The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[Grace_Seeker]

however…

Everyone is hell will also be catholic.

They too will see the Beatific Vision… and come into a knowledge of the Whole Truth. They too will understand the meaning and reality of One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
But for whatever reason they chose to condemn themselve in their early lives, they will spend their “catholic” eternity in hell.

So, being catholic means what in this case? …knowing the truth? I find that confusing. That sounds more like a definition of orthodoxy than catholic. I thought catholic meant universal? Please explain.

I trust you are not saying that there will also be members of the body of Christ.in hell, or are you?

If a Christian is one who truly follows Christ… and then chooses to deny His very directive, I would say that person is not a Christian.

How can one be both at the same time: (1) a follower, and (2) choosing to do contrary than what they understand Christ has directed? Aren’t those two positions logically opposite of each other?

If a person is trying to follow Christ as best a they are able (even they who will never hear the Good News), I would say that person is more a Christian than the above example.

Let’s see if I understand your point. I have often said that I would rather see a person living faithfully for God as a Muslim, than unfaithfully as a Christian. Is this sort of what you are getting at?

Not all non-Catholics are good Christians… but they are making it harder on themselves by living with less than the Fullness of the Truth .

I don’t get this statement at all. Did you perhaps mean to write “not all non-Catholics are bad Christians…but they are making it harder on themselves…”?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Yes and no. There is a lot of separation among the brethren, and this is not Jesus vision for His body.

Is the “yes and no” in response to Semper Fi’s statement, or my articulation of his statement?

 

[MrS]

So, being catholic means what in this case? …knowing the truth? I find that confusing. That sounds more like a definition of orthodoxy than catholic. I thought catholic meant universal? Please explain.

Being Catholic means having access to the Fullness of the Truth (among other things too )

I trust you are not saying that there will also be members of the body of Christ.in hell, or are you?

If they have condemned themselves in life, they have already cut themselves off from the Body of Christ. Dying in that state, out of the state of grace, will result in eternity in hell.

How can one be both at the same time: (1) a follower, and (2) choosing to do contrary than what they understand Christ has directed? Aren’t those two positions logically opposite of each other?

That is just it… they cannot… hence I am pained when one claims to be a Christian (Catholic or not) and then denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist confected only during a Catholic Mass.

Let’s see if I understand your point. I have often said that I would rather see a person living faithfully for God as a Muslim, than unfaithfully as a Christian. Is this sort of what you are getting at?

that begs the question… can a real honest Muslim who follows the Koran and the false prophet Muhammed, actually be faithfull to Jesus Christ whom they deny is God?

I don’t get this statement at all. Did you perhaps mean to write “not all non-Catholics are bad Christians…but they are making it harder on themselves…”?

No, A true Christian will believe all the Jesus said, even accepting on Faith that which he cannot understand.
If non-Catholics did not actually understand, and thus “reject” say, John 6, Jesus lets them walk away. If they do understand but then reject…they are not Christians It is necessary for Catholics to preach this part of the message without end.

 

[jmcrae]

In the light of what you express as “being Catholic” in this post, I would say that those from that village who indeed believed and practiced the faith which later would be termed Catholic though they did not know it by that name were just as Catholic as those from that same village who were later officially baptized into the Catholic Church.

I would agree.

I think that, because even though they were not under the teaching magistrum of the Catholic Church, yet according to the story they worshipped the one true God in Spirit and and Truth. This, not some pronouncement of “belonging” is what makes a person truly belong to Christ, and all who truly belong to Christ are members of his one true Church, which you have identified as being by definition Catholic.

Now, how would you answer that same question? Please answer not just how you would identify those departed individuals, but the reason for that identification or lack thereof.

I completely agree.

Now, having found out from the Missionaries that God wants us all to belong to His Church, would these villagers still have been Catholic, if they had refused to be Catechized, and if they had refused the Sacraments, on the excuse that they were already “Catholic enough,” and that the religion as practiced by their ancestors, being good enough for their ancestors, was good enough for them?

Or would they, in rejecting further information and in rejecting membership in His Church, have been in a situation of actually rejecting the authority of Christ, the God whom their ancestors had been worshipping? (Since, obviously, one cannot obey a commandment that one has never heard of, but one is bound to obey all of those commandments that one knows about.)

 

[MrS]

I would agree.

I completely agree.

Now, having found out from the Missionaries that God wants us all to belong to His Church, would these villagers still have been Catholic, if they had refused to be Catechized, and if they had refused the Sacraments, on the excuse that they were already “Catholic enough,” and that the religion as practiced by their ancestors, being good enough for their ancestors, was good enough for them?

