dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

And the Pope and all council attendees are mortal men.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

I am not dancing the Bishops as successors of the Apostles have the God given authority to forgive and retain sins, and to lay men on the internet do not

dermdoc said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

And the Pope and all council attendees are mortal men.

---

Quote:

---

Since your most serene majesty and your highnesses require of me a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is clear that they have fallen into error and even into inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God's word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it cannot be either safe or honest for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

I am not dancing the Bishops as successors of the Apostles have the God given authority to forgive and retain sins, and to lay men on the internet do not

---

Which is you trying to distract from the question.

Your Bishops made the claim. You claim God gave them authority to make that claim. Is their claim at Florence correct?

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

---

I followed you until your condemnation of Luther. Given papal claims and the filioque, do you hold your own church to these standards?

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

I am not dancing the Bishops as successors of the Apostles have the God given authority to forgive and retain sins, and to lay men on the internet do not

---

Which is you trying to distract from the question.

Your Bishops made the claim. You claim God gave them authority to make that claim. Is their claim at Florence correct?

---

The main problem being, '[who haven't joined the RCC by the end of their life]', which is where the 'dancing' accusation comes in. Presumably you're asking about someone who doesn't submit to the bishop of Rome.

Which means perhaps we should ask, do bishops in the rcc regularly forgive sins of those not in the church? If so then there may be a path out, but that would seem to be abdicating a priestly role.

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

---

I followed you until your condemnation of Luther. Given papal claims and the filioque, do you hold your own church to these standards?

---

This is honestly not a logical question if I accept the Papal claims then they have the authority to make changes such as the filioque.

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

---

I followed you until your condemnation of Luther. Given papal claims and the filioque, do you hold your own church to these standards?

---

This is honestly not a logical question if I accept the Papal claims then they have the authority to make changes such as the filioque.

---

Sure, but it doesn't really leave you a lot of ground to declare others schismatic, does it? It's a problem of authority, ex post facto.

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

---

I followed you until your condemnation of Luther. Given papal claims and the filioque, do you hold your own church to these standards?

---

This is honestly not a logical question if I accept the Papal claims then they have the authority to make changes such as the filioque.

---

Sure, but it doesn't really leave you a lot of ground to declare others schismatic, does it? It's a problem of authority, ex post facto.

---

If the Chruch has already passed judgment I am not making one myself just merely repeating a fact.

Catholics are not all unified around the pope and his declarations, never have been.

Dante's Divine Comedy has some interesting things to say about the papacy.

Watch the Conclave when it comes out in November.

NowhereMan said:

---

Catholics are not all unified around the pope and his declarations, never have been.

Dante's Divine Comedy has some interesting things to say about the papacy.

Watch the Conclave when it comes out in November.

---

There is a conclave in November? Tell me when will the Pope quit/die?

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Do I think anybody should judge anyone's eternal destiny? No that's for God alone. But my church didn't hold a council it claims as ecumenical that made those statements. Yours did. Your church claims the authority to speak for God and has declared those who disagree with it will be in everlasting fire.

I was attacked not more than a month ago for daring to agree with Luther's statement that councils and popes contradict each other. We once again have a clear example of that happening, and I'm glad it's uncomfortable for you. It should be uncomfortable to realize what your Church did and said. Maybe you will even begin to recognize how flawed their claims are.

But that's you're still avoiding the question.

Based on Florence and Rome's position (at that time at least) am I condemned to everlasting fire?

---

The Church was given the power by Christ to retain and forgive sins. They have the power to loose and bind. That is a power given to the Apostles and their successors not the bishops. It is not given to laymen, or schismatic heretic priests.

---

I followed you until your condemnation of Luther. Given papal claims and the filioque, do you hold your own church to these standards?

---

This is honestly not a logical question if I accept the Papal claims then they have the authority to make changes such as the filioque.

---

Sure, but it doesn't really leave you a lot of ground to declare others schismatic, does it? It's a problem of authority, ex post facto.

---

If the Chruch has already passed judgment I am not making one myself just merely repeating a fact.

---

Yeah, that's not circular at all.

AgLiving06 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

False equivalency.

A council talking about heretics leaving the Church at a time when it was relatively whole is very different than a council talking about other people who have been born and raised outside the Church. The council of Florence came at a time when the Catholic Church was THE church. You couldn't plead ignorance.

