RCC and other religions

Feathers

What is the Catholic church's teaching today on people of other religions? This has been troubling me for awhile. Would be grateful if anyone could point me to a trustworthy source — hard to know what's what with alot of material online.

I've always considered the church in recent times to be fairly accepting of other religions — e.g. Pope John Paul II praying in mosques and Orthodox churches. I've also read some of Mother Theresa's writings; my favourite quote by her is the following:

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."

I've always found that this sentiment has rung true with me. But with the recent changes in the missal, it seems that the church are moving away from this idea (if they did hold it at all), for example — "which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven" has changed now to "for you and for many".

(I know that there's already a thread on the missal changes, but was looking at it from a question of the church's teaching rather than changes to the mass itself. Had a quick search but I'm only coming across partially related threads ).

Propellerhead

The Roman Catholic Church has come a long way from Pope Paul VI giving Archbishop Michael Ramsay of Canterbury his episcopal ring.

It has now reverted back, under the influence of Pope John Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, in referring to the Anglican Communion and all other Reformed Churches as "ecclesial communities". This looks like a slightly politer version of calling them heretics.

The attached article from the Catholic Herald website gives a flavour of how nasty the more zealous end of the RCC have become.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/28/catholics-are-being-deceived-into-attending-non-catholic-services/

So, the clock is being rapidly turned back to Pius XII's time and before, and the outreach of Blessed Pope John XXIII and Paul VI is being swept under the pontifical carpet.

lmaopml

I think I'd trust God on this one feathers - whose mercy is as infinite as his justice is perfect. Although Catholics are bound because, having heard the truth, the truth weighs heavier on them, especially if they turn their backs, or a luke warm. To those whom much has been given, much is expected....

I think God gave us the Sacraments as part of his plan for salvation within the Mystical Body of the Church - and we're bound up in that as members of his Church - but that's a different thing to saying that Jesus himself is bound by the Sacraments. I think he can make people stand come judgement if they lived with faith, hope and love and had a desire to know God within, but never heard of Jesus. So is it 'possible' - All things are possible imo through God. Anybody who is saved will be saved through the merits of Christs sacrifice, and all will kneel - we know this much.

I think this is inline with the Churches teachings - You should read Lunem Gentium. Here's a link....

http://www.scborromeo.org/docs/lumen_gentium.pdf

Hope that helps Feathers

The Quadratic Equation

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

- How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?

Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).

Peregrinus

In Catholic teaching:

1. God calls all people to Himself. This includes non-Catholics, non-Christians and indeed people who have never heard of Jesus Christ.

2. Everyone who searches for God, by whatever name and in whatever understanding, is responding to that call. This includes nonbeleivers who seek truth and goodness, since these are attributes of God.

3. Thus Judaism, in the words of the Catechism, “is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant”. God’s gifts to, and covenant with, the Jewish people are irrevocable.

4. The Catechism also affirms that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims”.

5. Other non-Christian religions search “for the God who is unknown” (to them), and “the church considers all goodness and truth found in these relgions as a preparation for the gospel, and given by him who enlightens all mean that they may at length have life”.

6. Non-Catholic Christians are joined by baptism in a definite, though incomplete, communion with the Catholic church. In some cases, e.g. with the orthodox churches, “that commuion is so profound that it lacks little to attain . . fullness”

7. In short, the Catholic church believes that all of humanity is called into Christ’s church but, rather than seeing other religious traditions as a barrier to this, it sees them as a step towards it, and a preparation for it. Thus the church is much more inclined to affirm the goodness and truth to be found in other traditions, and to honour the search for God, than to object to supposed errors. And this approach has completely altered the nature of inter-faith dialogue and inter-faith relationships from what it was, say, 50 years ago. That’s why you get, e.g, Pope John Paul II praying in a mosque, or presenting a bishop’s regalia to an Anglican archbishop.

