God And Hell And Free Choice

[Hassan]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1733868' date='Dec 22 2008, 02:12 PM']Here's one for you..

www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004[/quote]


lol

Richard Dawkins.

Sorry, but I can't believe anyone takes him seriously outside of biology.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1733916' date='Dec 22 2008, 03:23 PM']Without a God, nothing matters.[/quote]


says who?

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1733869' date='Dec 22 2008, 02:19 PM']You're having difficulty understanding because you're bent on demonstrating a change in theology. For this reason you're pushing an understanding of the word "Church" which we don't accept. People can be united to the Mystical Body of Christ, and therefore be members of the Church without being *visible* members. I already provided you an example from Justin Martyr, who called Socrates a Christian.

Nothing you quoted contradicts this.[/quote]

Didn't Hans Kung write a book about how this exact teaching has changed over time?

Anyway, I have not read it so I cannot say, one of his quotes may conflict with your view.

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...[b]Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.[/b]" (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

From this quote, and it is taken out of context to be sure, the Pope seems to be claiming that one must explicitly assent to the primacy of the Papacy to be in the Church.

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1733960' date='Dec 22 2008, 04:14 PM']says who?[/quote]

exactly

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1733968' date='Dec 22 2008, 04:21 PM']Didn't Hans Kung write a book about how this exact teaching has changed over time?

Anyway, I have not read it so I cannot say, one of his quotes may conflict with your view.

Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...[b]Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.[/b]" (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)

From this quote, and it is taken out of context to be sure, the Pope seems to be claiming that one must explicitly assent to the primacy of the Papacy to be in the Church.[/quote]


im going to try to end this particular debate because im not sure what its doing in this thread.

Has any ever listened to the radio? Sure you have. Have you ever heard a dj or a talk radio host address his listeners directly? Sure you have. They say something like "You are the best audience ever!" or "Thankyou for listening in!" or, to the point "I'm saying something to you that you would never know elsewhere, and in saying this I'm accurately assuming you hear me, because anyone tuned into this broadcast DOES hear me"

This is the doctrine of "No salvation outside the church". The people who do not hear the message are not held up to the responsibility of those that do. Even then, this responsibility is not final. God does not want us to follow him like robots 'because someone said so'. We are to chose freely, and that is only applicable after we have filled our intellect with true knowledge of God.

Nonetheless, there is a gray area for people who cannot hear the message or get an incomplete or inaccurate description of Christianity. The church cant doctrinize this gray area though - because its gray. It can only recognize that it exists, and that based on what the church knows that ISNT gray (God desires everyone, God knows the hearts of all men, God knows everything that happens in a persons life and how that effects our decisions, God is Just), the church hopes that God, who is all these things, will 'make it happen' through his own power. The church has hope for all souls.

Geez ive already written to much on this topic. This arguement has been posted and ingnored more times that i can count. I'll never understand how this is hard to grasp. If anything, what do you expect a religious institution to say? "Hi we made a church and believe in a way to salvation, we believe that if you want salvation you....dont have to do what we think is right and can go to other churches" ?????

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1733815' date='Dec 22 2008, 12:15 PM']This is how I see the situation. We screwed up, knowingly and of our own free will. This screw-up demands punishment out of justice. This system is made by God. There is a way out for humanity, but humanity cant do it themselves. God has to do it for them. It makes it seem like God is just as bound up into the rules of justice as we are. It seems contradictory for God to be bound up by anything.[/quote]

Ok I need someone to correct me if I'm wrong. Cuz I probably am. When humanity sins, humanity essentially slaps God in the face. This is a deep transgression, deeper than any of the transgressions man could make against his fellow man. The closest example I can think of is a married couple where the husband not only cheats on his wife, but tells the wife that he did and then tells her 'i dont need you anymore' and kicks her out. (Sin is like this, only a million times more awful. Hold this example for a moment) Ok, so after man sins, if he returns to virtue he is filled with guilt for what he's done, he will seek to make up for what he did. As Aquinas put it "because his very virtue demands that he should do satisfaction for his offenses against God or man."

