J
jmcrae
Guest
And if we are not, may we have the grace to accept their fate, rather than cry about it, or think that something better could have happened.
- Status
D
drafdog
Guest
I think that we will all be surprised at the people we do meet in heaven. Someone above posted something about rejecting God and His Church as a criterion for condemnation. Since very few actually reject God, including most atheists who in fact have not sufficient passion to reject truly, the fact that people reject the Church is insufficient to merit condemnation. And if they reject God’s Church, whose fault is that? We are responsible for the image the world at large has of the Church.
Matthew
Matthew
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am speaking of well-educated people who really do know better. If there is such a thing as “invincible ignorance,” these people don’t have it. They are my relatives; they have the same opportunities that I had. I converted - if I had enough information, then so do they.
S
stmaria
Guest
I have read where Billy Graham believes that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Google his name and you can see how he is blasted because he tells anyone who is Catholic to stay in the Catholic Church. Clearly he is not invincibly ignorant.
But I have to believe that he will one day be in heaven. He has led many to Christ and has led many to lead solid moral lives. If one can be saved by Faith and good works, surely he will be. This is where the belief in purgatory gives me hope for those good people that cannot accept the Catholic Church. In the end it is up to God.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
My feeling, and I may be wrong, is that people can be ignorant about Christianity even if they have been told a lot about it. Head knowledge is hollow and insufficient. One would have had to really experience some of its spiritual realities or have had the Holy Spirit illuminate one’s understanding to the truth of Catholicism in order to be truly aware of it. Then, one is guilty if one rejects it.
Some people think that Christianity involves a tyrannical God, and many have all kinds of misconceptions about Catholicism and about Christianity. If they have some head knowledge about it, does that make them any less ignorant, really?
Gaining some head knowledge, or even a lot of head knowledge, about a subject is not enough to make them guilty if they reject it, in my view. It’s spiritual knowledge that really matters. Because otherwise they know things without really knowing them.
Lucifer really knew what he was rejecting. So did Judas. They had no blinders- God had revealed to them his truth in a way that powerfully impacted their lives. The truth was made clear to them, and they rejected it after it was made clear. That was a terrible offense justly condemned. However, if a person grows up in some other religion and learns some things about Catholicism, but never really gets into it or has any interest in it, often that person hasn’t heard the Holy Spirit speak to him about the religion.
For instance, Christ revealed himself to me at the age of fifteen, and I came to know him then. Now, he is leading me toward Catholicism. I am twenty-two. For seven years, I knew Christ without knowing him through Catholicism but through Protestantism. I had some knowledge of Catholicism, but I felt no pull whatsoever toward it from the Holy Spirit.
At the age of 21, however, I felt a mighty pull from the Holy Spirit toward Catholicism. I investigated it and have found it to contain immense truth that I lacked in the Protestant faith. I intend to become a Catholic one day. If I now, with my present knowledge, rejected Catholicism, I feel that I would be rejecting the word of my Lord. I would be directly saying no to a voice I know to belong to God. Therefore I would be justly condemned, with Judas and Lucifer and all the damned.
Now I know these truths spiritually. In the past, I only knew many of these things about Catholicism on a purely intellectual level. The purely intellectual level of knowledge is one of blindness. A person who is blind cannot be condemned justly, unless they purposefully chose their blindness. Many Protestants do not. They are blinded by their culture and upbringing, and they certainly don’t desire to be blind in the ways that they are, but they are nevertheless blind.
Now, I am convinced that I see. If I turned from what has been revealed to me now, I would be justly condemned, for God has revealed to me the truth of Catholicism, so now I know it to be true.
In the past, though, I just had head knowledge. I didn’t know Catholicism to be the true church, and I didn’t have a strong reason to believe that either, for God had not revealed it to me yet. God doesn’t condemn people for errors but for sins. And sin is opposing the will of God. If God has not made clear to a person that his will is that the person become Catholic, then that person is not knowingly opposing the will of God, even if he has lots of head knowledge about Catholicism.
One can have read all the dogmas of the church, have read through the whole Bible and all the Early Church Fathers, and still be in a state of spiritual ignorance. Not intellectual ignorance, but spiritual ignorance, and it’s that spiritual ignorance that absolves the person of responsibility.