8. There are bumps in the road, e.g. the decision to refer to protestant chuches as “ecclesial communities”. There’s a theological explanation for it, but the signal it sends is certainly hurtful. Likewise the change from “for you and for all” to “for you and for many” doesn’t actual signal a departure from the church’s teaching that the call to salvation, and the sacrifice of Christ, are universal, but it can easily be misundstood to do that. I wouldn’t want to downplay these things - they matter - but they need to be seen in the context of the fundamental change in inter-church relations which has taken place in the last few decades.

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

3. Thus Judaism, in the words of the Catechism, “is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant”. God’s gifts to, and covenant with, the Jewish people are irrevocable.

Can we unpack that a bit? So are you saying that, according to Catholic teaching, that Jews, after the coming of Christ and after hearing the Gospel, are still saved even without accepting Christ?

Peregrinus

No, I’m not quite saying that.

To step back a bit:

1. As already discussed, God calls all people to himself, and this undoubtedly includes the Jews.

2. The only way we know of to respond faithfully and completely to that call is through baptism. The church calls the world to baptism, to faith in Jesus Christ and to the eucharistic life. Indeed, making that call real is central to the church’s vision of itself.

3. But God’s saving action cannot be limited by what we know.

4. We reflect that millions of people lived and died without ever hearing of Jesus or his gospel, and millions more who heard of it only in ways which did not attract, engage or convince them (often as a result of our inadequacies in proclaiming the gospel).

5. God calls these people to himself too, and it is not for us to say what God can and cannot do in response to the various way in which they answer that call.

6. The only people who the church teaches cannot be saved, as Quadratic Equation has already pointed out, are those who knowing of the necessity of baptism for salvation, nevertheless refuse baptism. “Knowing” in this context, I think, does not mean “having heard” or “having been told”; it refers to an interior knowledge. In other words, we are talking about people who, understanding and accepting the necessity for conversion and baptism, still refuse.

7. The church does not teach that everyone else is saved; it can no more than do that than teach that they are lost. All we can do is to entrust them to God - to a God who, we believes, calls them to himself, yearns to be united with them, and is rich in justice, love and mercy.

8. Right, where do the Jews fit into this? We know that they have been the particular recipients of a uniquely-revealed call to God, and that they are Jews precisely because they have heard and responded to that call, and have entered into a covenant with God.

9. We also know that, while God’s people are persistently unfaithful to the covenant, God is enduringly faithful. God’s fidelity is in no way conditional on theirs.

10. So, are the Jews saved without accepting Christ? The Catholic church doesn’t teach that they are, no, but nor does it teach that they are not. Within the church there is a variety of theological opinion on the question. Very often the debate involves, not directly contradicting opinions, but opinions which have different emphases - some emphasizing God’s enduring fidelity to his covenant, others the church’s great commission to evangelise the world. But what I think all those opinions would have in common is a recognition that the Jews are Jews precisely because they respond to God’s call as it has been revealed to them even if, from one perspective, their discernment of that call is only partial.

wolfsbane

I posted this on the Prod/Catholic Debate thread but got no response. The priest seems to suggest there is no need of the gospel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEvmFt1C3Q

******************************************************************
Romans 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”(that is, the word of faith which we preach): 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The Quadratic Equation

wolfsbane wrote: »

I posted this on the Prod/Catholic Debate thread but got no response. The priest seems to suggest there is no need of the gospel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEvmFt1C3Q

He said no such thing, and thats an already heavily edited clip.

He was simply explaining one of the exemptions to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no Salvation.
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 14).
This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation

Propellerhead

A deeply uncharitable temper about the nearest relations to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England Anglo-Catholics, seems to be the hallmark of the contributors and commentators of the Catholic Herald.

Ecumenical outreach? Not in this article. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/28/catholics-are-being-deceived-into-attending-non-catholic-services/

lmaopml

Propellerhead wrote: »

A deeply uncharitable temper about the nearest relations to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England Anglo-Catholics, seems to be the hallmark of the contributors and commentators of the Catholic Herald.

