Filum Romanum - A Thread for the Catholic Church

Yeah, the Church makes allowances in cases of cultural lack of exposure, or of "invincible ignorance" (maybe not the most tactful locution). However, someone who knows what the Catholic Church is, and has enough information/intellect to choose accordingly, isn't off the hook according to them.

So do I, a Protestant then an atheist, get to be saved through nothing more than my own good works? Or do I have to submit to Catholic orthodoxy to enjoy any kind of reward for my labours?

I'm aware of innocent ignorance, but the point the article makes is that it isn't clear whether the Catholic Church has actually said "good works are enough" or not.

edited 24th May '13 9:54:45 AM by Achaemenid

Also, what of I not believe in an afterlife? Why should that even matter to me then?

Beats me. (By the way, I'm nominally a Protestant myself.) The Church would probably say it depends on what you actually know about the Catholic Church ... including what a reasonable person ought to be able to figure out, and whether or not you're pretending to yourself not to know things that, in your heart of hearts, you do. All that's beyond any other human's capacity to say about you, or about me. Which is one reason why Popes Benedict & Francis have thought it wise to be—if you'll pardon the choice of words—agnostic about individual cases.

Actual Catholics, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Catholic teaching is, good works in isolation don't cut it. One comes to know God, and to enter His presence, through union with His Church. This union may be explicitly entered through Baptism and Confirmation. In rarer cases, it may be through what they call "baptism of desire," where a person would have done so, had he enough knowledge and experience to understand. Perhaps obviously, the latter isn't a particularly secure reed to firmly lean on.

edited 24th May '13 10:08:11 AM by Jhimmibhob

If there isn't an afterlife, it certainly doesn't matter—to you, to me, or to anyone else. But if there is one, it's very possibly relevant; and whether we currently believe in it or not won't change that.

The trouble with his being agnostic is that it can cause real harm. Especially where children are concerned. Hell can be a very powerful means of dragooning people into the Catholic religion. This is not only immoral, but also ultimately self-destructive, because it encourages people to leave the Church when they grow older.

edited 24th May '13 10:07:02 AM by Achaemenid

Well, if I were the Pope, I'd have to preach the truth to the greatest extent ascertainable, and let the chips fall where they may. It'd be nice if the truth never had any harmful implications for anyone, but the universe doesn't appear to work that way.

I just don't see how this is relevant to atheists if they don't believe in an afterlife. I guess it would radically alter certain stances on things.

It helps if it is made clear what the truth is. Like any other worldview, Catholicism deserves to be absorbed challenged intellectually by as many people as possible - this is somewhat difficult if those beliefs aren't made clear.

I'm glad when I see the Pope saying "even the atheists can be saved". But I am confused when Vatican spokesmen say that for those who "know" the Church, salvation requires baptism, literal or otherwise. And I am angry when I hear of unscrupulous priests telling infants eternal punishment awaits them unless they accept Christ through the RCC.

Well, they often get pretty clear about such things ... but a brief public devotional statement isn't usually where you get such things. The Catechism is rather clearer about it, and there are plenty of Catholic theologians who are happy to put the matter in a more rigorous way.

And it doesn't seem all that confusing: for example, one can easily imagine an atheist raised in an overwhelmingly secular, Protestant, or other non-Catholic environment, whose knowledge of the Catholic Church is mostly hearsay or incomplete descriptions from other non-Catholics. In nearly every nation at every socioeconomic level, there are insular environments where a non-theologically inclined person might never have a realistic chance at encountering or judging the Catholic Church's actual claims.

In other words, one can honestly believe in the possibility of damnation, and to have an educated idea of what's necessary to avoid it, while nonetheless granting that the mystery of God's grace may open doors that seem firmly closed to our all-too-human eyes. But it's not "unscrupulous" to avoid presumptious reliance on the latter possibility, or to avoid inviting others to so presume.

@Xoph: If someone held the position of "Supreme Wizard of the US" said that he'd kill everyone who wears glasses with lightning bolts, I'd still be grateful if his replacement said that he was cool with glasses wearers and won't kill us with lightning bolts, even though I wouldn't believe that either of them could kill me with a lightning bolt.

Basically, it's the thought that counts.

Is it just me, or did that clarification by a Vatican spokesperson directly contradict what the Pope said?

It sounded more like From a Certain Point of View to me.

However, I sense too that there's gonna be some altercations/conflicts between the Pope and the establishment. There are lots of interests at work, so it's gonna be rough.

One possible reconciliation of the two statements (note that this is a wild-assed guess that aligns with my personal sense of "justice," so take it with a grain of salt) would be that the test for salvation is "would you accept the Church from a position of omniscience?" If all you see is the sex scandals, or if your analysis of the evidence leads you to conclude that God does not exist, and you still try to do good, then you're still a Christian in your heart.

As for the question that this raises, "so what's the point of the Church?" I think Ratzinger answered that one perfectly.

edited 24th May '13 5:28:20 PM by Ramidel

Honestly, I'm not going to take that other statement into account when judging the current pope. I will take it into account when judging the current church, but it's irrelevant to judging the pope.

Anyway, I'd say, from the point of view of a catholic, the point of the church is to teach people what sorts of acts are the sorts of acts that will get you into heaven. You don't need to be a catholic to get into heaven, but you still need to follow catholic morality, in a catholic worldview, I'd think.

edited 24th May '13 10:47:00 PM by deathpigeon

Eh. I'd be willing to make the argument that nobody knows "the true Catholic Church" right now because we've been so inundated with sanctimonious twats more concerned with authority than good works. For about 1700 years, really.

The oldest, and perhaps least changed Church is the Assyrian Church of the East, which separated from the main Church in 424.

They still use a dialect of Aramaic in their Mass.

edited 24th May '13 11:40:17 PM by Greenmantle

Ooh, myyy.

edited 25th May '13 1:12:23 AM by pagad

Left hand versus right?

Or, left hand trying to strangle the right one.

I really, really hope that Francis does not put up with that hamhanded foolishness.

Isn't there something about Papal infallability?

There are a shitload of restrictions (URL got hyphenated, whatever) as to what qualifies as an infallible statement by the pope. It's...possible he could shoehorn it into that if he was that determined to ram it through, but rather unlikely.

For one, it has to be "held by the whole Church". Which, of course, didn't happen.

edited 28th May '13 3:12:23 PM by Pykrete

Pope John Paul II is to become a Saint

I want only to mention that miracles of Karol Wojtyła are so suspicious that even some Christians believe them to be pulled out of ass to speed up canonization.