Meanwhile, if a person has read just two verses from the Bible and has no other knowledge about Catholicism, and yet has been powerfully shown by God that what he is reading is true, then the person condemns himself if he turns away from what he has learned through those two verses. If we reject the words of our God made clear to our minds, we are condemned. If we reject what God has not made clear to us, even if we have lots of human knowledge about the subject, we are not condemned.
Some people think that Christianity involves a tyrannical God, and many have all kinds of misconceptions about Catholicism and about Christianity. If they have some head knowledge about it, does that make them any less ignorant, really?
Gaining some head knowledge, or even a lot of head knowledge, about a subject is not enough to make them guilty if they reject it, in my view. It’s spiritual knowledge that really matters. Because otherwise they know things without really knowing them.
Lucifer really knew what he was rejecting. So did Judas. They had no blinders- God had revealed to them his truth in a way that powerfully impacted their lives. The truth was made clear to them, and they rejected it after it was made clear. That was a terrible offense justly condemned. However, if a person grows up in some other religion and learns some things about Catholicism, but never really gets into it or has any interest in it, often that person hasn’t heard the Holy Spirit speak to him about the religion.
For instance, Christ revealed himself to me at the age of fifteen, and I came to know him then. Now, he is leading me toward Catholicism. I am twenty-two. For seven years, I knew Christ without knowing him through Catholicism but through Protestantism. I had some knowledge of Catholicism, but I felt no pull whatsoever toward it from the Holy Spirit.
At the age of 21, however, I felt a mighty pull from the Holy Spirit toward Catholicism. I investigated it and have found it to contain immense truth that I lacked in the Protestant faith. I intend to become a Catholic one day. If I now, with my present knowledge, rejected Catholicism, I feel that I would be rejecting the word of my Lord. I would be directly saying no to a voice I know to belong to God. Therefore I would be justly condemned, with Judas and Lucifer and all the damned.
Now I know these truths spiritually. In the past, I only knew many of these things about Catholicism on a purely intellectual level. The purely intellectual level of knowledge is one of blindness. A person who is blind cannot be condemned justly, unless they purposefully chose their blindness. Many Protestants do not. They are blinded by their culture and upbringing, and they certainly don’t desire to be blind in the ways that they are, but they are nevertheless blind.
Now, I am convinced that I see. If I turned from what has been revealed to me now, I would be justly condemned, for God has revealed to me the truth of Catholicism, so now I know it to be true.
In the past, though, I just had head knowledge. I didn’t know Catholicism to be the true church, and I didn’t have a strong reason to believe that either, for God had not revealed it to me yet. God doesn’t condemn people for errors but for sins. And sin is opposing the will of God. If God has not made clear to a person that his will is that the person become Catholic, then that person is not knowingly opposing the will of God, even if he has lots of head knowledge about Catholicism.
One can have read all the dogmas of the church, have read through the whole Bible and all the Early Church Fathers, and still be in a state of spiritual ignorance. Not intellectual ignorance, but spiritual ignorance, and it’s that spiritual ignorance that absolves the person of responsibility.
Meanwhile, if a person has read just two verses from the Bible and has no other knowledge about Catholicism, and yet has been powerfully shown by God that what he is reading is true, then the person condemns himself if he turns away from what he has learned through those two verses. If we reject the words of our God made clear to our minds, we are condemned. If we reject what God has not made clear to us, even if we have lots of human knowledge about the subject, we are not condemned.
S
SD_Catholic
Guest
SFD
Did you read my entire post? (just honestly wondering). But to your statement on the sacraments my question would then be how would someone who’s never been told that they need these sacraments be held accountable for not receiving them? Should I just consider myself lucky (which I do) that I was born to a Catholic family and was taught to receive these sacraments. I’m saying a lot of people never have a reason to doubt their current denomination’s beliefs.
SD
S
SFD
Guest
The sacraments are the ordinary means for the graces we need.
They are not absolutely necessary; but they are the the ordinary channel of those graces and helps to salvation which men commonly stand in need of. And it is not to be easily conceded that God bypasses the economy of salvation which He has established and promulgated. Nor are such people excused from the ordinary duties of prayer to obtain the grace of fidelity to God, perfect contrition to recover grace after grave sin, etc.
SFD
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Not having read all of the threads on this, and just getting to the fifth posted entry, I would strongly suggest that anynomous2 read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Before you quote something as being ex cathedra, etc. etc. it would behoove you to have your facts correct. Thats all.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
S
SFD
Guest
Deacon Ed,
I am NOT supporting the post #5 you mentioned here, but:
The theological “note” given to “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” is de fide.