But what could we possibly give to God? First off, everything we have was given to us by him. A man gives me a t-shirt for Christmas, I then punch him in the face. Later I apologize to him, and to show I mean it I want to sacrifice of myself for him - so I give him the t-shirt he gave me! What? This is stupid. It doesnt work. This is where we are with God. EVERYTHING we have is from him. This also includes immaterial things, like love, and prayer. (These things may be pleasing to God, but they do not repair the damage for sin.)

Secondly, what can we give to God who IS everything. He is complete and unwanting. God did not use anything sacrificed in the Old Law...he merely used the acts, and even then insomuch as they prefigured the true sacrifice of Christ.

So what is Christ? Christ is God made man. Back to the original example. Lets say the wife loves the husband so SO much. She wants him to come back to her, to make everything like it was at the beginning. To be close and in love. Unfortunately, its going to take more than roses to fix this problem. Infact, shes God, theres nothing he can do to repair that rift, and she knows it. So what does she do? She creates a version of herself to cross over to the otherside. To be the husband, but not just the husband, to be a divine mediator - at once akin with man and able to stand for the husbands sin, but also divine and perfect and able to be a balanced sacrifice worthy to repair the transgression against God.

Does that make sense? That really works well for me. I've been stuck on that all weekend. The key part was realized that God became man. Jesus is God, but separate from the Father. He became fully MAN too, a brother in our burden. He put himself under the rule of the Father. Yes, I'm a noob, i didnt full get all of this until now. Also, I get now why sacrifice in forgiveness makes sense.

[mortify]

Peace Hassan

[quote name='Hassan' post='1733968' date='Dec 22 2008, 04:21 PM']Didn't Hans Kung write a book about how this exact teaching has changed over time?[/quote]

Kung has written many things that place him outside of the pale of Catholicism, I wouldn't use him as a source for anything.
[quote]Pope Pius XI (A.D. 1922 - 1939): "The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. ...[b]Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.[/b]" (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos)[/quote]

The context of this Encyclical is important, it's actually one of few Papal letters I am familiar with. The Pope was condemning what might be called [i]false ecumenism[/i], or a movement to bridge the gap between Christians by focusing on certain fundamental doctrines and practices. For the Catholic, visible unity is established by the Papacy, but this is precisely what was being ignored to foster false ecumenism. For this reason the Pope wanted to emphasize the unique character of Catholicism, which is its pure doctrine, its worship intrinsically perfect and pleasing to God, and the Divinely instituted Papacy.

When he says, [i]"if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it..."[/i] he is referring to those who [u]know[/u] the Church and are given the [u]grace[/u] to embrace Catholicism but [u]freely reject[/u] it. For such their end is hell, and even Vatican II affirms this, but this does not mean every person who is not [b]visibly[/b] Catholic is going to hell.

This issue can be addressed another way. It is a Dogma of the Catholic Church that *every* human being receives sufficient grace to make it to heaven. This means it is possible for *every* human to make it to heaven, including those who are not Catholic.

Secondly, and this too is ancient Catholic teaching, committing sin requires knowledge of it being a sin, and freely acting out the sin. Clearly if someone is ignorant of the Gospel they are free from guilt of not being Christian.

So what if an invincibly ignorant non-Christian cooperates with the sufficient grace God gave them to make it to heaven? Then they will be in heaven! But, and here is where many get lost, they would have died as members of the Catholic Church! The difficulty people have is that they think the Church is purely a visible institution, this is false. There is a visible element but there is also the Mystical Body of Christ. A non-Christian ignorant of the Gospel who obeys the Logos in their heart, even if it be unconsciously, can receive the merits of baptism and therefore die members of the Catholic Church.

Edited December 23, 2008 by mortify

[mortify]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1733916' date='Dec 22 2008, 03:23 PM']lol thanks. and 'theology for beginners' eh? were my questions that noobish? I'd really like to not wait weeks for answers to those questions. [/quote]
I'm reading the book now and I find it incredibly helpful, I wish someone had told me about it when I returned to Catholicism!

