Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects. Through repentance we may gain the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, hence why everyone in Purgatory is guaranteed to make it to Heaven, but that’s not sufficient for gaining instant entrance into Heaven. One needs to be cleansed completely, for as it is written "But nothing unclean shall enter [Heaven], nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Revelations 21:27)
Ignorance can lessen a punishment (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it does not completely absolve them: "If any of the common people sin by violating one of the LORD’s commands, but they don’t realize it, they are still guilty"- Leviticus 4:27.
There's a distinction between guilt (as in you did in fact sin) and culpability. Take the concept of committing a mortal sin which involves full knowledge and consent.
For example, drug abuse is considered a mortal sin, however if someone is suffering from addiction that constitutes a mitigating factor in their culpability, and thus its downgraded to a venial sin.
In this case if you do something sinful while possessing no concept of what sin even is, yes you did still sin, but you're culpability for that sin is effectively non-existent, especially in comparison to someone who commits the same sin while having a full and complete understanding of what they're doing.
In this case if you do something sinful while possessing no concept of what sin even is, yes you did still sin, but you're culpability for that sin is effectively non-existent, especially in comparison to someone who commits the same sin while having a full and complete understanding of what they're doing.
Yes, as my previous post highlighted ignorance can lessen punishment (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it will not fully absolve you from punishment (Leviticus 4:27) what I'm more concerned about is what you wrote before:
Jesus taught us that in order to get to Heaven you have to go through him and that Nobody will be there who didn't go through him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. Perhaps people can go through him unknowingly? No, the Bible teaches us that in order to go 'through him' one must place their faith and trust in him: "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life". -John 3:16 (these was a direct quote from Jesus himself, by the way). So there will no one who was ignorant of Jesus in Heaven (no 'sure tickets' to borrow your expression), for in order to get to Heaven one must have accepted Christ as their savior in this life.
Yes, as my previous post highlighted ignorance can lessen punishment (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it will not fully absolve you from punishment (Leviticus 4:27) what I'm more concerned about is what you wrote before:
Jesus taught us that in order to get to Heaven you have to go through him and that Nobody will be there who didn't go through him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. Perhaps people can go through him unknowingly? No, the Bible teaches us that in order to go 'through him' one must place their faith and trust in him: "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life". -John 3:16 (these was a direct quote from Jesus himself, by the way). So there will no one who was ignorant of Jesus in Heaven (no 'sure tickets' to borrow your expression), for in order to get to Heaven one must have accepted Christ as their savior in this life.
To be honest this is one of those areas where protestants and Catholics just disagree.
Here's the Catechism entry on the matter, pay close attention to line 848.
Naturally you don't have to agree, and you're free to offer your own perspective, but this is what the Church teaches. The key words are "through no fault of their own" which as I understand it would apply to someone who is literally too stupid to understand.
What if someone used Christian doctrine to justify their abuse of another to the point that god, the bible, and all of its teachings have taken a different context and that over the years, the best they can do is "Not care" if there is a god or not anymore?
Would this person be punished for having an aversion to god's teachings and instead living his life daily doing the best that they can to have a code of honor they hold to?
What if someone used Christian doctrine to justify their abuse of another to the point that god, the bible, and all of its teachings have taken a different context and that over the years, the best they can do is "Not care" if there is a god or not anymore?
To be clear that's a bit of a jab at Calvinists. Calvinism is one first fractures of the protestant schism and its the one most people, agree is deeply flawed because of Calvin's idea of predestination by which God assigns people to either Heaven or Hell and nothing that person does can change the assignment.
Non-Calvinists including Catholics, Orthodox, and most of the prostestants find this concept to be heretical as its an affront to free will and the notion of God assigning people to hell is antithetical to his All Loving nature.
What if someone used Christian doctrine to justify their abuse of another to the point that god, the bible, and all of its teachings have taken a different context and that over the years, the best they can do is "Not care" if there is a god or not anymore?
Would this person be punished for having an aversion to god's teachings and instead living his life daily doing the best that they can to have a code of honor they hold to?
The punishment is for you to decide if you have enough faith to worry about such a thing why not have a little more? This happens to a lot of people and it is very sad. If you do worry for such a thing maybe try reading the bible for yourself sometimes and if you like it see where it goes if you don't and you still don't care then you shouldn't care about a punishment.
To be clear that's a bit of a jab at Calvinists. Calvinism is one first fractures of the protestant schism and its the one most people, agree is deeply flawed because of Calvin's idea of predestination by which God assigns people to either Heaven or Hell and nothing that person does can change the assignment.
Non-Calvinists including Catholics, Orthodox, and most of the prostestants find this concept to be heretical as its an affront to free will and the notion of God assigning people to hell is antithetical to his All Loving nature.
but doesnt the idea that god didnt allow certain people in life to learn about jesus and therefore go to heaven (ie the native americans before 1492) prove calvins point about predestination
but doesnt the idea that god didnt allow certain people in life to learn about jesus and therefore go to heaven (ie the native americans before 1492) prove calvins point about predestination
thank you for that reassuring message, my grandparents never got to hear the gospel since they lived in islamic iran where you will be killed for sharing the word of god. My grandpa hated islam but believed in a kind just god. My grandma isnt really muslim she is still alive but fairly senile.
thank you for that reassuring message, my grandparents never got to hear the gospel since they lived in islamic iran where you will be killed for sharing the word of god. My grandpa hated islam but believed in a kind just god. My grandma isnt really muslim she is still alive but fairly senile.
My understanding of the relevant teachings (CCC 846-848, shown in an earlier post) is that God would judge them on their own conscience. So if they tried to be good people as best they could based on their understanding of what that means they would be granted salvation.
To be honest this is one of those areas where protestants and Catholics just disagree.
Here's the Catechism entry on the matter, pay close attention to line 848. View attachment 6388914
Naturally you don't have to agree, and you're free to offer your own perspective, but this is what the Church teaches. The key words are "through no fault of their own" which as I understand it would apply to someone who is literally too stupid to understand.
Thank you for sharing, while I respect your right to believe what you want to believe and normally wouldn't press you on the issue if you wanted to agree to disagree (I know it must be annoying to have someone not want to drop a topic), this is one of those areas where the Bible verses are so clear on the issue that I urge you to reconsider the church's position.
Remember even if you're prima scriptura, you still have to put the Bible first and if Jesus says something in the Bible which contradict Catholic Church teachings I would urge you to reconsider your position to be more in line with the verses (John 3:16, John 14:6). Again I don't mean to keep pressing you on this topic and if you wish to agree to disagree I will respect that I just feel as a Christian the right thing for me to do is bring this up to you.
Thank you for sharing, while I respect your right to believe what you want to believe and normally wouldn't press you on the issue if you wanted to agree to disagree (I know it must be annoying to have someone not want to drop a topic), this is one of those areas where the Bible verses are so clear on the issue that I urge you to reconsider the church's position.
Remember even if you're prima scriptura, you still have to put the Bible first and if Jesus says something in the Bible which contradict Catholic Church teachings I would urge you to reconsider your position to be more in line with the verses (John 3:16, John 14:6). Again I don't mean to keep pressing you on this topic and if you wish to agree to disagree I will respect that I just feel as a Christian the right thing for me to do is bring this up to you.
I appreciate your motivations but I must press back.
How do you justify an all knowing, all loving, merciful God with the idea that he would punish someone who, through no fault of their own, was ignorant of his word? If anyone should be judged for their ignorance its the rest of us for failing them in our mission to spread the word. Also, did Christ not descend into Hell and save all the righteous souls who ended up there before his time? Here's the relevant Catechism for that.