500 years and a thousand denominations later, there is plenty of room for people to be actively seeking God while not in communion with the Church. Many people are raised with false understandings of what the Church teaches, or don't even have access to the Church. Heck, even ~60 years after Florence the new world was discovered and tons of people who had never heard the gospel had to be considered. Leaving the church or not joining the church that you know about is very different than not joining a church you've either never come in contact with or have heard lies about since childhood

ETA: this was also during a time when east and west were discussing reunification, so stressing that all believers should be inside of one true Church also makes sense for the time period.

---

Rome was not THE church even at the time of Florence.

it was called, in part, to try and unify Rome and EO, and this is before we consider the other churches.

You're still avoiding the question.

Today, outside of a potentially very remote group, everybody has heard of Jesus. Even the Muslims revere him as a prophet.

By any measure, they are turning away not from just Rome, but from Jesus. You can try and dance around the question but Florence is clear.

But lets keep it simple. Am I destined for everlasting fire? Florence clearly says yes. Do you agree?

---

I didn't say Rome was the Church. You should know what I mean there. We only had one major split and we were working on getting the band back together. There was no Baptist church or Lutheran church or Methodist etc. Rome was the head of the church but you say as if Rome was the only one out of many. We area universal church. One. If you were a Christian, you were Catholic or Orthodox, and the two were similar enough to be in dialogue of reunification.

If you were not Christian, you would have had your chance. Unless you lived in a remote country or deep inside of Muslim territory, you could have been in the church. Muslims were actively engaging in war with Christians and killing/subjugating those that didn't forcibly convert. While there are some crazy jihadists, does that sound like the general situation today?

I would say no. Christians don't present a united front with many believers being taught from childhood that the Catholic Church is evil/not Christian. Materialism/relativism/agnosticism is a societal trend, confusing things even more. Muslim countries have shut off most Christian missionaries and have taught a false view of Jesus. These are all confounding variables that prevent people from even considering the church from the start, all in the name of God.

The Church still teaches that you must be one with the Church in the end. We simply believe that due to human confusion messing everything up, Jesus may have extraordinary ways of helping people come to the true faith through whatever faith background they are currently in. Ultimate unity will happen, just not the way it looked hundreds or thousands of years ago.

As to your state of salvation, you obviously should know I'm not weighing in there. I don't know what your reliance on Jesus is. I don't know what level of anti-Catholic biases you were raised with. My first girlfriend was told from the time she was a young girl that Catholics aren't Christians and go to hell. Should I have expected her to do a deep dive into what the Church teaches?. I don't know how much open minded and fair study of the Church you've done. God knows that and He will judge. If we both make it to heaven, we'll be in union there. How God makes that union happen is up to Him, but I do not believe we will find the Church to be in error on matters of faith and morals when we get there.

Fundamental to the conversation about Florence, Nostra Aetatae, Francis and his statements on ecumenism & other religions, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the concept of Venial Sin vs Mortal Sin. Especially mortal sin. And repentance.

Mortal sin requires:
1. grievous matter (serious/grave sin)
2. sufficient reflection (full knowledge)
3. full consent of the will

Ultimately, damnation is caused by dying without repenting, confessing one's mortal sins. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are serious, grave sins. Statements from the Church (e.g. Florence, Trent) are ordered towards providing said knowledge to the faithful. Willing the known, grievous sin... well, that's on you, bro. Repent or perish.

Analyzing these statements outside of this basic lens is silly and results in circles.

747Ag said:

---

Fundamental to the conversation about Florence, Nostra Aetatae, Francis and his statements on ecumenism & other religions, and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is the concept of Venial Sin vs Mortal Sin. Especially mortal sin. And repentance.

Mortal sin requires:
1. grievous matter (serious/grave sin)
2. sufficient reflection (full knowledge)
3. full consent of the will

Ultimately, damnation is caused by dying without repenting, confessing one's mortal sins. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are serious, grave sins. Statements from the Church (e.g. Florence, Trent) are ordered towards providing said knowledge to the faithful. Willing the known, grievous sin... well, that's on you, bro. Repent or perish.

Analyzing these statements outside of this basic lens is silly and results in circles.

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

"All religions are paths to reach God."

"They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for everyone. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God."

