You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Equinox writes:
Further, it’s simply in plain disagreement with both RCC and most Christian churches doctrines to say that “people of all faiths who do good are ”saved’.” That’s simply and easily shown to be false.

---

I quoted from the same source as you did, and hopefully we don't have to go there again. I doubt that Pope JPII could contradict himself in one document and be unaware of his mistake, given the amount of proof reading and translating that goes on. . . But I absolutely found as much evidence for my position as you did for yours.

---

Your position - that anyone, regardless of their religion, who does good is saved, is simply incorrect based on either your or my quotations, including the one by JPII. The key is that both RCC doctrine as well as JPII’s statement require that those in other religions must be able to claim ignorance of the RCC, or they cannot avoid hell. Read them all, you’ll see they all agree with this and with each other.Take, for example, someone who knows the RCC, and is a good person, and decides not to be in the RCC. That could be because he’s studied RCC history, or because he thinks that salvation shouldn’t be affected one way or the other by knowledge of the RCC, or because God speaks to him more clearly through another religion, or even because he simply decided that for no good reason. In all of those cases, he isn’t saved, no matter how good he is, or how sincerely he attains to God in his own religion. You can see that in all of the quotes we both put up. I’ve copied one from you and one from me here to make it easier than going back:Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

"For they who without their own fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try,
under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation. Nor
does Divine Providence refuse the helps necessary for salvation to those
who without their own fault do not reach an express knowledge of God,
and who not without divine grace, try to live a right life."

---

(notice the start of JPII’s sentence - it only applies to those who don’t know the RCC - “His Church”.)RCC doctrine:

quote:

---

while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). . .
However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

---

Anastasia wrote:

quote:

---

Maybe the teachings are ambiguous, maybe you quote-mined, maybe neither of us get the real point.

---

First, the quote mining: Quote mining is taking a quote out of context to make it sound like it says something other than what is intended. I clearly haven’t quote mined, since my quote of the RCC doctrine matches what JPII says. As far as it being ambiguous (the doctrine), I think it is somewhat ambiguous, or at least significantly easy to distort one way or the other, for good reason - that’s what makes a most useful doctrine. I described that in post #148 here:
http://EvC Forum: You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian) -->EvC Forum: You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

quote:

---

No church can promise salvation to anyone.

---

Why not? Many churches do. The RCC does too - no matter what you’ve done, if you join the RCC are baptized and sincerely repent of your sins before death, you are saved, regardless of what horrible things you’ve done before that.

quote:

---

It is not up to us to decide what is 'good' doctrine. We will all have different views about 'good' doctrine. The RCC, and all churches, have doctrines. They are Biblical mainly. They won't change for us.

---

Well, that’s one place where it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. I *do* think it is up to us humans to decide what is good - or else how could we know how to live, even if we tried to start with the Bible? The practices of slavery, polygyny, torture, and killing have all been justified (including by the RCC in some cases) based on the Bible. Whether we use the Bible or not, we have to decide what is good doctrine. I would go farther, and say that the Bible is not a good moral compass, and that to decide good doctrine it’s better NOT to base it on the Bible, but that’s just me. But even aside from that, it is up to us humans to decide good doctrine, even if we start with the Bible. If that wasn’t the case, there wouldn’t be so many different churches.

quote:

---

If there are other choices, such as abstinance, which are more desireable from a religious view, we are bound to preach them as seriously as we preach against murder.

---

OK, please be clear here. Do you support the actions of the RCC in regards to condom policy in Africa, which is causing the deaths of literally millions of people and the orphaning of millions of children, and often uses lies and misinformation? Well, I’d guess you do financially, but I mean intellectually. Do you also support historical RCC positions on other topics?

quote:

---

Why wouldn't we want to hear about the actions of the Vatican? And what use is such an uiniformed an unquestioning Catholic? They give money, you say? Seriously, anyone with an ounce of curiousity can subscribe to the Catholic papers or look online at this stuff, and there is not exactly any cover up going on. The church is not ashamed of its actions, and if some moderates are supporting the church without knowing what goes on, they are the only ones to blame. The info is out there.

---

Many Catholics I know, both inside and outside my family, actually don’t seem to want to hear things that make them uncomfortable. Yes they give money - you know as well as I that Catholics are “suggested” to give a certain percentage of their income. When I was growing up, I think it was 5%, but I don’t know what it is now. So here's some math for a very rough estimate: around 75 million Catholics in the US, the US average income is around $30K/(household)yr, if only 3% is actually given, then assuming there are 4 per household that’s:75000000*$30,000*1/4*0.03=17,000,000,000 = 17 billion dollars every yearYep, that’s a lot of money. I agree with you that the moderates are significantly to blame - some don’t seem to want to know- at least that’s been my experience. But we can’t blame them too much, after all, things can be lost in the rush of daily life if you aren’t looking for them.

quote:

---

If you have to pretend that the group you support is pure and good, then maybe your ideas of 'pure and good' are not the same as the groups. That is a good sign to get out.

---

Yep, I agree. Have a fun day-Equinox

quote:

---

The ambiguity for me comes in when JP says 'they who without their own fault do not know the gospel of Christ'.
Which can be taken to mean almost anyone.

---

But look what you did to get that ambiguity - you cut off part of the sentence. The whole sentence reads:

quote:

---

For they who without their own fault do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try,
under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to
them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.

---

Note the bolded part - you changed “ . know the Gospel of Christ and His Church . ” into “know the Gospel of Christ", cutting out "and His Church" - which is a reference to the RCC church, not to just any Christian church. Looking at the whole sentence, it cannot be taken to mean almost anyone (see my example person above). Even if it was ambiguous, you pointed out yourself that JPII can be expected to conform to RCC Doctrine, which clears up any ambiguity - see the quote above in post #194.

quote:

---

(I will ask for your pardon in saying that you may have quote-mined. )

---

Thank you. You have it.

quote:

---

I sometimes feel that either very many will be saved, or almost no one.

---

Well, according to Jesus, most humans will go to Hell. At least that’s how it seems most Christians interpret Mt 7:14, and I agree with them that this is the most reasonable interpretation.

quote:

---

Knowing the gospel, and knowing about the gospel. If you don't believe the gospel, how can it be said you know it?

---

Oh, come now - one need not believe something literally to know it well. For instance, a professor of literature may know “A Tale of Two Cities” well, and have studied it most of their life, and not think it really happened. As before, you pointed out that it’s reasonable to assume that JPII isn’t going to violate RCC doctrine, so if we find his quote ambiguous, we can see which interpretation best fits RCC doctrine, which then makes it clear (see the RCC doctrine in post #194).

quote:

---

A church is in a sticky spot when it has to make a declaration on salvation.

---

Well, only if the church’s main concern is it’s own growth. Otherwise it could say whatever is best for humanity. The two forces you point out are the two sides of the useful ambiguity of the doctrine. As described in post #148 (link above), this ability to spin the doctrine one way or the other, depending on which helps the church more in a given situation, is very useful. Your two sides fit this well:

quote:

---

It can not be so loose as to make people feel that the church doesn't even value itself, . .

---

. because if it was, then it couldn’t use hell as a threat to keep people in the church. There would be no need to be in the church if you were a good person.

quote:

---

. . nor so tight as to deny salvation to all who are not in the church.

---

Because that would sound mean, which would make it harder to convince people outside the church from joining a church that sounded mean. Notice the historical aspect here as well. Before around 1920 or so, RCC doctrine emphasized the threat part. It wasn’t until the past century or so that the salvation for good people outside the church was emphasized, since before then there were not significant spiritual alternatives to threats of Hellfire (which until then were equally prominent in the Protestant churches). In the 20th century, moderate Protestant Christianity and religious tolerance both become prominent, where they weren’t before, forcing the RCC to play that side more than previously. That’s why you can find really nasty quotes from Popes in the more distant past threatening Hell, while from recent Popes, the statements are more carefully nuanced to play both sides.

quote:

---

Any of the statements by popes are going to be guesses and somewhat ambiguous, because in all honesty a pope can't judge or categorize all people.

---

Um, have you forgotten the RCC doctrine of Papal infallibility? The Pope, when speaking infallibly, is the literal mouthpiece of God, not just some human guess, according the RCC. Sure, there are some weasel words in the RCC doctrine, such as that the Pope has to say he’s speaking infallibly, but when those are met, it’s not some guess, it’s God’s will.

quote:

---

I don't mean to nit-pick, but the church doesn't claim to save anyone. It is Jesus Who claims to save.

---

Nor do I mean to nit-pick, but the RCC does claim to be necessary for salvation for anyone who can’t claim ignorance. It further claims that it is the mouthpiece of Jesus. I myself would point out that in my best estimate, it seems that Jesus isn’t claiming to save anyone, since he’s been dead for over 1,900 years, and even when he was alive he doesn’t seem to have claimed to save anyone, based on historians best reconstruction of the actual historical Jesus.

quote:

---

You see, you had to include 'sincerely repent of your sins before death' and that proves you wrong. Anyone who sincerely repents of their sins can be saved regardless of what, if any, church they join.

---

No, it doesn’t, and this is why. The RCC rite of baptism is to remove previous and original sin. That’s the main defense of infant baptism. Anyone who sincerely repents of their sins, and still refuses to join the RCC, isn’t saved, as we’ve discussed - since the RCC sees “not joining the RCC” as one of the worst possible sins, as always with the caveat of ignorance.

quote:

---

Ultimately, if you repent, you are considered to have joined.

---

No, you haven’t. I’d kindly ask you to find any RCC doctrine that states that if you repent of your sins you are automatically considered to be Catholic (of course, if we define “not being Catholic” as a sin, then “repenting of your sins” would have to include “joining the RCC”, but let’s be clear here, we are talking about someone who thinks of the harmful things he or she has done, and repents those, while not having guilt for not being in the RCC).You know, that idea of considering any repentant sinner as automatically RCC sounds an awful lot like the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead into the LDS church. Doesn’t it feel similar to you? In both cases a person who isn’t thinking of joining the church in question (RCC or LDS) is considered to have joined.Have a fun weekend--Equinox.Edited by Equinox, : clarificationEdited by Equinox, : same

quote:

---

and what 'knowing the gospel of Christ and His church' means. How much does one need to know, and does 'knowing' imply understanding and agreement with? Going back to at least PiusIX, is does indeed mean understanding and agreement. So, all of these harsh papal documents which speak of condemnation for those who do not enter the church or do not remain with her, are taken now to mean 'only those who know, understand, agree, with the gospels, and still do not seek full union with the church, or who leave the church for a heretical sect.

---

Are you saying that someone who knows of the church, understands it, and doesn’t agree is OK since they don’t agree? That sounds silly, since any heretic will disagree. It sounds like fluffy new age type of stuff, where if you aren’t truly “following your heart, wherever that leads”, you are in trouble, but that any honestly followed path (including, say, the KKK) will get you to heaven. I doubt Pius IX was saying that, right?

quote:

---

What I should have said is that both of us emphasized in our own minds a part of JP's Lumen Gentium. Not really quote-mining, but not seeing the forest for trees.

---

Yes, it’s part of being human. However, we do seem to have a clear difference, where I say that both Catholic doctrine and Papal statements only allow for those outside the Catholic church to be saved based on ignorance, while you (heretically, it seems to me) leave the door open wider, more like postmodernists. Since we’ve both stated our positions and evidences, and are now repeating ourselves, it may be best to agree to disagree, and move on to other topics.

quote:

---

rather more of an expose of the doctrine.

---

We have that, the doctrine is quite detailed and has been posted twice so far, and it’s clear that ignorance is needed to avoid hell, unless one is in the RCC. I suppose if we don’t like what the doctrine says we can ask for a third opinion somewhere else, but if that’s the case, when why not just say we don’t like what the doctrine says, and that we aren’t going to agree with the doctrine?

quote:

---

But say the church's concern is not for its own growth. The church's concern is for the salvation of souls.

---

And if good people are saved even if they are outside the RCC, then there is no need for the RCC to get people to join. You can see the tie in as well as I - by dancing around the concept of requiring people to be in the RCC to be saved, the RCC grows. It’s simply natural selection that the RCC has this doctrine, and that saying, flat out, that being good will get you saved, would be better for the world.

quote:

---

There are no threats.

---

You have to ignore nearly 2,000 years of Christian proclamations, writings, and media to say that hell is not a threat. Graphic portrayals of Hell are common, - I even remember them in stained glass in the RCC church of my childhood. Besides, if anyone, Christian or not, really believes that there is a Hell, then nothing else would be more important.

quote:

---

I don't forget about infallibility. I know how and when to apply it, however. In this case, there is no infallibility. A pope, any pope. CAN NOT predict whatsoever the status of another person's salvation. Only God can judge. The most a pope can do is lay out an outline for what the church believes as far as salvation doctrine. It can not limit 'ignorance' to this or that technicality. God is the only person who can judge if a person is 'ignorant' of Christ, or willfully opposed.

---

That’s why, from the start, I mentioned hypothetical people in certain situations, which the RCC can and does have doctrine on, as we saw.

quote:

---

Further, Lumen Gentium does not fall into the category of an infallible Papal definition. It is only a treatise on what the church has already taught. No pope has spoken ex cathedra, aka infallibly, since 1950. In other words, nothing that Pope John Paul said was authoritative to that extent.

---

OK, I’m interested in that then. If you have ex cathedra statements about salvation outside the church, they may help. If you are correct that there are none since 1950 (are you thinking of a specific one in 1950?), then it seems unlikely they will have the postmodern niceness of allowing much salvation outside the RCC.
In addition, this shows why the stated doctrine is more impotant than what JPII says. If the Lumen Gentium is not even ex cathedra, then wouldn’t it be better for us to just focus on the stated doctrine?

quote:

---

I don't know what you mean about jesus claiming to save, or any historical reconstruction which people can't even agree on,

---

I’ve noticed as I’ve gotten older that certainty is a better signal of error than uncertainty is. Sure there is discussion over exactly what the actual Jesus was like, based on evidence. Isn’t that likely to provide a more accurate description of anyone from the past than simple acceptance of a dogma is?

quote:

---

it’s not unbiblical to be inclusive.

---

OK, you must be reading a different Bible than I. Both the OT and the NT say again and again that other religions are not acceptable. The NT goes on to say that even other denominations of Christian are not OK. The OT has whole sections devoted to this, portraying being in another religion as “spiritual adultery”. The NT is "inclusive" in the sense that anyone is allowed to convert Christianity and be saved, but that's hardly what I'd call inclusive. This is a big enough topic for a whole other thread, so maybe another thread should be made for it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it doesn’t, and this is why. The RCC rite of baptism is to remove previous and original sin. That’s the main defense of infant baptism. Anyone who sincerely repents of their sins, and still refuses to join the RCC, isn’t saved, as we’ve discussed - since the RCC sees “not joining the RCC” as one of the worst possible sins, as always with the caveat of ignorance.

---

​

And again, we can't say for sure how far the 'caveat of ignorance card' can be played.

---

Well, we can go by the stated doctrine, which seems to say that it can’t be stretched very far.

quote:

---

First of all, this doesn't sound like the LDS doctrine at all, for the simple fact that the RCC won't baptize or do anything to dead bodies.
Because I thought you knew what I meant, I will have to say this more carefully this time. The RCC believes in the church militant and the church triumphant. In the case that a person is repentant before death, and achieves salvation although has not the opportunity to learn about or join the church, if he gains heaven, he is part of the 'church' which is the Body of Christ and considered inseperable from the RCC. The church is Christ, and Christ the Church, so anyone 'saved' as in, in heaven, is part of the true church. This is comparable to protestant doctrine, saving that many modern trends teach that there is no true church on earth.
So, repenting doesn't make you catholic, but I was talking about only the instant of death, when by repenting you desire to be part of the 'church'. You are not thereofore Protestant, or Mormom, or Methodist...but Catholic according to the idea that the RCC is Christ. Weird, perhaps, not 'official' per se, but part of the doctrine of baptism into Christ by desire.

---

The reason it is similar is because in both cases, a church (RCC or LDS) is claiming people who are not themselves saying that they are in that church. Further, in both cases, the church in question is justifying this based on the idea that it is the one true church, so anyone who is part of the Body of Christ is part of that church (the RCC or LDS, respectively). Neither doctrine involves the handling of corpses - the LDS baptism is done without the body being there.

quote:

---

I support the RCC teachings against birth-control usage by Catholics. I do not always financially support a parish or a special collection, unless I feel confident in the work being done, and that the parish is not in the 'progressive' category. I don't of course condone or support lying about condoms and AIDS or anything else, but I expect uniformity of doctrine.
. .
The suggested tithe is 10% I believe.

---

If you are financially supporting the RCC, then you are financially supporting the lying about condoms, as those news articles show. Is it good to expect any doctrine to be rigid, even when that costs millions of lives and is clearly detrimental to the good of humanity?I just saw an article in yesterday’s NYT that showed that of the African missionary work by the Anglican church (77 million people), US Episcopals (2.3 million people) supplied over $18 million for it. That’s a microcosm of the RCC, which has around 65 million US, and about 2,000 million worldwide - in both cases around 25 times the Episcopal numbers. Any way you slice it (especially with your 10% above) - that’s a lot of money. With that kind of money, of course they can support bishops who lie about condoms or whatever.Overall, we’ve had some useful discussion. It seems however that we’ve beaten this one to death, and I don’t think we are getting anywhere now. Perhaps either of us will start a thread on one of the tangential topics touched on in this thread. In that or in any other place in this forum, I hope to have additional discussions with you. Despite this thread, we have a lot in common in some areas. Take care--Equinox, who’s wife is expected to give birth any day now, which will take me off these boards for a few weeks when it happens.