Salvation

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

There is a family who is infinitely wealthy. The Father 'decides' he wants to share his wealth. He decides to make available this one particular item of value that only this family has.

He establishes an economy and on the market he places this item of infinite value. There is only one way to purchase this item.

The Son pays full price for the item and says the only way anybody else can buy a share in this item is with his currency, a currency that can never be counterfeit as it bears his mark which is impossible for anyone else to reproduce.

The only other member of the family, a Ghastly character, proceeds from the family to distribute this currency of the Son's to the people of the world.

At some point everybody comes into the Father's market and is presented this item of infinite value to see if they are interested. If they are interested they are asked for the Son's currency that bears his mark.

Question:

Now if they are not interested they go away without it, no doubt. But if they are interested, if they have a true desire, would this infinitely wealthy Father who is also infinitely generous deny them because they do not have the currency? After all, the Father is did not start the economy to make himself more wealthy, he did it in order to share his wealth.

BTW, the item of infinite value, what is it? Eternal Life of course.

24 February, 2005 Fr. Paul Doucet

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005

Answers

Bumpity bump.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 24, 2005.

Fr. Paul, I assume your intention was good with this story, but I worry that it didn't come across as you wanted it to. As this is the Catholic board I also suggest you refrain from capitalizing words like "Son" and "Father" out of context.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 24, 2005.

God has revealed that He wishes all men to be saved.

God gave His only-begotten Son as the world's Sole Redeemer. Except in Him, there is no redemption.

He gives us grace, the currency and ticket to Life Everlasting.

Someone ''Ghastly'' -- gives the world counterfeit grace; Sola Scriptura, etc., to purchase the end product with. False doctrine?

Is God-- Who allowed His Divine Son to die for the world; going to turn away from Life Everlasting those who expected it, for grace that they thought was real? They were deceived by men-- Ghastly Heretics. But the whole intent of God was to save them, and save everyone who came to his Son. What wil God do?

Good question; and worthy of some discussion!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.


My brother eugene, people who believe in "Sola Scriptura" believe that exact words that you say "God gave His only-begotten Son as the world's Sole Redeemer. Except in Him, there is no redemption.

God has revealed that He wishes all men to be saved."

nolan

-- nolan (nolannaicker@webmail.co.za), February 25, 2005.


Father,

I assume Ghastly was a typo for Ghostly as in Holy Spirit the third member of the "family" proceeding from the Father and Son...

...would this infinitely wealthy Father who is also infinitely generous deny them because they do not have the currency?

hmmm...As the Son speaks for the Father my answer would be no - desire alone does not equal currency...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 25, 2005.



In the "American Heritage Dictionary," the second of four definitions for "ghastly" is "Suggestive of or resembling ghosts." Perhaps "ghastly" (with this meaning) is frequently used in Fr. Paul's Canada.

No analogy is perfect, including this one. And maybe some of the above analysis of the analogy is imperfect too.

If the "item of infinite value" is "eternal life," then it should not be said that the Son "purchased" it. The Son already had "eternal life" himself. He didn't purchase it and take it away from the Father. Instead, he paid the price by which he potentially purchased a share in it for everyone else that is not in the infinitely wealthy family.

I am assuming that the "currency" is sanctifying grace. If so, then it is wrong to say that the Father gives away the item even to someone who lacks the currency as obtained through ordinary channels. The right thing to say is that the prodigal Father has the power to give the currency, through an extraordinary channel, to one who is penniless but sincerely "interested." Then that person has the currency required for obtaining the item.

If I have to make an analogy of my own, it is as though the item were the greatest film ever made. The Son pays vast sum to purchase a ticket for every person who would ever live. And every person has a chance to obtain a ticket, offered through the Ghost. Neither the film nor the ability to print and distribute tickets are taken away from the Father. Anything the Father has, the Son has, and vice versa.

-- Zeke Zupke (zeke@ot.com), February 25, 2005.


I have a correction to make to my analogy.

I said, "And every person has a chance to obtain a ticket, offered through the Ghost." I should have said, "The family desire that every person have a chance to obtain a ticket, offered through the Ghost at the ticket booth, but not everyone reaches the theatre."


By the way, Father, what's with the "copyright" symbol? It seems so mercenary at first, as though you don't want anyone to make money off your few moments of creativity. As a priest, I would embrace Christ's poverty enough not to care if someone made money off what I wrote. It reminds me of ICEL copyrighting their shabby translations and making the reproduction of them an expensive pain in the neck for so many people. Jesus said, "Freely you have received. Freely give."

Or is it that you don't want anyone to copy your analogy without giving you public credit for it? Sounds like pride to me. As a priest, I would embrace Christ's humility enough not to care if someone gave me credit for something I wrote. Please eliminate the "" from your "vocabulary" in future.

-- Zeke Zupke (zeke@ot.com), February 25, 2005.


> "Jesus said, "Freely you have received. Freely give."

A: Yes, he did. However, He said this to everyone, not just to priests. Can I assume then that you are against copyrights in general, not just when the creator of a written work happens to be a priest? If a priest writes a novel, or a theology textbook, he shouldn't profit from the sale of his work just because he is a priest? How about a priest who invents something? No patents allowed? I fail to see why a priest should not have access to the same protections of intellectual property that all other citizens enjoy.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 25, 2005.


Paul M, why did you overlook a key phrase in my message: "... few moments of creativity ..."?

I am not against all copyrights. People, even if they be ordained men, whose occupation/vocation is solely or primarily to use their God-given creativity to produce published works (or inventions) do indeed deserve to be compensated. The rest of us do not have the right to plagiarize those works in order to benefit from them financially.

But most people, including Fr. Paul (and me and you, I think), have a different, sole or primary occupation/vocation, by which they make their living. Every one of us has moments in which we come up with a creative idea that we speak or write down for others, yet we do not even dream of copyrighting these things. For example, millions upon millions of such ideas and words have been shared at this forum, without anyone ever before asking others to give them credit (or a royalty) for quoting those ideas.

My opinion is that Fr. Paul's "parable" is just another such minor contribution to us all, not something by which he is earning a living. I would have found the symbol insulting even on any layman's message here, but I especially find it improper when attached to a priest's message, a man who ought to be giving the rest of us a great example of the spirit of poverty and humility.

-- Zeke Zupke (zeke@ot.com), February 25, 2005.


Zeke, My Friennnd!
No one's copyright is any of your business. Not OUR business! I must say it's mean- spirited of you to let that become your pretext for demeaning this priest. It's a stupid pretext.

About his parabolic test of our spiritual discernment; Do your best and crunch it if you can. He expects you to either accept it or deny the relevance. Take the challenge and don't be a pettifogger.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.



discussing the copyright is irrelevant, since it takes more than putting a on a web forum to make something copyrighted material. as a general rule, one shouldn't plaguerize the works of others, even quotes from this board, but putting a on the end of your post doesnt make a legal lick of difference.

at the same time, what we share here is public speech, we freely give of our time to create posts so that people will have time to read them. at first i thought this was an excerpt from a text Fr. Paul may have written, then i looked at the date of copyright and realized that it wasnt real. So next i wondered if it was some sort of joke before realizing that it wasnt a real copyright at all. this, in my opinion, detracted from the overall message of the post. i'm with zeke on this one, using a pointless and hollow on the end of a post adds nothing and implies too much on the part of the poster.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 25, 2005.


Just the eagerness to question that mark is uncharitable; since it adds and subtracts nothing from the discourse. Again I say; it's mere pretext. Some folks are going to see a fault and some aren't. If all we do is scratch the other guy's ZIT on his nose, we become Chimpanzees. My opener was very forthright: It isn't any of our business!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 25, 2005.

"he paid the price by which he potentially purchased a share in it for everyone else that is not in the infinitely wealthy family"

This is exactly what was meant. I know I shouldn't try to write anything after midnight.

CopyRight? It is also used for protection of the author from false claims and establishes clearly the time of composition. Usually, a copyright would not be for the material itself, but for the idea.

I have actually written prayers that people are free to use, but not free to profit from. Anybody think about that possibility? It's a way of telling others that they have received freely so they therefore must give freely.

Use of capitals? I knew what I was talking about, so the habit of using caps comes through. Besides, it makes it clear what the story is about.

Yes I know it needs work, but the point can be seen and that is all that matters. Indeed I will rework it before I use it for a homily - just in case there are any theologians in my congregation.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.


BTW, the currency is Baptism. You know, the whole No Salvation outsoide the Church debate.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

Just in case any of you brilliant minds missed it, Baptism is our joining ourselves to the price paid for the precious item.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.


Oh, and I forgot - Ghastly does mean ghostly or ghost like. We can still say Holy Ghost can we not?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.

"what was the motivation for the son?"

Not much, just something called obedience.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.


"hmmm...As the Son speaks for the Father my answer would be no - desire alone does not equal currency"

Daniel, has it not occurred to you that the currency is desire? After all, when one asks for Baptism, one asks for Faith. Sounds like a desire to me.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 25, 2005.


Another thing on copyrights: private authorship of a work constitutes ownership of the copyright; a copyright does not have to be registered in order to exist, but it certainly helps when money is involved.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 26, 2005.

Daniel, has it not occurred to you that the currency is desire? After all, when one asks for Baptism, one asks for Faith. Sounds like a desire to me.

Father,

Well I do agree with you in concept but not in application. Man can baptise and to this end there is specific formulation that leads to a same outcome that the Father can achieve any way for any reason (on these reasons and methods we can only speculate). Although the outcome is the same the methods are distictly different and I feel should remain understood as such. As such, I chose to answer succinctly without speculation as to currency. Adding speculation - yes, some could be granted the results of having currency and in essence have been granted currecy; however, it is only possible speculation -not guaranteed or dinitively written anywhere I am aware of...

Now, as to salvation... Baptism alone does not grant eternal salvation...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 26, 2005.


"Man can baptise "

Explain what you mean by this please. For it is Jesus who Baptises through His Church.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 26, 2005.


"Man can baptise"

Explain what you mean by this please. For it is Jesus who Baptises through His Church.

Father,

Yes, I meant it as you state --the baptismal sacrament (performed by man) outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. As such, the matter (inward grace) can objectively definitively only be declared as a result of observing form (outward signs).

Hence my opinion that sanctification by the Father by means other than baptism by man although possible is but speculation in both matter and form and is not truly the sacrament of baptism.

Additionally, I feel that the terms "baptism by desire" or "baptism of desire" tend to confuse and possibly diminish the importance and necessity for one to recieve the sacrament of baptism. Maybe the term 'sanctification' by or of desire would be better appropriate and sit more easily with me to describe just what the Father may possibly do because we do not know the how, when or why He may do this or even IF He does.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 26, 2005.


Sure, Daniel--
Here's the honest truth, though. It's doctrine, not a hoked up plan we thought up here, the way Emerald suspects. God reveals the mystery to His Church's theologians by the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.

The biggest problem with your argument Daniel is that it reflects the Heresy of Tritheism. You seem to forget that God is One, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can never in any way be opposed to one another as the three persons constitute one divine being.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 26, 2005.

The Father's will is that all will be saved. Do not forget that the Sacrament is the outward sign of the inward grace; lack of the outward sign does not negate the inward grace.

I direct you again to the fact that adults who ask for Baptism are asking the Church for Faith. We know from Scripture that Faith comes through hearing also. This is beautifully illustrated in the Gospel of John in the story of the Samaritan women at the well, there is a steady progression within her that moves her (and those to whom she speaks) to Faith. This sanctifying grace came to them without the Sacrament of Baptism - the desire was certainly there, at least in the case of the woman: "Sir, give me this water".

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 26, 2005.


Father,

Infants are baptised as well -they ask for nothing yet recieve the sacrament. I would suggest the sacrament is effective regardless... You are starting to sound like a protestant now -my opinion...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 26, 2005.


Father

P.S. lack of the outward sign means one can not objectively state the sanctifying grace to remove original sin has ever been given an individual.

An analogy -if this theory was correct then the same theology would apply to sacrament of marriage by desire and would preclude declarations of nullity caused by improper form -think about it....