"If you start to fight'My religion is more important than your's; mine is true and your's isn't'then where will that lead us?"

"There is only one God, and each of us has a language to reach God. Some are Sikh, some Muslim, Hindu, Christian. And they are all paths to God."

Pope Francis said these comments in Singapore this week.

Is he trying to say that if you are in a religion, at least you are seeking God? Or is he straight up contradiction "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me?"

I firmly believe that Christianity is true and other religions are not. Whether protestant or Catholic, it is better because it is the gospel of the living Christ. How can the Pope say it is no better than Islam or Hindu?

---

He's speaking generally of a sole deity. He's not saying they're on par with Christianity in any way shape or form. The Pope has used language before that has confused some and had to revise it....but no one ever posts the revisions he makes to clarify.
The Pope has always stated the Church believes there is only one path to salvation, faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the one true God.

And technically, we ARE all children of God, made in his image. Its just others have chosen to deny Christ and chose a different path to god (little g intended).

Nothingburger here.

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

No human, Pope or otherwise, has the power to condemn someone accept God. Catholics know this. People seem to NEED to make something out of nothing sometimes because it seems like a 'gotcha'. Its apparent what doctrines have or have not been shaped and when throughout history. This is why the RCC still calls Protestants our fellow Christian brothers and sisters.

I don't have the time to distill all this information, so I am posting a link to a paper that was written specifically on this topic, "Florence and Vatican II on Other Religions: Discontinuity or Reform?" by J. William Deatherage, 2022.

+++

Some points I would like to pass along to my non-Catholic brothers and sisters:

1. The "infallible" card has only been used maybe 3 times in the history of the RCC. This declaration about salvation outside the Church is not one of them.

2. The Church does and has refined, reformed, and in some cases changed prior understandings such as slavery and scientific matters such as the tragic trial of Galileo.

3. The purpose, audience, and type of council convened is important to understanding the teachings of the RCC; in the case of Vatican II, there were over 2,500 bishops for all parts of the world that read each document and voted on each part. The document on interreligious dialogue was specifically written to acknowledge non-Christian religions, their place in God's plan of salvation, and how the Church would engage.

4. The reference to prior understanding of salvation outside the Church, is this passage from Lumen Gentium, section 16:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life"

The takeaway here is there are some people who have yet to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their desire to live a good life is aided by God's grace and they can be saved outside the Church.

AGC said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AGC said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Do you think it's appropriate to ask other poster to judge the fate of your soul?

Or better phrased do you think you are able to judge anyone's eternal destiny?

---

Seems like a sidebar. The underlying question is the issue of rcc statements, clarifications, letters, missives, and off the cuff papal comments that must always be reconciled or interpreted in an ever isolating way. Rome has done its own thing for a thousand years and now has an ecosystem to sustain. It's hard to accuse other Christians of being unwilling to reconcile or resistant to unity if one doesn't recognize how one's own church and tradition have been shaped and formed this far downstream of the split and papal revolution.

---

And I imagine we could have that conversation without the histrionics of are you condemning me to hell if we disagree.

---

The idea that a human being can condemn somebody to hell is ludicrous.

---

Exactly!

It should be truly indefensible, and I suspect even jrico knows this which is why he's dancing around it.

Because he either has to acknowledge it's correct and we are burning...or he has to acknowledge that Florence was wrong and later popes/councils are having to "reinterpret" that council (and others) to make it palatable.

---

I am not dancing the Bishops as successors of the Apostles have the God given authority to forgive and retain sins, and to lay men on the internet do not

---

Which is you trying to distract from the question.

Your Bishops made the claim. You claim God gave them authority to make that claim. Is their claim at Florence correct?

---

The main problem being, '[who haven't joined the RCC by the end of their life]', which is where the 'dancing' accusation comes in. Presumably you're asking about someone who doesn't submit to the bishop of Rome.

Which means perhaps we should ask, do bishops in the rcc regularly forgive sins of those not in the church? If so then there may be a path out, but that would seem to be abdicating a priestly role.

---

Since I've never asked a bishop or priest for forgiveness, though I do follow God's word to "forgive my trespasses" I assume he trumps their forgiveness.

PabloSerna said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

It may shock some, but it is very likely that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-Christians will walk the streets of heaven!