Drawing, in part, from the parable of the poor man Lazarus this provides a basis in scripture for people who had, through no fault of their own (having lived and died before Christ), been ignorant of the Gospel, still attaining salvation based on their own righteousness.
Once again, you're free to disagree, I only ask you do so based on the full understanding of the Church's position.
I appreciate your motivations but I must press back.
How do you justify an all knowing, all loving, merciful God with the idea that he would punish someone who, through no fault of their own, was ignorant of his word? If anyone should be judged for their ignorance its the rest of us for failing them in our mission to spread the word. Also, did Christ not descend into Hell and save all the righteous souls who ended up there before his time? Here's the relevant Catechism for that.
Drawing, in part, from the parable of the poor man Lazarus this provides a basis in scripture for people who had, through no fault of their own (having lived and died before Christ), been ignorant of the Gospel, still attaining salvation based on their own righteousness.
Once again, you're free to disagree, I only ask you do so based on the full understanding of the Church's position.
I agree with you it makes no sense for christ to come down and offer special salvation for those who lived before him who had not heard of him while not doing the same for those who lived after. I think protestants mistake christs words about no one being saved expect for through him to mean you automatically get disqualifed if you havent heard of christ. I think christs revelation can be found in the world around us.
On a side note I think its possible to understand that the christian god exists through the observation of nature, and that one can learn that jesus is god through the observation of all the good and beauty in nature
How do you justify an all knowing all loving, merciful God with the idea that he would punish someone who, through no fault of their own, was ignorant of his word
Because he told us so, all loving doesn't mean a hippy universalist teaching of God, God will punish people for their sins, that's going to look different for everyone based on their knowledge of his word (Luke 12:47-48 ). Remember God flooded the Earth once and killed almost everyone, he destroyed the city of Jericho and killed almost everyone there. Just because he's loving doesn't mean he won't hand out just punishment. I don't have to justify anything for him, God tells us the qualifications of the people he will and won't be with in Heaven.
I agree one million percent with what you are saying. If you're bothered by your unsaved neighbors and family then do something about it, it's not just a good thing to do it's practically a requirement Jesus told us, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."- Matthew 28:19-20.
I think Penn Jillette, an Atheist, said it best when he said: "I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward".
He added, “How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?"
Drawing, in part, from the parable of the poor man Lazarus this provides a basis in scripture for people who had, through no fault of their own (having lived and died before Christ), been ignorant of the Gospel, still attaining salvation based on their own righteousness.
The Bible does have an occasional story of an old testament man so righteous God raises him into Heaven, but these guys seem to be the exception not the rule.
I have to ask, you've asked me how I square these bible verses with a loving God. I must ask, when Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". And "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." How do you square these specific quotes of Jesus's with your Church's teaching.
You're pretty much right about that, one can ascertain that there is a God of some sort through nature:
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse".- Romans 1:20
I'm less convinced on this though, I don't know how observing nature would teach you of a man who lived 2,000 years ago unless you've been shown the Gospel.
God agrees and even claims you will have no excuse for denying how obvious he is.
The topic of "mental illness" is an interesting one, I find in some cases some "mental illnesses" are direct cause by a persons rejection of "Godliness".
I have to ask, you've asked me how I square these bible verses with a loving God. I must ask, when Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". And "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." How do you square these specific quotes of Jesus's with your Church's teaching.
What we're really talking about here is a matter of interpretation.
In my experience protestant theology has a tendency to pick and choose their interpretations. Those verses isolated and alone sound very black and white but in the full context of scripture (such as the parable of Lazarus) we see more shades of grey.
Take for example how our interpretations of Matthew 16:18-19 differ.
Speaking of which that is part of how I square a lot of the Church's teaching. Christ granted Peter the powers to bind and loose.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[a] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This means Peter (and by succession the office of the Pope) has the key to the gates of the city of God. This power is exercised through the church. “Binding” and “loosing” are rabbinic terms referring to excommunication, then later to forbidding or allowing something. Not only can Peter admit to the kingdom; he also has power to make authoritative decisions in matters of faith or morals.
