that does it for me

[Cat]

One of the reasons I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism is that the Catholic Church teaches that GOD saves us, not through ANY work of our own. HE is the Author of salvation. This is what the Bible teaches, and it’s NOT what evangelical Protestantism teaches. Evangelical Protestantism teaches that a person is saved when the ask Jesus into their heart to be their personal Savior. That’s a work of MAN, not God.

I struggled with this for many years as an evangelical Protestant. I studied God’s Word and came to the conclusion on my own that GOD alone saves people. Then I read about Pastor Tony Campolo, who got into major trouble making the same kind of statement that Rosalind Moss made. He was even tried, with a tribunal of evangelicals who condemned him as a heretic.

Well, that got me worried, because I agreed with Dr. Campolo. But I didn’t say anything to my evangelical friends. Eventually I discovered Calvinism, which emphasized God’s sovereignty and taught what I already believed, that GOD chooses, not us.

After a few years in the Reformed Church, I realized that Calvinism had a lot of flaws, mainly that the “elect” could do pretty much whatever they jolly well chose to do, since they were “elect” and would go to heaven no matter what. Sorry to all of you who are Calvinists, but that’s the practical truth of it, no matter what the on-paper theology says. (My daughter graduated from Calvin College, BTW.)

We came back to evangelicalism, but we were kicked out of the Evangelical Free Church, not for our beliefs, but because of a series of lies propagated about us by a woman pastor in that church. The next year, she was fired after the pastors caught her in lie.

We were terrified of “church” by now, but God graciously led us home to the Catholic Church. And it was there that I discovered that the Catholic Church is in agreement with the Bible, namely that GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF MEN’S SALVATION.

I

Before I becameHis SOVEREIGNTY is recognized by the Catholic Church.

 

[neophyte]

What I am saying is this:

If a Hindu ever asks a Catholic if the Church teaches that he can be saved as a Hindu, the Catholic can only emphatically say “Sure.”…

What you are saying is a bunch of rubbish. A Catholic can (and should) say much more than that.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

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… 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.

Atemi, you have spent a lot of time criticizing – or more accurately dismissing – the answers offered to your OP. For this to be an actual discussion, then you would be required to make your position clear (which you have not yet done) and also to begin answering some of our questions and responding to some of our points of view.

If you are unwilling to do this, then what logically are we to conclude? May I respectfully remind you of the following two forum rules?

Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

The Church does not say that non-Christians do not need to believe in Jesus Christ.

The Church says that salvation takes many forms: the main ones being Baptism of Water (with which you are no doubt familiar); Baptism of Blood; Baptism of Desire; and Invincible Ignorance.

Let’s look at Baptism of Blood: do you believe that those who gave up their lives for Jesus but who had not yet been formally baptized with water – do you believe that they are not saved?

Let’s look at the Baptism of Desire: do you believe that those who sincerely believed in Jesus but who had not yet been formally baptized with water – do you believe that they are not saved?

Let’s look at Invincible Ignorance: do you believe that the desire for Divine Love, the ability to recognize Divine Love, the ability and desire to respond to Jesus by keeping His Laws (which are inherent in all that is reasonable and just) – do you believe that these qualities are totally absent in those who have not or cannot read the Bible or have not been exposed to the preaching of the Gospel?

A belief in such nonsense is equivalent to a belief that those souls who have not or cannot read the Bible or have not been exposed to the preaching of the Gospel are not human souls. And that is plainly false!

Is Jesus not the Manifestation of the Father’s Love on Earth? Atemi, are you suggesting that non-Catholics or even non-Christians have something missing in them and that they cannot recognize Love, respond to Love, actualize Love in their lives?

Time for you to say what you do believe and to back up what you believe with evidence please. And please consider the links I have provided before formulating your reply. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

We are getting different answers all over the board here.

And your point is? The answer which counts is the answer given by the Magisterium.

Atemi:

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.

Non sequitur.

Firstly, disagreement with your statements is not flak.