At best one can say that sanctifying grace resulting from desire is not impossible and as a such the Church states that this possibility regarding salvation of non-believers/pagans...

Now as one can easily see -this same theological argument could apply to the marriage sacrament and the result would be presume all marriages valid because although some may appear invalid in form they may actually be valid by desire...

Now, regarding the form of sacraments -why would the Church presume something unprovable favorably in one case yet not presume something unprovable favorably in another?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 27, 2005.


Daniel,
You're confused about this. You think: lack of the outward sign means one can not ''objectively state'' the sanctifying grace to remove original sin has ever been given an individual.''

Why must God show us the objective sign of these grants of His own sanctifying grace? It's necessarily between Him, the soul and His Church in heaven; the Church Triumphant. Remember we have nothing objectively suggesting exactly HOW the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin. Nothing except the testimony of the Holy Spirit through His Church. That added to our faith.

And keep in mind that our concept of a Baptism of Desire is substantially supported in various scriptural passages. We see precedents in the New Testament as well as certain promises of Jesus Christ. It all adds up to virtual certainty, unless we are determined to deny.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


Thanks, Paul H, for your support. You have coolly and rationally analyzed the situation and arrived at the proper result. Unfortunately, Eugene C. Chavez shared with us the latest in his long string of irrational and uncharitable outbursts against contributors to the forum. I won't even dignify his "mean-spirited" and name- calling response by quoting and refuting it. As he has done so many times in the past, maybe he will apologize after his blood pressure goes down, especially if he notes that Fr. Paul implicitly thanked me for pointing out a weakness or two in his analogy.


Fr. Paul, your parable states, "The Son pays full price for the item and says the only way anybody else can buy a share in this item is with his currency".
In my response, I stated, "I am assuming that the 'currency' is sanctifying grace."
In one of your subsequent posts, you stated, "BTW, the currency is Baptism." I just wanted to state that we are not in conflict, because my interpretation of the currency (sanctifying grace) is obtainable only through Baptism (of one form or another).

Father, you stated, "Indeed I will rework it before I use it for a homily - just in case there are any theologians in my congregation."

This kind of hypersensitive put-down is not becoming of anyone, much less a priest. We are not "theologians" here, but only simple people who are trying to state the truth accurately. You ought humbly to have ended your sentence after the word, "homily." The parable needs to be reworked even if there are only uneducated peasants in your congregation. There's no point in saying something inaccurate to anyone, be he a theologian or a peasant. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that you not use even a reworked version of this parable in a homily, because it is too difficult to follow via the spoken word. It requires analysis of the written version, for the average person to grasp the meaning.

Father, you also stated, "Just in case any of you brilliant minds missed it, Baptism is our joining ourselves to the price paid for the precious item."

This kind of supercilious sarcasm is not becoming of anyone, much less a priest.

Father, you also stated, "We can still say Holy Ghost can we not?"

The Church has not forbidden it, but it is hardly ever seen at this forum (and "ghastly," meaning "ghostly," has never before been seen). "Holy Ghost" is no longer seen in the texts of the revised Latin Rite, and therefore most of a generation-and-a-half of Catholics have never pronounced those words. To them, the words can look and sound quite odd. Perhaps "Holy Ghost" is seen and heard more often in your private circles than in the circles of most speakers of English in the 21st century.

As to your defense of using the copyright symbol, Father, I can only say that you disappoint me even further than originally. If you had used it on each and every message you have posted at forum, or if everyone here were using it, then eyebrows might not be raised. But you used it just this once, singling out your parable to try to protect it from plagiarists and potential moneymakers.

My opinion is that this was foolishly prideful on your part, because it showed you "patting yourself on the back" for what you thought was a minor masterpiece, whom no one ought to be able to quote (without crediting you) or off which no one ought to try to make money. I say "foolishly prideful" because it was surely no "masterpiece," and no one could, or would want to, make any money off it. And so, I recommend again that you "eliminate the "" from your forum 'vocabulary' in future."

By the way, one cannot help but notice, Fr. Paul, that you posted seven brief messages in a row. Perhaps that was intentional, but if you would have preferred to say everything in one post (as everyone else does), I could teach you how to do that. You can copy and paste all or part of a thread into a document window (e.g., TXT or DOC file), and then "trim away the excess," leaving behind the passages that you want to quote, with your responses between them. Just say the word, and I will explain. I may be very tough on the content of your messages, but I like you personally, and I am glad that you are contributing here. I want to help you in any way I can.

-- Zeke Zupke (zeke@ot.com), February 27, 2005.


The biggest problem with your argument Daniel is that it reflects the Heresy of Tritheism. You seem to forget that God is One, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can never in any way be opposed to one another as the three persons constitute one divine being.

Father,

I don't see any conflicts in this regard with anything I stated as I simply state what the Church teaches clearly. Speculation e.g. this topic is best left to the domain of theologians and in my opinion should not be taught as Gospel to the laity.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 27, 2005.


Daniel,
Haven't you seen the opposite over so many years; actually condemning souls-- EVERY SINGLE ONE-- who are denied full participation in the Baptismal Rite through no fault of their own? It was ''taught'' as Gospel all along for centuries and is patently false. God cannot commit an injustice. God is LOVE! Love covering a multitude of sins.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 27, 2005.


Zeke,

"This kind of hypersensitive put-down is not becoming of anyone, much less a priest."

Would it help if I add a smiley face or a LOL?

Now who's hypersensitive? ;)

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 27, 2005.


Zeke,

Here is another post of mine following a post of mine. What it shows is that I respond to something, leave, then return and respond to something else before anybody else posts.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 27, 2005.


"brilliant minds"???

Much of what I see posted by many here does indicate there are brilliant minds present; if I wanted to be nasty, I would have emphasised the words. If you disagree that there are brilliant minds present, so be it.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 27, 2005.


Father, perhaps it was rude of me, but i never took the time to welcome you to this forum. i will pause to do so now.

i think, perhaps, that we are sometimes harder on the priests who visit here because we expect something more out of them than simply from clergy. its a humility clause, we all think of ourselves as what a catholic should be expected to be, and we expect priests to live head and shoulders above that level. so if it seems you come under alot of fire, its because of our respect for your lofty position in service of God that we demand more from you.

that being said, this is a debate board. it has been for a long long time. in a board where we can't even agree whether or not to hold hands during the "Our Father," nothing you post will not come under fire from one or another very educated mind. i originally commented only on the use of the copyright. i thought the actual story was alright, if a bit abstract and it possibly left room for misconceptions on the part of the faithful if they were to read or hear it without proper explanation or expansion of the piece.

that, i think, is what other members of this forum also caught on to, and were trying to point out where they found abstractions which could lead to error. i dont think anyone is deliberately attacking you, so i would recommend seperating yourself from your pride of authorship and reading through the suggestions again to find where people might accidently misunderstand what you are trying to say. whatever you post on this forum is going to get comments criticizing it, so you just have to roll with the critiques and understand that the people don't do it maliciously.

Again, welcome to the forum. good luck and God bless.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 27, 2005.


Eugene Chavez wrote:

Haven't you seen the opposite over so many years; actually condemning souls -- EVERY SINGLE ONE -- who are denied full participation in the Baptismal Rite through no fault of their own? It was "taught" as Gospel all along for centuries and is patently false.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (John 3:5)

He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Now, what were you saying, Gene? Oh, yes, that the necessity of baptism for salvation "was 'taught' as Gospel all along for centuries and is patently false." Hmmm. So you are saying that for centuries the Catholic Church taught something that is "patently false." How lucky we are that the geniuses of the Novus Ordo Church have set things right!

But you can see the problem here, can't you? Of course you can but you won't admit it. If the previous teaching is false, then how do you know that the current teaching is true?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.


Fr. Paul,

Your "parable" STINKS!!! Daniel Hawkenberry has you pegged. You are like a Protestant in denying the necessity of the sacraments for salvation.

Furthermore, since your "parable" pits the Father in opposition to the Son, it is YOU who are guilty of tritheism.

Read your Bible: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Jesus suffered and died for us to open the gates of heaven. He established His Church to preach His word and administer His sacraments as the means to get us there.

So stick to the Great Commission: "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."(28:18-20)

Stop trying to figure out some other path to salvation. You and the Novus Ordo Church sin greatly by believing that the Great Commission is insufficient to achieve God's goal. The geniuses of the Novus Ordo Church think that they have a better way. What arrogance!!!

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.


BzzzzCousin:
Those who truly love God discern what's obvious about his Word right away. What is mysterious within it we learn by long contemplation. Though I'm no saint, I can tell you this is the way great saints contemplated and learned the truth for us lesser souls.

Now, see how superficially you saw my statement: ''Oh, yes, that the necessity of baptism ----? ? ? for salvation was 'taught' as Gospel all along for centuries and is patently false. --? ? ? ''

I said what was false has to be this: Teaching that not a *single soul* would ever be saved without ----WATER Baptism. Let me explain how come this must be false.

............................................................ .....................................................

To be Gospel truth; --we must never have any patently UNJUST punishment coming to some rare soul who didn't truly deserve eternal damnation.

For instance, yourself. --If you lived life TOTALLY unaware of Christ's salvation; and yet followed your natural conscience scrupulously; you did your best to please the Creator; loved your neighbor-- and finally died with deep sorrow for all sin, rejecting evil--

--And nevertheless, God sends YOU subsequently into eternal damnation-- HE IS NOT INFINITELY JUST. He is flawed doing the minutest act of injustice. -----An imperfection in His Justice means He isn't PERFECT.

And any theologian will tell us positively that God is Infinitely Perfect, without flaw, never unjust and Infinitely MERCIFUL! Therefore we must conclude that YOUR soul is not going to hell. God will Himself give you sanctifying grace for your eternal reward; in effect BAPTISING you Himself. He anticipates every need of every soul ever created.

Remember that scripture teaches each one of us is to be repaid after this life according to his works in the flesh. So all who understood otherwise, have called God an Unjust Judge. That cannot be so-- ever. Well, this is the only answer to such a dilemma.

It's understood that this theological concept is NECESSARY ***not to save any undeserving sinner****, --but to teach us infallibly how God can do no wrong. We do Him honor and worship to conclude with no doubt that in CASE a soul such as I described ever exists, (Not saying it will, or ever HAS) God will never fail to understand and compensate for his/her invincible ignorance. Because God is Love.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.


Bonxiz:
Tell you what else:
You are not a just man, who might be acting by a natural conscience. Because: You berate an ordained Catholic priest who serves God. This sin will draw down a corresponding punishment for you; your soul. Either here, or in Purgatory or eternal damnation. God is the Judge.

If you disagree with something Father is saying, explain why. Don't excoriate (a 50 cent word) or fight any priest. Even when you think he's wrong.

That's exactly what the Scribes and the Pharisees did in Christ's face. Some of those characters have been in hell now for 2,000 years.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.


"Stop trying to figure out some other path to salvation."

Who's trying to figure out another path? If you had half an idea of what the Church's teachings are, you would be able to see that the path is the same - it's a narrow path, Yes, but it is not as narrow as you think.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), February 28, 2005.


To be Gospel truth; --we must never have any patently UNJUST punishment coming to some rare soul who didn't truly deserve eternal damnation.

Then tell me that unbaptized babies go to heaven and I'll at least acknowledge a consistency in this Novus Ordo Gospel of yours.

God will Himself give you sanctifying grace for your eternal reward; in effect BAPTISING you Himself.

Where do you get this stuff? You're making this up out of thin air.

Remember that scripture teaches each one of us is to be repaid after this life according to his works in the flesh.

Scripture says that and much more, too. That's why the Catholic Church has always taught the necessity of BOTH faith AND good works. Not faith alone, as the Protestants do, or works alone, as the Jews do. But FAITH AND WORKS. That's the Catholic way.

You berate an ordained Catholic priest who serves God.

How can either of you be serving God when you preach a Gospel of "salvation by invincible ignorance"? Is that the Gospel Christ preached? Why did He bother to found a Church and give men the power to transmit His sanctifying grace through baptism, to forgive or retain sins through confession, to feed His sheep with His body and blood? Why doesn't God just do it all Himself, like the Protestants say, instead of using men to do it for Him through His Church and His sacraments?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.