It's worth the wait

[bonkers]

[quote name='mortify' post='1733869' date='Dec 22 2008, 01:19 PM']You're having difficulty understanding because you're bent on demonstrating a change in theology. For this reason you're pushing an understanding of the word "Church" which we don't accept. People can be united to the Mystical Body of Christ, and therefore be members of the[/quote]

The understanding of the word "Church" in these quotes refers to the visible body of the Catholic Church. The idea of a mystical, invisible church didn't arise until Vatican II. The Popes were explicit and obvious in their statements that no one outside the visible Catholic Church, those not subject to the Roman Pontiff can obtain salvation. One might ponder why of all the statements made, and that it's always been the case the church has taught the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, that there is not one shred of historical evidence in support of it.

[quote]Church without being *visible* members. I already provided you an example from Justin Martyr, who called Socrates a Christian.

Nothing you quoted contradicts this.[/quote]

It doesn't have to. Martyr was expressing a person opinion, not that which was held by the church and repeatedly affirmed by popes throughout history.

[mortify]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1734230' date='Dec 23 2008, 01:35 AM']The understanding of the word "Church" in these quotes refers to the visible body of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

I seriously doubt you did more than simply copy and paste a bunch of quotes from various Papal writings but even if you are right, it doesn't contradict anything that I have said.

Even if you want to say [i]there is no salvation outside of the *visible* Church[/i], it still doesn't mean those sincerely ignorant of the Church go to hell. These statements apply to heretics and schismatics who *know* the Church and received the *grace* to be Catholic, but rejected both willingly, and there end is undoubtedly hell.
[quote]The idea of a mystical, invisible church didn't arise until Vatican II.[/quote]

This erroneous statement is something you conjured in your own mind, again, in order to [i]falsely[/i] demonstrate a change in teaching. Sadly, it only reveals your ignorance and carelessness.

First of all we are not saying the Church is merely an invisible institution, but we are also not sayings it's merely a visible institution, it's both.

Secondly, you could have spared yourself embarrassment had you simply typed "Mystical Body" in Google... you would have discovered that Pope Pius XII dedicated an *ENTIRE* Encyclical to this doctrine, aptly titled, [b]Mystici Corporis Christi[/b], or the Mystical Body of Christ. This was written in [u]1943[/u], clearly before Vatican II, and therefore your above statement is refuted. The ease of finding this information is what reveals how careless you really are, and in all honesty that is more concerning than your ignorance.

But it get's better... in the very same Papal Bull you quote from Pope Boniface VIII, Unum Sanctum, it says the Church is the [i]"sole Mystical Body whose Head is Christ."[/i] This was written in 1302 AD!

Sorry, but the statement [i]you made up[/i] is very disappointing.

[quote]The Popes were explicit and obvious in their statements that no one outside the visible Catholic Church, those not subject to the Roman Pontiff can obtain salvation. One might ponder why of all the statements made, and that it's always been the case the church has taught the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, that there is not one shred of historical evidence in support of it.[/quote]

I quoted Pope Pius IX, didn't I? So your [i]"Always is the case..."[/i] is wrong. It is necessary to be Catholic and so the hesitancy among Popes is not surprising, they didn't want people believing in universal salvation. However the few that did address the possibility of salvation for the invincibly ignorant affirmed it's possible.

[quote]It doesn't have to. Martyr was expressing a person opinion, not that which was held by the church and repeatedly affirmed by popes throughout history.[/quote]

Perhaps your recollection isn't that good either...

I quoted the Early Church Father, St Justin Martyr (~ 130 AD), in response to another ignorant statement you made in post [b]#176[/b] of this thread (emphasis mine):

[quote]If the [u][b]ecf's[/b][/u] knew the church was teaching one can be both Muslim and Catholic they would throw up. It's a modern teaching of a church trying to keep pace with change.[/quote]

Apparently Justin Martyr wouldn't be "throwing up" at the idea of Socrates being Christian

When I quoted Pius IX, you then demanded I quote a Pope prior to the 1800s. Nothing will satisfy you because you have *willed* yourself to [i]believe[/i] that the Church has changed her teaching on this subject.

