Catholics; Inclusivism

[ForeverFaithful]

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

There was a question asked of Our Lady in October 1981 which was: Are all religions the same? Our Lady answered: "Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over each faith just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not the same because all people have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them."

So on note of this two points I, as someone who seeks the refudge of Rome, have some trouble with these views. I did not post this in the DIR because I don't want this to be a simple discussion of the matter but an actually look at it with controversy and all. I'd also like to make clear this is not a Traditionalism vs VII, something I might look into with another thread.

But this is an appeal to my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, these points worry me, but if the Church teaches them and Our Lady supports them, I do not want to go against their authority. However being a former Anglican I have seen rotten fruits from Religious Indifferentism (though I understand the Roman Inclusivism is not on that level) which sow the seeds of Arianism and Pelgarianism, both foul doctirnes that can not stand in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ. I also wonder what is does to Evangelists who desire to bring the good news, why should they bother. These doctrines trouble me, I appeal to the Body of Christ for my answer.

God guide this discussion, through debate let your light shine upon us and enlighten our minds, God Bless

 

[Bob Dixon]

Well, why would God only make one faith acceptable, especially when that one faith is not practiced by six sevenths of the world's population? These six sevenths are then not saved. This would be a colossal failure on Jesus' part, wouldn't it?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Well, why would God only make one faith acceptable, especially when that one faith is not practiced by six sevenths of the world's population? These six sevenths are then not saved. This would be a colossal failure on Jesus' part, wouldn't it?

Do you have scripture or church fathers to justify this position?

No offense or nothing, but are you Catholic? I'd really like this to be a Catholic debate

 

[Bob Dixon]

Do you have scripture or church fathers to justify this position?

Origen is pretty universalist, isn't he?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Origen is pretty universalist, isn't he?

Yes and also denounce as a heretic

 

[Bob Dixon]

Yes and also denounce as a heretic

... and a Church Father?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

... and a Church Father?

Only so much as he is in agreement with the doctrines of the church and his soteriology is surely not inline, a big reason he has no St. in his name

 

[Bob Dixon]

Only so much as he is in agreement with the doctrines of the church and his soteriology is surely not inline, a big reason he has no St. in his name

OK, you're right.
But that quote in your original post is not too far off from what Origen was saying.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

OK, you're right.
But that quote in your original post is not too far off from what Origen was saying.

Okay, I can understand your point but they differ in that Origen thought all would be saved, even some say the devil, that through some Neo-platonic Buddhistish series of karmatic events everone would find their place in heaven,

The quote allows for the unbaptized to be in the kingdom of heaven and at times one would say this is a given (Old Testament Saints, Martyrs who never recieved the scarament.) and yes Augustine said something along the lines, but the problem is this.

Does it make Catholicism just another religion that can be rejected if it's doctirnes or disagreeable, or is the Catholic Church really founded by Jesus and meant to be the gurdain of truth, that it's dogmas and rulings are true and binding,

Obviously inclusiveness recognizes that one religion must be truth and that one religion is preferable to others (a bit difference between inclusiveness and universalism) but I worry as to what fruit the doctirne bears, as a former Anglican I've seen what a church that doesn't care for Jesus can do

 

[Bob Dixon]

Okay, I can understand your point but they differ in that Origen thought all would be saved, even some say the devil, that through some Neo-platonic Buddhistish series of karmatic events everone would find their place in heaven,

The quote allows for the unbaptized to be in the kingdom of heaven and at times one would say this is a given (Old Testament Saints, Martyrs who never recieved the scarament.) and yes Augustine said something along the lines, but the problem is this.

Does it make Catholicism just another religion that can be rejected if it's doctirnes or disagreeable, or is the Catholic Church really founded by Jesus and meant to be the gurdain of truth, that it's dogmas and rulings are true and binding,

Obviously inclusiveness recognizes that one religion must be truth and that one religion is preferable to others (a bit difference between inclusiveness and universalism) but I worry as to what fruit the doctirne bears, as a former Anglican I've seen what a church that doesn't care for Jesus can do

I understand your concern, but we must understand that, founding aside, the Church is an altogether human organisation. It may even do its best, but it cannot always be right on everything. This is why the Church itself has changed throughout history, and continues to change even today.

As for your main question, I think that any religion can be rejected if its points are disagreeable. But it is important to define what we mean by disagreeable. If there are clear ethical requirements that cause us to leave the religion because we find them to be inconvenient, that is not a valid reason. But if a person does not find that the religion satisfies them on an intellectual level (providing enough clear reasoning to fit their requirements), then staying in that religion makes little sense, no? Thankfully, the Catholic Church provides as much as it can for as many people as it can, but there will always be people who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of being satisfied by it. What then? Do they go to Hell because of how their minds are constructed, despite the fact that they had no say in that? Or do they simply have other requirements?
Did the Pope not say that Hell is a state, not a place? Tell me, then, what is the state of someone who seeks truth their whole life, but just so happens not to find it? What, then, is the state of the man who does not seek truth but just so happened to be born in the right religion? Which of these two might be preferable to God? These are the questions, I think, that the Church is trying to answer here, in the quotes you pulled up for your original post.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

I understand your concern, but we must understand that, founding aside, the Church is an altogether human organisation. It may even do its best, but it cannot always be right on everything. This is why the Church itself has changed throughout history, and continues to change even today.

As for your main question, I think that any religion can be rejected if its points are disagreeable. But it is important to define what we mean by disagreeable. If there are clear ethical requirements that cause us to leave the religion because we find them to be inconvenient, that is not a valid reason. But if a person does not find that the religion satisfies them on an intellectual level (providing enough clear reasoning to fit their requirements), then staying in that religion makes little sense, no? Thankfully, the Catholic Church provides as much as it can for as many people as it can, but there will always be people who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of being satisfied by it. What then? Do they go to Hell because of how their minds are constructed, despite the fact that they had no say in that? Or do they simply have other requirements?
Did the Pope not say that Hell is a state, not a place? Tell me, then, what is the state of someone who seeks truth their whole life, but just so happens not to find it? What, then, is the state of the man who does not seek truth but just so happened to be born in the right religion? Which of these two might be preferable to God? These are the questions, I think, that the Church is trying to answer here, in the quotes you pulled up for your original post.

Here is where we differ, the Church is not a human institution (Matt 16:18, check out who the builder is)

 

[bippy123]

Here is where we differ, the Church is not a human institution (Matt 16:18, check out who the builder is)

Correct, and Christ said so. And most Christians dont understand that the gospel was spread by sacred Scripture as well as sacred Scripture as Paul also said this in the bible when he was preaching to the Corinthian Church, but remember this Christ also spoke of those who would cause any of his children to sin or to leave God because of their words or actions (atheists listen carefully here). It is said that it would be better if they were never born then to see the judgment that awaits them. Christ is essentially saying to you "becareful and choose your words carefully for you will be judged on them.

What "No Salvation Outside the Church" Means | Catholic Answers

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

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. (CCC 847)
​

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)


This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:22).
But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains" (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)






​