Fr. Paul wrote:

Who's trying to figure out another path?

The Novus Ordo Church, founded at Vatican II, is trying to figure out another path to salvation:

"With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it 'in ways known to himself.' Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished."(DOMINUS IESUS)

I've always wondered, if God bestows salvific grace on non-Christians "in ways known to Himself," then how does the Church know about it?

This is NOT a Gospel that was ever preached before Vatican II. Why? Because it was NOT a Gospel ever preached by Christ:

"He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him." (John 2:36)

Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. (John 8:24)

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.


moderator, wasnt there a standing ban against derailing every thread back to a "trad" discussion? why has that grown lax recently.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

Once again this stubborn fool insists somebody has ''preach [ed] a Gospel of __salvation by invincible ignorance__''

You, Sir, have become a parrot, making false statements repeatedly. THERE IS NEVER ANY ''SALVATION'' IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE.

We never said that. I think what you really need is a long vacation from this forum. You're starting to make some of us SICK.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.


OK, Gene. I guess that was unfair. How about, "Salvation for non-Christians."

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), February 28, 2005.

No--Salvation only for perfect contrition; after an upright life, lived without KNOWLEDGE of Christ and his Gospel.

NOT because your ignorance brings salvation. Because God is willing to forgive your sins! Catholic or non-catholic; if you die in sin, actual as well as original, You are damned.

That's ignorant or not; that's BAPTISED or not. Sin bars you from heaven as long as you fail to repent. It doesn't even help to be a practicing Catholic. ONE mortal sin can damn you.

In the problem of Original Sin in infants who die unbaptised, I really fail to see what manner of forgiveness God will grant. He can grant anything He pleases. We simply don't know. However, since we know God is all-merciful, it follows that He can hardly damn an infant to Hell for Original Sin, of which he/she is blameless. It is either everlasting life in heaven; or everlasting natural joy in Limbo. We can only be quiet and hope for his Divine Mercy.

Another mistake you're making: ''Where do you get this stuff? You're making this up out of thin air.'' --- No, I'm not. I have NO authority to make up anything. Only the Catholic Church can teach us the doctrines of the apostles. Baptism is an indisputable doctrine of the Church. We KNOW all about Baptism; and all its aspects are known because Catholic theology is the STUDY of all doctrinal truth in depth. For almost two millennia theologians have pondered all revealed truths --ALL ABOUT GOD.

Logic leads to conclusions about Baptism I just listed for you. God can't make an unjust judgment of sin. Sin alone bars the way to heaven. Baptism takes away all sin. Normally, water baptism. Then: -- Forgiveness for sin is GOD's alone to grant-- Every syllogism leads to another basic truth, and put every syllogism into balance and the VARIOUS aspects of this doctrine can no longer be denied. Baptism of WATER is the Holy Rite, our Church's main sacrament. Yet, Baptism on God's level is not ritually, but DIVINELY administered, in its essence-- Sanctifying Grace. (Then it is by Desire and by Blood; theologically defined.) It ALL proceeds from the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, who died to give us Sanctifying Grace; i.e., Salvation. THERE IS ALWAYS THE ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT: REPENTENCE AND GOD'S MERCY (forgiveness.) --Or Baptism. What did Christ merit for us on the cross? Baptism--? No, that's the Church's sacrament. WHAT? --Grace! Which is brought by Baptism into our souls in His Church.

When Jesus saved Saint Dismas dying next to Him on the cross, He granted Him GRACE; (a Baptism of Desire) which He was in the act of meriting right there on Calvary. He gave it to Dismas as GOD; because God is all-powerful and all-merciful. Grace is always grace (Sanctifying Grace). God saves everybody by the Grace of Jesus Christ. Unless we die in our sins.

------------------------ I'm so tired now, I don't know at this moment if I've overlooked something. I'll check this all later. --Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 28, 2005.


If you think about why we need Salvation, and what Jesus' true salvific act was, then my little story above makes sense with no problems. It's late, I'll look at it another time when I have time.

Untill then, I leave you with one word, a saving word: obedience.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 01, 2005.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