Or would they, in rejecting further information and in rejecting membership in His Church, have been in a situation of actually rejecting the authority of Christ, the God whom their ancestors had been worshipping? (Since, obviously, one cannot obey a commandment that one has never heard of, but one is bound to obey all of those commandments that one knows about.)

the answer might just be in the difference between a conscience and a well formed conscience. Parents and proper up bringing can sure be important…

are the receivers of the Good News even able to accept?

 

[jmcrae]

the answer might just be in the difference between a conscience and a well formed conscience. Parents and proper up bringing can sure be important…

are the receivers of the Good News even able to accept?

Fortunately, in the case of my friend, they were not only able to accept, they were willing and eager to accept.

I’m just wondering what Grace thinks would have happened to them - would they still be Catholic (as they were before the missionaries came) if they had rejected the idea of becoming visible members of the Church?

And perhaps their reason for rejecting it would be if they had been thinking that what was good enough for their ancestors would be good enough for them.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Fortunately, in the case of my friend, they were not only able to accept, they were willing and eager to accept.

I’m just wondering what Grace thinks would have happened to them - would they still be Catholic (as they were before the missionaries came) if they had rejected the idea of becoming visible members of the Church, thinking that what was good enough for their ancestors would be good enough for them.

Those who died before the missionaries came, would still be Catholic even if those who met the missionaries refused to accept the missionaries teachings. And those who did not understand the teachings of the missionaries, if they continued to worship as before even if they refused the missionaries teachings. Only those that agreed with the missionaries that the one they worshipped and the one that the missionaries spoke of were one and the same would not be Catholic for failure to accept the missionaries teachings. I’m not sure that they would however be any less accepted by God for that reason, for if all they were refusing was the authority of the missionaries to label them and they still continued to worship the same as before, their state before God would not really have changed, only their status with the missionaries and the Church.

 

[MrS]

Those who died before the missionaries came, would still be Catholic even if those who met the missionaries refused to accept the missionaries teachings. And those who did not understand the teachings of the missionaries, if they continued to worship as before even if they refused the missionaries teachings. Only those that agreed with the missionaries that the one they worshipped and the one that the missionaries spoke of were one and the same would not be Catholic for failure to accept the missionaries teachings. I’m not sure that they would however be any less accepted by God for that reason, for if all they were refusing was the authority of the missionaries to label them and they still continued to worship the same as before, their state before God would not really have changed, only their status with the missionaries and the Church.

copout…

the first to refuse authority was Satan.

add Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Smith, Walsh, Henry, etc etc, etc…

I suppose you could be right, that their state before God would have not changed… the state of protestor, heretic, or whatever.

 

[jmcrae]

Those who died before the missionaries came, would still be Catholic even if those who met the missionaries refused to accept the missionaries teachings.

True.

And those who did not understand the teachings of the missionaries, if they continued to worship as before even if they refused the missionaries teachings.

True.

Only those that agreed with the missionaries that the one they worshipped and the one that the missionaries spoke of were one and the same would not be Catholic for failure to accept the missionaries teachings. I’m not sure that they would however be any less accepted by God for that reason, for if all they were refusing was the authority of the missionaries to label them and they still continued to worship the same as before, their state before God would not really have changed, only their status with the missionaries and the Church.

So, consciously rejecting a commandment of Christ wouldn’t cause them to lose their relationship with Christ?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

So, consciously rejecting a commandment of Christ wouldn’t cause them to lose their relationship with Christ?

Sure, consciously would.

But in the second scenario you present, it may be that they are not conscious that these missionaries really represent the God they have worshipped, and they are not convinced by the missionaries of it either. So, what are they rejecting. They have been worshipping the truth, if they don’t make the identifiication that they are one and the same, then how could their rejection of the missionaries be the same as a conscious rejection of Christ?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

copout…

the first to refuse authority was Satan.

add Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Smith, Walsh, Henry, etc etc, etc…

I suppose you could be right, that their state before God would have not changed… the state of protestor, heretic, or whatever.

Copout? I provided 4 discreetly different scenario answers.

The difference between Satan and the others you mentioned, Satan never sought to worship God. The others all did.

But you are right. If a heretic, then still a heretic. But in the scenario provided, since we have determined that those who died before the missionaries arrival must be viewed as Catholic, then all who worshipped the same way before the missionaries arrival must have also been Catholic before the missionaries arrival. The only thing that can be accomplished by the arrival of these missionaries is not their salvation (they are already catholic in belief and practice), but their loss of salvation. Before they lived by grace, now it is as if they have had the law revealed to them.