Are you claiming this is NOT a dogma of the Church?
SFD
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Not at all. Look up its full correct meaning. If you check the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 222 - 224, it even teaches that those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, but live by the natural law written in their hearts can achieve salvation. Also read Romans, 2:12-16. That will give a better understanding of what "outside the Church - no salvation means.
Deacon Ed B
Deacon Ed B
S
SFD
Guest
Deacon Ed,
Actually, many people are quite confused by reading the CCC section you quoted. Since post #5, which you admit you haven’t read, you will find some very good explanations that are much better than the CCC section quoted.
SFD
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Absolutely not ! On the contrary. 
A few points:- How is that any different from the more widespread acceptance that some people are going to hell anyway ? They are sure to be someone’s relatives - so they might as well be the relatives of traditionalists as of any one else.
- Eternity is not a sort of time, any more than a cheese is a sort of elephant. Eternity is non-temporal - it is not time at all. Cheeses & elephants obviously have a lot in common: they are both creatures, they both have material elements, & so on - but they are still very far apart ontologically. Eternity & time are even less alike. As for God & man, they are so utterly without anything in common,or even the possibility of it, that even the possibility of a possibility of any relation whatever between them is possible only by a creative act of God.
But there is no time in Hell, so no end to look forward to - how can that end, which has no beginning, but is nothing except the present ? A kaliyuga BTW is an era lasting 4,320 million million years. A googolplex is a hundred to the hundredth power times a hundred to the hundredth power: so we’re talking about a longish while.The damned want Hell - God is the last thing they want. God is not a sadist - He forces redemption on no one; so the damned are only getting what they are dead set on getting, “come Hell or high water”, as the saying is. And to do one’s damnedest to reject God, is to choose Hell. It is no fault of God that to reject joy & life & bliss, is to embrace misery & death & accursedness; it is the fault of no one but the damned. No one is damned, save by his own deliberate fault - in that respect, it is a punishment. And it is a choice any of us can make.
- It is a great evil that men sin. Sin is what made the devil to be a devil, & not a holy & God-adoring angel. Sin is so evil, that the devil has to disguise itself as what it is not, a holy angel, if it is to deceive us. The Saints in Revelation rejoice because God’s righteous judgements are carried out - & sin is what incurs His judgement. Those in heaven love God so what He hates is intolerable to them, for they love His Will & the fulfilling of it - so they rejoice greatly when His Will is done against sin. And if men love sin & hate Christ, they must take the consequences, which is the judgement of God. Insofar as we sin, we do something supremely inexcusable - we do not have a leg to stand on. God is eternally in the right - to sin, is never right.
- How can anyone be sad that God’s Will is done ? How can that lessen the bliss of the Saints ? For that is what is implied in the question One day, sinners will not be sinners at all - they will either be repentant & redeemed, or on the rubbish-heap outside the eternal City of God. And who pities rubbish ? People talk about “human trash” - & that is what the damned are, as Hell in the Gospel is Gehenna; & Gehenna was named after the smouldering rubbish dump outside Jerusalem.
M
mgrfin
Guest
We will be surprised by who is and who is not in heaven?
We can’t allow sentimentality and emotionalism into the gates of paradise. These are feelings which are a result of our fallen nature.
We will be Blessed; we will be happy. We will be overjoyed with the Will and Mercy, and Love and Justice of almighty God.
His decisions will be our decisions, and we will rejoice in them.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
No, we are not ‘confused’ by the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But we are confused by you sending us to the site of ulta conservative traditional catholics.
You say you don’t hold to these statements that are there, well then don’t send people there on the basis these are better than the ‘confusing’ CCC.
You continue to spread the lies and the heresy of ultra conservatism, which ought to be condemned outright.
Readers here should be aware that you are trying to steer people to these false theories.
The CCC is not confusing, as you claim. It is the accepted Catholic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
peace
M
mgrfin
Guest
S
SFD
Guest
mgrfin,
The sacraments are the ordinary means…do you deny baptism of blood and of desire? They (baptism of blood and of desire) are not sacraments themselves although they do give the sanctifying grace required for salvation.
SFD
S
SFD
Guest
mgrfin,
It’s a well known DOGMA of the Church…except you don’t know it…telling, I’d say.
A Dogma is always De Fide.
SFD
- Status