Reconciled works…
Thanks.
Not so fast, Dion.
Are you a sufficiently instructed in regard to the Vatican Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite?
All in the spirit of talking within the ambit of faith or beliefs of religion, may I remind you that:
You must not forget that you have got to accept certain very quintessential dogmas and you have got to be baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Well, what do you say about that? And don’t forget also to tell me what you mean by being saved.
Best regards,
Susma Rio Sep
So that would mean our Jewish brothers and sisters (as one example) are S.O.L? :dubious:
Well, that’s not exactly true. The standpoint of the Catholic church is that their dogmas are objectively true, and that baptism imbues a person with sanctifying grace, but the Catholic Church has also said since the council of Trent that there exists what’s known as a “baptism of desire”…that there may be cases where a person loves God and really seeks to serve Him, but for some reason outside his control, dies before he is baptized, and that person will go to heaven.
Also, more recently, the Catholic Church has taught that, while it alone represents the fullness of God’s Church, other religions have, to a greater or lesser extent, some truth value, and represent a desire to serve God, so a person who’s a member of the other religion may, assuming he has a real desire to serve God, to the best of his knowledge, gain some form of grace that way.
Finally, the Catholic Church has stated many times that it doesn’t have the power to close the gates of heaven, or in other words “The Church says who is in heaven, but never who is in hell.” God has the power to let anyone into heaven, and to say that a certain person is in hell, for whatever reason, limits God’s mercy.
No, you don’t have to accept specific dogmas other than Christ as Savior, (even that can have a broad interpretation) and baptism does not have to be in water. A “purification” by the Holy Spirit is also acceptable, and even non-Catholic baptismal rituals are accepted as “imperfect,” but adequate. (but the Catholic way is still required to become a Catholic).
In Catholicism, salvation is an act of God, not man, and God may choose to grace whomever he pleases. It’s not a question of what non-Catholics can do get saved, it’s about not limiting God by defining who he can’t save.
The catholic definition of “salvation” is that it encompasses the entire process from baptism, through a life of faith and sacraments to Heaven. A shorter definition may be redemption from sins, but no one is “saved” in the past tense while they are alive.
Oh, here’s a part from the Catechism about baptism, btw…
O.K., baptism by desire is good enough, whatever the subject even suspects anything about baptism whether by water, by blood, or by desire. Have you ever read of the story about baptism by sand, for guys who really know about baptism by water but find themselve in the desert with nothing but sand. That’s for comic relief. O.K., they can get on with baptism by desire.
Now, what about knowing the God of their salvation?
Are they not supposed to know something very quintessential about God and His nature and His number of persons and the role of the Son incarnate on earth to save mankind? How can people be interested in things they don’t know whatsoever? I seem to have learned about logical impossibility of salvation for people who don’t know nothing about the Christian God of the commonly taught one among the ‘traditional’ Christian establishments.
All in the spirit of inquiry on the assumption of faith or religious beliefs in Christendom – of course.
Susma Rio Sep
Well, one thing I do know-Catholics are not to assume that they are “saved”, because that’s the sin of presumption-and it leads one to take their salvation for granted, and just assume God will forgive them, without making an effort not to sin.
And yes, it was Feeney I was thinking of, thanks.
Well, the answer to that would be that everyone innately knows God…that there is in the human soul a basic knowledge of our Creator, even if it’s not a full knowledge. Or, as the catechism puts it:
And, no, if a person doesn’t know about the trinity or some basic belief of the Catholic church, he can’t be held responsible for not believing in them. Like the catechism quotes (bolding mine):
There may be some Christian group who held those beliefs, but it was not the RCC. As far back as Augustine of Hippo church theologians were recognizing that membership in the church could not be considered a requirement of salvation. In fact, it is the very fact that so many people were clearly ignorant of the Gospel message and the realization that a just God could not legitimately damn them for simply not knowing what they could not know that initiated the whole discussion of “baptism of desire.” Later discussions introduced the concept of “inculpable ignorance” in which a person might have technically heard the words of the Gospel preached, but who, through no fault of their own (inculpable), could not recognize the truth of the Gospels.
While there may have been some individual Catholics who held “Outside the Church, there is no salvation” to be a clear statement that one had to be a practiing Catholic to be saved, it has simply not been a teaching of the church at any time.
I think I understand the question. Take, for example, the good atheist. Despire his (or) her serious flaw in believing in the absence of God (which from a Catholic point of view amounts to a minor neurosis), that this person responds to the innate essence of the Word as expressed in the goodness of morality inherent in all mankind is suppsoed to be sufficient for salvation.
In Short: God gives out lots of effort points.
