A sincere question for Catholics

Hi enda,

3. You are a confessed follower of a church that may have this man as its 'infallible' leader.

The charism of infallibility in no way is determined by the quality of the man who holds Peter's office.

This charism is a negative gift of protection whereupon the Holy Spirit prevents the successor of St. Peter from defining error as a matter of dogma ex cathedra.

 

The Cardinal explains here exactly what he means by the statement. And it is consistent with his other statements, and the statements of the present Pope, and the Church. :

God Bless

 

Kathryn,

With respect, when are you going to realise that this quote does not explain the original remark, the quote above only adds to the questions we might ask.

If you want us to take you seriously you'll have to stop hiding behind this quote, come out and face up to the problem here.

God Bless

Enda

 

If you want us to take you seriously you'll have to stop hiding behind this quote, come out and face up to the problem here.

Enda, relax. We must take Arinze's statements within the context of his faith, that is, the Catholic faith. Within the larger context of what we believe as Catholics, what Arinze has said is not problematic, properly understood. It is when you take Arinze out of the context of his Catholicism that you find what he has said as problematic.

I can say, "Non-Catholics may be saved," and someone on this board may run off claiming that I said Buddhists will be saved apart from Christ. That accusation is certainly problematic, separated from the faith that I profess, which makes my statement explicable.

 

Cardinal Arinze explains exactly what he means by the original quote. He explains it in his own words. You may not like what he is saying but it is what the he believes, the present Pope believes, and the Church believes.

God Bless

 

Carson Weber said, 'The charism of infallibility in no way is determined by the quality of the man who holds Peter's office.'

Infallibility of the Papal chair is a misnomer and only in the minds of fallible constituents. Some of the past Popes have proven themselves unreliable because they introduced doctrines that are not founded on the Word of God the Bible.

Carson said, 'This charism is a negative gift of protection whereupon the Holy Spirit
prevents the successor of St. Peter from defining error as a matter of dogma ex cathedra.

If Cardinal Arinze is saying that people who honor other world religions will end up in Heaven, in his present church office, his error might well continue if he is elected the next Pope. Error never become the truth just because one has more authority as spiritual father in the Roman Catholic world of religion.

Many different kinds of religions will be a part of the one world church that will miss the rapture of the Christian church into Heaven. Apostate Christianity will miss Christ's coming for a quasi-church but will continue with their religion, [Revelation 17] into and throughout the Great Tribulation of seven years.

In our churches there are certain major beliefs or doctrines that we have to believe in order to remain orthodox in belief. We have several 'checks and balances' that insure correct doctrine in the church. I will only list one. When all of evangelical bishop/preacher types agree on said doctrine we can believe them to be true because they have come out of and have been studied in the precious Word of God. We have no great doctrines of the church that have been thought up in some bishop's study that we immediately rejoice over and then try to protect the brainstorm with the seal of the Holy Spirit.

 

Posting this again - since no RC response addressed the details.

The "significance" is that IF we go with the RC view stated above and in the opening post of this
thread then there has to be a "BASIS" upon which a non-Christian is "saved and goes directly to heaven" vs one that is "saved and goes to Purgatory FIRST" vs one that is "not saved and goes to Hell".

I am asking "again" - what is the principle - the BASIS for each of those cases - from the RC POV.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The first two would be saved by Grace through the merits of Jesus Christ on the cross. The third in hell was damned forever without the grace of God. Jesus Christ is the judge not us. We are saved by Grace.

 

Who then is righteous?
How does one become righteous?

 

The question must be asked then, WHAT would qualify 2 non Christians for heaven, or purgatory and then heaven?

Faith and the implicit desire for baptism.

 

The question is what does the RCC say about this?

For example if we contrast among Christians between those that go straight to heaven and those stuck in the torments of Purgatory - the RCC gives some view as to what they think the difference is in what they did.

So - asking the SAME about Hindus - what difference is the RCC making between a Hindu that goes straight to heaven, one that it stuck in Purgatory and one that goes to hell. Is it their works? their faith? what? The kinds of sins they commit?

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Church acknowledges it is up to the judgement of Jesus Christ. If anyone is saved who does not know Jesus Christ, it is by Grace through the merits of Jesus Christ on the cross. He is the judge.

This however does not stop the Church from its Great Commission to baptise and teach all Jesus Christ has commanded. It carries out this commission through its missionary work to bring all of God's children to the fullness of the Catholic faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Redeemer and Savior, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


God Bless

 

We all agree on that! Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. . .

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

The Athanasian Creed defends the Church Catholic from the heresies the Roman Cardinal is promoting.

[ June 22, 2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

John Gilmore,

I'm not a Roman Catholic but agree with the Athanasian Creed as you wrote down for us. How are my chances at being a spiritual 'stow away? I have a few Protestants that I want to bring with me, if St. Peter will open the back door.

 

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

Obviously therefore, Cardinal Arinze was aware that this man had an implicit desire to be baptized, and therefore, being a faithful servant of Christ, Cardinal Arinze baptized him immediately.

Is that what you are saying Carson?

 

Ray,
The Athanasian Creed is the heritage of all Christians (i.e., catholic). It was written to condemn those who deny the deity of Christ. Today, there are many who call themselves Christians but will not condemn those who deny the Trinity. They are encouraging unbelievers to remain in darkness by giving them false hope.