---

Is this the mainstream RCC view? Or just your own opinion?

---

Well founded RCC positions.

Here is a (LINK) regarding Vatican and Papal statements on Islam. Here is another (LINK) about Vatican II statements on Catholic - Jewish relations. Another (LINK) regarding the Vatican's message about, Christianity and Hinduism bringing about "the light of hope" in people's lives.

This is all based on the interreligious document I cited above. If you take the time to read it, it is very short, it distinguishes between encountering God through various religions and living a full religious life in the life of Jesus Christ, true God and true man.

+++

It was once explained to me this way;

All of mankind seeks God, encountering him high on a mountain. We each stand around this mountain trying to climb our way to the top. Jesus has come down from heaven to blaze a trail to the top. This is the church he established together with the 12 apostles. This is the Catholic Church.

---

That's nice.
What about cults?
How is Islam different from a massive cult?
What about people like me who don't believe there is an afterlife?

BluHorseShu said:

---

Pro Sandy said:

---

"All religions are paths to reach God."

"They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for everyone. Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God."

"If you start to fight'My religion is more important than your's; mine is true and your's isn't'then where will that lead us?"

"There is only one God, and each of us has a language to reach God. Some are Sikh, some Muslim, Hindu, Christian. And they are all paths to God."

Pope Francis said these comments in Singapore this week.

Is he trying to say that if you are in a religion, at least you are seeking God? Or is he straight up contradiction "I Am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me?"

I firmly believe that Christianity is true and other religions are not. Whether protestant or Catholic, it is better because it is the gospel of the living Christ. How can the Pope say it is no better than Islam or Hindu?

---

He's speaking generally of a sole deity. He's not saying they're on par with Christianity in any way shape or form. The Pope has used language before that has confused some and had to revise it....but no one ever posts the revisions he makes to clarify.
The Pope has always stated the Church believes there is only one path to salvation, faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of the one true God.

And technically, we ARE all children of God, made in his image. Its just others have chosen to deny Christ and chose a different path to god (little g intended).

Nothingburger here.

---

We are either enemies of God or His children. Not everyone is a child of God.

AGC said:

---

In all charity, Catholic teaching is convoluted in a way that other sacramental denominations (or faiths if you take them for their word) aren't. The orthodox don't have to navigate any of these issues, nor do anglicans. Rome has become an insulated institution that is more reminiscent of government bureaucracy than the church Christ instituted. When people sort through it and read that they need to get the windows update for the current regime's take on three documents throughout time and how they work together, is it really their fault, rather than that of the church that creates such confusion?

---

I can't reply to both AGC and AgLiving06 - but they are right to point out an obvious apparent change in doctrine (more than just this example, BTW). This is not something as a Catholic to be ashamed or reason to abandon the ship. I would say exactly the opposite- more the reason to hold firm to mother church. Remember the words of Peter, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." -Jn 6:68

Let me explain.

Renewal is rooted in scripture, "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins." -Mk 2:22

Even Jesus understood that his preaching to the people of Israel was a challenge to their long held beliefs. However, he pressed on and commanded his apostles to do the same. I don't know anything about the Orthodox or Anglican church- so I will not even consider their doctrine of salvation outside of (their) churches. That is for them to discern. I DO know what my faith has taught, has discerned, and now teaches.

"Aggiornamento" is the Italian word that is used to describe the updating Vatican II took upon its aim to address the questions of this time based on sacred doctrine. In many cases this effort led to a refresh of an older understanding, such as the salvation of souls outside the church. Where in the past it was an "either or" answer, the Church now understood it as "both and" response.

Before, for salvation it was EITHER the Church OR hell. There was no further explanation.

Now, the RCC is saying that there may be some people who have never heard of Jesus. That through no fault of their own (CCC 847), living a good life- "those too may achieve eternal salvation." So it was expanded to include BOTH the Church AND those who had not received the good news of Jesus through the mission.

What happened is that the RCC realized that the initial teaching was incomplete. It did not account for persons in remote parts of the world who had never heard the gospel or persons who had grown up their whole lives in a culture centered on Islam or Hindu. Same for persons who never encountered the word of God in their lives through no fault of their own.

The "updating" accounted for this and would lead to interreligious dialogue, not to proselytize, but to lead to a better understanding of our differences and mutual respect.