. . . because you claimed to have read and knew the Catechism.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Conversion after death
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
. . . because you claimed to have read and knew the Catechism.
What you are proposing is the doctrine of Universal Salvation after death called apokatastasis. I have no rpoblem with you believe this it approximately the same belief as the Baha'i Faith, and some Protestant churches, but it is a herecy as far as the Roman Church considers it since 543 AD.
From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apocatastasis
"The doctrine of the apokatastasis is not, indeed, peculiar to St. Gregory of Nyssa, but is taken from Origen, who seems at times reluctant to decide concerning the question of the eternity of punishment. Tixeront has well said that in his De Principiis (I.6.3) Origen does not venture to assert that all the evil angels shall sooner or later return to God (P.G., XI, col. 168, 169); while in his "Comment. in Rom.", VIII, 9 (P.G., XIV, col. 1185), he states that Lucifer, unlike the Jews, will not be converted, even at the end of time. Elsewhere, on the other hand, and as a rule, Origen teaches the apokatastasis, the final restoration of all intelligent creatures to friendship with God. Tixeront writes thus concerning the matter:
The doctrine, then, was first taught by Origen, and by Clement of Alexandria, and was an influence in their Christianity due to Platonism, as Petavius has plainly shown (Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 106), following St. Augustine City of God XXI.13. Compare Janet, "La philosophiede Platon" (Paris, 1869), I, 603. It is evident, moreover, that the doctrine involves a purely natural scheme of divine justice and of redemption. (Plato, Republic, X, 614b.)
It was through Origen that the Platonist doctrine of the apokatastasis passed to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and simultaneously to St. Jerome, at least during the time that St. Jerome was an Origenist. It is certain, however, that St. Jerome understands it only of the baptized: "In restitutione omnium, quando corpus totius ecclesiæ nunc dispersum atque laceratum, verus medicus Christus Jesus sanaturus advenerit, unusquisque secundum mensuram fidei et cognitionis Filii Dei . . . suum recipiet locum et incipiet id esse quod fuerat" (Comment. in Eph., iv, 16; P.G., XXVI, col. 503). Everywhere else St. Jerome teaches that the punishment of the devils and of the impious, that is of those who have not come to the Faith, shall be eternal. (See Petavius, Theol. dogmat. De Angelis, 111, 112.) The "Ambrosiaster" on the other hand seems to have extended the benefits of redemption to the devils, (In Eph., iii, 10; P.L., XVII, col. 382), yet the interpretation of the "Ambrosiaster" on this point is not devoid of difficulty. [See Petavius, p. 111; also, Turmel, Histoire de la théologie positive, depuis l'origine, etc. (Paris, 1904) 187.]
From the moment, however, that anti-Origenism prevailed, the doctrine of the apokatastasis was definitely abandoned. St. Augustine protests more strongly than any other writer against an error so contrary to the doctrine of the necessity of grace. See, especially, his "De gestis Pelagii", I: "In Origene dignissime detestatur Ecclesia, quod et iam illi quos Dominus dicit æterno supplicio puniendos, et ipse diabolus et angeli eius, post tempus licet prolixum purgati liberabuntur a poenis, et sanctis cum Deo regnantibus societate beatitudinis adhærebunt." Augustine here alludes to the sentence pronounced against Pelagius by the Council of Diospolis, in 415 (P.L., XLIV, col. 325). He moreover recurs to the subject in many passages of his writings, and in City of God XXI sets himself earnestly to prove the eternity of punishment as against the Platonist and Origenist error concerning its intrinsically purgatorialcharacter. We note, further, that the doctrine of the apokatastasis was held in the East, not only by St. Gregory of Nyssa, but also by St. Gregory of Nazianzus as well; "De seipso", 566 (P.G., XXXVII, col. 1010), but the latter, though he asks the question, finally decides neither for nor against it, but rather leaves the answer to God. Köstlin, in the "Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie" (Leipzig, 1896), I, 617, art. "Apokatastasis", names Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia as having also held the doctrine of apokatastasis, but cites no passage in support of his statement. In any case, the doctrine was formally condemned in the first of the famous anathemas pronounced at the Council of Constantinople in 543: Ei tis ten teratode apokatastasis presbeuei anathema esto [See, also, Justinian, Liber adversus Originem, anathemas 7 and 9.] The doctrine was thenceforth looked on as heterodox by the Church.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
I have read and know Lord of the Rings, too, but if you claimed that Boromir tried to kill Frodo I'd STILL insist on chapter and page....and it would still be your job to do that. BEFORE calling your opponent names for insisting on that.
stvdv
Veteran Member
"To understand this issue in better perspective" sounds strange to me. But maybe you mean the same as I summarize below.
