meaningless… methinks. Throw those books away. Just shake hands and embrace one another. soon the faithful laity will follow. Let the good Cardinal do his thing and everything’s going to be okay! Peace.

Now my questions. Questions to RCC ecumenists, really. How about those who died outside the CC waiting for that eventual unity that didn’t happen in their lifetime? Still has to be considered separated? How about those who were anathemized? Still to be considered heretics? How about those who killed them martyrs long time ago? Will they be forgiven and be in heaven, as well? Like nothing… happened…?

If so… then it becomes a necessity or somewhat obligatory for the RCC to consider or formulate retro-salvation as a doctrine. That is, she’ll go back in time and forgive ALL those people who have died, now in purgatory or in hell, because it is only logical to mirror what is going to happen in the future to what have happened in the past for the good of all. After all… she can bind and loose…

Any (name removed by moderator)ut? Anybody? Thanks…

People who’ve already died have been saved, or not. Nothing the Church declares today will change that. The Church doesn’t decide who is and isn’t saved. God does.

The scenario you’re talking about is about as unlikely as a cold day in Hell.

But, if the separated churches someday decide to come into full communion with the Church, the eternal fates of those who weren’t in full communion won’t be changed. If they were saved, they remain saved. If they weren’t saved, they remain not saved. Everyone is judged at death, and God’s decision is final.

 

[thirdn6]

People who’ve already died have been saved, or not. Nothing the Church declares today will change that. The Church doesn’t decide who is and isn’t saved. God does.

The scenario you’re talking about is about as unlikely as a cold day in Hell.

But, if the separated churches someday decide to come into full communion with the Church, the eternal fates of those who weren’t in full communion won’t be changed. If they were saved, they remain saved. If they weren’t saved, they remain not saved. Everyone is judged at death, and God’s decision is final.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Kalt.

But I’m still confused.
For a moment let’s forget about those who died before who were not in communion with the CC.
How about those who are (and I know many are) still waiting for that moment when all Christians be united but then die before it happens? They’re still considered separated (and not to be saved? for they are certainly not ignorant about the Catholic Church teaching per L.G.), no?
Why do the ecumenists choose or prefer to have them wait(?) to be re-united as whole churches instead of advocating total individual conversions? How many souls will perish between now and then because of an ambiguous hope? How many more souls continue to perish outside the saving graces of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church?
And if we are to embrace them all tomorrow, why not NOW?

I know you’d probably say not as easy as that and it would be chaos. In my honest opinion, it is. And it will be tomorrow. Chaos. Our identity will be lost. We become mere Christians in name only because of baptism. More confused. Soon the hearts of many will grow cold…

Now, speaking of the same people I mentioned above who will die separated from the CC because of waiting. Is it unreasonable to have them saved also by virtue of binding and loosing since many will be freed from purge-gatory? They belong to the same churches we will later be embracing. Will it be fair to leave them cold… in purgatory or in hell?

Honestly, this whole ecumenism thing confused me more every time I read something about it.
I just hope somebody understands my point.

Well, thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[kalt]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Kalt.

But I’m still confused.
For a moment let’s forget about those who died before who were not in communion with the CC.
How about those who are (and I know many are) still waiting for that moment when all Christians be united but then die before it happens? They’re still considered separated (and not to be saved? for they are certainly not ignorant about the Catholic Church teaching per L.G.), no?
Why do the ecumenists choose or prefer to have them wait(?) to be re-united as whole churches instead of advocating total individual conversions? How many souls will perish between now and then because of an ambiguous hope? How many more souls continue to perish outside the saving graces of the One True Catholic and Apostolic Church?
And if we are to embrace them all tomorrow, why not NOW?

I know you’d probably say not as easy as that and it would be chaos. In my honest opinion, it is. And it will be tomorrow. Chaos. Our identity will be lost. We become mere Christians in name only because of baptism. More confused. Soon the hearts of many will grow cold…

Now, speaking of the same people I mentioned above who will die separated from the CC because of waiting. Is it unreasonable to have them saved also by virtue of binding and loosing since many will be freed from purge-gatory? They belong to the same churches we will later be embracing. Will it be fair to leave them cold… in purgatory or in hell?

Honestly, this whole ecumenism thing confused me more every time I read something about it.
I just hope somebody understands my point.

Well, thanks again for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I’m not sure what you mean by individuals waiting to be in full communion with the CC. Are you talking about people attending RCIA? I think you’re talking about whole churches that aren’t in full communion. Those churches won’t be full communion until they choose to be. To be in full communion, they have to accept the teachings of the Church. I don’t know of any church that is merely waiting to come into full communion. There are still differences is doctrine.

Individuals are free to join the CC at any time, even if the churches they’re members of now are never reunited with the CC.

If someone sitting in the pews wants his church to be reunited with the CC and is waiting for that day, he doens’t need to wait for everyone else to jump on board.He’s free to join the CC at any time.

Again, these churches aren’t in full communion with the Church because of their beliefs. It’s not just a matter of time. There is a lot of work to do. The Baptist (or other) church that comes into full communion with the CC won’t be the Baptist church that exists today - the beliefs will be different.

 

[Contarini]

How about those who are (and I know many are) still waiting for that moment when all Christians be united but then die before it happens? They’re still considered separated (and not to be saved? for they are certainly not ignorant about the Catholic Church teaching per L.G.), no?

I think your false premise is that people who are “waiting for Christian reunion” are “not ignorant about the Catholic Church” in the sense intended by LG. From my perspective, I am ignorant in the sense that the evidence for immediate conversion is not sufficiently compelling, given the grave limitations and flaws of private judgment. To become a Catholic is an act of private judgment, rejecting the wisdom and holiness of the past 500 years of Christian tradition that lie behind me (I say this as someone with a thoroughly Protestant spiritual heritage–the Christianity that has shaped me is Protestant and I have no Catholic roots). As I understand it, the Church is understanding and respectful of people in my position, although individual Catholics (mostly laity) may not be so patient or charitable.

Furthermore, one could argue that a person eagerly hoping and praying for corporate reunion is not in fact “refusing to join” the Catholic Church.

Certainly “retro-salvation” makes no sense and your post shows some serious confusion about the premises held by ecumenical Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Della]

thirdn6:

How about those who are (and I know many are) still waiting for that moment when all Christians be united but then die before it happens? They’re still considered separated (and not to be saved? for they are certainly not ignorant about the Catholic Church teaching per L.G.), no?

No. This is a false premise. I believe Contarini represents the attitude of most Protestants. They don’t believe they are cut off from the true Church. What does this tell us? That they truly don’t know Church teaching perhaps as well as they/we believe. (This goes to culpability not to intelligence.)

A couple of quotes from the CCC might help you out:

Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[thirdn6]

I’m not sure what you mean by individuals waiting to be in full communion with the CC. Are you talking about people attending RCIA? I think you’re talking about whole churches that aren’t in full communion. Those churches won’t be full communion until they choose to be. To be in full communion, they have to accept the teachings of the Church. I don’t know of any church that is merely waiting to come into full communion. There are still differences is doctrine.

Individuals are free to join the CC at any time, even if the churches they’re members of now are never reunited with the CC.

If someone sitting in the pews wants his church to be reunited with the CC and is waiting for that day, he doens’t need to wait for everyone else to jump on board.He’s free to join the CC at any time.

Again, these churches aren’t in full communion with the Church because of their beliefs. It’s not just a matter of time. There is a lot of work to do. The Baptist (or other) church that comes into full communion with the CC won’t be the Baptist church that exists today - the beliefs will be different.

Yes, Kalt. I am talking about whole churches. Main protestant churches wanting to be in corporate union with the CC via ecumenical talks or dialogues.

Take, for example, the case of the Anglican Communion. I read somewhere (sorry I couldn’t provide the source) before that it’s better the AC not to be in schism in that way it is more convenient to dialogue with them as a whole. I’d say the ecumenists are giving them hope that somehow tomorrow they will succeed in uniting the AC with the CC as a whole. Are they even close to it? Will there be compromises? What will happen to those who died waiting? Will desire to unite be enough to save a soul?

If it’s not conversion these ecumenists are seeking from the other parties then what is it?

If they only long for peace, embrace them all and call it unity don’t you think that’s shallow? Peace without Truth reverts back to discord. Then doctrines will just be anything. Who knows retro-salvation becomes one of them…

Peace. Happy Valentines, as well!

 

[thirdn6]

I think your false premise is that people who are “waiting for Christian reunion” are “not ignorant about the Catholic Church” in the sense intended by LG. From my perspective, I am ignorant in the sense that the evidence for immediate conversion is not sufficiently compelling, given the grave limitations and flaws of private judgment. To become a Catholic is an act of private judgment, rejecting the wisdom and holiness of the past 500 years of Christian tradition that lie behind me (I say this as someone with a thoroughly Protestant spiritual heritage–the Christianity that has shaped me is Protestant and I have no Catholic roots). As I understand it, the Church is understanding and respectful of people in my position, although individual Catholics (mostly laity) may not be so patient or charitable.

Furthermore, one could argue that a person eagerly hoping and praying for corporate reunion is not in fact “refusing to join” the Catholic Church.

Certainly “retro-salvation” makes no sense and your post shows some serious confusion about the premises held by ecumenical Catholics.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter…

I know it’s hard to convert nowadays. Like it wasn’t really at the time of the pentecost. Oh, well, what can I say…?

Peace.

 

[thirdn6]

No. This is a false premise. I believe Contarini represents the attitude of most Protestants. They don’t believe they are cut off from the true Church. What does this tell us? That they truly don’t know Church teaching perhaps as well as they/we believe. (This goes to culpability not to intelligence.)

A couple of quotes from the CCC might help you out:

Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.

Hi, Della,
I get the point that they do not believe they are cut-off from the CC. That though they are separated they should still be considered as brethrens in Christ. That their preachers are all ignorant of the CC’s teachings. If that’s enough to save them I’m all into it. But then it leads me back to my previous question- why all these ecumenical talks and dialogues necessary? If we are to reunite why not now? In that way we’ll no longer call them separated brethrens. Or why even re-unite?

Peace but Truth is more important.

 

[Della]

Hi, Della,
I get the point that they do not believe they are cut-off from the CC.

If you are saying that mere lack of belief means being cut off from the Church, I don’t think that’s quite right. Those who claim Christ but reject the CC knowing full well what it teaches, in other words willfully and deliberately, they may be cut off. Still, we cannot judge any person’s soul. That’s up to God alone.

That though they are separated they should still be considered as brethrens in Christ.

And so they are–because of their trinitarian baptism. There are some, though that have baptism but don’t mean to do what the Church does by implementing it (if I may use such a utilitarian word)–those are not joined to the Church. Still, they claim Christ and so only he can judge their souls.

That their preachers are all ignorant of the CC’s teachings. If that’s enough to save them I’m all into it.

Their faith in Christ may be enough to save them, but we can’t know who actually has saving grace and who doesn’t so we cannot judge the matter.

But then it leads me back to my previous question- why all these ecumenical talks and dialogues necessary? If we are to reunite why not now? In that way we’ll no longer call them separated brethrens. Or why even re-unite?

Peace but Truth is more important.

The talks are meant to bring our separated brethren into contact with the Church, once again. If we don’t talk to them, as we are doing here on CAF, how will they ever know they are welcome to return? It can do no harm as long as we don’t compromise the truth, which the Church cannot do in any case.

 

[thirdn6]

OK. I concur. Maybe the time to declare unity is not now.

It’s somewhat occurring to me now that the formula in achieving that goal is to have us all faithfuls mingle together in the name of unity, oneness, togetherness, cooperation, in all social and spiritual gatherings and worships until such time that we can no longer recognize one another’s faith traditions or cultural upbringings or moral convictions, etc. In short, we are in the front line as conquerors of our differences and at the same time as evaluators of the process until our leaders who are just really watchers/communicators declare that indeed we have achieved unity. Any thoughts?

And when that happens, the more prominent-progressive-liberal-politically-correct-influenced minds will overwhelm the more traditional ones up on top and start digging on the past mistakes or errors why ‘both of us are to be blamed’, why our beloved JPII apologized for those mistakes, what can be done for those people who were victims of such mistakes who should’ve been considered as legitimate brothers or sisters, bla…bla… and not anathemized or excommunicated or sent into hades… Is it proper then to a level of human judgment to consider it fair to just leave them there in ‘cold hell’ because there is no way to undo the mistakes. For a liberal minded theologian, ‘retro-salvation’ rings a bell. (I am a construction worker by the way). Any thoughts?

Side: Thanks, Della.

Peace but Truth is more important.

 

[Della]

OK. I concur. Maybe the time to declare unity is not now.

It’s somewhat occurring to me now that the formula in achieving that goal is to have us all faithfuls mingle together in the name of unity, oneness, togetherness, cooperation, in all social and spiritual gatherings and worships until such time that we can no longer recognize one another’s faith traditions or cultural upbringings or moral convictions, etc. In short, we are in the front line as conquerors of our differences and at the same time as evaluators of the process until our leaders who are just really watchers/communicators declare that indeed we have achieved unity. Any thoughts?

Indifferentism raises it’s muddled head. :bluelite:

And when that happens, the more prominent-progressive-liberal-politically-correct-influenced minds will overwhelm the more traditional ones up on top and start digging on the past mistakes or errors why ‘both of us are to be blamed’, why our beloved JPII apologized for those mistakes, what can be done for those people who were victims of such mistakes who should’ve been considered as legitimate brothers or sisters, bla…bla… and not anathemized or excommunicated or sent into hades… Is it proper then to a level of human judgment to consider it fair to just leave them there in ‘cold hell’ because there is no way to undo the mistakes. For a liberal minded theologian, ‘retro-salvation’ rings a bell. (I am a construction worker by the way). Any thoughts?

Side: Thanks, Della.

Peace but Truth is more important.

I cannot for the life of me wonder why you are clinging to this idea when we have shown you it isn’t true. NO ONE has ever been sentenced to hell by the Church. NO ONE!!!

GOD judges human hearts not men. No, we cannot abandon truth in order to accommodate people’s bad/wrong theology. Theology is right thinking about God. Why? Because it is what God himself gave to us. Jesus revealed the Father to us and the Father’s will. He entrusted that knowledge to his Church, through which he rules as King of both heaven and earth. The Church is the mind of God on earth. Not thousands of denominations that broke away from Christ’s true Church.

If non-Catholics go to heaven they go there by the grace of God. If they WILL NOT accept the truth, they must answer to God for that, not to us or the Church. Truth isn’t just important, it’s vital. And we are bound to share that truth in love, as we try to do day in and day out in our every day lives. By 1) living the truth, and 2) telling the truth, both in love.

You’ve got to get this straight or you will be tempted to give up your faith for an indifferent attitude that will keep you from the sacraments and lead you down the primrose path to…God alone knows what. You should have this discussion with a faithful, orthodox Catholic priest/deacon/religious. Words on a screen cannot take the place of face to face meeting of minds and hearts.

 

[thirdn6]

Thank you so much, Della!

I just want to confirm my faith. Just think of it as a checkpoint where I want to see where these ecumenists are leading us (but it seems not one from them responded) and what their ultimate goal is. (Ever heard or read about the AB of England and Wales who offered flowers in a Hindu temple? Or a good Cardinal proposing a new Catechism for Christians? Or a new round of dialogue between the Anglican Communion and RCC re homosexuality, women ordination, etc.? And some unhealthy news in the US, too!)

If those guys be given their way, what kind of doctrine or innovations they’re going to make after, say, they compromised and succeeded in uniting us with those faiths? I understand you may not have the answers but it really gets me thinking because it confuses me.

Peace but Truth is more important.

 

[Della]

Thank you so much, Della!

I just want to confirm my faith. Just think of it as a checkpoint where I want to see where these ecumenists are leading us (but it seems not one from them responded) and what their ultimate goal is. (Ever heard or read about the AB of England and Wales who offered flowers in a Hindu temple? Or a good Cardinal proposing a new Catechism for Christians? Or a new round of dialogue between the Anglican Communion and RCC re homosexuality, women ordination, etc.? And some unhealthy news in the US, too!)

If those guys be given their way, what kind of doctrine or innovations they’re going to make after, say, they compromised and succeeded in uniting us with those faiths? I understand you may not have the answers but it really gets me thinking because it confuses me.

Peace but Truth is more important.

You’re welcome!

Yea, there’s always a few crazies trying to “make peace” at the expense of the truth. They seem to think it will all come out in the wash, somehow. Well, that’s just not the case and the Church knows it.

True ecumenism isn’t about compromising beliefs in order to “get along”, it’s bringing Christians together to find common ground and go from there. You see, a lot of Protestants have misconceptions about Church teachings or, in some cases, outright hostility towards the Church. If those things can be resolved it might help some of them to see that the Church isn’t teaching wrongly nor is it an evil entity.

Satan is very busy trying to keep people in the dark about the Church. He knows, as G. K. Chesterton pointed out that once a man gives up fearing/hating the Church he begins to be attracted to it. Satan doesn’t want that to happen, so he keeps people worked up over misconceptions and ego to prevent them from learning the truth. He doesn’t want them to know the truth because the truth frees men and is therefore attractive to those willing to listen to it.