that does it for me

[Atemi]

They may be invincibly ignorant. Some “Christians” may fall into this category, also.

No normal person above the age of reason is invincibly ignorant of sin. We have no such excuse.

No one is condemned because they never heard of Christ. We are condemned because we are sinners.

I am not prepared to assume anyone doesn’t desperately need to have faith in the Savior.

Are you prepared to declare with confidence that a Hindu who hears a brief (or lengthy) presentation of the Gospel and fails to respond to the altar call is damned?

What I am prepared to declare in confidence is that they are a sinner in dire need of forgiveness of their sins.

What I am also prepared to declare in confidence is that if they walk away from choosing Jesus Christ, they are still in their sins.

Jhn 3:18 “he who does not believe is condemned already”

God has commanded that ALL men everywhere repent. This does not exclude that Hindu.

BTW, thank you for the rational and well delivered post…

 

[tdgesq]

The problem I am having here is that we have a Magisterium that claims to be the infallible interpreter, but we have two well educated and well catechised Catholics disagreeing on a very important point of Catholic teaching.

If the Catechism is not clear here, then who is the infallible interpreter for the infallible interpreter?

If even the Catechism cannot be appealed to to settle doctrinal dispute, then what is appealed to next?

This has always been my problem with claims that the Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, but then the interpretations themselves need another infallible interpreter to interpret them…and on and on…

The Cathecism doesn’t delineate precisely how short or how far the doctrine of invincible ignorance goes. It is a matter of degree on which I disagree with what one of the Catholic posters here had to say. Seriously, if every point of Catholic doctrine had been definitively established, there would be no need for Catholic theologians at all.

That being said, there are boundaries to this particular doctrine that we can all agree upon - that even you agree upon as I pointed out in an earlier post. The Cathecism says what it says. As long as we stay within the boundaries of its teaching, we can have differing opinions on how far it goes or how it applies to a particular situation.

Since you see fit to disregard my previous posts, I can only assume that you agree with them and therefore do agree with what the Church teaches on this matter. It appears to me that you do, even though I disagree with some of the things you have to say within the bounds of that teaching. After all, you’ve already admitted that a Christian outside of the Christian church can be saved. It is easy to sow the seeds of discord Atemi, but somehow it’s not so easy for you to come out and say where exactly where you stand on the issue

 

[tdgesq]

No normal person above the age of reason is invincibly ignorant of sin. We have no such excuse.

Ok.

No one is condemned because they never heard of Christ. We are condemned because we are sinners.

So then you are saying that no one can be a sinner unless they have heard of Christ. Interesting.

I am not prepared to assume anyone doesn’t desperately need to have faith in the Savior.

Seems to contradict what you just said above, but I agree with you here nonetheless.

What I am prepared to declare in confidence is that they are a sinner in dire need of forgiveness of their sins.

O.k. again.

What I am also prepared to declare in confidence is that if they walk away from choosing Jesus Christ, they are still in their sins.

Fully in accord with Catholic teaching.

Jhn 3:18 “he who does not believe is condemned already”

God has commanded that ALL men everywhere repent. This does not exclude that Hindu.

So what exactly are you saying? Why don’t you just come out with it and tell us what category of those outside of the non-Christian church will be saved and and that category that will not. It’s easy to cross-examine others, but not so easy to have your own position held up to scrutiny.

 

[tdgesq]

We are now back to the point of the OP.

Not really. Not to be mean here or anything, but I don’t think you remember what the OP even says anymore.

So you believe that educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world can be saved?

I believe it’s possible, as I believe most Catholics here do. Do you believe it isn’t? If so, then let us all know why

We are getting different answers all over the board here.

Not really. Most of what I’ve seen here is within the bounds of what the Church teaches on this matter. I even think you are actually one of them, although it’s kind of hard to tell since you won’t come out and tell us all where exactly you stand on the salvation of those who are part of a non-Christian religion.

 

[Atemi]

Since you see fit to disregard my previous posts, I can only assume that you agree with them and therefore do agree with what the Church teaches on this matter.

I am sorry, but I have many posts and I cannot reply to every response.

What post of yours did I disregard?

I may have missed it, but I did not disregard it.

After all, you’ve already admitted that a Christian outside of the Christian church can be saved.

I have no clue what this means, to be honest…

It is easy to sow the seeds of discord Atemi, but somehow it’s not so easy for you to come out and say where exactly where you stand on the issue

And it is easy to charge me with vice, but somehow not so easy to get any kind of consistent answer here. Saying Catholics are free to have such far reaching differences when it comes to such an important doctrine is troubling.