I am very simple in word and thought. No misunderstanding or perspective:
Resumee: X is the right way for X followers and only for X followers; so NOT for not-X followers
X = Bahai, Christianity, Islam, Atheism, Humanism, FillInAnyOneYouLike, .........
e.g.: Bahai is the right way for Bahai followers and only for Bahai followers; so NOT for not-Bahai followers
Still over simplification, An exercise in X's and Y's does not describe the Baha'i belief, and does not reflect the Baha'i writings. The Baha'i Faith does not propose the equivalent belief as in traditional Christianity and Islam that Salvation is exclusively limited to the faithful.
To describe the Baha'i view simply is that our spiritual journey is through many worlds, and salvation is this journey, and also the salvation of humanity in this world now through the spiritual teachings of the Baha'i Faith. Yes, belief in the Baha'i Faith is no less important in ones life, because the Baha'is make the decision to be Baha'is and followers of the light with a greater knowledge and volition of their own free will in this world and their life to bring a greater sense of unity and peace to the world.
On the other hand traditional Christianity and Islam Salvation is limited to faithful and sincere believers, unbelievers with no knowledge, and children below the age of consent in this world only up until the moment of death.
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
To be fair, Pope's sentiment is similarly expressed by the actual pope (the one the Vatican loves to backtrack whenever he starts to sound moral) but is counter to what's on paper.
Pretty much. That you're given a last chance to repent and accept Christ after you die, when St. Michael the Archangel comes for your soul, is a belief I've heard before in Catholicism. There's a diversity of beliefs in that religion.
In reality no, you have to careful how Popes word thing to sound pleasant and pleasing to the faithful to appear to embrace eccumenism and openness to dialogue with other religions, but fundamentally the Popes must adhere to the fundamental doctrines and dogma of the Roman Church, and cannot remotely advocate a heretical belief like apokatastasis or going beyond diplomatic dialogue outside the Roman Church..
Last edited:
Possibly a diversity of belief by individuals in any church, but this belief (apokatastasis) is heretical to the Roman Church.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Yet the church teaches that people like Buddha and Ann Frank could be in heaven... end of story!
stvdv
Veteran Member
Oh you misunderstood me.
I gave a formula of RESPECT towards all humans and BeliefSystems, not a formula of Bahai or other BeliefSystems
stvdv
Veteran Member
Happy to hear that
stvdv
Veteran Member
This one you explained very clear. The limitations in Christianity and Islam
This one is less clear. According to Bahai, just 3 simple questions [Y/N questions]:
1): Can an atheist [following good values like Buddha teached us] reach the ultimate goal in life with his own belief system
2): Can I reach the utlimate goal in life if I follow the teachings of Sai Baba [He claims I will] according to you or to Bahai
3): You accept teachings of Bahaullah, do you also accept the teachings of Sai Baba [shirdi or sathya]?
You believe Bahai teacher/teachings are brought to the world because there was a decline in truth in the teachings
Sai Baba has stated "This poorna avatar came to earth to restore the scriptures, because mistakes entered after all these years"
I don't say in Bahai are mistakes, there can be of course mis-interpretations like the dutch bahai made
Sai Baba didn't come to create a new religion; he adviced to pick anyone you like [incl. atheism] and I help you to become better at the one of your chosing
Last edited:
Could be, possibly???
In my view, Baha'i Faith, Buddha is in Heaven(?) with all manifestations of God, and An Frank's journey through many worlds is up to here relationship with God and not what I think 'could or not could be.'
Your not yet addressing the specific doctrine of the church.
The Catechism says, effectively, that God can save whoever he wants and that they don’t try to limit who God wants to save.
From Section 1257 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of Baptism
Have you actually read what the Catechism has to say about the plan of salvation? They’re very careful to never say that the “standard” path to salvation is the only way to be saved; instead, they present it more as the only way that they know of and as something that was instituted by Christ (and therefore something that ought to be taken seriously).