Secondly you may have been clear as the blue sky on a summers day (which you have not been) but you would still meet with disagreement on the basis of your having interpreted Church teaching incorrectly or of your having actually misrepresented Church teaching.
Atemis:

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…

So you have a problem with what Scripture itself actually says, then. But you don’t have a problem with with your private interpretation of Scripture. Is that logical? Um… no.

Just because a few Catholics stumble in their understanding of the Magisterium, does not mean that the Magisterium is fallible in its interpretation. Yet you are attempting to imply that the Magisterium is fallible.

Based on what? Based on an error in your own interpretation. Pot? Kettle?

 

[jemfinch]

I was glad to see the relevant passage from Romans 2 quoted in this thread, but I was surprised that another passage, from Acts 10, hadn’t yet been quoted (at least not with a reference ):

So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

(Acts 10:34-35)

The foundation is laid all throughout Scripture for the fairness of God to work for the salvation of those who sought Him even if they didn’t know Him by name. More from Romans 2:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.

(Romans 2:6-11)

These people aren’t saved apart from Christ; they’re saved by the application of of the salvific effects of Christ’s sacrifice applied to them without their explicit knowledge. Look again at the Hebrews passage quoted earlier:

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

Many who have never heard of Christ still believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him, and they seek their justification from him as best they can, following the law written on their hearts (their consciences) and correcting their behavior when they violate that law. These people are most definitely not condemned for our failure to preach to them the gospel.

Let’s not forget that on judgment day there will be people who did not know the Bible and who did not recognize Christ who will be saved. We know this from the very mouth of Jesus Himself:

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Some at judgment will be astonished at their salvation.

Jeremy

 

[Iowa_Mike]

And your point is? The answer which counts is the answer given by the Magisterium.

Non sequitur.

Firstly, disagreement with your statements is not flak.

Secondly you may have been clear as the blue sky on a summers day (which you have not been) but you would still meet with disagreement on the basis of your having interpreted Church teaching incorrectly or of your having actually misrepresented Church teaching.

So you have a problem with what Scripture itself actually says, then. But you don’t have a problem with with your private interpretation of Scripture. Is that logical? Um… no.

Just because a few Catholics stumble in their understanding of the Magisterium, does not mean that the Magisterium is fallible in its interpretation. Yet you are attempting to imply that the Magisterium is fallible.

Based on what? Based on an error in your own interpretation. Pot? Kettle?

Oh my gosh!!! Well, well said.

Iowa Mike

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Pax:

It is important to remember that the Catholic Church also rightly teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church.

But what does this mean precisely? It means that the scope of the Catholic Church is universal. In fact, Catholic means universal. It means that salvation is possible for non-Catholics because of the existence of and the actions of the Catholic Church in the world.

If Atemi disputes this, then perhaps he would explain to us exactly how the Bible came into being. Or how the Gospel was preached to the illiterate, the poor, the sick, the prisoners, the homeless long long long before Sola Scriptura was a twinkle in Luther’s eye. Or how powerful is the action of prayer in the world and why some contemplative Catholic orders do nothing but pray in order to evangelize.

Catholic Answers: No Salvation Outside the Church

The key elements of revelation that together undergird extra ecclesiam, nulla salus are these: (1) Jesus Christ is the universal Savior. (2) He has constituted his Church as his mystical body on earth through which he dispenses salvation to the world. (3) He always works through it—though in countless instances outside its visible boundaries… The Church speaks of “implicit desire” or “longing” that can exist in the hearts of those who seek God but are ignorant of the means of his grace. If a person longs for salvation but does not know the divinely established means of salvation, he is said to have an implicit desire for membership in the Church.

Redemptoris Missio

The Church is the sacrament of salvation for all humankind, and her activity is not limited only to those who accept her message" (RM 20).

Catechism 846
Catechism 1260

Every man who is ignorant of the gospel of Christ and of his Church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (CCC 1260).

Lumen Gentium
Dominus Iesus

Atemis, since your replies so far have not demonstrated a lucid understanding of what the Church actually teaches, then may I respectfully request that you read the linked material before posting your point of view on what the Church teaches. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

With this view the desire to evangelize is greatly diminished and that is what we see from many Catholics today, IMO. Why evangelize people that can already be forgiven and be saved following whatever religion they already do…even if that religion boldly rejects Jesus Christ

?

