I believe it is crucially important to consider the truly inconvenient "Deathbed" interactions between Jesus and the Good Thief in attempting to find an answer to this question. There is no record that this individual actually repented, was baptized, became a member of the Church, was reformed, or even made a good confession. And yet he accomplished in moments everything necessary for a lifetime to be promised by our Savior immediate entry into Heaven WITH HIM that very day. This narrative is hardly an obfuscation of Church teaching but it reveals me a great deal concerning the actual disposition of our God with regard to the means of our Salvation especially what He regards to be the one indispensable key necessary for our entry into Heaven. The events of this narrative are no anomaly, nor are they a one off favor to a newfound friend. The nature of God cannot change and certainly not for one individual. I would suggest deliberation before the throne of our Father on that matter first simply because without knowledge of the true disposition of our Triune god, other deliberations are futile.
Well it’s pretty clear for others that you can’t answer the objections with any sort of evidence from say the NT, LG, & especially since the great hopeful-universalist Hans Urs Von Balthasar writes that statements from Jesus in Matthew 7:13 serve as warnings not predictions from Jesus.
To say that you assume most are damed is a very strange statement to make and certainly not the current thinking of the Church
The position has always been that so long as someone dies in a state of grace which has its own definition then any failure in life can be atoned for while in purgatory
This shows the church’s understanding that God wishes to give everyone the possibility of redemption
Recent Popes have stressed the need for compassion and welcoming all to the church, your comments seem to be irreconcilable with the church’s mission to share the love of Christ with all
You said a lot of words that say nothing & again strawman me. You’re operating with a hermeneutic of disruption from the traditional view of what is taught by Jesus in the gospels. You keep saying I’m against what the ‘modern’ Church teaches but your words are nonsense. I quote the current dogmatic constitution on the subject above & the most important paragraph on it—that’s your “modern Church.” And I’m perfectly aligned with Lumen Gentium.
I think keeping with hermeneutic of continuity with the tradition, if we operate with the notion that many will be damned then many, if not most, can be saved—oh and by the way that’s one of Balthasar’s points actually in “Dare we hope all men saved?”
So you want to argue with the wall—for the sake some sort of moral superiority. Again, it’s silly and it’s nonsense.
I would say that more modern catholic teaching is to say that God is able to accept even those who are not in the church from the point of view of being baptised or confirmed etc ie not officially within the church but who by their lives live out the gospel in terms of reaching out to the poor and being involved in charitable activities and their hearts are right with God - they do not outwardly deny God, after all Jesus himself said he who is not against us is on our part
So even if someone never came to a church service, perhaps they occasionally watch services online, they feel near to God in their work, and they show their belief by their actions and their honest desire to serve others. Such people can still receive salvation and hard and fast rules are not necessarily always a good guide we remember the blind man who could say whether he is a sinner or not I don't know what I do know is once I was blind but now I can see
So I think a more compassionate and inclusive approach is called for
Should the doctor tell the diabetic not to drink Coke for his physical well being? If so, why do we not follow the same logic with proclaiming the gospel?
You’re flirting with a presumption of salvation which is dangerous.
There is no presumption of salvation instead it is of Gods gift and no one else’s
We are being presumptive in thinking that we are the sole arbiters of Gods gifts
And in fact the church accepts this in its most recent understanding of the concentric circles meaning that all kinds of people are in a concentric circle in relation to God even those who have no connection with the church
That doesn’t mean that everyone is in such a concentric circle
I think you put yourself in a very dangerous position if you say that you are able to sit in judgment and say who receives salvation and who doesn’t
It’s just reducing salvation to a simplistic formula simply doesn’t work
Strawman. I haven’t placed judgement on anyone individual. Furthermore, I have never made myself an arbiter of God’s salvation. I’ve formed a view based on Scripture & Tradition guided by the magisterium of the Church. In fact, my reflection here is an argument against the traditional Catholic view of No Salvation Outside the Church, we have many traditional Catholic, so likely you’ve just assumed my partition on the topic.
You’ve generalized my argument, if you even read it, so that you can argue against a construction of your own imagination. Whereas, I say that we should act as though most are damned (Mt. 7:13) & hope that many will be saved (1 Tim 2:4)
I would say that more modern catholic teaching is to say that God is able to accept even those who are not in the church from the point of view of being baptised or confirmed etc ie not officially within the church but who by their lives live out the gospel in terms of reaching out to the poor and being involved in charitable activities and their hearts are right with God - they do not outwardly deny God, after all Jesus himself said he who is not against us is on our part
So even if someone never came to a church service, perhaps they occasionally watch services online, they feel near to God in their work, and they show their belief by their actions and their honest desire to serve others. Such people can still receive salvation and hard and fast rules are not necessarily always a good guide we remember the blind man who could say whether he is a sinner or not I don't know what I do know is once I was blind but now I can see
So I think a more compassionate and inclusive approach is called for
Thanks for this essay Phillip. As a rather new Cathoilc I've been thinking about this, and your essay has given me a signposted starting point to learn more
I believe it is crucially important to consider the truly inconvenient "Deathbed" interactions between Jesus and the Good Thief in attempting to find an answer to this question. There is no record that this individual actually repented, was baptized, became a member of the Church, was reformed, or even made a good confession. And yet he accomplished in moments everything necessary for a lifetime to be promised by our Savior immediate entry into Heaven WITH HIM that very day. This narrative is hardly an obfuscation of Church teaching but it reveals me a great deal concerning the actual disposition of our God with regard to the means of our Salvation especially what He regards to be the one indispensable key necessary for our entry into Heaven. The events of this narrative are no anomaly, nor are they a one off favor to a newfound friend. The nature of God cannot change and certainly not for one individual. I would suggest deliberation before the throne of our Father on that matter first simply because without knowledge of the true disposition of our Triune god, other deliberations are futile.