The Catholic Church has always left the door open to God saving whomever he chooses, so I don’t see why @PopeADope ’s offensive idea of conversion after death would have been necessary. The Catechism says that God isn’t bound by the sacraments, so God can disregard the sacraments whenever he chooses.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Seems kind of "God" statement. If I were God, I would definitely keep all my own options open [especially knowing humans with all their smart thinking]
Last edited:
Not simple questions. Less clear is ultimate will of God concerning Salvation in the journey, because it is God's will and grace that saves. NOT Y/N questions, you are again asking for simple answers, bottom line no.
Egocentric views with people designing their own belief system to suit themselves is one of the problems causing disunity. Again . . . the journey of salvation is through many worlds, and not my opinion who is saved and who is not according to what they believe. If the claim of the Baha'i Faith is correct that God exists, Creates and Reveals in an evolving existence of our eternal journey as the Baha'i believes; then the unity, harmony and spiritual teachings of the Baha'i Faith is the best journey through this world and beyond.
I believe I was very clear and specific salvation is the journey through many worlds through the grace and will of God, and not whether any one person interprets on scripture or the other that any one person is saved or not.
As far as I have investigated Sai Baba he offered nothing new for the world already found in Hinduism, the Baha'i teachings.
There is one common belief in the Vedic religions that the Baha'i Faith does not agree with and that is the common belief in asceticism. The Bah'ai Faith considers asceticism a form of materialism with the denial of material things brings some kind of enlightenment and spiritual benefit.
The Baha'i Faith rejects both denial and indulgence of material things. The Middle Way. The relationship between one and the religions of the world has to beyond simple respect.
I study and reflect on many religions and religious movements including Sai Baba. I look for inspiration and understanding of what they share and believe. The problem is there are literally hundreds of gurus over recent history claiming t offer whatever. I look for the unifying nature of all religions and religious movements. The issue remains the journey of Salvation.
As I said, there hundreds of claims of wise men in the Vedic traditions, which is problematic.
Again too simplistic a description of what the Baha'i considers the purpose of the Baha'i Faith and the religions in general. Progressive revelation of knowledge and restoration of beliefs lost, such as, the unknowable Oneness of God's existence that cannot exclusively defined nor calimed by any one religion, guru nor teacher
I see nothing in the teachings of Sai Baba that offer nothing that Baha'i scriptures offer.
This claim is an attitude of hubris toward other religions and religious belief systems. The Age old claim that this or that belief is not a religion, and everyone else follows religions is egocentric beyond the ridiculous to the absurd. If one claims what Sai Baba claims and has followers of his teachings he has founded a religion.
Spiritual knowledge is potentially available to all humans, but claims to know or define it exclusively, and it is lost.
Last edited:
I have read the and lived by the Catechism growing up in the Roman Church, and studied to be a priest. It is universal that God may do what God wants to is a given like the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon, BUT read the Catechism and my references, which you apparently choose to ignore.
According to the teachings of the Roman Church God has not presently changed God's mind as it is more than obvious that God can.
As far as I believe, which is the Baha'i Faith, I believe the potential of Universal Salvation exists in the journey through many worlds after death, which is similar to what @PopeADope believes, but unfortunately it is heretical as far as the Roman Church is concerned and God has not told the Roman Church, which according to the claim of the Roman Church, God would tell the Roman Church if God changed God's mind.
Which of your references implied that God has to be beholden to Catholic doctrine?
So you think it's the Catholic position that the Church knows God's full current opinion on the issue of salvation?
I once went to a used car lot at a Honda dealership looking for a Subaru Impreza. I asked the salesman whether he had any; he said that he didn't, but then tried to convince me that the all-wheel drive Civic Crosstour that he had in stock was way better anyhow.
I get the same vibe from your posts that I got from that other salesman.
The Catechism as the Roman Church claims.
Opinions are human attribute not God's. The claim of the Roman Church.
So what?!?!!?!? Your not God!
What gives or is this a game your playing?!?!? You are an atheist and arguing an odd anthropomorphic view of God making opinions, and making selective citation of the Catechism, which I doubt you seriously believe.
Last edited: