Since we did not get to the bottom of this controversy between our Catholics here, I created this thread in hopes to find out why Catholics are in conflict among themselves over this issue.
steaver,
Catholics are "in conflict" because we are all living through a process of formation, a crucible of emotional, intellectual, developmental, and doctrinal clarification. We, however, are called to be obedient to the Church. This obedience in faith allows for the supernatural unity which Christ prayed for (John 17:20-23) to be a reality despite the unique subjective experience of each catholic. So it is that the Church, being a real body of believers and enjoying the principles of unity established by God (The same Doctrine, Hierarchy, Sacraments), carries on over the course of millennia under the safeguarding of the Holy Ghost. All of this is why the existence of conflict between individual catholics is a reflection of their personal commitment to obedience to what the Church teaches and little else. For even if a Pope were to present ideas which were in conflict with the Faith, it's the Church which would, in such a case, correct the Pope.
The original thread which is closed now was at the following impasse, which we are awaiting to see if Utilyan and Adonia are being misrepresented here....
Herbert called Steaver out for libel and said, "Hmmm. I wonder if your statement here would qualify as libel. For neither utilyan or Adonia believe that one can "reject Jesus Christ and still be saved..." To say such things about fellow Christians is anything but charitable".
I did not claim that your statement was libelous. I considered the possibility that it would qualify as libel, which is the "publishing of a false statement which is damaging to a person's reputation." Surely here on a Christian site, to claim that another Christian believes that one can get to Heaven even if they reject Jesus could be seen as damaging to one's reputation, I'd say.
What Catholics believe, again, is that the grace merited by Christ is God's to apply. So the Church stops short of saying any one particular person is certainly in Hell. For that decision is between God and the individual. The Church acknowledges, too, that there exists the
possibility that people who don't come to recognize Christ MAY receive the Beatific Vision. But even in such a case, such a gift would be coming to them through Christ and not according to any works, ethnic identity, or legal observance. For no person is "owed" Heaven.
Further, CS Lewis and others have written about a particular subtlety with regard to the question of what it really means to "reject" or "accept" Jesus. And that is this: When a person "rejects" Christ, he is on occasion rejecting a false caricature of Christ which has been presented to him by false teachers. His rejection, then, is a rejection which is justified according to the false picture of Christ which was presented to him. No one who encounters the true Messiah and obstinately rejects Him can receive the Beatific Vision.
Steaver said, "I will await Adonia and Utilyan's affirmation that one cannot be saved if they reject Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. I will gladly accept their confirmation that Jews and Muslims loving thy neighbour alone cannot save them, that they must not reject that Jesus Christ is the Son of God if they desire to be saved.
We are still waiting for that affirmation.
Jews and Muslims (and anyone else) cannot be saved by love
alone, period. Consider the following:
"...the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it... This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation."
As you can see, this passage from the Catechism includes an important phrase: "through no fault of their own". It is only when personal culpability does not obtain that a person can be understood to possibly be saved. Notice, the wording here. It says such people
may achieve eternal salvation. In other words, the Church acknowledges the only way to Heaven (through Christ), calls all people to that One Way (Christ), and still acknowledges the fact that ultimately God is going to decide how the merits of His Son will be applied to each individual person. The passage does not say these people "do certainly" achieve eternal salvation. It suggests the possibility.
Finally, consider that last phrase "...those too may achieve eternal salvation." Notice the fact that the passage doesn't say
how the merits of Christ will be applied to such people. It doesn't say specifically
what God's work would have to be in order to welcome these people into Heaven or
when it would occur. It simply, in acknowledgement of God's sovereignty, expresses the
possibility that such may occur according to Christ's grace.
And though it is my impression that both utilyan and Adonia are indeed faithful Catholics who acknowledge and accept all the Church teaches to have been revealed by God, how they respond to this (if they choose to), regardless of what they say, will not
change what the Church teaches.
Herbert seems to know his Catholic traditions well and says the RCC teaches a person cannot reject Jesus Christ and be saved.
I think it's important to consider something more directly here. It is true that the Catholic Church teaches that "a person cannot reject Jesus Christ and be saved." If someone beholds the true face of Christ and rejects Him, such a person cannot be saved. The subtlety here, however, lies in the personal culpability of each individual in his response to the Gospel as it's presented to him. I know a former Jehovah's Witness who avoids anything to do with faith of any kind and religion of any kind. Has she truly rejected the Lord? I don't know. She is certainly justified in being supremely frustrated with "religion" as it's been presented to her. Could she be saved? Only God knows what has gone on in her heart as she reacts to the nonsense presented to her as truth while growing up and becoming an adult. So as a Catholic I say that she "may" one day be saved. That's not the same as saying she "will" be saved or that "love alone" can save her. Her judgment will take place and it will be ultimately between her and God. For now I simply affirm the fact that if she is ultimately saved, it will be done according to Christ's redemptive work.
If this is true then I want to know why Catholics are believing otherwise and still consider themselves Catholics. I was always told that Catholics believe as the Church says so and that is it, a true Catholic would not believe otherwise.
All Catholics proceed through this life, to varying degrees, out of perfect harmony with the Lord, His Church, and her teachings. Sometimes it's habitual sin which makes hypocrites of us. Sometimes it's ignorance. Sometimes it's simply willful heresy. Whatever the case may be, my identity as a Catholic is not predicated upon my ability to live, at all times, in full conformity to Church teaching. There is a profound and widespread disconnect between what the Church teaches and the practice of Catholics the world over. Practical failure on the part of Catholics and the objectivity of Church teaching, however, shouldn't be confused with one another.
Finally, what was the specific aspect of what I cited earlier from Romans 11 which you wished to challenge?
In Him,
Herbert
