A Seeming Crontradiction

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]This sounds just like Universal Atonement, which completely eliminates Hell, and is in direct contradiction to Scripture.[/quote]

This assumes that just because you're Catholic, you go to heaven.

I can assure you there are many Catholics in hell. (Well, I can't assure you, but I can assure you

Edited April 26, 2005 by Eremite

[jezic]

Jesus will be the judge. Many of these matters we must leave up to him and trust.

Praying for people never hurts.

(everyone else talked about the Catholic word meaning universal so i didn't need to mention it.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='airon' date='Apr 26 2005, 03:15 PM'] Sure, where can I find it? [/quote]
The Vatican Website has it, or here is a link.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFUNICI.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFUNICI.HTM[/url]

[airon]

dUst,

Thank you, your post was most helpfull. I do however, have a problem with your interpretation of the catechism. You said:

[quote]This is [b]not[/b] saying that "Muslims are saved". It is simply stating that they are included in Christ's [b]plan[/b]. Would you deny that Christ calls [b]all[/b] people to conversion?[/quote]

I do not deny that Christ calls all unto salvation. If you are correct, then all those called - all mankind - are indeed part of Christ's "plan." But, let's look once more at the catechism, just the first line will suffice:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator..."

This states that the plan of salvation is limited to those who acknowledge the Creator, not to all those who are called. This causes me to believe that when the catechism refers to the "plan of salvation," it is not refering to Christ's overall plan, but, specifically to soteriology.

[airon]

[quote]The same principle applies in the New Covenant. Just because someone is baptised doesn't mean they are true Christians (in their heart that is), and just because someone isn't baptised (like those who weren't circumcised), but still do the will of God to the best of their abilities, are accepted by God.[/quote]

I do not disagree with you here. But I don't think I fully understand what you guys mean when you say "invincible ignorance." Could someone please explain this for me? Or, maybe we should start a new thread on the subject?

Edited April 26, 2005 by airon

[Guest Eremite]

Ignorance (of course) is not knowing something (in this case, not knowing the fullness of revealed truth). Ignorance can be either vincible or invincible (you could also call it culpable and inculcable). Ignorance is invincible when the person has not obstinately done something (or ommitted to do something) which contributes to their ignorance. For example, if their conscience is bugging them to read up on something (eg, papal infallibility), and they obstinately refuse to do so, then they may very well be culpable (guilty) for their ignorance. However, if they believe, in all sincerity, that they are doing the will of God, and do not obstinately oppose the truth or their conscience, then their ignorance may be invincible.

Only God knows the truth about each person. Only he can judge.

Edited April 26, 2005 by Eremite

[airon]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 26 2005, 05:47 PM'] Ignorance (of course) is not knowing something (in this case, not knowing the fullness of revealed truth). Ignorance can be either vincible or invincible (you could also call it culpable and inculcable). Ignorance is invincible when the person has not obstinately done something (or ommitted to do something) which contributes to their ignorance. For example, if their conscience is bugging them to read up on something (eg, papal infallibility), and they obstinately refuse to do so, then they may very well be culpable (guilty) for their ignorance. However, if they believe, in all sincerity, that they are doing the will of God, and do not obstinately oppose the truth or their conscience, then their ignorance may be invincible.

Only God knows the truth about each person. Only he can judge. [/quote]
It would seem that the Scripture disagrees with the idea of ignorance...

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

According to this, no man can be called ignorant, but all will be held accountable.

But, like I said earlier, should this be discussed in a different thread?

[Don John of Austria]

And ther eis no disagreement here but the sacraments and the necessity to believe in Chirst have not been in existance since the creation of the world. Someone in all sincerity must believe that they are following the Divine Will likewise they could not be violating the Natural Law, which is what St. Paul is speaking of there. For you are correct the Law of God is written on every mans heart, but obediance to that Law can be accomplished while still being ignorant of the necessity of being Catholic For Salvation.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]According to this, no man can be called ignorant, but all will be held accountable.[/quote]

St. Paul is speaking of the fundamental truth about God (that he is one and that he is eternal). It is true that this fundamental truth about God can be known by reason alone (a truth upheld at the First Vatican Council, as well as the current Catechism).

However, most of the Christian faith rests on truths not known by reason, but by revelation. The triune nature of God, for example, cannot be known by reason, only by revelation. The same is true of other doctrines, such as the hypostatic union, papal infalliblity, etc.