Ecumenical outreach? Not in this article. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/28/catholics-are-being-deceived-into-attending-non-catholic-services/

Propellerhead, I think it's very easy to read insult into very many things...

I agree with you though, that it was probably not very nice to comment and assume so many things about the congregation in attendance....

I think the Father clarified his position in a later article ( I can't find it..but, I'll have a peek tomorrow ) after receiving comments such as yours - He compliments very highly the evangelical approach, and get up and go enthusiasm, that is lacking quite frankly in many Catholic parishes...not all, but many..

Plus, I might add that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church is quite entitled to clarify their liturgy however they see fit to do so - and one doesn't rely on the other....and any parallel is a massive presumption from anybody, including a Roman Catholic.

The Quadratic Equation

Propellerhead wrote: »

A deeply uncharitable temper about the nearest relations to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England Anglo-Catholics, seems to be the hallmark of the contributors and commentators of the Catholic Herald.

Ecumenical outreach? Not in this article. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/28/catholics-are-being-deceived-into-attending-non-catholic-services/

It is an unbalanced article to be sure, but I've seen a lot more of, and a lot worse written about Catholics by other so called Christians.

wolfsbane

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

He said no such thing, and thats an already heavily edited clip.

He was simply explaining one of the exemptions to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

Here's a bit from your quote:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation


So, without ever hearing the gospel, without knowing anything about Christ or His call to repentance and faith, can the Hindu or the sun-worshipper be saved? If their search for God manifests in worship of Krishna or the Sun, and they try to do good as they know it, can they achieve eternal salvation?

You and the RCC seem to be saying they can. You seem to be saying they can be saved without the gospel.

Am I misreading you?

The clip itself has this:
"Now, father, if you don't believe in Christ when you die, you are going to hell?"

"No, not at all."

The priest goes on to say he sees "the beauty of Islam in a very strong way....The beautiful presence of God and the power of God."

So the religion of the false prophet, the religion that says God does not have a Son, is somehow 'beautiful'???

*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

wolfsbane

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I’m not quite saying that.

To step back a bit:

1. As already discussed, God calls all people to himself, and this undoubtedly includes the Jews.

2. The only way we know of to respond faithfully and completely to that call is through baptism. The church calls the world to baptism, to faith in Jesus Christ and to the eucharistic life. Indeed, making that call real is central to the church’s vision of itself.

3. But God’s saving action cannot be limited by what we know.

4. We reflect that millions of people lived and died without ever hearing of Jesus or his gospel, and millions more who heard of it only in ways which did not attract, engage or convince them (often as a result of our inadequacies in proclaiming the gospel).

5. God calls these people to himself too, and it is not for us to say what God can and cannot do in response to the various way in which they answer that call.

6. The only people who the church teaches cannot be saved, as Quadratic Equation has already pointed out, are those who knowing of the necessity of baptism for salvation, nevertheless refuse baptism. “Knowing” in this context, I think, does not mean “having heard” or “having been told”; it refers to an interior knowledge. In other words, we are talking about people who, understanding and accepting the necessity for conversion and baptism, still refuse.

7. The church does not teach that everyone else is saved; it can no more than do that than teach that they are lost. All we can do is to entrust them to God - to a God who, we believes, calls them to himself, yearns to be united with them, and is rich in justice, love and mercy.

8. Right, where do the Jews fit into this? We know that they have been the particular recipients of a uniquely-revealed call to God, and that they are Jews precisely because they have heard and responded to that call, and have entered into a covenant with God.

9. We also know that, while God’s people are persistently unfaithful to the covenant, God is enduringly faithful. God’s fidelity is in no way conditional on theirs.