Please don’t read that as an attack on Jesuit missionaries. How often does a missionary visit someone who already has the faith they have come to share with them?

 

[jmcrae]

Sure, consciously would.

But in the second scenario you present, it may be that they are not conscious that these missionaries really represent the God they have worshipped, and they are not convinced by the missionaries of it either. So, what are they rejecting. They have been worshipping the truth, if they don’t make the identifiication that they are one and the same, then how could their rejection of the missionaries be the same as a conscious rejection of Christ?

Okay, I’d like to recap.

In your previous response to this one, you identified three groups of people: the first group, those who died before the missionaries came; the second group, those who heard the missionaries but didn’t understand the teaching, and the third group, those who both heard and understood what the missionaries were teaching.

The first and second group are still Catholic, though lacking visible membership in the Church, because their “cups” (so to speak) are “full” - they are doing the very best that they know how to do.

Here’s your response to the third group - the ones who fully understand the teachings:

You started off by saying,

Only those that agreed with the missionaries that the one they worshipped and the one that the missionaries spoke of were one and the same would not be Catholic for failure to accept the missionaries teachings.

Then you seemed to change your mind, because you then said,

I’m not sure that they would however be any less accepted by God for that reason, for if all they were refusing was the authority of the missionaries to label them and they still continued to worship the same as before, their state before God would not really have changed, only their status with the missionaries and the Church.

Remember, we are speaking here about people who understand fully what it is that they are rejecting, which is why I then asked,

So, consciously rejecting a commandment of Christ wouldn’t cause them to lose their relationship with Christ?

Since if they know that the missionaries are coming with Christ’s words, then they would be aware that rejecting the invitation to join Christ’s Church would be the same thing as rejecting Christ - especially since, after four months of Inquiry-level catechesis, they would have certainly been exposed to the Scriptures and to the history of the Church.

So, I think I want to put the question into different words. I want to ask,

If someone knows that Christ founded a Church, and that that Church is still with us here today, would that person not be rejecting Christ Himself, by refusing to become a member of His Church? Remember, I am assuming that the person knows for a fact that this Church exists, and is being given an opportunity to become a member of it.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Okay, I’d like to recap.

In your previous response to this one, you identified three groups of people: the first group, those who died before the missionaries came; the second group, those who heard the missionaries but didn’t understand the teaching, and the third group, those who both heard and understood what the missionaries were teaching.

The first and second group are still Catholic, though lacking visible membership in the Church, because their “cups” (so to speak) are “full” - they are doing the very best that they know how to do.

Here’s your response to the third group - the ones who fully understand the teachings:

You started off by saying,

Then you seemed to change your mind, because you then said,

Remember, we are speaking here about people who understand fully what it is that they are rejecting, which is why I then asked,

Since if they know that the missionaries are coming with Christ’s words, then they would be aware that rejecting the invitation to join Christ’s Church would be the same thing as rejecting Christ - especially since, after four months of Inquiry-level catechesis, they would have certainly been exposed to the Scriptures and to the history of the Church.

So, I think I want to put the question into different words. I want to ask,

If someone knows that Christ founded a Church, and that that Church is still with us here today, would that person not be rejecting Christ Himself, by refusing to become a member of His Church? Remember, I am assuming that the person knows for a fact that this Church exists, and is being given an opportunity to become a member of it.

Ah sorry. I see what you are saying.

I was up late last night and early this morning. I think I may have just hit the wall halfway through thinking about that post. For the present, I’ll stand by the first post before I revised what I was saying, but tomorrow I reserve the right to reconsider all those points without prejudice. For tonight, I think that I’m probably headed for an early supper and then maybe even bed.

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoy this type of probing much more than the earlier debating which seemed to be mostly staking out a position and digging in one’e heals. Doubt if we will change anyone’s overall view. But that isn’t always the point, at least not with me. I also find value in just learning how other people think when they think and sometimes even process differently than me.

Peace, all.

 

[Aramis]

In the case of the African Village:

It does not matter if they are “catholic” or not prior to being accepted. The doctrine of Individual Judgement and the Final Judgement means that, if they had accepted the One True God, and acted in accord with his wishes, and kept holy his name, they could be in heaven at death; if not, but not found to be guilty of the unforgivable sins, then they see God, find their pennance in purgatory, and eventually either face the final judgement at the end of time, or complete their pennance in Purgatory, and are accepted into full communion with the Lord. (Based upon the 6th grade Catechism Text in use at St. Andrew Catholic Church, Eagle River, AK, last year.)