In short, The Catholic Church has God-given authority over such matters.
Also notice how in the relevant part of the Catechism the language makes it clear that the specific nature of this salvation is known only to God himself.
So by the means and understanding of men, the only assured path to salvation is through Christ (and his body, the Catholic Church), but by means only known to God exceptions can be made.
At the end of the day we are trying to see through dark glass (1 Corinthians 13:12) and we will not know with full clarity until we see God face to face. In light of that is it really all that surprising there some grey area?
Finally God can do anything, so if God wants to extend mercy to those who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant to his word he certainly has the ability to.
What we're really talking about here is a matter of interpretation.
In my experience protestant theology has a tendency to pick and choose their interpretations. Those verses isolated and alone sound very black and white but in the full context of scripture (such as the parable of Lazarus) we see more shades of grey.
Alright, how does the church interpret' these to reconcile them with their teachings, I realize sometimes the passage surrounding a verse can alter its meaning so if theres some intrepretation which changes the word for word meaning of 'no one comes to the Father except through me" I would like to see it so I can correct my fallacy.
This means Peter (and by succession the office of the Pope) has the key to the gates of the city of God. This power is exercised through the church. “Binding” and “loosing” are rabbinic terms referring to excommunication, then later to forbidding or allowing something. Not only can Peter admit to the kingdom; he also has power to make authoritative decisions in matters of faith or morals.
In short, The Catholic Church has God-given authority over such matters.
What limits, if any, do you see on that authority? If the Pope for example decided to rewrite scripture and cited his papal authority would he be allowed to do it? I guess the point I've been trying to say is that there Catholic teachings which fall outside of scripture and should give you cause for pause when considering rather or not the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on truth. I don't think you're 'wrong' for being a Catholic, or that it's even bad, far from it actually. I think the Catholic Church is a "mostly" good religious organization if you've accepted Christ as your savior (John 3:16) and live your life accordingly (James 2:17) you will be saved, however when it's teachings deviate from the teachings of the Bible (such as on this issue) one must question rather or not it can truly be called the one "true" church.
Also notice how in the relevant part of the Catechism the language makes it clear that the specific nature of this salvation is known only to God himself.
It's true that God doesn't tell us who exactly will be saved (i.e. he doesn't say 'John Smith is saved but Joe Johnson is not') however he tells us the kinds of people who will be saved, it will be only those who've put their faith in him and lived their lives accordingly, it will be "no one" else (John 14:6).
The reason I'm pressing this so much is because I really don't see how there can be much of "grey area" God tells us the mechanisms by which salvation occurs clearly, unless you can show me differently from the bible I don't think it's possible to read 'John 14:6' 'Leviticus 4:27' and 'John 3:16' and arrive at the conclusion different than what the Bible explicitly tells us.
I think, if I'm being honest (and forgive me if this sounds harsh) but there are people, like perhaps some of the authority in the Catholic Church, who are afraid of teachings concepts like 'Eternal Hell' and 'No salvation without Christ' because it makes their viewpoints look bad, and they invent these false doctrines to clean up Hell to sell their faith to the general public. However you shouldn't be ashamed of God's word, it's eternal. Even if it seems mean to us in 2024 his word and rules never change.
Finally God can do anything, so if God wants to extend mercy to those who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant to his word he certainly has the ability to.
He can but he won't, God never goes back on his word (Numbers 23:19 ). If he tells us something he sticks by it always, he's not a liar. If he said 'I will ONLY save people who meet these requirements' those are going to be the only people he saves, because his word is infallible and he has proven that he will stick by it.
Alright, how does the church interpret' these to reconcile them with their teachings, I realize sometimes the passage surrounding a verse can alter it's meaning so if theres some intrepretation which changes the word for word meaning of 'no one comes to the Father except through me" I would like to see it so I can correct my fallacy.
