Pope Francis says Atheists Can Be saved..

[Lifer]

LOL I am so with you on that one, Darryl.

I've listened to MrP and his friends and family talk about their childhoods and being brought up Jewish and compared them to that of my own and my Catholic friends....and I've come up with this to explain away the differences:

Jewish children are brought up to question - questions are regarded a mark of intelligence and they are given detailed answers. Precocious behaviour is encouraged from the cradle.....they are told, by their parents, their relatives, their teachers and their rabbis that they will grow up to do great things. Each and every accomplishment, no matter how large or how small, is met with hugs, kisses and more honeycakes and kugles.

Catholic children (at least Irish Catholic ghetto babies such as myself) have their questions answered in three ways - "Because I told you so," "go ask your father," and "Children are to be seen and not heard, shuttup already and go to your room." Precocious behaviour is regarded as sinful and is beaten out of you at an early age. If and when we "brag" about some accomplishment, no matter if it is major or minor, we are told, "Don't get too big for your britches," and are reminded that "pride goeth before a fall."

Viva la difference, I suppose.....but I'm pretty sure I'd have been a smarter adult if only I'd been a Jewish child.

Evangelicals teach that children who ask questions are bad, children who dont ask questions are bad, all people are bad, nobody is good, only God is good, you deserve death, so dont question, be obediant, do as the leadership says, become a member,pay your tithes, dont question, and shut up, and God loves you

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yisroel (Israel, first the name of the patriarch, then the people Israel, and only later an ancient state and then a modern one)... means "struggles with God." It's the name Jacob got when he wrestled with God in a dream.

We're always supposed to ask... even when we know the answer's not likely to be forthcoming LOL.

Comes with the territory: there's nothing, nobody, no anything you can imagine that resembles God. That's just one of the "things" in Judaism. Makes for endless questions, and endless frustrations.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

As our local Conan the Grammarian, I'll point out that it's almost never necessary to use "utilize." People use it two ways: either to puff up their prose, using three syllables where one ("use") will do, or, correctly -- although in 90% of cases those using it correctly could get by with "use" just fine, because the difference in words is made moot by context.

That difference is that "utilize" simply means to "use" something in a way other than was originally envisioned or intended. So, for example, the Apollo 13 astronauts utilized a plastic bag, some other stuff, and some duct-tape, to create an oxygen scrubber.

You can see here how they could "use" the items in question and the sentence would lose nothing.

Now -- are you puffing up the prose, or are you saying that Catholics utilize the scriptures... that is to say, use them for a purpose other than was previously envisioned?


No Catholic scholar in 1513 would tell you that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" should be taken any way other than literally. I am sure there would be dull dogmatists running around explaining precisely how and why each facet of canon law should be applied when thinking about witches and heretics, but the auto da fe and trial by ordeal were, at the time, an eternally good and necessary thing that would always be thus.

I hope it doesn't take 500 more years, but I think the church will end up with similar accommodations with homosexuality, birth control, and abortions. They're not core doctrine.



I hope you understand I'm explaining to the faithful why we the "less faithful" see their faith as unnecessary in our own lives. I'm not telling you to lose your faith, and don't hope to change you. That's the job of your own reason

PFnV

Four paragraphs on "use" and "utilize"? :wha:

Don't you do enough editing at work? Do you really need to do it here as well?

The church is filled with human beings who have their own agendas. Doctrines of the church have been twisted to serve political agendas many times over 2000 years. But for those interested in the truth, there is a voice in the church that can't be wrong and that's the Holy Spirit working within the Magisterium.
This article is a good example. Progressives used the statements of the Pope to further their secularist agenda to show that "religion" is unnecessary. The press twisted the words of the Pope to equate redemption with salvation. The magisterium though tells us a different story.
That is the beauty of the Extraordinary and Universal/Ordinary Magisterium. It is free from error and therefore cannot be contradicted.
So the prohibition against witchcraft has been a teaching of the church since the very beginning and is part of the Universal/Ordinary Magisterium and therefore infallible teaching.

Was this doctrine then misused? Yup.

But the misuse wasn't what the Magisterium taught on witchcraft. There were no "accommodations" made to this teaching.
Same goes for abortion, homosexual acts, artificial birth control. All of these issues are taught infallibly within the universal and Ordinary Magisterium. As such, the church cannot contradict them.


"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition [regarding abortion] is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops -- who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
With respect to abortion, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the teaching is "unchangeable":
2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

Evangelium Vitae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Here is what I've asked my wife, my in laws, friends and variest clergy in the christian faith and have got different answers.

What if a guy, let's just say he's a Muslim, he's in his 20's and has been a decent guy his whole life and is hit by a bus and dies. But, in his life he's never been exposed to Christianity because of his upbringing and his location. Does he not get in to heaven? Because of no fault of his own he is sentenced to damnation?

847 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.337



Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

 

[Lifer]

Four paragraphs on "use" and "utilize"? :wha:

Don't you do enough editing at work? Do you really need to do it here as well?

The church is filled with human beings who have their own agendas. Doctrines of the church have been twisted to serve political agendas many times over 2000 years. But for those interested in the truth, there is a voice in the church that can't be wrong and that's the Holy Spirit working within the Magisterium.
This article is a good example. Progressives used the statements of the Pope to further their secularist agenda to show that "religion" is unnecessary. The press twisted the words of the Pope to equate redemption with salvation. The magisterium though tells us a different story.
That is the beauty of the Extraordinary and Universal/Ordinary Magisterium. It is free from error and therefore cannot be contradicted.
So the prohibition against witchcraft has been a teaching of the church since the very beginning and is part of the Universal/Ordinary Magisterium and therefore infallible teaching.

Was this doctrine then misused? Yup.

But the misuse wasn't what the Magisterium taught on witchcraft. There were no "accommodations" made to this teaching.
Same goes for abortion, homosexual acts, artificial birth control. All of these issues are taught infallibly within the universal and Ordinary Magisterium. As such, the church cannot contradict them.


"Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition [regarding abortion] is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops -- who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
With respect to abortion, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the teaching is "unchangeable":
2271. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."

Evangelium Vitae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alex, what is the definition of "Mumbo Jumbo"?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Alex, what is the definition of "Mumbo Jumbo"?

Alex, what is..."I don't understand even the basics of church history"

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Alex, what is "the transitive property of rhetoric"?

Are you equating the two, RI?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

PS, as to the Muslim example -- we should probably say the guy is a tribesman deep in the interior of Borneo or somesuch, since Muslims incorporate a different doctrine of Jesus, but highly revere him and teach about him. (I.e., a Muslim would have heard of Jesus and learned much of his teaching as part of his knowledge of Islam)

You cannot study Islam without studying what Islam says about Christianity and Judaism; the two preceding faiths are woven throughout the Quran. So, a Muslim's not in the world of "never heard of Jesus," and one could argue that he "should have" figured out that wherever Islam says "they got it wrong" he should have immediately known that Islam was wrong and Catholicism is right -- for example, where the Muslims say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, because the Romans didn't break his legs, no matter what the Christians say, you could argue "Aha! He should have known that the universal correct teaching is not the Muslim story but the Catholic story!"

But I don't want to speak for Catholicism, since we have such a proud expert scholar of Catholicism among us.

Would the cases be different for one who had never heard of Jesus, and one who had learned doctrine other than Church doctrine about Jesus? Or is it roughly the same case, from the point of view of the Church?

PFnV

 

[DarrylS]

LOL I am so with you on that one, Darryl.

I've listened to MrP and his friends and family talk about their childhoods and being brought up Jewish and compared them to that of my own and my Catholic friends....and I've come up with this to explain away the differences:

Jewish children are brought up to question - questions are regarded a mark of intelligence and they are given detailed answers. Precocious behaviour is encouraged from the cradle.....they are told, by their parents, their relatives, their teachers and their rabbis that they will grow up to do great things. Each and every accomplishment, no matter how large or how small, is met with hugs, kisses and more honeycakes and kugles.

Catholic children (at least Irish Catholic ghetto babies such as myself) have their questions answered in three ways - "Because I told you so," "go ask your father," and "Children are to be seen and not heard, shuttup already and go to your room." Precocious behaviour is regarded as sinful and is beaten out of you at an early age. If and when we "brag" about some accomplishment, no matter if it is major or minor, we are told, "Don't get too big for your britches," and are reminded that "pride goeth before a fall."

Viva la difference, I suppose.....but I'm pretty sure I'd have been a smarter adult if only I'd been a Jewish child.

Wasn't a "ghetto baby", but emerged from very humble GI Bill roots to an emerging lower middle class.. we were taught pretty much the same at home and by the priests/nuns/brothers.. the penchant to have 5 reasons for anything, tended to be stifling.. the famous blue book with all of the answers did not lend itself to study or inquiry...

That pretty much happened in the home also, children were told and not heard all that much.. we went to church on Sundays, the children went downstairs for mass.. separated from the adults... and latin was the order of the day. When I became an altar boy(very shortlived as I did it for the wedding or funeral money) they taught us the latin, but never taught us what it meant.. it was all rote learning, and no room for thought. Trusting priest, nuns and brother was supposed to happen sans question.. but there was always a "wink and a nod" about a Brother who was in charge of the "Mother's Club".

High school was pretty much the same, then came Vatican II, Viet Nam and the late 60's, and the mantra "question authority" took over.. and skepticism reigned then as it does now.. imo the greatest dichotomy was the abuse of priests, as a couple of friends got nailed by a priest in a "Retreat House", who rode a big white horse.. he knew how to pick the kids, as my friends who were chosen had parents who were irish immigrants, fathers drank too much and mothers who did the "right thing"... these friends are dead now one from dancing with a train and the other from too much booze..

 

[Lifer]

Alex, what is..."I don't understand even the basics of church history"

Yeah, cuz Magisterium is mentioned so much in the New Testament. (Insert eyeball roll)

 

[Mrs.PatsFanInVa]

That pretty much happened in the home also, children were told and not heard all that much.. we went to church on Sundays, the children went downstairs for mass.. separated from the adults... and latin was the order of the day.

I actually got more encouragement at school than I got at home. When I was in 3rd grade our pastor (and the only full time priest) got altzheimers - and they sent in a not-quite fully ordained Jesuit to assist him. Young, go-getter type guy....and, as a Jesuit, he loved to argue. He strongly influenced the nuns, and they, too began to accept questions as a way of life. One of the nuns, who later became principal, had sort of taken me under her wing and let me hang around the convent and do "errands" with her. Between the two of them, I was, first, able to ask questions, and later, to argue the answers. My family didn't like it, but who'd tell a priest or nun to knock it off?

I stayed in touch with both of them throughout high school, pregnancy, bad first marriage and losing my religion. And then we all moved away and lost touch. I know where he's at now - he's some high-up at the archdiocese in Chicago and I am often tempted to try contacting him - but never quite get around to it. The nun eventually left the convent and got married.

The Latin, I loved. Took several years of it in high school and it was a fantastic basis for understanding English and how to use words. If I found a mass in Latin, I'd probably attend just because I loved the mystery and the sound. It was comforting to me. Probably because it's ok to not understand something in a foreign language and it's not ok to not understand it in your native tongue.

Abuse, I don't know. I know there was plenty of physical and mental abuse in grammar school - having been on the receiving end quite often. We just took it for granted, though. It was something you got at home and so there was no reason you shouldn't get the same at school. Continuity of care and all that.

Sexual abuse, I have no first hand knowledge of, nor was I ever aware of it occuring when I was a child or teenager. Not to say it didn't happen, but just that it wasn't happening where I found out about it.

The church where my kids took CCD had issues, however. Quite public issues.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

Yeah, cuz Magisterium is mentioned so much in the New Testament. (Insert eyeball roll)

Actually, if you understood what the term meant you'd see that it was "mentioned" throughout the New Testament.

BTW, the word "Trinity" isn't mentioned in the NT either yet Christians accept it as dogma because the concept was alluded to in the NT and fully revealed in the oral tradition of the church and then further explained at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.

One more thing, there was no canon of scripture for the early christians so there was no Bible. The early christians relied on the oral tradition of the church to understand the faith, not...."the Bible".
But even if there was a Bible back then, very few people could read.....even less could read Latin.......and there was no printing press (so all scripture had to be hand written) so the chances of having an entire Bible as an individual were basically zero. That's why "Bible" christians didn't exist in the early church or in the church period until the Protestant heretics came along.

 

[RI Patriots fan]

PS, as to the Muslim example -- we should probably say the guy is a tribesman deep in the interior of Borneo or somesuch, since Muslims incorporate a different doctrine of Jesus, but highly revere him and teach about him. (I.e., a Muslim would have heard of Jesus and learned much of his teaching as part of his knowledge of Islam)

You cannot study Islam without studying what Islam says about Christianity and Judaism; the two preceding faiths are woven throughout the Quran. So, a Muslim's not in the world of "never heard of Jesus," and one could argue that he "should have" figured out that wherever Islam says "they got it wrong" he should have immediately known that Islam was wrong and Catholicism is right -- for example, where the Muslims say that Jesus didn't die on the cross, because the Romans didn't break his legs, no matter what the Christians say, you could argue "Aha! He should have known that the universal correct teaching is not the Muslim story but the Catholic story!"

But I don't want to speak for Catholicism, since we have such a proud expert scholar of Catholicism among us.

Would the cases be different for one who had never heard of Jesus, and one who had learned doctrine other than Church doctrine about Jesus? Or is it roughly the same case, from the point of view of the Church?

PFnV

If I learn about "Jesus", and I'm told that Jesus was a friendly Basset Hound who likes having his ears scratched do I really know Jesus at that point?

I think, obviously, we are judged by what we know. So to what extent we know Jesus, is the extent to which we will held accountable.

Also, within this "knowing", we have to factor in our experiences as well. If I was a Jew in Nazi Germany, and the only thing I experienced from so called "christians" was abuse, anger, violence, torture and death.....even though I may be familiar with Jesus, would I really know the true Jesus based upon my experiences? Personally, I don't think so.

Again, I believe that it comes down to grace. If we have a moment in our lives when grace calls to us and we reject grace, then I believe we are accountable.

 

[Lifer]

Actually, if you understood what the term meant you'd see that it was "mentioned" throughout the New Testament.

BTW, the word "Trinity" isn't mentioned in the NT either yet Christians accept it as dogma because the concept was alluded to in the NT and fully revealed in the oral tradition of the church and then further explained at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus.

One more thing, there was no canon of scripture for the early christians so there was no Bible. The early christians relied on the oral tradition of the church to understand the faith, not...."the Bible".
But even if there was a Bible back then, very few people could read.....even less could read Latin.......and there was no printing press (so all scripture had to be hand written) so the chances of having an entire Bible as an individual were basically zero. That's why "Bible" christians didn't exist in the early church or in the church period until the Protestant heretics came along.

on one hand you point to the Bible, which i obviously have no understanding of, as your justification for getting all your marching orders from some dude at the Vatican. Then you go on to say, basically, who the hell cares what the Bible says anyway? And you do it with smugness and arrogance. I bet you watch Hannity dont you?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

on one hand you point to the Bible, which i obviously have no understanding of, as your justification for getting all your marching orders from some dude at the Vatican. Then you go on to say, basically, who the hell cares what the Bible says anyway? And you do it with smugness and arrogance. I bet you watch Hannity dont you?

Ok.....it's obvious you bring nothing to the table.

Maybe you could at least try and add something of substance to the discussion. Even just something.

We get it....you don't like conservatives. Everyone understands that now.

Move on.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

If I learn about "Jesus", and I'm told that Jesus was a friendly Basset Hound who likes having his ears scratched do I really know Jesus at that point?

That sounds like a reasonable point of view.

- If you've never heard of Jesus, meh, can't go to hell for that. (pardon me for fixating on the outcomes -- it helps me avoid technicalities about redemption versus salvation versus grace - see below.)

- If you've heard of Jesus from a point of view other than the doctrine teaches, meh, not your fault.

I think, obviously, we are judged by what we know. So to what extent we know Jesus, is the extent to which we will held accountable.

As you know by now) I'm not a fan of people being "judged" for their thoughts, but let's stay within this paradigm.

- If you have been indoctrinated and decide against it, well, that's the purest form of rebellion. Bad.

- If you have indoctrination in a different faith that mentions Jesus, that's taken into account. Not as bad but still not great.

- If you're Jesus-ignorant, some other process pertains.

Also, within this "knowing", we have to factor in our experiences as well. If I was a Jew in Nazi Germany, and the only thing I experienced from so called "christians" was abuse, anger, violence, torture and death.....even though I may be familiar with Jesus, would I really know the true Jesus based upon my experiences? Personally, I don't think so.

So this too is actually quite enlightened.

- If we have personal bad experiences with those claiming Christian motivations for persecution (one example), we can "learn" the wrong thing about Jesus, so the belief in Jesus per se becomes a less significant feature in the mechanics.

This all leads to...

Again, I believe that it comes down to grace. If we have a moment in our lives when grace calls to us and we reject grace, then I believe we are accountable.

Now you're talkin' like Francis, and you're to be congratulated for it, both by your own lights and your church's. After all, he's wearing the freakin' shoes of the fisherman here buster!

The only trouble is, to understand how the mechanics work, now I need to know precisely what you mean by Grace.

What's Grace?

PFnV

 

[Lifer]

Ok.....it's obvious you bring nothing to the table.

Maybe you could at least try and add something of substance to the discussion. Even just something.

We get it....you don't like conservatives. Everyone understands that now.

Move on.

Wow. I pointed out an inconsistancy and thats your response, barking orders? Excuse me, but who the hell are you?

 

[RI Patriots fan]

That sounds like a reasonable point of view.

- If you've never heard of Jesus, meh, can't go to hell for that. (pardon me for fixating on the outcomes -- it helps me avoid technicalities about redemption versus salvation versus grace - see below.)

- If you've heard of Jesus from a point of view other than the doctrine teaches, meh, not your fault.



As you know by now) I'm not a fan of people being "judged" for their thoughts, but let's stay within this paradigm.

- If you have been indoctrinated and decide against it, well, that's the purest form of rebellion. Bad.

- If you have indoctrination in a different faith that mentions Jesus, that's taken into account. Not as bad but still not great.

- If you're Jesus-ignorant, some other process pertains.



So this too is actually quite enlightened.

- If we have personal bad experiences with those claiming Christian motivations for persecution (one example), we can "learn" the wrong thing about Jesus, so the belief in Jesus per se becomes a less significant feature in the mechanics.

This all leads to...



Now you're talkin' like Francis, and you're to be congratulated for it, both by your own lights and your church's. After all, he's wearing the freakin' shoes of the fisherman here buster!

The only trouble is, to understand how the mechanics work, now I need to know precisely what you mean by Grace.

What's Grace?

PFnV

II. GRACE

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.46

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.47

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48


Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49
2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50


Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:


If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52
2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54

2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church:


Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.55
2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.56 However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"57 - reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty.


A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God's grace, she replied: 'If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'"58



Catechism of the Catholic Church - Grace and justification

 

[PatsFanInVa]

LOL bait n switch again!

Yes, yes, even a godless cannibal can be saved/redeemed/etc. if he has been offered grace and has accepted the offer... which consists of joining the church & being all about Jesus!

Does it seem to you as much as to me, that the definition of "grace" here gainsays your previous post? In other words... by throwing in "depends on whether you have a grace moment, & what you do with it," you're basically saying the sine qua non isn't a level of knowledge of Jesus or the church, but a grace thing -- with grace in large part defined by belief in Jesus and membership in the church.

Or are you reading this differently? In other words, are you saying that grace is defined as a moment between God and the individual, and God chooses what that individual's called to -- all of which of course is mirrored in Jesus and the Church, in Catholic doctrine?

So for example, God may call for a progressive atheist who otherwise never gave to the poor, to give to the poor and believe in love for his fellow man. He may call for the most observant Catholic to go beyond the required 10% tithe, not in terms of money, but in other terms, whether openheartedness or humility or whatever. Is this the idea? (And of course God may call the Muslim to deeper love and faith and whatnot, but without calling him to the Catholic Church, or may similarly call the holocaust survivor to himself but not necessarily to the Church or to Jesus).

Is that closer to what you're saying? I.e., to you inside Catholicism, I may be spiritually moved to something that isn't specifically aligned with Catholicism as others view it, but anytime you have a spiritual experience it's by nature an experience involving Jesus and the Church, if even just a little, from the Catholic point of view?

PFnV

 

[RI Patriots fan]

LOL bait n switch again!

Yes, yes, even a godless cannibal can be saved/redeemed/etc. if he has been offered grace and has accepted the offer... which consists of joining the church & being all about Jesus!

Does it seem to you as much as to me, that the definition of "grace" here gainsays your previous post? In other words... by throwing in "depends on whether you have a grace moment, & what you do with it," you're basically saying the sine qua non isn't a level of knowledge of Jesus or the church, but a grace thing -- with grace in large part defined by belief in Jesus and membership in the church.

Or are you reading this differently? In other words, are you saying that grace is defined as a moment between God and the individual, and God chooses what that individual's called to -- all of which of course is mirrored in Jesus and the Church, in Catholic doctrine?

So for example, God may call for a progressive atheist who otherwise never gave to the poor, to give to the poor and believe in love for his fellow man. He may call for the most observant Catholic to go beyond the required 10% tithe, not in terms of money, but in other terms, whether openheartedness or humility or whatever. Is this the idea? (And of course God may call the Muslim to deeper love and faith and whatnot, but without calling him to the Catholic Church, or may similarly call the holocaust survivor to himself but not necessarily to the Church or to Jesus).

Is that closer to what you're saying? I.e., to you inside Catholicism, I may be spiritually moved to something that isn't specifically aligned with Catholicism as others view it, but anytime you have a spiritual experience it's by nature an experience involving Jesus and the Church, if even just a little, from the Catholic point of view?

PFnV

Well, if ************ is God and grace is his gift to us, wouldn't it make sense that grace would move us to ************?

Why would the grace of ************ move someone's heart away from ************?

Grace will never move us away from ************.

So that Muslim may be given that grace...but that grace will not push them to Islam and away from Catholicism.

So yes......not all faiths are created equal. God's grace will always move people to faith in ************ and the Roman Catholic church insofar as it is possible and the person cooperates with God's grace.