Phillip this is an awesome reflection/article and thank you for this insight and clarification into lumen gentium.
Well it's interesting that now all you are left with is pour abuse out at others so the best judgement on your work is own words
Well it’s pretty clear for others that you can’t answer the objections with any sort of evidence from say the NT, LG, & especially since the great hopeful-universalist Hans Urs Von Balthasar writes that statements from Jesus in Matthew 7:13 serve as warnings not predictions from Jesus.
Thanks.
Well once again you are overstating your case
To say that you assume most are damed is a very strange statement to make and certainly not the current thinking of the Church
The position has always been that so long as someone dies in a state of grace which has its own definition then any failure in life can be atoned for while in purgatory
This shows the church’s understanding that God wishes to give everyone the possibility of redemption
Recent Popes have stressed the need for compassion and welcoming all to the church, your comments seem to be irreconcilable with the church’s mission to share the love of Christ with all
Thanks
You said a lot of words that say nothing & again strawman me. You’re operating with a hermeneutic of disruption from the traditional view of what is taught by Jesus in the gospels. You keep saying I’m against what the ‘modern’ Church teaches but your words are nonsense. I quote the current dogmatic constitution on the subject above & the most important paragraph on it—that’s your “modern Church.” And I’m perfectly aligned with Lumen Gentium.
I think keeping with hermeneutic of continuity with the tradition, if we operate with the notion that many will be damned then many, if not most, can be saved—oh and by the way that’s one of Balthasar’s points actually in “Dare we hope all men saved?”
So you want to argue with the wall—for the sake some sort of moral superiority. Again, it’s silly and it’s nonsense.
I would say that more modern catholic teaching is to say that God is able to accept even those who are not in the church from the point of view of being baptised or confirmed etc ie not officially within the church but who by their lives live out the gospel in terms of reaching out to the poor and being involved in charitable activities and their hearts are right with God - they do not outwardly deny God, after all Jesus himself said he who is not against us is on our part
So even if someone never came to a church service, perhaps they occasionally watch services online, they feel near to God in their work, and they show their belief by their actions and their honest desire to serve others. Such people can still receive salvation and hard and fast rules are not necessarily always a good guide we remember the blind man who could say whether he is a sinner or not I don't know what I do know is once I was blind but now I can see
So I think a more compassionate and inclusive approach is called for
Thanks
Should the doctor tell the diabetic not to drink Coke for his physical well being? If so, why do we not follow the same logic with proclaiming the gospel?
You’re flirting with a presumption of salvation which is dangerous.
Thanks.
There is no presumption of salvation instead it is of Gods gift and no one else’s
We are being presumptive in thinking that we are the sole arbiters of Gods gifts
And in fact the church accepts this in its most recent understanding of the concentric circles meaning that all kinds of people are in a concentric circle in relation to God even those who have no connection with the church
That doesn’t mean that everyone is in such a concentric circle
I think you put yourself in a very dangerous position if you say that you are able to sit in judgment and say who receives salvation and who doesn’t
It’s just reducing salvation to a simplistic formula simply doesn’t work
Strawman. I haven’t placed judgement on anyone individual. Furthermore, I have never made myself an arbiter of God’s salvation. I’ve formed a view based on Scripture & Tradition guided by the magisterium of the Church. In fact, my reflection here is an argument against the traditional Catholic view of No Salvation Outside the Church, we have many traditional Catholic, so likely you’ve just assumed my partition on the topic.
You’ve generalized my argument, if you even read it, so that you can argue against a construction of your own imagination. Whereas, I say that we should act as though most are damned (Mt. 7:13) & hope that many will be saved (1 Tim 2:4)
I would say that more modern catholic teaching is to say that God is able to accept even those who are not in the church from the point of view of being baptised or confirmed etc ie not officially within the church but who by their lives live out the gospel in terms of reaching out to the poor and being involved in charitable activities and their hearts are right with God - they do not outwardly deny God, after all Jesus himself said he who is not against us is on our part
So even if someone never came to a church service, perhaps they occasionally watch services online, they feel near to God in their work, and they show their belief by their actions and their honest desire to serve others. Such people can still receive salvation and hard and fast rules are not necessarily always a good guide we remember the blind man who could say whether he is a sinner or not I don't know what I do know is once I was blind but now I can see
So I think a more compassionate and inclusive approach is called for
Thanks
Thanks for this essay Phillip. As a rather new Cathoilc I've been thinking about this, and your essay has given me a signposted starting point to learn more