10. So, are the Jews saved without accepting Christ? The Catholic church doesn’t teach that they are, no, but nor does it teach that they are not. Within the church there is a variety of theological opinion on the question. Very often the debate involves, not directly contradicting opinions, but opinions which have different emphases - some emphasizing God’s enduring fidelity to his covenant, others the church’s great commission to evangelise the world. But what I think all those opinions would have in common is a recognition that the Jews are Jews precisely because they respond to God’s call as it has been revealed to them even if, from one perspective, their discernment of that call is only partial.

Nature and conscience inform man that God is real and that they are alienated from Him. That is enough to leave them without excuse for not seeking him. But only the gospel tells them how they can be reconciled to Him. To die without repenting and believing the gospel is to be eternally lost.

The heathen who is moved to seek God will be found by Him - He will make sure the gospel comes to him. The evidence it has not come or has not been accepted is the continued worship of false gods - be it Allah, Krishna or any other. Or the belief there is no God.

The RCC position is a further example of its departure from Scripture, its writing of its own doctrine to replace His.

What message has it for the heathen? That they are all right if they worship Allah or Krishna as long as they think they are worshipping the true God?

So if our friend Zombrex here had not heard the gospel, he might have had a chance of ending up in heaven after dying in unbelief. But now that he has been exposed to the truth about Christ, he is damned if he refuses to believe? Maybe we would be doing the lost a favour if we stopped preaching the gospel and let them seek God in their own way?

But that is not the example the apostles left us.

*****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

The Quadratic Equation

wolfsbane wrote: »

So, without ever hearing the gospel, without knowing anything about Christ or His call to repentance and faith, can the Hindu or the sun-worshipper be saved? If their search for God manifests in worship of Krishna or the Sun, and they try to do good as they know it, can they achieve eternal salvation?

You and the RCC seem to be saying they can. You seem to be saying they can be saved without the gospel.

Am I misreading you?

I would think you agree that Christ saves, not the Gospel. A Hindu, through no fault of his own, who never heard of Christ, or the Gospel, but lived a very vertuous life, could still be saved by Christ if God desired it.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The priest goes on to say he sees "the beauty of Islam in a very strong way....The beautiful presence of God and the power of God."

I see the good parts of Islam, I also see its errors and false doctrines. Catholics are often criticised for not trying to be ecumenical, and yet when they try, they are criticised again. C'est la vie.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's a bit from your quote:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation


So, without ever hearing the gospel, without knowing anything about Christ or His call to repentance and faith, can the Hindu or the sun-worshipper be saved? If their search for God manifests in worship of Krishna or the Sun, and they try to do good as they know it, can they achieve eternal salvation?

You and the RCC seem to be saying they can. You seem to be saying they can be saved without the gospel.

Am I misreading you?

The clip itself has this:
"Now, father, if you don't believe in Christ when you die, you are going to hell?"

"No, not at all."

The priest goes on to say he sees "the beauty of Islam in a very strong way....The beautiful presence of God and the power of God."

So the religion of the false prophet, the religion that says God does not have a Son, is somehow 'beautiful'???

*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Wolfe I think that the priest was being honest, much like you, or I would see the beauty in a person who is only blooming in faith? and send them on their way giving directions....

I know that some believe that salvation happens right now in this life, and others believe it is a journey a pilgrimage - despite this, the Catholic Church won't ever replace Christ as judge of an individual.

Nobody will be saved except through Jesus Christ - everybody will be judged. The Catholic Church only points the way towards Christ, but it cannot choose for people, neither can it (or 'we') judge in place of Christ.

If Christ chooses to make somebody stand come judgement, then obviously it would be wrong for us to presume our salvation so much so that we judge anothers death....

It's possible, is all the Church says, but there is a narrow path, and spreading the Gospel is what the Church is engaged in since it's institution.

All things are possible in Christ, but there is nobody can give a guarantee; not me or you or them or anybody - He judges alone, and can make somebody stand if he pleases - it's part of the Gospel we both love.

wolfsbane

The Quadratic Equation said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

So, without ever hearing the gospel, without knowing anything about Christ or His call to repentance and faith, can the Hindu or the sun-worshipper be saved? If their search for God manifests in worship of Krishna or the Sun, and they try to do good as they know it, can they achieve eternal salvation?

