To those with conservative views on salvation

[TMC]

TMC,
What part of the below quote do you disagree with? Be careful…because it is based on the Church’s teaching and that can be proven.

I have no idea where that quote comes from or why I should need to “be careful” in opining on it. It seems an odd recitation of the Catholic faith, if that is what it is meant to be. I don’t disagree with any of the four things listed there. I don’t disagree that to be saved one must have the “disposition to believe what God has revealed”, although this is a virtually meaningless statement because you would be hard pressed to find anyone that is not, the issue is knowing and understanding what God has revealed. If everyone agreed on that we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

That brings us to the last bit of the quote. That part seems to say that God will reveal the four things listed to anyone open to receive them. I would like to know where this comes from, because that seems objectively wrong. Certainly there were plenty of early Christians that did not know of the triune nature of God. I think they were probably open to their conscience and to God’s revelation. There are plenty of children of Abraham today that do not know the triune nature of God or the Incarnation. Surely some of them are open to God. Even within Catholicism the meaning the triune nature has been debated for, oh about 1600 years. It took some pretty brilliant theologians and inspired Saints to bring these doctrines Christians, I don’t know anyone that just sort of groked trinitarianism or the Incarnation out of their conscience. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the quote.

 

[TMC]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is a Dogma of the Church. The proper understanding of that Dogma is what is at issue. The understanding cannot change…there is no “conservative” nor “liberal” interpretation of a Dogma.

SFD

OK. Dogma is dogma, but it is literally impossible to read any set of rules or principles without interpretation. All rules and principle must be applied to presented facts, and none contemplate all possible facts. The question is not whether they can interpreted, because they must be intepreted. The question is how they are interpretted and by whom. The point of my post is that the Church has spoken in the catechism and councilar documents on how to apply EENS, but that some prefer what is often called a ‘conservative’ interpretation. I am not sure what part of that you are disagreeing with.

 

[TMC]

Yes, and it’s heretical as well.

I am not sure I agree with everything jmcrae said in that post, but I don’t see the heresy. What part is heretical and why?

 

[jmcrae]

I am not sure I agree with everything jmcrae said in that post, but I don’t see the heresy. What part is heretical and why?

I would like to know, too.

Does anyone believe that people can go to Hell by accident?

But if not, then, by logical extension, it must be the place that God wills them to be, and since God’s will is all-good, it can only be that Hell is the best of all possible places for those people to be.

 

[Markstorm]

Man sins and separates himself from God by his own free will. Christ’s offer of salvation is open to all, which means that He intended to save all. That some refuse the offer is regrettable, which is why we are commanded to evangelize.

It is not God who wills man to be in Hell.

 

[palmas85]

Well, as much as I agree with what you’re saying, there is also part of me that hesitates to project judgement on others’ eternal destinations, if they are not Catholics. Our role is to accept the graces to help lead souls to Christ–and hopefully, through the Church’s fullness of the faith. But other than that–it is hard for us to speculate who will be in Heaven. Someone on their death bed, who is not Catholic, could reach out to Christ, and with his/her whole heart accept Him–and be saved. We just don’t know.

But we do know. Christ has told us. The Church has told us. There really isn’t any issue here at all. Its very simple.

I think that the Church needs once again to stop being afraid to make hard statements about the faith. They need to speak in a clear unambiguous voice. There are absolutes in faith. Its not gray and hard to grasp and understand. Christ Himself said so. No matter how much we as humans may feel that we know a better way or think that God should do something a certain way, it really isn’t up to us. God gave us the roadmap, scripture, he gave us the means, the Church, he gave us the ticket, belief in Christ, and he gave us freewill to either accept or deny them.

I think one needs to look at the reason Christ was born in the first place. He didn’t come here so that we could all believe exactly as we see fit. So we could pick choose and refuse beliefs. No, He came so that we could follow Him. Moreover, we have to follow him. Thats not what I say.

That is what Christ said.

If we don’t do it, except in very very rare cases, it is completely on us. Freewill, the greatest gift and worst enemy God gave us…

 

[Markstorm]

Reading whatevergirl’s post as charitably as I can, I think she’s saying that we cannot speculate about individuals, since any given individual may repent at the moment of death. This is, as far as I know, consistent with Church teaching.

Palmas, your point is well taken, though. Many people are now wondering whether it’s even worth it to evangelize and bring people out of ignorance. Who can blame them, when “invincible ignorance” is abused so much, when it seems like a burden to share with someone the truth?

 

[whatevergirl]

Reading whatevergirl’s post as charitably as I can, I think she’s saying that we cannot speculate about individuals, since any given individual may repent at the moment of death. This is, as far as I know, consistent with Church teaching.

Palmas, your point is well taken, though. Many people are now wondering whether it’s even worth it to evangelize and bring people out of ignorance. Who can blame them, when “invincible ignorance” is abused so much, when it seems like a burden to share with someone the truth?

Yes, thank you Mark…It is what I meant. I appreciate your rewording.

 

[SFD]

Second, if people do go to Hell, the reason this would be allowed is because that is the happiest possible place for them to be. If they were to go to Heaven, they would be even more miserable.

TMC and jmcrae,

The damned suffer the eternal punishment of fire. This is de fide. Do you want sources for it?

SFD

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Second, if people do go to Hell, the reason this would be allowed is because that is the happiest possible place for them to be. If they were to go to Heaven, they would be even more miserable.

Hell is a punishment, not a reward. Those who go to hell will be more miserable than anyone could every imagine.

I’m curious, where did you get your beliefs about hell? Why do you questions whether anyone will go there… especially when Jesus clearly indicated that there will be those on His left who are told “depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting perdition”.

Did you get you views on hell from John Paul II the great; or was it from someone who rose to the level of Bishop or Cardinal while John Paul II the great was in charge of the Church?

 

[SD_Catholic]

But we do know. Christ has told us. The Church has told us. There really isn’t any issue here at all. Its very simple.

I think that the Church needs once again to stop being afraid to make hard statements about the faith. They need to speak in a clear unambiguous voice. There are absolutes in faith. Its not gray and hard to grasp and understand. Christ Himself said so. No matter how much we as humans may feel that we know a better way or think that God should do something a certain way, it really isn’t up to us. God gave us the roadmap, scripture, he gave us the means, the Church, he gave us the ticket, belief in Christ, and he gave us freewill to either accept or deny them.

I think one needs to look at the reason Christ was born in the first place. He didn’t come here so that we could all believe exactly as we see fit. So we could pick choose and refuse beliefs. No, He came so that we could follow Him. Moreover, we have to follow him. Thats not what I say.

That is what Christ said.

If we don’t do it, except in very very rare cases, it is completely on us. Freewill, the greatest gift and worst enemy God gave us…

I understand what is being said and I have to agree on what the Church teaches, but I have a question (not a trap or anything like that just interested on what people think). In the small town in which I live (well do business and attend mass), there are probably 10 different denominations and you don’t see people pushing their religions onto others like you might witness in a bigger city. Everybody knows everybody and all the denominations get along pretty well. I would estimate that 90% or more of the people die as a member of the same denomination in which they were born. Many of the older people have lived here their whole lives. My question is what about these people who know a Catholic Church exists but don’t really see a need to join it because they do not realize the differences between their current denomination and the Catholic Church. I know many of them have probably never been exposed to Catholic teachings or had anyone confront them on what their denomination believes. Also I’m sure most of them would probably believe that what their denomination is teaching is the truth since no one has ever told them different (without a big push from God or others what would cause these people to look elsewhere?) I would think these people would fall into the category of “ignorance” yet a lot of them have a strong desire to be part of God’s Church (and think they are). The problem is that the number of people who fit this description is rather big… atleast where I live . How can someone be held accountable for rejecting a truth they’ve never encountered? It doesn’t seem that just because they know the Catholic Church exists or heard of it should automatically mean that they know it is the true Church. I would assume there are these types of people all over the world and not just limited to a small town.

SD

 

[SFD]

I understand what is being said… I would think these people would fall into the category of “ignorance” yet a lot of them have a strong desire to be part of God’s Church (and think they are). The problem is that the number of people who fit this description is rather big… at least where I live…

SD,

They have no sacraments. The sacraments are the normal means to salvation… the normal means of grace instituted by Christ.

See the Baltimore Catechism:

*121 Q. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it, cannot be saved.

Anyone who knows the Catholic religion to be the true religion and will not embrace it cannot enter into Heaven. If one not a Catholic doubts whether the church to which he belongs is the true Church, he must settle his doubt, seek the true Church, and enter it; for if he continues to live in doubt, he becomes like the one who knows the true Church and is deterred by worldly considerations from entering it.

In like manner one who, doubting, fears to examine the religion he
professes lest he should discover its falsity and be convinced of the truth of the Catholic faith, cannot be saved.

Suppose, however, that there is a non-Catholic who firmly believes that the church to which he belongs is the true Church, and who has never–even in the past–had the slightest doubt of that fact–what will become of him?

If he was validly baptized and never committed a mortal sin, he will be saved; because, believing himself a member of the true Church, he was doing all he could to serve God according to his knowledge and the dictates of his conscience. But if ever he committed a mortal sin, his salvation would be very much more difficult. A mortal sin once committed remains on the soul till it is forgiven. Now, how could his mortal sin be forgiven? Not in the Sacrament of Penance, for the Protestant does not go to confession; and if he does, his minister–not being a true
priest–has no power to forgive sins. Does he know that without
confession it requires an act of perfect contrition to blot out mortal
sin, and can he easily make such an act? What we call contrition is often only imperfect contrition–that is, sorrow for our sins because we fear their punishment in Hell or dread the loss of Heaven. If a Catholic–with all the instruction he has received about how to make an act of perfect contrition and all the practice he has had in making such acts–might find it difficult to make an act of perfect contrition after having committed a mortal sin, how much difficulty will not a Protestant have in making an act of perfect contrition, who does not know about this requirement and who has not been taught to make continued acts of perfect contrition all his life. It is to be feared either he would not
know of this necessary means of regaining God’s friendship, or he would be unable to elicit the necessary act of perfect contrition, and thus the mortal sin would remain upon his soul and he would die an enemy of God.

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to
be the only true Church.

I am giving you an example, however, that is rarely found, except in the case of infants or very small children baptized in Protestant sects. All infants rightly baptized by anyone are really children of the Church, no matter what religion their parents may profess. Indeed, all persons who are baptized are children of the Church; but those among them who deny its teaching, reject its Sacraments, and refuse to submit to its lawful pastors, are rebellious children known as heretics.

I said I gave you an example that can scarcely be found, namely, of a person not a Catholic, who really never doubted the truth of his religion, and who, moreover, never committed during his whole life a mortal sin. There are so few such persons that we can practically say for all those who are not visibly members of the Catholic Church, believing its doctrines, receiving its Sacraments, and being governed by its visible head, our Holy Father, the Pope, salvation is an extremely difficult matter.

I do not speak here of pagans who have never heard of Our Lord or His holy religion, but of those outside the Church who claim to be good Christians without being members of the Catholic Church.

 

[TMC]

TMC and jmcrae,

The damned suffer the eternal punishment of fire. This is de fide. Do you want sources for it?

SFD

I don’t think literal fire is de fide, and I don’t believe that denying de fide teachings is necessarily heresy. If you can show otherwise on either count, go ahead.

 

[jmcrae]

TMC and jmcrae,

The damned suffer the eternal punishment of fire. This is de fide. Do you want sources for it?

SFD

Yes, they do. And this is a greater happiness for them than Heaven would be - which is why they are there.

 

[Markstorm]

Yes, they do. And this is a greater happiness for them than Heaven would be - which is why they are there.

I suppose that “wailing and gnashing of teeth” is just one of many ways to show one’s happiness in a given situation.

 

[jmcrae]

I suppose that “wailing and gnashing of teeth” is just one of many ways to show one’s happiness in a given situation.

Imagine what they would be doing, if God were to force them into Heaven against their will.

Do you think anyone gets to Hell by accident?

 

[SFD]

TMC:

SFD:

TMC and jmcrae,
The damned suffer the eternal punishment of fire. This is de fide. Do you want sources for it?

SFD

I don’t think literal fire is de fide, and I don’t believe that denying de fide teachings is necessarily heresy. If you can show otherwise on either count, go ahead.

Literal fire is de fide. I’ll get the sources for it.

Theological note: Dogma.

Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.

Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.

Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy

Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.

Remarks: A dogma can be proposed either by a solemn definition of pope or council, or by the Ordinary Magisterium, as in the case of the Athanasian Creed, to which the church has manifested her solemn commitment by its long-standing liturgical and practical use and commendation.

On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951), a work which was drafted for use by auditors of the Roman Congregations.

 

[Markstorm]

I quote respectfully from jmcrae:

Imagine what they would be doing, if God were to force them into Heaven against their will.

Do you think anyone gets to Hell by accident?

jmcrae-

I offer this to you for consideration, not because I think you are in a state to be persuaded, but because eventually I hope you will be.

You ask whether anyone gets to Hell by accident. From your previous posts, I assume that you are continuing along the lines of “that which is not an accident is willed by God, and all that is willed by God is good”.

I respond that people get to Hell by their own free will. As you know, God does not control the actions of humans as though they were puppets. Instead, the human mind may decide whether or not to obey God. This ability to make decision and use reason is not an “accident”.

The word “accident” suggests that something was meant to be, but somehow by a fluke or mistake did not come to be. In this sense of the word, it is not an accident that persons get to Hell. But the opposite of “accident” (in this sense) is not “necessity”. So even though a person may get to Hell, he did not do so because God had willed him to go there, but because by his own free will he chose to act and believe in such a way that resulted in Hell. It was not an “accident”, nor a logical necessity, but a result of his own volition.

Now, you say that the damned soul would be even unhappier were God to “force” him to go to Heaven. The fallacy you make here is assuming that the individual directly chooses Hell instead of choosing actions which lead to Hell. At the moment of death, a person is not asked, “okay, regardless of what you’ve done, do you want to go to paradise or eternal torment?” IF it were this way, and the person chooses Hell for some reason, then perhaps he is either ignorant of what torment means, or for some reason he enjoys it (impossible, given the definition of torment). But this is not so.

The choice of Heaven vs. Hell is made by the individual all throughout his life. Moreover, the choice is often NOT clear-cut. The Devil tempts souls into sin, which separates them from God, not straightforwardly but through lies and deceit. Often a person is dragged to sin by their passions, and not because they consciously decide that they do not want to attain Heaven.

I hope we can agree that this does indeed happen. But in this case, the soul is not happier in Hell than in Heaven! Even if the poor soul is damned, it is not because he wanted to be, but because he was not able to control himself. Therefore, your assumption that anyone who goes to Hell would be unhappy if “forced” to go to Heaven is incorrect, because it is highly possible that they would gladly go to Heaven instead.

Think about the parable in Scripture, where the rich man suffers in Hell and asks Abraham to allow him to warn others. He is miserable, and doesn’t want others to share in the same fate!

Perhaps you should reconsider your position.

Pax.

 

[jmcrae]

The reason I have to hope that it is better for them in Hell is because everyone I grew up with is going to go to Hell, and there is nothing I can do about it - God is not doing anything perceptible to convert their hearts, and although I suppose I could drag them kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church through argumentation,they would not have a sincere conversion of heart, and it would do them absolutely no good; they would just be really bad Catholics.

They are “nice” people, but they reject (knowingly, and with full intent) the authority of the Church. If it’s up to me to save them, then they are lost, because I can’t do it. And since God isn’t doing anything for them, what am I supposed to think? This has to be His will for them, and there has to be a good reason for it.

 

[Markstorm]

jmcrae-

I admire that you at least acknowledge the arguments and their conclusion. You state that you cannot accept the conclusion because of what it implies about your family. However, the truth does not change just because we do not like it. Do you think I’m happy about my family being non-Catholic? We must consistently demonstrate our faith, and strive to evangelize them when prudent.

They must choose, of their own will, to respond to Grace. It is no surprise that God does not force them.

May we be successful, through the help of God.

Pax.