[bonkers]

This is the most impartial source I could find on 'no salvation outside the church'.

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6126"]http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6126[/url]

In summary, early and middle age Christians thought very differently from the current Catholic perspective. Some might call it a development of doctrine, I think it represents a clear change, at least in understanding of what it means.

[mortify]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1735754' date='Dec 26 2008, 01:54 PM']In summary, early and middle age Christians thought very differently from the current Catholic perspective. Some might call it a development of doctrine, I think it represents a clear change, at least in understanding of what it means.[/quote]

Did you read the *whole* article?

[bonkers]

[quote name='mortify' post='1736167' date='Dec 27 2008, 01:17 AM']Did you read the *whole* article?[/quote]

Yeah I did, did you? After reading it, do you still have the nerve to suggest Catholicism has never altered it's position on salvation, despirte the fact for the first 15 centuries of Christianity and it was universally taught and understood that there was no salvation outside the church for anybody, not even the poor pagan stuck on the island?

[mortify]

[quote name='bonkers' post='1736191' date='Dec 27 2008, 03:06 AM']Yeah I did, did you? After reading it, do you still have the nerve to suggest Catholicism has never altered it's position on salvation, despirte the fact for the first 15 centuries of Christianity and it was universally taught and understood that there was no salvation outside the church for anybody, not even the poor pagan stuck on the island?[/quote]

So you read the part where the author says [i]"Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen held that the Wisdom of God gave (saving) graces to people of every generation, both Greeks and barbarians"[/i]?

We already mentioned that St Justin Martyr believed Socrates was saved because he obeyed the Divine Logos, even if he did so unconsciously. Clearly Socrates and other "[i]Greeks and Barbarians"[/i] were outside of the visible Church, and yet salvation was not closed to them. This is hard for you to understand because the Church is not simply a visible body that came into existence after Christ. The Church is also [i]spiritual[/i] and [i]ancient[/i], existing even before it was visibly manifested. That's why we can say innocent Pagans who obeyed the Divine Logos were saved because they were *not* outside of the Church.

The author also states that the phrase [i]"no salvation outside of the Church"[/i] was primarily targeting heretics and schismatics. In other words, it's not addressing the innocent Pagan living on an island.

The article says that by the high patristic age it was assumed that the Gospel had been promulgated everywhere, and so only those who were Christian could be saved. This makes sense because those "outside the Church" would consist of heretics, schismatics, and obstinate Pagans. Even if "innocent pagans" existed, they would be relatively few and perhaps this is why their salvation isn't really addressed until the Medieval period.

The article says in this period a significant development was made by Medieval theologians, basing themselves on [b]Acts 10:34-35[/b] and [b]1 Tim. 2:4[/b], they said God desires the salvation of every human being. St Thomas Aquinas believing the Gospel was promulgated everywhere, hypothesized a situation were a man was born in a wilderness isolated from society. If he lived an upright life in God's grace, St Thomas speculated God would reveal to him the christian faith supernaturally.

When voyages to the Americas, Africa, and Asia revealed not even the upright inhabitants received supernatural illumination of the Christian faith, theologians already believing in God's desire for the salvation of all people, began to reflect on the possibility of these people being saved despite their innocent ignorance.

What they realized is these people lived in a state [b]identical[/b] to those living before the time of Jesus Christ. The statements the Fathers made concerning the salvation of those prior to Christ could now be applied to those who were "invincibly ignorant." Only those who knowing the Church was necessary by Christ, and willingly resisted or opposed God's grace could be considered "outside of the Church." It's no wonder then that the first clear Papal statement regarding this issue were made in the 1800s.

This is all based on what the article said... can't you see why this is a reasonable development?

Edited December 27, 2008 by mortify

[CatherineM]

I don't think anything in my faith is shaken by the fact that the Church continues to do scholarly reflection and adjust our understanding of things that in the past may have been beyond our comprehension.

Karl Rahner's theory on the Anonymous Christian covers what you have been discussing.