This is long, complicated and confrontational, and I am not sure how to respond. I shall try to be brief, as the points I think are clear.
However, it is possible that we might agree that grace and blessing - however defined - is not solely confined to CC.
Yes, we definitely agree on that point.
"guanophore:
I am glad that this is difficult to accept [the position of the Church that a moral non-Christian would not be of God]… Especially since iti is not the position of the Church!
My understanding of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Vatican II, as you know, is that anyone who - having heard the message of Christ - turns their back to the Trinity are not of God. That of course excludes a moral Hindu who has never heard of the Christian God.
The Church does teach that one who willfully refuses God separates themselves from the graces only by which they can be saved. However, what “heard the message of Christ” means may be a matter of debate.
I suggested that I understand that [excluding non-Christians who have ‘turned their back to Him’] is not God’s intention, despite the words of Christ: ‘No man cometh unto the Father except by Me’. This continues to be disputed with various interpretations, no?
It may, but such dispute is irrelevant. The Church teaches that God can save anyone He desires, however He desires, and that we are not the judge of that.
"guanophore:
Not in Catholic Teaching. The Catholic Church recognizes that there are many who come to the Father through Christ that do not recognize Him for who He is. They may never know, until they are face to face with Him. However we accept HIs words, that even those who do not know Him, yet come to the Father, are indeed coming through Him. The Catechism is clear on this point.
This is not clear to me at all. Perhaps you might elucidate a bit more clearly, only briefly, or let me have a reference? I have relied on the Dogmatic etc above.
I think this is probably not the right thread, and I am a bit stymied on how to do this without the Catechism.
Guan, you wrote earlier that ‘God in His love is just, and will not be in the presence of sin. Those who prefer sin over Him will not be in “blessed comfort for all eternity”.’ You have now written
Quote:
I think it has nothing to do with how “I” define sin. The CC defnes sin according to what was passed on by Jesus through the Apostles. Only God can judge the heart.
You will have to help me, since I do not see a contradiction here. Perhaps we should start a new thread on sin, evil, original sin, etc?
The CCC is terribly confusing on the issue of sin, evil, original sin, etc., as I have noted elsewhere. I have made no headway on official definitions by the CC based on Christ’s instructions as interpreted by those who followed. I am still persuaded that it is not a question of damning those who ‘prefer sin’, given what we know of God’s infinite grace and mercy. Very few will be separated from Him forever, surely.
It is hard for me to imagine, given the horrors you have witnessed in your life, to think that there will not be people who spurn God’s love and forgiveness.
guanophore:
I am curious about your statement wishing that missionaries had not come to Africa. However, such a topic is far afield from this thread. The rest of your statement I think is just patently false. I have studied the spirituality of indiginous peoples all over the world, and I don’t know of any that don’t have in intrinsic awareness and experience of the Divine. The assertion that “Africans would not know God” is absurd.
Yes, I see what you mean by confrontational!
We are talking here about who is and who is not of God, and how, and so this is not off thread. Living in Africa, and having spent substantial time in other countries, I suggested that - from the point of view of the Dogmatic etc above - it seems it would have been better if Africans, Indians, Chinese etc had not known of the Christian God. The document clearly indicates that those who have never known the Christian God are nevertheless close to Him, unlike those who have been introduced to Him but reject Him.
Ok. Glad I misunderstood your point. However, I don’t think that we can adequately judge who ahs “rejected Him”, since only He knows the heart.
I have consistently maintained that all cultures, civilisations, communities (except perhaps the Ik) have a concept of the Divine, so here is no disagreement at all there. Not sure why you made this error.
I got thrown when you said that, if the missionaries had not come to Africa “they would not have known God”.
Of course Africans know God - their God or gods, developed through the evolution of their cultures, and informed by the extremes of this climate and geography. You and I would have trouble knowing their God/gods, as our priests are fully aware.
Certainly a challenge to missionaries!
"guanophore:
Making such statements is false and inflammatory. Are you trying to get another thread closed? It is not the place of people to judge one another, and we are not to make condemnatory statements of this kind about one another.
I know - I am unhappily good at closing threads because I have a different take on things. Also people sometimes take offense at things they do not understand or know or have not heard of before. In this case, following the good old Dogmatic etc it is clearly implied that those who knowingly deny the Christian God, deny themselves salvation.
Yes, I agree. However, we cannot read the hearts of those who have heard. Even if one appears to reject what they have heard, it is not our place to “condemn them to hell”. They are condemned already, if they refuse to belief. It is incumbent upon us to share our faith as best as we are able, so that this can be remedied. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word.
My comments are based on a Vatican document, and are clearly not intended to be inflammatory or judgemental, or to offend sensitivities. I write what I know and have experienced, and hopefully on the basis of what I understand of my Catholicism.
I hope you don’t understand that the Catholic Church believes that she has the authority to “condemn to hell”, an act that is inherintly a function of humans, and which flows from original sin.
We are under a sentence of death from the moment of our conception. We can be spared that sentence by grace, through faith.
"guanophore:
The only thing that seems clear is that you have not studied your Catechism. People cannot “send” anyone to hell. Personally, I don’t even consider that God “sends” people to hell, but makes provision for those who choose not to be in His presence a condition in which their choice can be fulfilled.
I don’t know why I was getting so cranky…
Of course people do not send anyone to hell, any more (in my humble opinion) than CAF’s Fr Vincent’s bus driver, knocking over and killing a man who is rushing to confession having committed the only grave sin of his life, is responsible for sending that man to hell (Fr Vincent’s instruction pace). I agree absolutely that God will take unto himself every Child of His possible, for He is a just and loving Father. I am not even sure there is a ‘hell’.
Hell is real,and we are all bound for it, except by the grace of God. I agree with you about the mercy of God, I was just (possibly too vociferously) trying to make the point that it is not Catholics, or the Church, who decide this.
You write I have not studied ‘my’ Catechism. You are aware that I am a learner Catholic, although not a learner Christian. There are grave problems with the CCC for me, and for many others in a region of undereducated, illiterate, underemployed people struggling for survival under the harshest of circumstances that are worsening by the day. What does CCC have to say to us?
Yes, I am, and I do. The Catechism has been described as “a sure norm” for our faith instruction. So, it is a good starting place on all these issues. I agree that it can be difficult to study. It is organized in a way that I find, personally, cumbersome.