Well…, not that I am against the gates of heavens being opened as wide and as long, before and after the salvific mission of Christ, but the way all of us here or a good number are inclined to maintain that the Catholic Church really does not exclude anyone from heaven, meaning being saved, doesn’t it make the Catholic Church practically for the most important job it is supposed to be engaged in, namely: dispensable?
Take care now, those of us who are committed Catholics, unlike yours truly who is a postgraduate one, the Catholic Church might end up an extinct species, if everyone can get saved the Catholic way without getting into the Catholic registry of conversion and thereby adscription to the Catholic roster.
When I was a kid in our neighborhood, we a few of us wanted to form a very exclusive gang. But since we each have many friends in the neighborhood; so we started compromising in order that each could bring in his friends who also happened to be also friends of the others or friends of their friends. The end result is that there was no exclusive club at the end of the day.
Again, not that I have any objections against anyone getting to heaven. If you ask me, I am more curious about what we are going to get once we arrive there.
Susma Rio Sep
I’m not sure that the model of “exclusive club” is the correct one for Heaven, Susma, especially when you consider that the Club President is known for His Divine Mercy.
It seems to me much more likely that Heaven will be a club open to almost all. This does not make the Church dispensible; it does mean that Catholics are not the only ones who can carry membership cards.
- Rick
Only if one chooses to see its “job” as gatekeeper. The better model is the “light to the world” by which it preaches the message for all people to improve their actions and turn their hearts to God. (Not that the church has always been the best example of what it should be, of course).
More on “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, all you guys here who have taken more than your minimum of theology units in college, are you conversant with the requirement for guys outside the parish registry, namely, for them to get to heaven – of course the Catholic one?
Tell me if I am wrong. OK here goes. For all kinds of guys anywhere who are not registered in any parish records of baptism anywhere and who happen to know of the presence of the Catholic faith, as in the presence of so much as Catholic churchgoers in the neighborhood, they are bound to investigate whether the Catholic faith is the genuine true authentic duly founded by Jesus Christ church to be the way to heaven; if they don’t take the trouble, they are dead.
Don’t get me wrong, though; I don’t subscribe to that policy. I am just relaying what I was taught in the Catholic university where I did my college work.
(Ha, Ha, Ha, being funny, not wicked. But forgive me just the same for being so ‘wicked’ . . . )
Susma Rio Sep
What elements do you think are “quintessential,” SRS? That Christ died for your sins? That Christ is Lord? That there is one God? That He exists as the Holy Trinity? That we should continue in the Apostles’ fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers? That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are incomprehensible? That there are two natures in one person in Christ? That Christ is really present in the Eucharist? That the proper way to describe that presence is transubstantiation? That Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven?
Me, I take my stand with Francis Thompson – whom God is willing to save, He seeks after and will not quit.
I must confess, dear Polycarp, that I seem to have lost my Catholic faith down the years. No, not due to any kind of dissolute living – at the risk of falling into the trap of Phariseeism – I think and I see myself to have always lived a more decent life than many a solidly faithful Catholic.
Now I consider myself a postgraduate Catholic. Not a heretic but more of an apostate. What’s that, an apostate? One who has, as you know, abandoned his faith, according to my Catholic education. There are two kinds(?), the ones who simply stopped believing and the ones who passed to another religion, not just to another Christian persuasion. I belong to the first kind.
I read somewhere recently in a post from you, that you are an Anglican. No offense intended, but being so learned in religious teachings of various Christian persuasions and in other religions, are you aware that in the eye of the Vatican Roman Catholic Church – and to be repetitious, of the Latin Rite, Anglicans including Episcopalians of the U.S. are schismatics who are now also heretics.
Don’t you think you should examine most carefully whether you should convert or return to the Vatican Roman Catholic Church?
Susma Rio Sep
Schismatics & heretics?
Good grief.
Please check your calendar and then go find a book written recently, perhaps the latest Catechism would be of some use.
In point of fact, Suma, I did study Catholicism, starting at age 16 when the parents of friends, themselves converts, taught me many of the basics of Catholci doctrine.
I will also note that I had a conversion experience in true Evangelical fashion, and conceive that if God had wanted me to be elsewhere than as a part of the Episcopal Church, he had only to say so.
As a final note, Anglicans generally were excommunicated in 1570 by a Pope incensed that Elizabeth I was standing against the claims of Philip II – we never left; you kicked us out.
“Behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile.”
No, no, not I, I never kicked anyone out from anywhere, unless I had invited him in first and then I found him to be a regrettable guest.
The Vatican, they did that.
In more recent decades, they have not been kicking out people as easily as before. You know why? Pragmatic considerations I suppose, now that it’s finding iself more and more irrelevant in the world of power and influence.
Susma Rio Sep