I have been abundantly clear in my posts. If I was not clear, I wouldn’t have gotten all the flak I have so far.

 

[Atemi]

We are now back to the point of the OP.

Not really. Not to be mean here or anything, but I don’t think you remember what the OP even says anymore.

“Not to be mean here”?

Sure. I’ll take your word for it.

**So you believe that educated Hindus, Muslims and Jews in the Western world can be saved? **

I believe it’s possible, as I believe most Catholics here do. Do you believe it isn’t? If so, then let us all know why

Been there. This is old news:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2052432&postcount=1

We are getting different answers all over the board here.

Not really. Most of what I’ve seen here is within the bounds of what the Church teaches on this matter. I even think you are actually one of them, although it’s kind of hard to tell since you won’t come out and tell us all where exactly you stand on the salvation of those who are part of a non-Christian religion.

My posts are all over this thread. I am sorry if you are missing them.

 

[tdgesq]

I am sorry, but I have many posts and I cannot reply to every response.

It’s post #64.

I have no clue what this means, to be honest…

What part don’t you understand. I’m here all night.

And it is easy to charge me with vice, but somehow not so easy to get any kind of consistent answer here. Saying Catholics are free to have such far reaching differences when it comes to such an important doctrine is troubling.

I’m not charging you with vice, I’m just asking you to come out in one post and set forth those who may be saved who are members of a non-Christian religion. Just set out your categories here. And I fail to see what you find troubling. This isn’t a doctrine that is necessary for Catholics to be saved. It is an explanation of those who can be saved despite finding themselves in a situation where they are not within the Church visible.

I have been abundantly clear in my posts. If I was not clear, I wouldn’t have gotten all the flak I have so far.

The reason you’ve gotten flak is because you are not clear. You have managed to dispute every explanation that’s been given of the doctrine (inconsistently I might add), but have given no cogent explanation of where you stand. What are you waiting for? Let’s see it.

 

[tdgesq]

Been there. This is old news:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2052432&postcount=1

I don’t see where you said that all educated Hindus, Muslims, etc. living in the western world can’t be saved. Just say yes or no. We’re both here. Just do it.

My posts are all over this thread. I am sorry if you are missing them.

Then forgive my ignorance. Just humor me. Set out exactly what category of people can be saved who are members of a non-Christian religion.

 

[Atemi]

So how exactly are you disagreeing with what the OP paraphrased?

For one, it is expremely vague and unworkable as the differing Catholic opinions in this thread show.

“As long as they lived up to the graces that God has given them” is practically meaningless in the sense that even the individual cannot ascertain the degree of success they can have here.

I have no doubt that if you asked any devout Mormon, JW, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu if they are living “up to the graces that God has given them,” they would probably say they are doing their best, or they are…as any Catholic would say the same.

Telling them that they can do that and be saved is extremely harmful for their souls. It says they don’t NEED to believe in Jesus Christ.

Their religions already teach them all of this.

Do good and go to Heaven (Nirvana)…

You admit that there are circumstances where a person can be saved who was raised in and adheres to the teachings of a non-Christian religion, specifically where they have never heard the Gospel message.

I think you are forgetting why any man will be condemned to begin with: because they are a sinner.

I have never known or heard of any non-Christian, or any far away African native, that was not a sinner.

That is the whole reason we are to share the Gospel. We do not share the Gospel in the hopes that they are not saved already, but that they will be saved by believing.

Maybe it’s the “as long as they lived up to the graces that God has given them” part that you have a problem with. Although I don’t know exactly what she means by that statement (keep in mind that it is a paraphrase), I do know she doesn’t mean that someone will go to heaven who has heard and understood Christ’s message yet rejects it for a false non-Christian message.

That is very few people, especially today.

What there may be between these two extremes is open for debate in the context of her paraphrased statement I think. It appears that everyone here agrees that there are some circumstances where people who are part of a non-Christian religion might be saved, and that it involves living out a life where they don’t reject the grace that God has given them.

Again, I am sorry, but this is functionally meaningless.

If you ask anyone of they have rejected the grace God has given them and they will look at you sideways.

The grace God has given us is a universe that screams about Him and a conscience that does the same, so we are all are without excuse.

All humanity is awash in sin and rebellion against God. This does not change because someone didn’t hear or understand the Gospel. Actually, it’s much worse, IMO.

…

 

[Atemi]

I don’t see where you said that all educated Hindus, Muslims, etc. living in the western world can’t be saved. Just say yes or no. We’re both here. Just do it.

All the aforementioned that reject Jesus Christ cannot be saved. How can they be saved if they are still in their sins?

God commands that all men everywhere repent.

Act 17:30 “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent”

Does this exclude those mentioned above?

 

[tdgesq]

For one, it is expremely vague and unworkable as the differing Catholic opinions in this thread show.

“As long as they lived up to the graces that God has given them” is practically meaningless in the sense that even the individual cannot ascertain the degree of success they can have here.

I have no doubt that if you asked any devout Mormon, JW, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu if they are living “up to the graces that God has given them,” they would probably say they are doing their best, or they are…as any Catholic would say the same.

They all might just say this, but the test of whether one has lived up to the grace that they have been given is for God to decide. Not them, not you, and not me - which is what you’ve been told now be many different people on this thread. If not this test, then under what test will Christ judge those who are members of a non-Christian religion?

Telling them that they can do that and be saved is extremely harmful for their souls. It says they don’t NEED to believe in Jesus Christ.

Their religions already teach them all of this.

Do good and go to Heaven (Nirvana)…

As you’ve already been told, and as I will tell you again, this doctrine is not a tool to witness to non-Christians. If it were, the best you could ever tell them is that you could possibly be saved in your system. No one here believes that this is a substitute for the Christian message.

I think you are forgetting why any man will be condemned to begin with: because they are a sinner.

I have never known or heard of any non-Christian, or any far away African native, that was not a sinner.

That is the whole reason we are to share the Gospel. We do not share the Gospel in the hopes that they are not saved already, but that they will be saved by believing.

Then there is no salvation for those men who are part of a non-Christian religion. They are all sinners. Yet this contradicts what you’ve said earlier when you admit that some who are members of a non-Christian religion could be saved. Which is it?

Again, I am sorry, but this is functionally meaningless.

If you ask anyone of they have rejected the grace God has given them and they will look at you sideways.

The grace God has given us is a universe that screams about Him and a conscience that does the same, so we are all are without excuse.

I don’t believe it’s meaningless to God. Those same people will look at you sideways if you ask them whether they have faith that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and is sitting at the right hand of the Father. It looks like that now you are saying that every person who is part of a non-Christian religion is damned, which isn’t what you said before.

All humanity is awash in sin and rebellion against God. This does not change because someone didn’t hear or understand the Gospel. Actually, it’s much worse, IMO.

Like I said, let’s just get to the bottom line. All men are in sin, many of these men have never heard the Gospel. Are they all damned then? Just give a straight answer.

 

[tdgesq]

All the aforementioned that reject Jesus Christ cannot be saved. How can they be saved if they are still in their sins?

God commands that all men everywhere repent.

Act 17:30 “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent”

Does this exclude those mentioned above?

Does it? I just want an answer. Are all educated Muslims, Hindu, etc. living in the western world damned? I won’t ask the question again, as it will be obvious to all viewing that you are unwilling to answer.

 

[Atemi]

Does it? I just want an answer. Are all educated Muslims, Hindu, etc. living in the western world damned? I won’t ask the question again, as it will be obvious to all viewing that you are unwilling to answer.

I answered your question already.

Please refer back to my previous post before this.

 

[tdgesq]

I have no idea what your answer is since it appears you’ve given two of them that are diametrically opposed to one another. True to my word, I won’t ask you again. We will let the audience decide how well you’ve set out your position.

 

[Milliardo]

No contact with missionaries, and absolutely no knowledge of Christ? That’s not what the Church teaches.

Read carefully what the Catechism says, “through no fault of their own.” Do tell me what does it mean to you then.

I believe someone could have contact with missionaries or have some limited knowledge of Christ and still not be held at fault for being outside of the Church. I respectfully disagree with your assessment here.

Yes, there are instances. We can, for instance, cite the case of Gandhi and why he has not become Christian; this is because, though he agrees with the Christian message, the messengers (the British in this case) do not give an example of it. That might be one such instance, but it is rather uncommon. The more correct form, therefore, would be that “through no fault of their own” would mean the case of not entirely hearing of Christ and His Gospel. It seems rather uncommon now, but we look at such a thing in a modern way–with media, telecommunication, etc. it might be inconceivable that such a thing can happen, but when we realize that much of the world doesn’t even have basic necessities like electricity and water yet, we realize that it’s not hard to imagine that many still don’t know Christ, through no fault of their own.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem I am having here is that we have a Magisterium that claims to be the infallible interpreter, but we have two well educated and well catechised Catholics disagreeing on a very important point of Catholic teaching.

If the Catechism is not clear here, then who is the infallible interpreter for the infallible interpreter?

If even the Catechism cannot be appealed to to settle doctrinal dispute, then what is appealed to next?

This has always been my problem with claims that the Scriptures need an infallible interpreter, but then the interpretations themselves need another infallible interpreter to interpret them…and on and on…

The problem you are having here is that you really don’t want to understand…put another way, anything that you can’t understand in a simplistic way is a delight to you because of your predisposition to oppose the Church.

The Catechism is not the Magisterium. The Catechism is not infallible - and I’m not sure it is technically correct to say that the Bible is, either. The Bible is inerrant. I don’t know that anyone would make such a claim for the Catechism.

Like the Bible, the Catechism contains that portion of the Church’s teaching which has been written down. However, the teaching authority of the Church resides within living men - Just As Christ Intended - and not within the pages of a book. Or even two books.

This is very significant, and I

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Milliardo]

If even the Catechism cannot be appealed to to settle doctrinal dispute, then what is appealed to next?

It is precisely the Church which is the final arbiter. Note that it is only us, lay Catholics at that, who are giving opinions on the matter. As St. John of the Cross stated, if there is any part that he misunderstood or does not comprehend, he submits entirely to the Church. It is the same with us–we can have our own opinions, but once the Church says that such and such is the case, then we submit. It is no different from the courts–civil and criminal law can be interpreted many ways, but once the Supreme Court makes a decision with finality, then everyone has to abide by that decision made by the Supreme Court. It is quite funny that those who oppose how the Catholic Church works do not question how the judicial system works when they operate on exactly the same principle.

But of course, we go off-topic on that one.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No normal person above the age of reason is invincibly ignorant of sin. We have no such excuse.

No one is condemned because they never heard of Christ. We are condemned because we are sinners.

I am not prepared to assume anyone doesn’t desperately need to have faith in the Savior.

What I am prepared to declare in confidence is that they are a sinner in dire need of forgiveness of their sins.

What I am also prepared to declare in confidence is that if they walk away from choosing Jesus Christ, they are still in their sins.

Jhn 3:18 “he who does not believe is condemned already”
God has commanded that ALL men everywhere repent. This does not exclude that Hindu.

BTW, thank you for the rational and well delivered post…

I have no issues with the fact that these folks are condemned already.

I also have no problem that God can issue a stay of execution after the judgment and sentence are issued!

God knows they are sinners. We all are. He also knows WHY they never heard - really heard - the gospel. Finally, He also knows how they lived their lives in response to whatever Truth or Knowledge they had of Himself.

There may be noble pagans who have sought truth more earnestly than some in the Church who have presumed too much.

God’s calculus is better than my own.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

We are getting different answers all over the board here.

Atemi-

I think this is an unfair accusation, and I’d like for you to reconsider it.

This forum is open to folks of all ages, education and knowledge of the Catholic faith.

Some will be experienced, well-read and knowledgable apologists, some will be newbies, some just wandered in yesterday.

Some have advanced degrees in theology, some stopped learning their faith in junior high school.

Some are converts, some are reverts, some are cradle Catholics. And some are former Catholics with axes to grind.

Yet all have opinions and all are free to express them as well (or as poorly) as they can.

Asking for consistency in this crowd is tantamount to David Letterman conducting interviews on the US Constitution on a busy NY street corner. He won’t have to work very hard to make people say funny things - they’ll manage that on their own. And I mean funny strange not funny ha-ha.

The Catechism is available online with a search utility. Why don’t YOU read it for yourself and then ask specific questions? It would be a heck of a lot easier than making heads or tails out of some of this mangled theology, and I think you would appreciate more fully just how consistent the Church has been in its teaching over the past two millenia. Just a thought.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

They all might just say this, but the test of whether one has lived up to the grace that they have been given is for God to decide. Not them, not you, and not me - which is what you’ve been told now be many different people on this thread. If not this test, then under what test will Christ judge those who are members of a non-Christian religion?

As you’ve already been told, and as I will tell you again, this doctrine is not a tool to witness to non-Christians. If it were, the best you could ever tell them is that you could possibly be saved in your system. No one here believes that this is a substitute for the Christian message.

Then there is no salvation for those men who are part of a non-Christian religion. They are all sinners. Yet this contradicts what you’ve said earlier when you admit that some who are members of a non-Christian religion could be saved. Which is it?

I don’t believe it’s meaningless to God. Those same people will look at you sideways if you ask them whether they have faith that Jesus died, rose from the dead, and is sitting at the right hand of the Father. It looks like that now you are saying that every person who is part of a non-Christian religion is damned, which isn’t what you said before.

Like I said, let’s just get to the bottom line. All men are in sin, many of these men have never heard the Gospel. Are they all damned then? Just give a straight answer.

This is very significant.