You and the RCC seem to be saying they can. You seem to be saying they can be saved without the gospel.

Am I misreading you?
I would think you agree that Christ saves, not the Gospel.

No, we would not agree. Christ saves, through the gospel. Without both, man is lost.

A Hindu, through no fault of his own, who never heard of Christ, or the Gospel, but lived a very vertuous life, could still be saved by Christ if God desired it.

No, because God has ordained repentance & faith as the sole means of salvation. If God desires anyone's salvation, He sends them the gospel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The priest goes on to say he sees "the beauty of Islam in a very strong way....The beautiful presence of God and the power of God."
I see the good parts of Islam, I also see its errors and false doctrines.

There is no beauty in false religion. It is all of the evil one. When men worship idols, they actually worship demons.

Catholics are often criticised for not trying to be ecumenical, and yet when they try, they are criticised again. C'est la vie.

Ecumenism is false religions agreeing with one another. Nothing commendable about that. And this example throws off all pretence that Christianity is being supported. It is naked inter-faith idolatry.

******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

Wolfe I think that the priest was being honest, much like you, or I would see the beauty in a person who is only blooming in faith? and send them on their way giving directions....

But he did not commend them for believing in One God (for example) and send them on their way giving directions to God the Father and His Son. He was commending, but not pointing out the need to forsake false religion.

I know that some believe that salvation happens right now in this life, and others believe it is a journey a pilgrimage - despite this, the Catholic Church won't ever replace Christ as judge of an individual.

Nobody will be saved except through Jesus Christ - everybody will be judged. The Catholic Church only points the way towards Christ, but it cannot choose for people, neither can it (or 'we') judge in place of Christ.

If Christ chooses to make somebody stand come judgement, then obviously it would be wrong for us to presume our salvation so much so that we judge anothers death....

It's possible, is all the Church says, but there is a narrow path, and spreading the Gospel is what the Church is engaged in since it's institution.

All things are possible in Christ, but there is nobody can give a guarantee; not me or you or them or anybody - He judges alone, and can make somebody stand if he pleases - it's part of the Gospel we both love.

Christ cannot contradict Himself. Since He has told us believing the gospel is His means of saving men, we cannot suggest He can save them in unbelief.

******************************************************************
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written:

“ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

lmaopml said:

But he did not commend them for believing in One God (for example) and send them on their way giving directions to God the Father and His Son. He was commending, but not pointing out the need to forsake false religion.

The clip is really short Wolfe, and unfortunately it seems to be put up for the sole purpose of 'giving out' lol. I don't know what the Priest would have said should he have been given the opportunity and time to expand, or was questioned on this...

In saying that, I totally agree with you that it is a Christians duty to spread the good news of salvation in Christ, and to spread the word of God. To hold to faith, hope and love too, and live in Christ. The path and gate are narrow.

Christ cannot contradict Himself. Since He has told us believing the gospel is His means of saving men, we cannot suggest He can save them in unbelief.

Hmm, yes the Scriptures say many things about salvation. I think it's really important to emphasise that as a Christian, the message we send is to believe in Christ, be baptised and put our faith, hope and trust in him, and let him give us a new heart and strengthen the Spirit within for the journey. However, there are parts of Scripture too, where it is alluded to, if not directly said, that those who through no fault of their own never heard of Christ to reject him, or never had the 'law', but loved God and had a pure heart that they too could possibly gain salvation. I think it must be more difficult, but not impossible.

I don't think anything is impossible for God Wolfe - but the means of salvation for anybody is only through Jesus Christs atonement and the grace that God gives freely. Whoever will be on his right hand at judgement will be there because he knew them, and they knew him, and they loved him and had good hearts, minds, souls, and loved their neighbour as themselves.

Anyway, I think this is possibly better in the other mega thread.....

That's my perspective Wolfe, in my own words, and I think it's inline with Catholic teaching. I hope this helps.

Newsite

lmaopml wrote: »

The clip is really short Wolfe, and unfortunately it seems to be put up for the sole purpose of 'giving out' lol. I don't know what the Priest would have said should he have been given the opportunity and time to expand, or was questioned on this...

In saying that, I totally agree with you that it is a Christians duty to spread the good news of salvation in Christ, and to spread the word of God. To hold to faith, hope and love too, and live in Christ. The path and gate are narrow.




Hmm, yes the Scriptures say many things about salvation. I think it's really important to emphasise that as a Christian, the message we send is to believe in Christ, be baptised and put our faith, hope and trust in him, and let him give us a new heart and strengthen the Spirit within for the journey. However, there are parts of Scripture too, where it is alluded to, if not directly said, that those who through no fault of their own never heard of Christ to reject him, or never had the 'law', but loved God and had a pure heart that they too could possibly gain salvation. I think it must be more difficult, but not impossible.

I don't think anything is impossible for God Wolfe - but the means of salvation for anybody is only through Jesus Christs atonement and the grace that God gives freely. Whoever will be on his right hand at judgement will be there because he knew them, and they knew him, and they loved him and had good hearts, minds, souls, and loved their neighbour as themselves.

Anyway, I think this is possibly better in the other mega thread.....

That's my perspective Wolfe, in my own words, and I think it's inline with Catholic teaching. I hope this helps.

I think his point is that the Pope going praying in the temple of a false god, and tacitly approving it, or at least implying it is ok, is actually doing a disservice (to put it mildly) to those who worship that false god.

lmaopml

Newsite wrote: »

I think his point is that the Pope going praying in the temple of a false god, and tacitly approving it, or at least implying it is ok, is actually doing a disservice (to put it mildly) to those who worship that false god.

Wow, that was quick

Sorry Newsite, I have no idea where the Pope ever prayed to any other God other than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or indeed that anybody would think he was. I do recall JPII apologising, reconciling wrongs and meeting with members of other faiths, in an effort of outreach. I don't see that as a problem, I think it's better than butting heads anyday -

..but then, different people see different things I suppose.

Newsite

lmaopml wrote: »

Wow, that was quick

Sorry Newsite, I have no idea where the Pope ever prayed to any other God other than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or indeed that anybody would think he was. I do recall JPII apologising, reconciling wrongs and meeting with members of other faiths, in an effort of outreach. I don't see that as a problem, I think it's better than butting heads anyday -

..but then, different people see different things I suppose.

And maybe different people see what they want to see - I never said that the Pope was praying to a false god I said he was praying in the temple of a false god.

I'm just saying that surely his role is not outreach, it's to warn of the dangers of false religion. And being seen shaking hands and visiting with the proponents of a false religion you can see how it could lead to a lot of people mistakenly going 'well if it seems ok with the Pope then we're cool with our religion, and he's cool with his!!'

lmaopml

Newsite wrote: »

And maybe different people see what they want to see - I never said that the Pope was praying to a false god I said he was praying in the temple of a false god.

I'm just saying that surely his role is not outreach, it's to warn of the dangers of false religion. And being seen shaking hands and visiting with the proponents of a false religion you can see how it could lead to a lot of people mistakenly going 'well if it seems ok with the Pope then we're cool with our religion, and he's cool with his!!'

Ok, but, with respect I would look on it differently. I would think that it's a good thing for the Pope to stand firm in Catholic teaching ( which he is often critized for, by very many on very many moral issues ) and also to be a presence among those who are of other faiths, and to outreach..

The Pope wouldn't be hated by so many if he was inclined to be 'cool' with other Gods or spread a message that he is. As it stands, he is criticised very strongly for almost everything he does, and he certainly isn't making it easy to gain members..... That's the way it should be, it means he's not selling Catholicism, he's preaching it. That's how I would view it Newsite. I think this would have been best in the other thread, so sorry to the op for taking it down this road. I'll leave it at that on this thread.

wolfsbane

Feathers wrote: »

What is the Catholic church's teaching today on people of other religions? This has been troubling me for awhile. Would be grateful if anyone could point me to a trustworthy source — hard to know what's what with alot of material online.

I've always considered the church in recent times to be fairly accepting of other religions — e.g. Pope John Paul II praying in mosques and Orthodox churches. I've also read some of Mother Theresa's writings; my favourite quote by her is the following:

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."

I've always found that this sentiment has rung true with me. But with the recent changes in the missal, it seems that the church are moving away from this idea (if they did hold it at all), for example — "which will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven" has changed now to "for you and for many".

(I know that there's already a thread on the missal changes, but was looking at it from a question of the church's teaching rather than changes to the mass itself. Had a quick search but I'm only coming across partially related threads ).

The Mother Theresa quote is the essence of the issue here.

Should we help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.? I say that is inter-faith idolatry, fellowshipping at at the altar of false gods. To the best of my knowledge it is not historic Catholic teaching. It is certainly not historic Protestant teaching.

Most importantly, it is not Biblical teaching.

Those who worship false gods, no matter how sincerely, are worshipping demons. They are giving glory to the created rather than the Creator. Why? Because their foolish hearts are darkened by sin. Only the gospel, applied by the Spirit, can enlighten them for salvation. That's why Christians are sent out with His message to all the world. The message is not 'be a better Hindu, Muslim, etc'. It is found throughout the NT, for example:

Acts 26:19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but declared first to those in Damascus and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.

1 Thessalonians 1:8 For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place. Your faith toward God has gone out, so that we do not need to say anything. 9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.



******************************************************************
1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

Newsite

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, but, with respect I would look on it differently. I would think that it's a good thing for the Pope to stand firm in Catholic teaching ( which he is often critized for, by very many on very many moral issues ) and also to be a presence among those who are of other faiths, and to outreach..

Except that 'standing firm in teaching' includes exhorting others to flee from and abandon false gods? Does it not strike you as odd that praying and kneeling in the temple of a false god is the way he chose to do it? The Muslims who see him doing it are going to go 'well it's grand, we all worship the same god really' - ergo the opposite to what the Bible teaches is what the pope is tacitly supporting.

lmaopml wrote: »

The Pope wouldn't be hated by so many if he was inclined to be 'cool' with other Gods or spread a message that he is. As it stands, he is criticised very strongly for almost everything he does, and he certainly isn't making it easy to gain members..... That's the way it should be, it means he's not selling Catholicism, he's preaching it. That's how I would view it Newsite. I think this would have been best in the other thread, so sorry to the op for taking it down this road. I'll leave it at that on this thread.

The above is a bit of a diversion for the pressing issue at hand I think - that he is hated by so many has nothing to do with whether he is cool with other false gods (and it's obvious he is cool with false gods). Any major public figure, especially a religious one, is going to be hated by many.

Benny_Cake

wolfsbane wrote: »

Those who worship false gods, no matter how sincerely, are worshipping demons. They are giving glory to the created rather than the Creator. Why? Because their foolish hearts are darkened by sin. Only the gospel, applied by the Spirit, can enlighten them for salvation. That's why Christians are sent out with His message to all the world.

And if they have never heard the name of Jesus Christ or the Gospel?

There was a priest in America some years back called Leonard Feeney. He got into trouble with the church because he preached a version of "outside the Church there is no salvation" which had it that in order to be saved, one had to be baptised into the Catholic Church. Water baptism only - if someone believed in Christ and every last tteaching of the Catholic church but died just before they were baptised, they were out of luck. His followers believed, for example, that it might have been possible for a native American to have been saved prior to the arrival of missionaries, but that for that to have happened, God would have miraculously sent a priest to them.