[airon]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 27 2005, 11:01 AM']
However, most of the Christian faith rests on truths not known by reason, but by revelation. The triune nature of God, for example, cannot be known by reason, only by revelation. The same is true of other doctrines, such as the hypostatic union, papal infalliblity, etc. [/quote]
This, of course, begs the question, "What is necessary for Salvation?" Let us remember that the word "necessary" applies to all men. If something is necessary for one man to be saved, then it is necessary for all.

I agree, specific doctrines - such as the trinity - cannot be known by reason alone. But, Paul states that men will be held accountable based on their reason alone. He says, "No man is without excuse." None will be able to claim, "Nobody taught me about the doctine of the Trinity, or Baptism, or the Eucharist, etc," for that would be an excuse. This implies that those things are not necessary for salvation, meaning that all that is [i]necessary[/i] for salvation can, in fat, be known to all men.

[TheMeekShallRule]

[quote]"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator..."

This states that the plan of salvation is limited to those who acknowledge the Creator, not to all those who are called.[/quote]

Small point here, but your statement is not logically accurate. Just because the Catechism says that the plan of salvation [b]Includes[/b] those who acknowledge the creator, does not mean the the plan of salvation [b]is limited[/b] to those who acknowledge Him.

If B is a subset of A (included in A), A can include some other subset C, it is not necessarily limited to only B.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]This, of course, begs the question, "What is necessary for Salvation?" Let us remember that the word "necessary" applies to all men. If something is necessary for one man to be saved, then it is necessary for all.[/quote]

The only thing necessary for salvation, [i]strictly speaking[/i], is to cooperate with the grace God gives you.

Now, there are other things necessary for salvation (such as baptism), but these are necessary because Christ has introduced them as the ORDINARY means of salvation. There is no intrinsic necessity that salvation be contingent upon baptism. It is only so because Christ has deemed to make it so.

The Lord gives us the ordinary means of salvation (eg, baptism). We are bound to them. He, however, is not bound to the means he has given us. He can save a soul any way he pleases, SO LONG AS they have cooperated with his grace in all sincerity of heart.

Otherwise, as the Second Vatican Council teaches:

[quote]Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.[/quote]

Edited April 27, 2005 by Eremite

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='airon' date='Apr 27 2005, 12:36 PM'] This, of course, begs the question, "What is necessary for Salvation?" Let us remember that the word "necessary" applies to all men. If something is necessary for one man to be saved, then it is necessary for all.

I agree, specific doctrines - such as the trinity - cannot be known by reason alone. But, Paul states that men will be held accountable based on their reason alone. He says, "No man is without excuse." None will be able to claim, "Nobody taught me about the doctine of the Trinity, or Baptism, or the Eucharist, etc," for that would be an excuse. This implies that those things are not necessary for salvation, meaning that all that is [i]necessary[/i] for salvation can, in fat, be known to all men. [/quote]
NO the Passage doesn't imply that at all, it says one will be held accountable for that which one knew, that which is accessable to all Men it says nothing about being responsable for those things not accessable to all Men, therefore no judgement can be rendered on it.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='airon' date='Apr 27 2005, 12:36 PM'] This, of course, begs the question, "What is necessary for Salvation?" Let us remember that the word "necessary" applies to all men. If something is necessary for one man to be saved, then it is necessary for all.

I agree, specific doctrines - such as the trinity - cannot be known by reason alone. But, Paul states that men will be held accountable based on their reason alone. He says, "No man is without excuse." None will be able to claim, "Nobody taught me about the doctine of the Trinity, or Baptism, or the Eucharist, etc," for that would be an excuse. This implies that those things are not necessary for salvation, meaning that all that is [i]necessary[/i] for salvation can, in fat, be known to all men. [/quote]
Airon, God Bless, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be with you,

You make a logical leap that leads you into error in the above post. You claim that necessary is the same as "necessary for all human beings." That is not the case.

If a teacher were to tell a class that "it is necessary for you to finish your busy work before you can go outside for recess" this statement is clearly not universally applicable to all men who desire recess.

Concerning this, and the Sacraments:

The Sacraments are the most powerful force in the world for effecting our salvation. As Catholics, we can have our sins forgiven (baptism, confession), we can be united to Christ in a physical way (eucharist), and we can be filled with the Spirit and Grace (confirmation/chrismation, matrimony, annointing of the sick, holy orders).

Now, these Sacraments are incredible gifts given to us by Christ. If we knowingly and willingly reject His gift, then we knowingly and willingly reject Him. And all who reject Him, reject the One who sent Him.

Thus, the sacraments are necessary to salvation. Or, posited negatively, all those who reject the sacraments reject salvation.

Now, in order to reject the sacraments the person must fully understand what the sacraments are and still turn his/her back on them.


Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff