Catholic Confusion ,or, Who are the Faithful

But I thought that you believed that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus. Now you are adding something about accountability and seem to be suggesting that some don't even need to know Jesus, let alone believe.

This is so "confusing".

What am to think?

Ron

 

Ron, I agree with you and will leave it up to God. I will share the gospel with whom I can because God said to do it. I am thankful for my salvation daily. That said, you could see in my last post and somewhat in Duals that we were sharing our heart with you. We put aside "teachings" and gave you a heart perspective. I would really like to know what you think deep down about this issue. What scriptures you look at to support your thoughts etc... Lets have the real Ron, not the "out of the playbook" Ron.
Thanks in advance.

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

But I thought that you believed that salvation comes only through faith in Jesus. Now you are adding something about accountability and seem to be suggesting that some don't even need to know Jesus, let alone believe.

This is so "confusing".

What am to think?

Ron </font>[/QUOTE]Those saved before Christ, were ultimately saved by Christ because He paid the penalty of their sins.

Jesus said to them, "[John 15:22, 24] If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, '[Prov 26:12] We see,' your sin remains. - John 9:41 NASB

The people in the first 3 groups are unable to recognize their sinful condition, thus it would appear that because of their blindness, their sin is not imputed to them but rather paid for by Christ (since God is just and somebody has to pay for it)

15 for (1) the Law brings about wrath, but (2) where there is no law, there also is no violation. - 4:15 NASB

Again, the people in the last 2 groups are capable of recognizing that they have done wrong, the first 3 groups are not, a law, even one of conscience, is nothing for them suggesting that their sin is not imputed to them.

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him (20) whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without (21) a preacher? - Romans 10:14 NASB

The who are capable of conscious belief need to hear the Gospel. God who knows all things know where and when to send His servants like in the example of the Ethiopian eunuch, if God is determined that somebody hear the Gospel, He will get the job done. The people in the last 2 groups are capable of recognizing that they have done wrong in their lives, they are not naturally blind to sin and are thus accountable for their sin. Particularly in Muslim countries they are trying to do good deeds to make up for their bad thinking that God will forgive them. This sort of exchange is stupid, just imagine somebody kidnaps, abuses and kills a loved one and then the next day offers to do your dishes for 5 years to make up for it and ask yourself if you would accept it and when you admit that ask yourself why in the world you think God would except such and exchange. If a person in such a country recognizes the problem with this system and calls out to God for a better way, I would not at all be surpise if God either gave the person a revelation or if He sends the person a messenager so that the person can hear and believe. In short, God is just, sin must be punished, God is also merciful and abounding in grace, He knows what He's doing, all we can do is trust completely in Him.

 

Dualhunter,

Do you see my point? You went from an absolute position of "belief in Jesus only" to qualifying with "accountability" and "recognizing sin".

I could just as easily create a "letter" from a "confused" Baptist or Fundamentalist claiming to be all confused.

"When I was saved they told me I had to accept Jesus into my heart. Now they are talking about accountability and recognizing sin! What am I supposed to believe? I'm so confused! Blah blah blah..."

That is the topic of this thread after all.

Ron

 

Thomas Aquinas on infant baptism

Limbo is the classic RC answer to the question: What happens to infants who die before baptism? Thomas Aquinas, the greatest theologian of the RCC, reasoned that infants don’t deserve to go to hell, for “of all sins original sin is the least, because it is the least voluntary.” Yet, according to RC theology, without baptism no one can see God. So where do deceased unbaptized infants go?
Some of the Church’s theologians have proposed that there must be a place for unbaptized infants somewhere between heaven and hell. They call it limbo, literally meaning on the border. They describe it as a place of natural happiness, but something short of heaven, for God is no there.
In modern Catholicism, limbo is, as the saying goes, “in limbo.” It is neither an official dogma of the Church nor a denied belief. In discussing the fate of unbaptized infants, modern Catholicism usually entrusts their souls to the mercy of God, making no mention of limbo. This is the approach taken by the new Catechism [1261,1283]. Nonetheless, even today, when a Catholic persists in asking where unbaptized infants go when they die, the answer usually comes back, “Limbo”.

“The Gospel According to Rome” James G. McCarthy

On the Roman Catholic Board:
IRENAEUS writes: According to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Limbo is a theological hypothesis. I think we could also describe it as a theolougemenon - a theological speculation. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve the existence of Limbo. It is usually described as a painless limb (hence Limbo) or painless chamber of hell. Others on this board, Reb, e.g., can furnish more info.

 

Psalm, you seem to be approaching an understanding of "invincible ignorance".

And if a Muslim did not know about Christ as you do? If he is not told that Jesus is the Son of God, does he then "know about Christ"?

Actually, limbo was never declared as a definative teaching of the Church. Some theologians speculated on it, but it was never a teaching that the faithful were or are required to hold.

It depends on whether or not he actually received the message. Then it further depends on his capacity to understand and accept the message. In the end, it is not my call to make. It is up to God to decide.

The Church is saying that Muslims or whoever "can" be saved - not "are" or "will be". In other words it's up to God to decide.

Why would anyone presume to limit God's mercy?

You didn't hurt my feelings. I was wondering if you were having a bad day or something.

 

Brian, from the heart as you say...

I beleive that the Catholic Church is the true universal Church established by God to preserve and safeguard and teach all of God's revelation.

I believe that unity with the Church grants me the closest relationship that I can possibly have with God in this physical life through the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation.

I believe that the cumulative teachings of the Church vastly exceed my limited capacity to understand Scripture's meaning and how it is to apply to my life.

In a word, Brian, I "love" the Church because the Church was given by God as a means for me to draw close to Him.

I am not, nor have I ever been, confused by the teachings of the Church.

Ron

[ September 25, 2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Sin is what keeps people out of heaven. The blood of Christ is the only true and sufficient payment for sin. If a person is not held accountable for their sin, there's nothing keeping them out of heaven. God does not simply forget about sin, hence that sin was paid for by Christ. What I am saying is that people like infants are aware of sin and not accountable for it, thus their sin is paid for by the blood of Christ lest it be forgotten. On the other hand somebody such as a Muslim who has not heard of the solution for sin, is still aware of sin and therefore accountable for it and so having not trusted in Christ for forgiveness, he will perish. I'm not saying that this is 100% certain, just that the evidence suggests that this is the case. If God wants to save somebody, He is fully able to do it. He has saved people who otherwise would not have heard the message by either revealing Himself to them or by sending them a messenger.

 

So if you are not 100% sure...

and if God can save who He chooses...

why are you critcal of the Church for saying the same thing in different words?

Ron

 

So if you are not 100% sure...

and if God can save who He chooses...

why are you critcal of the Church for saying the same thing in different words?

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]Because in the past the church of Rome said that only those inside it were saved, but now they say that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you don't know any better. Notice that when I say that God is able to save who He chooses that I mention examples where God makes known the message so that the person can then believe despite being born into a place where the Gospel is not known. The sin of those who are unable understand is paid for by Christ because they are not held accountable for it, they go to the Father through Christ.

It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. - Pope Pius IX

The above quote begins by saying that one must enter into the Catholic church to be saved, all 5 groups have not done that.

Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved. - Pope John XXIII

This quote says that the pope must lead them into the fold of Christ and that no man may enter without the pope leading him in, all 5 groups lose here too.

As I said before, the sin of those to whom sin is not imputed (ie. they are not held accountable for it) is paid for by Christ and therefore these people go to the Father through Christ alone.

 

Actually, Dual, there is a very interesting section in the Catholic Encyclopedia on "predestination" and "election". As a practicing and very believing Calvinist, when I started studying the doctrines and teachings of the Church, I really DID NOT expect to find a single thing regarding predestination. Yet it is there, which pleasantly surprized me.

The understanding of predestination and election from a Catholic point of view gives God a considerably wide latitude to act IN GRACE THROUGH CHRIST towards all mankind. It makes God the Judge of all hearts and his mercy based on the heart of man and its response to Him.

There is also an interesting vision which was given to St. Catherine of Sienna in which Christ spoke to her and told her that at the moment of death, He calls three times to the soul to see if it will respond to Him. This leads me to an interesting question...WHY should God's mercy stop with our physical death?

I personally don't think it does, because I believe the the Judgement Seat of Christ is a seat in which believers find GRACE. If we do not find GRACE there, then we are still under the Law, right? Hey, give me GRACE instead of MERIT any day of the week!!

And therefore, if GRACE really is there, why can it not be offered one last time by a God Who loves all mankind and desires that all be saved?

Just my .02 tonight.

Brother Ed

 

What makes you think that there will be grace at the judgement seat of Christ? Just asking.

 

Wrong. That's your spin on what the Church says.

So you leave it up to God to save who He chooses; you merely reserve for yourself the right to decide who is "able to understand". Interesting distinction. Sounds like you get to make the first cut, and then God gets to choose.

Your difficulty is that you are not understanding the meaning of the words "Catholic Church". Christ only started one Church. You are a member of it, whether you realize it or not, albeit in a lesser state of unity than others.

Like I said, that's your spin on it. You have a lack of understanding that you choose to not see. Until you are open to the possibility that you do not understand what the Church is saying here, you will have no hope of getting it.

Again, your spin, your lack of understanding.

There is only one Church.

Right, and you want to be the one to decide to whom sin is or is not imputed. Sounds like you want to be God.

Ron

 

The question f the meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nullum Salus is open and not decided amongst RCs.

Some hold to the post Vatican 2 line.

Traditionalists disagree.

The two groups claim to be the "true" catholics saying the other are not. And these two are not the only groups within RCism. Their unity is as a sham. The remain as docrinally differentiated as protestants. They just all stand around saying "well I am the true Catholic so I'm not going anywhere. Let the fake ones leave." Of course since no one thinks thay are fake they all stay.

No one knows who the "faithful" catholics really are. It is every RC, their own private magisterium, who decides for themselves whether they meet the criteria of a faithful catholic.

 

Ed and Ron, Hope you two are doing well today or tonight depending on when you read this

Ed you quoted this verse/s. KJV: 1 Tim. 2
"[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
[4] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Other versions say it is God's "desire" that all men be saved and come to knowledge of the truth. This verse throws me for a loop when I think of it in terms of election/predestination and because of God not getting what he "wills" or "desires". God desires something and doesn't get it. That is kind of wild if you think about it. We know "many" compared to "few" will be in Hell and yet that is not what God desires. Now, to the point of election, if that is true why does it say he desires all come to the knowledge of the truth if he only elected a "few" to come to the knowledge of the truth. Those are just some thoughts that are going through my mind as I continue my long standing inner debate on election vs. free will. Anything you want to add to what I said? please feel free.

Thanks for the good tone of this thread (with the exception of the last post) as it makes learning and growing in Christ possible and edifies everyone involved.

Praise be to God!!

Brian

 

No, your arguement is false.

There is a standard and there are individuals.

As a Prostestant, your view of the relationship is "individuals set the standard".

As a Catholic, my view is "individuals must conform to the standard".

No doubt, you have no idea what I am talking about.

 

It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only Ark of Salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the Flood. It is a sin to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church! You must indeed see to it that the faithful have fixed firmly in their minds the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for attaining salvation. Protestantism is the Great Revolt against God. - Pope Pius IX

The term Roman Catholic is a contradiction. Jesus and the Apostles were of Jewish descent, not Roman and the first Christians were Jews, not Romans. The Church of Rome is not the Church of Christ, and it is the Church of Christ that counts.

 

Trying,

"No, your arguement is false.

There is a standard and there are individuals.

As a Prostestant, your view of the relationship is "individuals set the standard".

As a Catholic, my view is "individuals must conform to the standard".

No doubt, you have no idea what I am talking about."

Neither, obviously, do you know what you are talking about.

It is a fact that Traditionalist Catholics regard themselves as true Cathlics and the rest as not.

It is a fact that some other Cathlcis regard these "rad trads" as not being true Catholics.

These are facts.

But you also illustrate my point beautifully.

You speak of a standard that people must conform to. You obviously think you conform, and you no doubt think that others (perhpas the "rad trads", perhaps the novus ordos, perhaps the feeneyites, poerhpas the sedevacantists) do not conform to that standard.

But those "others" could very well say exactly the same thing. They could claim to conform and you not.

Who knows for sure? No one.

Thank you for making my case for me, and making it so clear.

 

Regarding oneself as a true Catholic does not make oneslef a true Catholic.

No, one need only look to the offical teachings of the Church to determine whether one conforms or not. It is not what I say or think.

You are suggesting that groups who use nonauthoratative standards are correct in thinking that they are conforming. That is where your arguement fails.

Your word games are not as subtle as you might think them to be.

[ September 26, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]