The concept of Purgatory in Catholicism.

[Sam_777]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Purgatory4.png

It sounds logic to me, and its different that the concept that we have in Islam, however, according to CCC#841, Muslims will be included in the plan of salvation, does it mean that those Muslims souls with mortal sins will also go to hell, if that is the case then how to differentiate between Islamic mortal sin & the Christian one, for example polygamy is adultery in Christianity and considered as a mortal sin, thus, does that mean Muslims with more than one wife would end in hell?

 

[water]

Nice chart, and here is the definition of mortal sins; it will help answer your questions.

saintaquinas.com/mortal_sin.html

 

[ralphinal]

That chart is correct.

Now, for your other question about Muslims. As near as I can tell from Church teaching, Muslims are judged based on a slightly different set of criteria than Christians. They do posses some of the Truth, but for whatever reason not all of it. Now, they will be judged according to how well they respond to God’s grace in their lives, not according to the Quran or anything like that. If they respond ina manner that is according to salvation, they go to heaven or purgatory. If not, hell. A faithful Muslim may or may not receive God’s grace. It is a case by case thing.

IN order for something to be a mortal sin, the person must know that it is a sin and choose to commit it anyway. The sin itself must also be grave or serious matter. This would mean that most non-Christians are not able to commit mortal sins. However, this is not the case. There are certain sins that are written on the hearts, and almost everyone accepts them as serious sin. INcest is one example. Also, to choose to go against your conscience may be a mortal sin, depending on the case. For example, a person who sees the Truth in Christianity but chooses to ignore it, even though their soul tells them to accept Jesus.

 

[ckempston]

My understanding is that since Muslims are not Baptized (obviously), they would be denied the Beatific Vision, even if they were not sent to Hell.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

My understanding is that since Muslims are not Baptized (obviously), they would be denied the Beatific Vision, even if they were not sent to Hell.

If God saves those who, through no fault of their own, do not accept Christ and the church, they would end up in heaven. Since God is merciful, we hope that the salvation won by Christ would be somehow available to them. Probably they would be judged on how well they followed the law written in their hearts. However, we don’t have details about this. But if they are saved, they would have the beatific vision.

 

[ralphinal]

My understanding is that since Muslims are not Baptized (obviously), they would be denied the Beatific Vision, even if they were not sent to Hell.

Clare is correct on her response. The understanding that you have is tied to the concept of limbo as well as what was commonly thought in past centuries. A good example of this is in Dante’s Inferno, where rightous pagans are close to heaven and totally happy, but they miss being in God’s presence. Although there are some valid reasons to think this, one being the lack of baptism, there is no proof for a third eternal state to go with heaven and hell. Basically, even without baptism, should God choose that some be saved, they will be there with those who are Christian on earth.

 

[Hesychios]

That chart is correct.

Quite so, from the Latin Catholic perspective. It seems to represent the attitude and assumptions quite accurately.

It is not representative of Orthodox Catholic thinking.

Now, for your other question about Muslims. As near as I can tell from Church teaching, Muslims are judged based on a slightly different set of criteria than Christians. They do posses some of the Truth, but for whatever reason not all of it. Now, they will be judged according to how well they respond to God’s grace in their lives, not according to the Quran or anything like that. If they respond ina manner that is according to salvation, they go to heaven or purgatory. If not, hell. A faithful Muslim may or may not receive God’s grace. It is a case by case thing.

IN order for something to be a mortal sin, the person must know that it is a sin and choose to commit it anyway. The sin itself must also be grave or serious matter. This would mean that most non-Christians are not able to commit mortal sins. However, this is not the case. There are certain sins that are written on the hearts, and almost everyone accepts them as serious sin. INcest is one example. Also, to choose to go against your conscience may be a mortal sin, depending on the case. For example, a person who sees the Truth in Christianity but chooses to ignore it, even though their soul tells them to accept Jesus.

Is this a formally defined dogmatic position? How does this opinion reconcile with these other opinions expressed earlier by Popes? Would that fall under development?

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam - Boniface VIII Bishop of Rome)

“It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41],* unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church;*
and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino - Eugene IV Bishop of Rome)

Pretty strong stuff, this. I am having a hard time reconciling the sense of these statements with yours.

My understanding is that since Muslims are not Baptized (obviously), they would be denied the Beatific Vision, even if they were not sent to Hell.

Sorta seems like it, at a minimum. But the quotes above seem to be taking the harder stance.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

 

[ralphinal]

Quite so, from the Latin Catholic perspective. It seems to represent the attitude and assumptions quite accurately.

It is not representative of Orthodox Catholic thinking.
Is this a formally defined dogmatic position? How does this opinion reconcile with these other opinions expressed earlier by Popes? Would that fall under development?

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam - Boniface VIII Bishop of Rome)

“It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41],* unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church;*
and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino - Eugene IV Bishop of Rome)

Pretty strong stuff, this. I am having a hrd time reconciling the sense of these statements with yours.

Sorta seems like it.

