next »

CatholiChat

Bible

Catechism

Catholic Encyclopedia

Today's Readings

Advanced search

[Deacon Anthony]

... a final word...

God is 'extraordinary' all the time... if we but have eyes to see and ears to hear. God leads wherever God wants to lead, "For me to live is Christ" ultimately.

Amen! Pax Christi
Chris

Well, I can see you're going to dance around the question so nevermind. 

[Deacon Anthony]

This discussion has me fascinated and I am reading and rereading.  I seem to remember that JP2  was always encouaging ecumenism and I wonder how you see this coming into play here?
Does always showing the differences between our faith and others hamper this movement?  Hope I am not thread jacking here.   Thanks

sharon

Here is the Decree on Ecumenism as promulgated by the 2nd Vatican Council:
 http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/547/Decree_on_Ecumenism_Vatican_II_Unitatis_Redintegratio.html

This is what Pope John Paul II would have meant by ecumenism and this is what the Church teaches.  I think, no I know, that we can't truly love our fellow Christians or Jesus Himself if we think that we should just sit back and deny them the Sacraments and the fulness of the truth, the tools God gave us to aid us in obtaining salvation. We have an obligation given to us by Jesus Christ to bring all peoples in to unity w/ the Church Jesus founded.   

Pope John Paul II many encyclicals on evangelization as well as ecumenism which can be found here..  http://www.usccb.org/pope/writings.htm

Happy reading.   

[Ed NY]

Chris,

Could you please clarify? It seems that when we say a belief is relevant because we believe it to be so, and it is not so relevant when we don't, we imply that the truthfulness of the belief depends directly on the acceptance of people. Thus, we deny the existence of certain truths which hold whether or not people believe them.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1122 Christ sent his apostles so that "repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations." "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The mission to baptize, and so the sacramental mission, is implied in the mission to evangelize, because the sacrament is prepared for by the word of God and by the faith which is assent to this word:

The People of God is formed into one in the first place by the Word of the living God. . . . The preaching of the Word is required for the sacramental ministry itself, since the sacraments are sacraments of faith, drawing their origin and nourishment from the Word.

[Ed NY]

"Secondly, when one does not believe in a Redeemer, how is salvation to be achieved in a person's understanding?"

There is a dangerous level of arrogance, which borders on insulting God, in that question. The suggestion, at the very least implies, that only Christians and particularly Catholics have the possibility of Redemption. Such a suggestion makes a lie out of God's Infinite Mercy and Love for ALL mankind. Such a question/statement clearly suggests that, since Jews do not believe the Messiah has already been, there is no redemption possible for them. That is blatant arrogance and cetainly lacks the basic principles of Christianity.

Yes we are called to Evangelise, not through forcing our beliefs on others - but by our example of LIVING the Teachings of Christ. It's a matter of Christianity in Action - not verbalised.

Terence,

The question I posed was mainly about sanctification, not on who is ultimately saved or not. We all know what the Church teaches about salvation. I believe it and you know it (I don’t know why you’re making these statements). However, a person’s understanding determines his manner of relating to God. There are efficacious means as you well know. Please re-read the statement I made. It says “in a person’s understanding”. Also, please re-read the title of this post. These postings were intended to be about the truths taught by the Catholic Church, specifically about the teachings on the Redeemer.

4  † one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
(The New American Bible) Note the small word ALL

"Rahner's writings have been criticized by Cardinal Ratzinger. Rahner has had his time." If his work is to be dismissed, what then is the position of Cardinal Ratzinger who was openly criticised and corrected several times by Pope John Paul II? Is Cardinal Ratzinger's work to be dismissed too, not withstanding that he is now the Pope.

Terence,

I never criticize the Holy Father. I love both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. We need to be specific as to what Pope John Paul II said before going to big subjective conclusions. We also seem to overlook the fact that Catholic Popes are chosen with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I mentioned Rahner because I believe he is misleading in many cases. Rahner and Cardinal Ratzinger co-authored a book, so obviously, the criticisms were on those things they didn’t work together on. I also suggest you read Cardinal Ratzinger’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” where he praises Eastern religions. That might change your mind about him.

I also disagree profoundly with you when you said that we cannot verbalize what the Church teaches, unless you mean we should type words. This is the internet.

Ed

[Ed NY]

Hi Shar,

There is no intent to neglect the principles of ecumenism. Here is the link to the Vatican II document which Chris quoted:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

It's a great document. However, we need to uphold everything in it, not just those we like.

I also mentioned the Focolare Movement in another series of postings before. It is a movement approved by Pope John XXIII. In case people have forgotten, here is a link to their website:

http://www.rc.net/focolare/

Thanks.
Ed

[Ed NY]

Terence,

You mentioned the Jews. They believe in God's mercy the same way Christians do. I actually had them in mind when I said that when people believe in God's mercy, they explicitly believe in God's redeeming mercy, and implicitly believe in a Redeemer.