Only one is KNOWN to be bound to Hell. Satan. The rest, well, there are those we may suspect, but…

 

[believers]

Okay, I’d like to recap.

In your previous response to this one, you identified three groups of people: the first group, those who died before the missionaries came; the second group, those who heard the missionaries but didn’t understand the teaching, and the third group, those who both heard and understood what the missionaries were teaching.

The first and second group are still Catholic, though lacking visible membership in the Church, because their “cups” (so to speak) are “full” - they are doing the very best that they know how to do.

Here’s your response to the third group - the ones who fully understand the teachings:

You started off by saying,

Then you seemed to change your mind, because you then said,

Remember, we are speaking here about people who understand fully what it is that they are rejecting, which is why I then asked,

Since if they know that the missionaries are coming with Christ’s words, then they would be aware that rejecting the invitation to join Christ’s Church would be the same thing as rejecting Christ - especially since, after four months of Inquiry-level catechesis, they would have certainly been exposed to the Scriptures and to the history of the Church.

So, I think I want to put the question into different words. I want to ask,

If someone knows that Christ founded a Church, and that that Church is still with us here today, would that person not be rejecting Christ Himself, by refusing to become a member of His Church? Remember, I am assuming that the person knows for a fact that this Church exists, and is being given an opportunity to become a member of it.

What is your definition of whosoever?

 

[believers]

In the case of the African Village:

It does not matter if they are “catholic” or not prior to being accepted. The doctrine of Individual Judgement and the Final Judgement means that, if they had accepted the One True God, and acted in accord with his wishes, and kept holy his name, they could be in heaven at death; if not, but not found to be guilty of the unforgivable sins, then they see God, find their pennance in purgatory, and eventually either face the final judgement at the end of time, or complete their pennance in Purgatory, and are accepted into full communion with the Lord. (Based upon the 6th grade Catechism Text in use at St. Andrew Catholic Church, Eagle River, AK, last year.)

Only one is KNOWN to be bound to Hell. Satan. The rest, well, there are those we may suspect, but…

Would you kindly explain what it means to “accept the One True God”?
How does one “act in accord with his wishes”?
How do you “keep holy his name”?

Please provide scripture references too. Thanks!

 

[mark_a]

If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist (just allow for the conjecture, no one is trying to attack the Catholic Church with the question, or deny any of your long standing views of it permanence), If the Catholic Church were to cease to exist, would that also mean that the Church of Jesus Christ had ceased to exist? Or would the Church of Jesus Christ continue to exist in and through the other epxressions of Christian believers who are members of other faith communities, fellowships, and communions?

Hello again Grace Seeker,

In my humble opinion, the Church would continue to exist, because the Catholic Church teaches:

• being baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit brings you into Christianity
• near the end of time, after a mass conversion of Jews, the Catholic Church will nearly meet it demise
  Now I ask you: Does your denomination accept Catholic baptism? Many, many Protestant denoms do not.

Who is trying to be exclusive and who is not?

Keep that eye on those moral teachings of the see of Peter. There are differences between Catholics and non-Catholics.

 

[Aramis]

Would you kindly explain what it means to “accept the One True God”?
How does one “act in accord with his wishes”?
How do you “keep holy his name”?

Please provide scripture references too. Thanks!

See Exodous, chapter 20. (10 commandments) (usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm)

See also Matthew, chapter 5, for a good start.
(usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm)

My understanding of the specific and final judgement is based in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC Items 1021-1041
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1021

Of course, a good part of that secton is based in Revelations.

 

[nerfherder]

Yes, because there is only One Church, One Lord, One faith, One baptism. There is no other Church except the one Christ founded. If any have established what they believe is such a thing, then it is counterfeit, and is not, in truth, part of the Body of Christ.

Grace Seeker (#289) Go for it. I am with you all the way. Do not however let yourself be the sole focus of this thread: it is utterly wearing, and no one will stop questioning, challenging, attacking. Stay away from defense; stay on the offence.

See also Guanophore’s new thread (after me) on the supremacy of the Church of Rome.

Guan, this is not worthy of you!

 

[believers]

See Exodous, chapter 20. (10 commandments) (usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus20.htm)

See also Matthew, chapter 5, for a good start.
(usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm)

My understanding of the specific and final judgement is based in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC Items 1021-1041
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#1021

Of course, a good part of that secton is based in Revelations.

Justification does not come by keeping the Law of Moses. It only comes by the belief in the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. The death, burial, and resurrection. But it doesn’t end with belief, you MUST repent from sin.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Hbr 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.