Pax et Bonum,
Michael

No salvation outside the Church works basically like this. First, if you accept Jesus is who he claimed to be AND you accept that the Church that he founded was the Catholic Church, and you choose to walk away from it, you are damned unless you repent. If through no fault of your own you do not accept either of these points, and you can have no culpability in not knowing or accepting, there is still hope for your salvation through the mercy of God.

When the second quote you printed was issued, the understanding at that time was that the Church had evangilized the whole world and anyone who was not Catholic had chosen that path despite the Truth. In reality, the Americas had not been discovered and we had done a poor job in evangilizing, anyway.

There are a lot of reasons that someone would not accept one or both of the points. Those reasons include lack of exposure or lack of proper teaching or explination. It is not a sign of a merciful God to damn people because they were born in 900 a.d. in what is now Mexico.

It should also be pointed out that we have an understanding that the Church is the earthly “distributor” of grace, so to speak. The prayers of the Church for the salvation of all do not go unheard by God.

We also understand that all baptisms are the same, so long as they are done in the Trinitarian formula and with water.

Now, for the first quote, that bull was issued to assert the Church’s place within the rule of law, especially and specifically with Philip the Fair of France. The idea was that even secular rulers have to answer to the Church and to God. Yes, there is some mention of the Greek Schism, and the words are clear. However, can it be said that this would only apply to those who know about Rome? Again, were the Aztecs damned because of bad timing?

 

[ckempston]

No salvation outside the Church works basically like this. First, if you accept Jesus is who he claimed to be AND you accept that the Church that he founded was the Catholic Church, and you choose to walk away from it, you are damned unless you repent. If through no fault of your own you do not accept either of these points, and you can have no culpability in not knowing or accepting, there is still hope for your salvation through the mercy of God.

When the second quote you printed was issued, the understanding at that time was that the Church had evangilized the whole world and anyone who was not Catholic had chosen that path despite the Truth. In reality, the Americas had not been discovered and we had done a poor job in evangilizing, anyway.

There are a lot of reasons that someone would not accept one or both of the points. Those reasons include lack of exposure or lack of proper teaching or explination. It is not a sign of a merciful God to damn people because they were born in 900 a.d. in what is now Mexico.

It should also be pointed out that we have an understanding that the Church is the earthly “distributor” of grace, so to speak. The prayers of the Church for the salvation of all do not go unheard by God.

We also understand that all baptisms are the same, so long as they are done in the Trinitarian formula and with water.

Now, for the first quote, that bull was issued to assert the Church’s place within the rule of law, especially and specifically with Philip the Fair of France. The idea was that even secular rulers have to answer to the Church and to God. Yes, there is some mention of the Greek Schism, and the words are clear. However, can it be said that this would only apply to those who know about Rome? Again, were the Aztecs damned because of bad timing?

I see no connection, or relevance, to the evangelization of the world. This seems to me to be a rather large change in teaching on “faith and morals” which Catholics claim doesn’t happen within their church. The fact that an excuse always seems to be found ex post facto, “Oh, he wasn’t really speaking ex cathedra” sounds a lot like a cop out and an attempt to rescue the church from obvious errors.

 

[ralphinal]

I see no connection, or relevance, to the evangelization of the world. This seems to me to be a rather large change in teaching on “faith and morals” which Catholics claim doesn’t happen within their church. The fact that an excuse always seems to be found ex post facto, “Oh, he wasn’t really speaking ex cathedra” sounds a lot like a cop out and an attempt to rescue the church from obvious errors.

So, when the Church proclaimed, before the discovery of America, that all non-Catholics were damned, it meant that God put people on earth who had absolutely no chance to get to heaven, as the Gosple had not been taught there yet?

There was no change in the teaching. The change was in the understanding of who has been given the chance to accept Christ.

It is illogical to say that a merciful God who desires the salvation of all would send someone to hell by virtue of the time and place of their birth. The main crux of the statement was to show that those is Schism or who leave the Church are in danger of damnation. It was assumed at that time that everyone knew the Truth of Christ. This is a matter of historical record. They were wrong, so the idea that any non-beleiver chooses to deny the truth is wrong.

 

[ralphinal]

So, when the Church proclaimed, before the discovery of America, that all non-Catholics were damned, it meant that God put people on earth who had absolutely no chance to get to heaven, as the Gosple had not been taught there yet?

There was no change in the teaching. The change was in the understanding of who has been given the chance to accept Christ.

It is illogical to say that a merciful God who desires the salvation of all would send someone to hell by virtue of the time and place of their birth. The main crux of the statement was to show that those is Schism or who leave the Church are in danger of damnation. It was assumed at that time that everyone knew the Truth of Christ. This is a matter of historical record. They were wrong, so the idea that any non-beleiver chooses to deny the truth is wrong.

And I never mentioned that it was not binding or dogmatic. THe statement is both.

 

[ckempston]

And I never mentioned that it was not binding or dogmatic. THe statement is both.

So, what you’re saying is, it’s ok if the Pope teachings incorrectly in matters of faith and morals, so long as that Pope is mistaken through ignorance. GOT IT.

 

[ralphinal]

So, what you’re saying is, it’s ok if the Pope teachings incorrectly in matters of faith and morals, so long as that Pope is mistaken through ignorance. GOT IT.

The pope was quite correct about the statement. What is incorrect is the understanding that you have given it. If someone knows that Jesus is who he claimed to be and knows that he founded the Catholic Chruch, and that person chooses not to be Catholic, there is no hope for him. Likewise, all baptisms are Catholic if they are Trinitarian and use water, with the exception of the LDS, so all baptised Christians are connected to the Church.

It is not that hard to see.

 

[ckempston]

The pope was quite correct about the statement. What is incorrect is the understanding that you have given it. If someone knows that Jesus is who he claimed to be and knows that he founded the Catholic Chruch, and that person chooses not to be Catholic, there is no hope for him. Likewise, all baptisms are Catholic if they are Trinitarian and use water, with the exception of the LDS, so all baptised Christians are connected to the Church.

It is not that hard to see.

That’s not what he says. That’s what you are saying he meant in an attempt to rescue him from error. So, we degrade into the constant bickering about who is allowed to interpret what, ad infinitum.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s not what he says. That’s what you are saying he meant in an attempt to rescue him from error. So, we degrade into the constant bickering about who is allowed to interpret what, ad infinitum.

Not exactly. It is the same as the issue of Conception. Early on, society thought that the soul was infused into the embryo at some point after the conception, say 30 to 45 days. It was known as the quickening. Because of this science, many pious people taught that there was no Immaculate Conception and that abortion,if it were possible during that window, was not the same as if it was after that time. It was still a sin, but of a different order. Now, science tells us that life begins at conception, therefore a soul must be present at that time. The Church has the right to place its doctrines within science as well as placing science within the doctrines. This is no different.

Anyone who should know, should know. Anyone who knows, should belong. No question about it.

 

[ckempston]

Not exactly. It is the same as the issue of Conception. Early on, society thought that the soul was infused into the embryo at some point after the conception, say 30 to 45 days. It was known as the quickening. Because of this science, many pious people taught that there was no Immaculate Conception and that abortion,if it were possible during that window, was not the same as if it was after that time. It was still a sin, but of a different order. Now, science tells us that life begins at conception, therefore a soul must be present at that time. The Church has the right to place its doctrines within science as well as placing science within the doctrines. This is no different.

Anyone who should know, should know. Anyone who knows, should belong. No question about it.

Yeah, I agree with your last statement, except, that’s still not what the quote says. The quote is speaking in absolute terms; it doesn’t leave room for your interpretation, no matter how much historical “context” you try to throw at it. That’s like saying the church wasn’t wrong when it declared that the heliocentric model of the cosmos was counter to Biblical teaching, it was simply mistaken because of the historical context. Sorry, you don’t have that luxury. The church is not supposed to teach incorrectly regarding faith and morals. It did. You can’t possibly expect someone to believe that God miraculously prevents the church from teaching error, except in cases of ignorance? So, are you saying that God didn’t know that there were Native Americans? If He’s guiding the church, and protecting her from error, I don’t see any room for this type of error.

 

[ralphinal]

Yeah, I agree with your last statement, except, that’s still not what the quote says. The quote is speaking in absolute terms; it doesn’t leave room for your interpretation, no matter how much historical “context” you try to throw at it. That’s like saying the church wasn’t wrong when it declared that the heliocentric model of the cosmos was counter to Biblical teaching, it was simply mistaken because of the historical context. Sorry, you don’t have that luxury. The church is not supposed to teach incorrectly regarding faith and morals. It did. You can’t possibly expect someone to believe that God miraculously prevents the church from teaching error, except in cases of ignorance? So, are you saying that God didn’t know that there were Native Americans? If He’s guiding the church, and protecting her from error, I don’t see any room for this type of error.

God inspired the teaching. The teaching is not in error. What is in error is the understanding that you are giving it. Do not forget that this bull was not written in a vacuum. It was during a Ecuminical Council that was attended by LAtin and non-Latin Rite Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox. It was also after years of study and discussion. The pope did not wake up one day and proclaim it. Based on his information, there was no one left to teach, so he wrote the bull the way he did. From this standpoint, it is no different than when the Bible is wrong about science or history. That does not diminish the Truth.

 

[JDHallKY]

Does anyone know where I can find an online copy of Cantate Domino? I did a Google search and found tons of articles and websites quoting that exact paragraph that was quoted earlier in this thread. I would like to look at the whole document. Surely it’s available somewhere, with all the attention that’s been paid to that one paragraph.

 

[ralphinal]

Here is one

catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html

 

[ckempston]

God inspired the teaching. The teaching is not in error. What is in error is the understanding that you are giving it. Do not forget that this bull was not written in a vacuum. It was during a Ecuminical Council that was attended by LAtin and non-Latin Rite Catholics as well as Eastern Orthodox. It was also after years of study and discussion. The pope did not wake up one day and proclaim it. Based on his information, there was no one left to teach, so he wrote the bull the way he did. From this standpoint, it is no different than when the Bible is wrong about science or history. That does not diminish the Truth.

I disagree. Not much else to say.