Let me see if I understand you clearly. You are saying that what ‘we’ see from many Catholics is a greatly diminished desire to evangelize? If so, would you be kind enough to quantify ‘many’ please? How many Catholics? A significant number? Some? A few? All? None?

Please also tell us what evangelizing looks like to you. Benny Hinn Crusades? John Hagee TV ministries? Jehovah Witnesses door-to-door campaigns? Hari Krishna singing and dancing at the airport?

In your view, does the Catholic Church do any evangelizing at all? Yes or no, please. If yes, then what form(s) does Catholic evangelism take?

Atemi:

We find that nowhere in the entirety of God’s Word.

Word meaning logos? Logos throughout Christian teaching has meant the Second Person of God Who is Jesus Christ. It does not mean text.

 

[jemfinch]

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.

I’m not sure their disagreement is really that important a point. What effect will it have on their actions, to show how important it is?

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

The Magisterium can and does continue to interpret not only the Bible, but its own declarations. Sometimes those declarations must be reworded so as to become more clear and understandable.

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

Sometimes the answer is simply to continue to respectfull disagree, understanding that until the issue is dogmatized, there can be no anathemization and we must, in charity, respect our brother or sister as Catholic despite our disagreement, while we wait on further clarification by the Magisterium.

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…

Scripture is closed: nothing further can be added to it. As such, it cannot interpret itself. It cannot distinguish between one logically consistent interpretation of itself and another logically consistent interpretation of itself. The Magisterium, however, is not closed: it continues to exist, and continues to supplement the material it has created with further clarification. If there exist two logically consistent interpretations of its teaching, it can further clarify so as to make the wrong interpretation cease to be logically consistent. The Magisterium self-inteprets in that way, and the Bible cannot self-interpret that way.

Jeremy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Scripture is closed: nothing further can be added to it. As such, it cannot interpret itself. It cannot distinguish between one logically consistent interpretation of itself and another logically consistent interpretation of itself. The Magisterium, however, is not closed: it continues to exist, and continues to supplement the material it has created with further clarification. If there exist two logically consistent interpretations of its teaching, it can further clarify so as to make the wrong interpretation cease to be logically consistent. The Magisterium self-inteprets in that way, and the Bible cannot self-interpret that way.Jeremy

A lucid explanation. Thank you. Ani

 

[Randy_Carson]

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…

Scripture is closed: nothing further can be added to it. As such, it cannot interpret itself. It cannot distinguish between one logically consistent interpretation of itself and another logically consistent interpretation of itself. The Magisterium, however, is not closed: it continues to exist, and continues to supplement the material it has created with further clarification. If there exist two logically consistent interpretations of its teaching, it can further clarify so as to make the wrong interpretation cease to be logically consistent. The Magisterium self-inteprets in that way, and the Bible cannot self-interpret that way.

Jeremy

And this is so far superior to our friends sitting at home alone trying to dicipher the ancient texts on their own as to make the disparity laughable.

But they don’t see it that way, unfortunately.

A Magisterium of One is somehow preferable to an infallible Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Atemi]

The Catechism is not the Magisterium.

This is my point.

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.

I have had devout Catholics aregue with me that the Catechism is infallible.

This has changed depending on the argument or the thread.

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.

That leaves the lay Catholic nothing to appeal to in case of differing interpretations of the Catechism which is happening on this thread and another.

There is Magisterium today that the Catholic can appeal to without calling a Council every time there is a disagreement.

 

[Atemi]

I’m not sure their disagreement is really that important a point. What effect will it have on their actions, to show how important it is?

Someone is damned if they talk to a Catholic and do not convert or they are not.

That is surely important…at least it should be in everyone’s book

If two Catholics cannot agree on what “no fault of their own” means, then what else is up for grabs?

Another thread is bearing this problem out as well.

The Magisterium can and does continue to interpret not only the Bible, but its own declarations. Sometimes those declarations must be reworded so as to become more clear and understandable.

But the lay Catholic cannot appeal to the Magisterium because it is not available to appeal to.

The Catholic cannot go to the priest, because he is not the Magisterium.

The same with the bishop…they are not the Magisterium either.

Can a lay Catholic convene a Council to settle a dispute over the Catechism?

Scripture is closed: nothing further can be added to it. As such, it cannot interpret itself. It cannot distinguish between one logically consistent interpretation of itself and another logically consistent interpretation of itself. The Magisterium, however, is not closed: it continues to exist, and continues to supplement the material it has created with further clarification.

But that is not available to Catholics now.

We have another devout Catholic on another thread insisting that the Catholic Church does not teach that a literal Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity.

They say this because of their private interpretation of the Catechism.

I showed them the Catechism saying otherwise, and guess what…they said that paragraph was allegory and not literal.

Who else can be appealed to?

Where is the Magisterium to settle this?

Nowhere.

This is Sola Catechisma, IMV.

This is very common among the Catholics I meet. Very common.

Though a bit off topic, this strikes to the heart of what the OP is getting at.

 

[Eden]

You were very upset about a teaching that you believed was Catholic a while back, that unbaptized infants go to hell. So, you believe that God sends Hindu babies who die in infancy to hell? And you believe God would send to hell a Hindu or an animist or a Buddhist, who through no fault of their own never heard the Gospel but tried to live their life as good people, to hell?

 

[Atemi]

You were very upset about a teaching that you believed was Catholic a while back, that unbaptized infants go to hell.

Upset?

No.

Just relating that that is exactly what the Church taught.

So, you believe that God sends Hindu babies who die in infancy to hell?

No.

They are not Hindu babies. There is no such thing.

And you believe God would send to hell a Hindu or an animist or a Buddhist, who through no fault of their own never heard the Gospel but tried to live their life as good people, to hell?

Christ dealt with this issue already.

Who can say they are good people?

Are Hindus, animists, and Buddhists sinners through “no fault of their own”?

Surely not. By definition, that is not true.

We need to preach to them the forgiveness of sin found in believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If they can find forgiveness of sin just by being a “good” Buddhist or “good” Hindu then Christ need not have come.

There is no such thing anyway. There is none good. No, not one.

 

[tdgesq]

If two Catholics cannot agree on what “no fault of their own” means, then what else is up for grabs?

Another thread is bearing this problem out as well.
. . .

This is very common among the Catholics I meet. Very common.

Though a bit off topic, this strikes to the heart of what the OP is getting at.

The only part of this that is even remotely accurate is that it sure is off topic. It’s the same off topic rant that you’ve posted in every thread in which I’ve seen you involved. You’re a one trick pony. Every time you can’t win on the topic that’s at issue, you start screeching that the Catholics who are posting don’t agree on every point, whether it’s really true or not.

But even if you are right that some Catholics don’t agree, so what? You claim to know the Catholic teaching. You have access to the Catechism. Point out where these posters are wrong. Flailing about accusing posters of not agreeing with each other is the fallacy of diversion - it just isn’t on topic. And I think it’s becoming apparent to most of us that you use it when your arguments on the issue are weak.

That being said, I don’t know of any Church teaching that gives a specific concrete example of when a non-Catholic is such through no fault of his own. Again, so what? It is readily admitted that the Church has not dogmatically defined every nuance of Christian faith, even within it’s own teachings. In these areas Catholics are free to discuss and disagree. Maybe you didn’t know that.

As for the overwhelming “importance” of having a precise understanding of who out there is saved despite being non-Catholic, I find your explanation wanting. How exactly would I act differently when I approach a non-Christian? I would still do my best to evangelize just like I do now. Having a better idea as to whether he may or may not be saved would not alter my approach. In any case, it would be impossible to know this for certain since only God may judge hearts.

But even if this task has the burning importance that you attach to it, why is it that you are utterly unable set out for us the circumstances under which people who are part of non-Christian religions may be saved? The Church has a criterion for this “important” issue, while you have offered none.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

A Magisterium of One is somehow preferable to an infallible Magisterium of the Church.

This is simply random, unsubstantiated opinion. No evidence offered. No line of reasoning. Just a putdown. I had no doubt that a point would come where some folks, unable to make a point of their own – but bent on dismissing the well substantiated points of others – would eventually turn the interchange into something personal. Looks to me like that’s the direction this thread is heading. Pity.

