Robert Reymond once made made this suggestion in an article (which escapes me at the moment): Roman Catholics could still die outside of "a state of grace" and go to hell. (So if Cardinal Danilou in the post just below this one, was genuinely "visiting" the prostitute's home where he died, he's very likely in hell).
On the other hand, non-Roman Catholics can now be admitted to salvation just by obeying their consciences. So one may imagine the ridiculous spectacle of life-long Roman Catholic clerics in hell (Medieval popes and bishops, and Cardinal Danilou, possibly for "visiting" the prostitute, for example) and Islamist suicide bombers in heaven.
So hell exists, but there's no one there? That's...interesting. God has this place all set up, and it's just sitting there doing nothing. Does the Cardinal think that the Almighty will rent it out to college students?
John writes: "non-Roman Catholics can now be admitted to salvation just by obeying their consciences".
Maybe, yes. After all, is it not conceivable that a "true" Christian who thinks they're following the dictates of the Bible could sin egregiously yet not actually know they've offended God?
Steve implied on another thread that Southern pastors proof-texted Scripture for their support of slavery. Maybe so, and maybe buying and selling humans for profit really is a sin. Does this mean that all those good pastors from the SBC are now in Hell because they were simply confused about Exodus 21 and Paul's admonition to slaves?
My thought is this: we do see as "through a glass, darkly" in this life. Perhaps we are finally given, upon death, a total and complete realization of the morality or immorality of our actions and are then given a free choice to accept or repudiate them. A more "perfect repentance", if you will.
If this is the case, then it should give us some degree of humility in knowing the limitations of our own judgment. "Work out your salvation in fear and trembling" ... so it says.
is it not conceivable that a "true" Christian who thinks they're following the dictates of the Bible could sin egregiously yet not actually know they've offended God?
Of course it is. But as usual, the point is that infallible Rome has enshrined a dogma that is (a) opposite what it used to be, and (b) contrary to reason.
My thought is this: we do see as "through a glass, darkly" in this life.
The Roman Magisterium "cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals". Except that, the more they define, the more ridiculous they look.
You're indulging in another off-topic rant. This post is not about who should or shouldn't be saved. Rather, this post is about the lack of consistency in Catholic dogma over the centuries. Or, at best, the complete lack of discipline in maintaining a consistent party line.
The Church's teaching on this issue has been consistent. What hasn't been consistent is the (mis)understanding of the uninformed.
Either way, I'll just let Bugay do his usual dance of "The Church is obviously totally corrupt. I can't explain why I was a member for years that doesn't make me look like an invalid." At least Steve's mind isn't one-track.
"The Church is obviously totally corrupt. I can't explain why I was a member for years that doesn't make me look like an invalid."
Two things. As an advertising guy, I know it takes on average about 27 different exposures to a message before an audience member will typically even see it. So I'm repetitive on purpose.
Second, I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church as an accident of birth. I was fed all the "correct interpretations" for years. One reason for my, uh, zeal in the cause, is a profound sense of betrayal, of having been taught untrue things throughout all of my childhood and young adulthood. In a sense, I am an invalid. I am scarred for life.
Robert Reymond once made made this suggestion in an article (which escapes me at the moment): Roman Catholics could still die outside of "a state of grace" and go to hell. (So if Cardinal Danilou in the post just below this one, was genuinely "visiting" the prostitute's home where he died, he's very likely in hell).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, non-Roman Catholics can now be admitted to salvation just by obeying their consciences. So one may imagine the ridiculous spectacle of life-long Roman Catholic clerics in hell (Medieval popes and bishops, and Cardinal Danilou, possibly for "visiting" the prostitute, for example) and Islamist suicide bombers in heaven.
So hell exists, but there's no one there? That's...interesting. God has this place all set up, and it's just sitting there doing nothing. Does the Cardinal think that the Almighty will rent it out to college students?
ReplyDeleteJohn writes: "non-Roman Catholics can now be admitted to salvation just by obeying their consciences".
ReplyDeleteMaybe, yes. After all, is it not conceivable that a "true" Christian who thinks they're following the dictates of the Bible could sin egregiously yet not actually know they've offended God?
Steve implied on another thread that Southern pastors proof-texted Scripture for their support of slavery. Maybe so, and maybe buying and selling humans for profit really is a sin. Does this mean that all those good pastors from the SBC are now in Hell because they were simply confused about Exodus 21 and Paul's admonition to slaves?
My thought is this: we do see as "through a glass, darkly" in this life. Perhaps we are finally given, upon death, a total and complete realization of the morality or immorality of our actions and are then given a free choice to accept or repudiate them. A more "perfect repentance", if you will.
If this is the case, then it should give us some degree of humility in knowing the limitations of our own judgment. "Work out your salvation in fear and trembling" ... so it says.
is it not conceivable that a "true" Christian who thinks they're following the dictates of the Bible could sin egregiously yet not actually know they've offended God?
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. But as usual, the point is that infallible Rome has enshrined a dogma that is (a) opposite what it used to be, and (b) contrary to reason.
My thought is this: we do see as "through a glass, darkly" in this life.
The Roman Magisterium "cannot err in defining matters of faith and morals". Except that, the more they define, the more ridiculous they look.
James,
ReplyDeleteYou're indulging in another off-topic rant. This post is not about who should or shouldn't be saved. Rather, this post is about the lack of consistency in Catholic dogma over the centuries. Or, at best, the complete lack of discipline in maintaining a consistent party line.
The Church's teaching on this issue has been consistent. What hasn't been consistent is the (mis)understanding of the uninformed.
ReplyDeleteEither way, I'll just let Bugay do his usual dance of "The Church is obviously totally corrupt. I can't explain why I was a member for years that doesn't make me look like an invalid." At least Steve's mind isn't one-track.
"The Church is obviously totally corrupt. I can't explain why I was a member for years that doesn't make me look like an invalid."
ReplyDeleteTwo things. As an advertising guy, I know it takes on average about 27 different exposures to a message before an audience member will typically even see it. So I'm repetitive on purpose.
Second, I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church as an accident of birth. I was fed all the "correct interpretations" for years. One reason for my, uh, zeal in the cause, is a profound sense of betrayal, of having been taught untrue things throughout all of my childhood and young adulthood. In a sense, I am an invalid. I am scarred for life.
Crude said...
ReplyDelete"The Church's teaching on this issue has been consistent. What hasn't been consistent is the (mis)understanding of the uninformed."
Does the cardinal's position represent the consistent teaching of Rome over the centuries? Or is the cardinal uninformed?
Why not become a liberal protestant? You can believe anything you want, do anything you want, and still go to heaven.
ReplyDeleteA win-win-win situation.