The reason I'm pressing this so much is because I really don't see how there can be much of "grey area" God tells us the mechanisms by which salvation occurs clearly, unless you can show me differently I don't think it's possible to read 'John 14:6' 'Leviticus 4:27' and 'John 3:16' and arrive at the conclusion different than what the Bible explicitly tells us.
Here's John 14:6 in its immediate context.
You see here he is not just spouting it off out of no where. It's a direct answer to a question by St. Thomas. Christ is going to ascend, and his apostles are worried they won't know how to get back to him.
Then when St. Phillip presses him further, we get more in John 14:9-14 which colors the line as more about the divine nature of Christ than a hard set rule on who is or is not granted access to heaven. In other words "no one comes to the father" might be better understood as "no one knows the father" if they don't know Jesus as he is the clearest vision of God we've had.
Now when we consider the Parable of Lazarus, and Christ's descent into Hell, we can see precedent by which the righteous can come to the Father despite ignorance of the Son. In this case Christ went down there to do the job personally.
I'm pressing the boundaries of my own understanding on the matter so I'm also going to refer you to this excellent sermon by Bishop Barron, who knows far more than I do.
In the immediate context of Leviticus Chapter 4 its detailing the laws by which the sin offering system works, in fact Leviticus 4:27 isnt even the full sentence, it cuts off and continues in 4:28. See here.
Since Christ's sacrifice essentially made the old sin offering laws obsolete, its no longer relevant for these matters.
Now for John 3:16. This time your narrow focus on one line actually hurts your argument. Observe:
I would think John 3:18 is the kind of line you'd want to use to make the case you're making.
That said I would maintain that this makes sense in the larger context of the moment which is Christ teaching the Pharisee Nicodemus, someone who would be well versed in contemporary Hebrew Law, and thus is by no means ignorant. Meanwhile we're talking about people who are, through no fault of their own, ignorant.
I want to also take this opportunity to ask you about Matthew 18:3.
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now forgive me if I'm not being charitable but applying the same kind of interpretive logic I see protestants use, wouldn't this mean we must all infantilize ourselves to achieve salvation?
But in the immediate context its clearly about humbling ones self.
What limits, if any, do you see on that authority? If the Pope for example decided to rewrite scripture and cited his papal authority would he be allowed to do it? I guess the point I've been trying to say is that there Catholic teachings which fall outside of scripture and should give you cause for pause when considering rather or not the Roman Catholic Church has a monopoly on truth. I don't think you're 'wrong' for being a Catholic, or that it's even bad, far from it actually. I think the Catholic Church is a "mostly" good religious organization if you've accepted Christ as your savior (John 3:16) and live your life accordingly (James 2:17) you will be saved, however when it's teachings deviate from the teachings of the Bible (such as on this issue) one must question rather or not it can truly be called the one "true" church.
The limits are firmly established. Look, for example, at the often misunderstood nature of Papal Infallibility. While its common for people, even some Catholics, to think it means the Pope can't be wrong, it in fact only applies to very narrow and specific situations. He has to be speaking Ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Papal Infallibility has not been invoked since 1950, and then it was just to reaffirm the Immaculate Conception as Dogma in the face of doubt by some Bishops.
Believe me when I say I've seen the argument "what if the Pope/Church does (thing that is clearly wrong)" countless times and to it I say we could spend all day on hypotheticals but it hasn't happened yet and, by my belief in Christ and his declaration that the Gates of Hell shall not Triumph, it never will.
EDIT: At the end of the day the Catechism is firmly rooted in scripture, and its been revised, expanded, and molded by 2000 years of Catholic scholars, Church Fathers, Theologians, and Canon Lawyers who all know a heck of a lot more about this stuff than any of us. Given that, is it not somewhat prideful to assert that when your own interpretation and theirs conflict that you're the one in the right?