Your comment, of course, begs the question of whether or not authority was granted to the Magisterium of One. Which one of you btw is the Magisterium of One?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

Someone is damned if they talk to a Catholic and do not convert or they are not.

This is the heresy of Feeneyism. I’ve already explained this to you. Do you only read the posts you want to read? If so, on what basis?

Atemi:

If two Catholics cannot agree on what “no fault of their own” means, then what else is up for grabs?

Nothing. It simply means that two Catholics cannot agree on what ‘no fault of their own’ means.

Atemi:

Another thread is bearing this problem out as well.

Your point is? Btw, I believe the rules do not allow you to drag in arguments from other threads.

Atemi:

But the lay Catholic cannot appeal to the Magisterium because it is not available to appeal to.

When did you decide that? And on what basis? Who gave you the authority to decide that?

Atemi:

The Catholic cannot go to the priest, because he is not the Magisterium.

When did you decide that? And on what basis? Who gave you the authority to decide that?

Atemi:

The same with the bishop…they are not the Magisterium either.

Now you are really on thin ice. I notice that you persist on giving no evidence, no links, no line of reasoning.

You are grasping at straws, in fact building strawmen. Rather than conducting your end of a genuine discussion, you are ignoring points made, misrepresenting actual Church teaching, or simply trying to distract posters through the use of red herrings.

Once folks start doing this, it usually means that have conceded the points which they are ignoring, misrepresenting, or avoiding. Since you have conceded the argument, then why are you beating a dead horse?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi:

Are members of non-Christian religions saved? Yes or no please.

 

[jemfinch]

Someone is damned if they talk to a Catholic and do not convert or they are not.

That is surely important…at least it should be in everyone’s book

We’re not called to pronounce people “saved” or damned: we’re called to preach the gospel of salvation to all those who haven’t accepted it. No matter which opinion a Catholic holds about such people, the fact that they have not accepted the gospel obligates us to continue to preach the gospel of salvation to them. So my question stands: if this is an important belief, where does its importance manifest itself in the behavior of Catholics who hold it or reject it?

But the lay Catholic cannot appeal to the Magisterium because it is not available to appeal to.

Sure it is. He can write to his bishop, who in union with the Pope is one of the living members of the Magisterium. He can write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ask for further clarfication. He could write the Peop, if he wanted.

The Catholic cannot go to the priest, because he is not the Magisterium.

The same with the bishop…they are not the Magisterium either.

They are members and leaders of the Church, through whom we receive the teaching of the Magisterium.

Can a lay Catholic convene a Council to settle a dispute over the Catechism?

Of course a lay Catholic can’t convene a council to resolve every minor dispute between him and the guy next to him on a pew.

We have another devout Catholic on another thread insisting that the Catholic Church does not teach that a literal Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity.

They say this because of their private interpretation of the Catechism.

I showed them the Catechism saying otherwise, and guess what…they said that paragraph was allegory and not literal.

Who else can be appealed to?

Maybe there isn’t. Sometimes you just have to accept that you and your brother will disagree.

(I vaguely recall, by the way, a papal encyclical clarify the reality of Adam is the single progenitor of the human race, but don’t know its name or which Pope promulgated it.)

Where is the Magisterium to settle this?

Nowhere.

This is Sola Catechisma, IMV.

This is very common among the Catholics I meet. Very common.

What, disagreement over non-essentials? Sure it is. What else would you expect? “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.” Sometimes being Catholic isn’t about agreeing 100% with every Catholic out there. Sometimes it’s about being subject to the same Church, the same pillar and foundation of the truth that will, at some point, resolve our disagreement if it becomes a serious one.

Though a bit off topic, this strikes to the heart of what the OP is getting at.

No, I think the OP either misunderstood what the lady was saying, thinking that she was saying that we Catholics believe that people can get to heaven apart from Christ’s salvational work, or he has a genuine disagreement with the Catholic teaching that some people will be saved by Christ’s work without their explicit knowledge.

Jeremy