When you think about it, the location of our births determines so much about our lives. I cannot accept that someone is condemned to hell because of the geographical location in which they happened to be born in. It is only through Christ that we are saved - but no one knows what is in someone's heart, only God, and he alone will be the judge. His love and mercy may surprise us all.

lmaopml

Newsite wrote: »

Except that 'standing firm in teaching' includes exhorting others to flee from and abandon false gods? Does it not strike you as odd that praying and kneeling in the temple of a false god is the way he chose to do it? The Muslims who see him doing it are going to go 'well it's grand, we all worship the same god really' - ergo the opposite to what the Bible teaches is what the pope is tacitly supporting.



The above is a bit of a diversion for the pressing issue at hand I think - that he is hated by so many has nothing to do with whether he is cool with other false gods (and it's obvious he is cool with false gods). Any major public figure, especially a religious one, is going to be hated by many.

That's ok Newsite, you are entitled to believe what you want and see things how you want to see them - I will say, that it doesn't neccessarily mean that it's how they are.....

Anyway, yes I would concur with others who have said that a person who through no fault of their own never heard the Gospel to reject it, would have the possiblity of salvation if God so chooses to make them stand - he can.

Newsite

lmaopml wrote: »

That's ok Newsite, you are entitled to believe what you want and see things how you want to see them - I will say, that it doesn't neccessarily mean that it's how they are.....

It's fine to say that but if you are implying that I am wrong it would be good to hear your explanation why?

Think of this for a moment. Consider the letters of Paul. Can you ever possibly imagine him going to the idolatrous temples of a false god to reach out to the worshipers there? If you contrast Paul's letters to the Christian churches with John Paul's visits to Muslim temples, you're left with a telling and stark contrast indeed, wouldn't you say?

lmaopml wrote: »

Anyway, yes I would concur with others who have said that a person who through no fault of their own never heard the Gospel to reject it, would have the possiblity of salvation if God so chooses to make them stand - he can.

This doesn't relate to my post?

wolfsbane

Benny_Cake wrote: »

And if they have never heard the name of Jesus Christ or the Gospel?

There was a priest in America some years back called Leonard Feeney. He got into trouble with the church because he preached a version of "outside the Church there is no salvation" which had it that in order to be saved, one had to be baptised into the Catholic Church. Water baptism only - if someone believed in Christ and every last tteaching of the Catholic church but died just before they were baptised, they were out of luck. His followers believed, for example, that it might have been possible for a native American to have been saved prior to the arrival of missionaries, but that for that to have happened, God would have miraculously sent a priest to them.

When you think about it, the location of our births determines so much about our lives. I cannot accept that someone is condemned to hell because of the geographical location in which they happened to be born in. It is only through Christ that we are saved - but no one knows what is in someone's heart, only God, and he alone will be the judge. His love and mercy may surprise us all.

People are not condemned to hell because of the geographical location in which they happened to be born in. They are condemned to hell because of their sins. No one is an innocent. No one is condemned for not obeying a gospel they never heard. Only for their sins.

The heathen who never hears the gospel will be condemned for worshipping idols, for adultery, theft, murder - whatever sins he has committed.

The heathen who has heard and rejected the gospel has that also to add to his sins - despising the call of God to repentance.

God alone knows what is in anyone's heart - as you say. But He has told us what is in man's heart - sin. He tells us there is none righteous, no not one. All are born estranged from God, in need of the repentance and faith. And they can't believe without hearing the gospel:
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

When God is going to save someone, He sends them the gospel. As He did to the unbelieving Jews in Acts 3. As He did to the Samaritan idolaters in Acts 8. As He did to Cornelius, the God-fearing Gentile in Acts 10. As He did to the heathen Gentile in charge of the Philippian prison in Acts 16.

None of us deserve God's mercy - He could justly condemn us all to hell. But He has mercy on whom He will, and sends the gospel to them.

*****************************************************************
1 Corinthians 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.