Old Testament Scriptures show the need for a Redeemer, because they show that with man's efforts alone, he could not follow the Law consistently.

In the New Testament Scriptures, we are taught about the Law of the Holy Spirit which allows man to live consistently in God's grace, to follow His commandments, and to live out the Beatitudes consistently. What was not possible before is now possible because of God's graces. These are the direct results of the life, death, and resurrection of the Redeemer.

Please ask for clarifications before jumping to conclusions.

Ed

[chris]

Well, I can see you're going to dance around the question so nevermind. 
[/quote]

Yes..."For me to live is Christ" and when one lives in a society where 95% are not catholics... to dance and i'll even sing this...is clearly proclaimation of "go tell everyone" methinks.

Shalom!
Chris

[Deacon Anthony]

95% are not catholics...

Sound like better odds than the apostles had.  Of course they were all killed spreading the Word weren't they?

[Terence IRL]

"Secondly, when one does not believe in a Redeemer, how is salvation to be achieved in a person's understanding? Is "salvation" even an appropriate word? Possibly, one would believe that he/she can enter Heaven through his/her own works or if that fails, he/she would enter Heaven in a manner that is reminiscent of predestination. Also, one could believe instead, without having been taught about a Redeemer, that he/she would be saved through God's mercy. In this case, there is effective denial that a Redeemer does not exist."

That is the thrust of your post - "Isn't this relativism" - and that thrust is bordering on arrogance based on presumptions. If a person has not been taught about a Redeemer, then it is not a denial. A denial can only be based on knowledge.

Anyone can verbalise a Faith and be a hypocrite - but one can not LIVE the Teachings of Christ and be a hypocrite - there is a distinct difference. As Mother Theresa said "I would like people to see my life as being the best copy of the Bible" - she evangelised through ACTION - and actions speak louder than words.

[Ed NY]

Terence,

Like I said, this is the internet and we can only use words. What else can we do on the internet? I don't see why words cannot go with actions. It is a grave error to think than when we talk, we cannot also act.

Let's rephrase and avoid the double negative. If a person believes in God's mercy, the same person implicitly affirms the existence of a Redeemer. The conclusion is independent of a person's explicit knowledge of a Redemeer. Q.E.D.

This is not about condemning people or assigning moral culpabilities. It's about objective discussions. Someone mentioned "invincible ignorance". Why don't we discuss what it means?

Ed

[Ed NY]

If his work is to be dismissed, what then is the position of Cardinal Ratzinger who was openly criticised and corrected several times by Pope John Paul II?

Terence,

Please talk about this some more, explain it, and please show its relevance. Implied criticisms of the Pope should be clarified. Please show your sources.

Ed

[Ed NY]

If a person has not been taught about a Redeemer, then it is not a denial. A denial can only be based on knowledge.

Terence,

I believe you committed a bit of a logical inaccuracy here. I said:

"Also, one could believe instead, without having been taught about a Redeemer, that he/she would be saved through God's mercy. In this case, there is effective denial that a Redeemer does not exist."

One can implicitly affirm what one does not know. If one has been taught something, one can implicitly deny it.

One can implicitly affirm what one does not know explicitly, i.e., a Redemeer exists. If one has been taught that a Redeemer does not exist, one can implicitly deny it by believing in God's mercy.

I don't mean to be picky, but this is important.

Ed

[Ed NY]

"If a person believes in God's redeeming and tender mercies, the same person implicitly affirms the existence of a Redeemer."

St. Thomas Aquinas used this concept to show how the Patriarchs of Old Testament Scriptures were saved.

Ed

[Rich PA]

Ed,

I agree with you on the first part.

On the second part of your dissertation, what about Islam? They do not believe in a Redeemer. I doubt they believe in God's mercy to get to heaven. I am sure they believe that if they live according to the Quran, they will automatically go to heaven. I see you have already included the Jews in this conversation. They are still waiting for the Messiah as we all know. However, I am sure they believe they too will go to heaven if they live according to the Torah. Actually the Jews are the Chosen Race and through God's mercy specifically through Jesus Christ we are called the "Adopted Sons of God" and thus share in their inheritance.

On the Third part. Again, what about Islam? You mention continuous prayer. They pray 5 times a day. How many Catholics and Christians do that? What about the Bhuddist monks who pray/meditate on God continuously? Seems to me your third part is not logical.

None of what I say negates the fact that the fullness of revealed truth about God does indeed subsist in the Catholic Church. All religions are not equal paths to God/eternal life. As far as evangelization/missionary works of the Church. I have to agree with Chris on that one. We cannot force or impose our beliefs upon anyone. One of the definitions of impose is:
impose on or upon, a. to thrust oneself offensively upon others; intrude. 
b. to take unfair advantage of; misuse (influence, friendship, etc.). 
c. to defraud; cheat; deceive: A study recently showed the shocking number of confidence men that impose on the public. 

This is not what evangelization/proclaiming God's Word is all about. As Chris said, we mainly evangelize by our deeds which are much more effective that words. The prayer of St. Francis says it all "..... and if necessary, use words."  All we can do is continue to invite and engage in dialogue.  Seems to me you and Deacon Anthony are faulting Chris for what she did not say instead of what she did say. We indeed are called to evangelize in ordinary ways. However, if our efforts are rooted in prayer and centered on God, He takes our small efforts and magnifies them if we are willing to be His instrument as Chris said. Then all our ordinary efforts become extraordinary as God did with Chris in the case of the elderly convert she mentions.

As for individual salvation, Christian, Catholic Christian or non-Christian, my former priest told me that anyone can be saved. That as God's creatures we each have the duty to seek the Truth about God. And once we have earnestly done that, then we are bound to act upon the Truth that God reveals to us. And if we do that, then we can be saved. Everything begins with God. He reveals Himself in the manner He wishes to whomever He wishes as pleases Him. He has revealed Himself through OT history and more perfectly through His Son Jesus Christ. We have the duty to evangelize, proclaim the Good News about Jesus Christ, but not through force or imposition.

So, anyone can be saved if they seek the truth and act upon it. But how? That is where the Church "relies" on God's Mercy because she only knows that to it alone has been revealed the fullness of Truth, so it cannot say for sure about other religions. The Church also teaches that the conscience is sacred. We do have the duty to form our conscience according to Church teaching. However, this does not apply to those who are non-Christian. Their conscience is sacred too. God does not hand out impossible tests.

btw Ed, you are wrong when you told Chris she is discouraging important discussions. This thread is already three pages long!

Rich

[Ed NY]

Hi Rich,

My point is through God's mercy and his graces anybody can be saved by genuinely repenting from his/her sins. This is the Gospel call. When a person follows the Gospel message of repentance, whether or not he/she is aware of the good news, God's redeeming mercies will be at work. This is what I mean by implicit affirmation of a Redeemer. After all, all salvation comes through Christ.

Buddhists purify themselves from sin in their own ways (Actually, they do not believe in a God but it does not prevent them from being saved). A muslim can, if he is aware of any moral culpability, also repent. We have the natural law. Everyone is subject to natural law. Everyone has a sense of right or wrong. Everyone has a conscience. These principles are operative regardless of any religious instruction. My point is, one who is aware of grave sins or a grave sin and does not repent or purify himself will not be saved, Catholic or not. (Please tell me if this is wrong. I don't believe it is wrong.)

Putting aside the very important topic of salvation for a while, objectively immoral acts harm people and society regardless of moral culpability. St. Augustine said that "Sin is its own punishment". We also need to think about the social ramifications of sin. Isn't this reason alone sufficient to justify a discussion or discussions?

We don't force people, or impose ourselves on them. We respect their consciences. We all know that. But this is a Catholic website. This is the only website I post anything on. My main intent was to encourage discussions between Catholics and other Christians. Are we thinking that non-Christians will read these posts? Well, let's discuss some more so they will find out that we are not offensive at all. My other point is we should not refuse to discuss and clarify what we all say. I strongly avoid subjective statements which I cannot support and are illogical, whenever possible. I ask only that we ceaselessly ask for further clarifications on what one person is saying (like you're doing).

The statements I made on the very first post were meant to encourage discussions and were indirect questions. We all say and believe that all salvation comes through Christ who is the Redeemer.

On the third paragraph (of the original post), if you're saying that the good and righteous acts of non-Christians acquire for them spiritual value, then it is an implicit affirmation of Redemption. This is my main point. And the key word is "implicit". Without Redemption, Salvation is not possible. This is true for all persons. All salvation comes through Christ.

(We have been told by a priest that good works have spiritual value only if we do not have unrepented serious offenses against other persons or against God which we are aware of and willfully committed, i.e., unrepented mortal sin in Catholic terminology. Are non-Christians exempt from this requirement, of not being aware of a serious unrepented sin, before their good acts acquire spiritual value? Or should we say we do not know?)

A question I would like to ask is why we compare Muslims with some of our fellow brother and sister Christians who tend to forget every so often (while not saying that ordinary work can be offered up to God).

You and Chris make excellent points when you quote St. Francis and say that our good actions bring about God's blessings. No one denies that. A Franciscan, St. Bonaventure, said that grace multiplies.

St. Francis said, "Use words when necessary". I believe they are necessary here (I'm referring to the time before I posted and created this thread). Please tell me if I was wrong.

I attempted to raise and ask only objective points. I also am not intending a thesis, or intending to decide who is saved or not since only God can do that.

You said this thread is already three pages long. Your post encourages real discussion and asks what is really meant by the original post. This observation does not necessarily apply to each and every one of the postings here, in my estimation.

I have to re-read your post (to which I am responding) in case I missed something. It's getting late here.

Thanks.
Ed