This week a Catholic lady I have no reason to disbelieve told me her priest delivered the following joke in a homily:
A man died and went to heaven. He was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter and given a tour. They came upon a group of people enjoying themselves in a broad meadow and when asked who they were, Peter said, “Those are the Muslims and Hindus.” The next group in the field, similarly rejoicing in their blessedness, were identified as Methodists and Lutherans. Then they came to a high wall from behind which also came happy sounds. “Who are these people behind the wall?” asked the man. “Those are the Catholics,” replied St. Peter. “They think they’re the only ones here.”
It’s an old joke of course, but the variations on it I have heard have always involved varieties of Christian, in which the Baptists or Presbyterians, for example, think they’re the only ones in heaven to the disadvantage of the Catholics or Congregationalists. I’ve always thought of them as evidence of lay belief in something like mere Christianity in the face of clergy expected to promote and defend the denominational product. The introduction of adherents of non-Christian religions–as adherents of non-Christian religions–however, made the joke something else entirely.
What could the people listening to this knucklehead be hearing but an assertion that there are many ways to God, of which Christian faith is only one?–and that those who might be inclined to disbelieve (the Catholics behind the wall) that one religion could get you into heaven just as well as the next were not only ignorant, but more than a bit nasty. Believing that the light of Christ in the world will draw many to him through and in spite of their religions (the story of the Magi) is one thing, but this is another.
When I did nothing but grunt in response to the joke, the lady noted that she didn’t think her former priests would have appreciated it, but things had changed at St. Hepzibah’s. The new priest was, well, new, and clearly a man of broader outlook than some of her pastors had been.
I rather regret not telling her that the difference between some of her old priests and her new one may well have been that the old guys were Christians, whereas the joke her new priest told was evidence he was not.
Contemplation of the advantages of being Catholic (or Orthodox) has been my daily bread during my years at Touchstone, but there are some definite advantages in being Protestant of which this encounter reminded me, one of which is fairly clear labeling. If one appreciates the joke delivered above, then may get himself to the local United Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, ELCA Lutherans, United Church of Christ, or United Presbyterians, where belief in its assumptions (well, where the possibility of “heaven” is still around) is the rule.
If he does not, then he might try the Southern Baptists, the Assemblies of God, PCA or OPC Presbyterians, Missouri or Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, the Praise de Lawd Cathedral, the Anglican Church of St. Charles the Martyr, or congregations with the word “Bible” in their names. But who knows what one will find at the Catholic church? Alas for the sleepy congregants of St. Hepzibah, for while they dwell in the stoutest of ecclesial edifices–stouter, perhaps, than any Protestant tabernacle–so often all they seem to know of the separation of the catholic faith from apostasy is a dim apprehension of old priest and new.











The commendation of church “labeling” as an advantage of Protestantism over Catholicism is, of course, a bit facetious. No Protestant, as a Protestant, can say his section of Christendom has any fewer problems along these lines than does the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t have submitted this posting unless I expected my Catholic friends to agree with my main point–it is meant as support for their efforts to make things better in the Catholic Church.
“But who knows what one will find at the Catholic church?”
True, Mass can be a mess, but at least one has a (*ahem*) touchstone to know what one should find at a local parish. And as far as “fairly clear labeling” goes, well, I know ELCA parishes that are orthodox, others that are pietist, others that are charismatic, others that are in maintenance ministry mode, and others still that are liberal as heck. So too for the PCUSA congregations I’ve known. Or among the Southern Baptists, even. (As long as we’re telling jokes — which I endorse at almost all times — Why should you always take two Southern Baptists fishing with you? Because if you take one, he’ll drink all your beer.) As St Forrest Gump teaches us, “Churches are like a box of chocolates…”
I hardly think it’s fair to say the assumptions of the above joke are normative in UMC (especially), Episcopal or ELCA congregations, as a rule.
>I hardly think it’s fair to say the assumptions of the above joke are normative in UMC (especially), Episcopal or ELCA congregations, as a rule.
Why?
“If one appreciates the joke delivered above, then may get himself to the local United Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, ELCA Lutherans, United Church of Christ, or United Presbyterians, where belief in its assumptions (well, where the possibility of “heaven” is still around) is the rule.”
United Presbyterians? You mean PCUSA?
I don’t know if it’s the “rule” but it sure seems like it.
Another common thread among these LibProt denominations is that they all practice Women’s Ordination.
I am an Orthodox Christian, and I don’t want to pick on Catholics either, but I was talking to a Catholic friend yesterday who gets very defensive about her faith in a way that my Evangelical friends do not when differences between our beliefs come up (perhaps because she doesn’t really understand or know what she believes). Anyway, she told me that she didn’t understand why Catholics don’t allow women to be priests. I thought that was further evidence of her misunderstanding of her faith and what it means to be a Christian. However, I didn’t pursue the matter further with her because I didn’t want to risk getting into an argument. I only said I believed that men should be in the priesthood, and I left the matter at that.
So, the proof against the rule to which I have referred is that some congregations in mainline Protestantism “aren’t like that,” that there are liberal Southern Baptists, and so forth. I guess my lack of understanding here–and slanderous generalizations–must come from not having lived much in the real world for the last fifty years–that the suffering of my orthodox friends who used to be priests and ministers in these denominations was either imaginary or their own fault. I suppose I should repent, Jody+, of accusing the United Methodists, ELCA Lutherans, and the Episcopal Church of operating theologically along liberal Protestant lines. What on earth could I have been thinking of?
Another true story:
I was talking once with a very high official of the PCUSA about the reception in his denomination of ministers who held strongly to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They weren’t really welcome, he told me, because they weren’t truly Reformed in doctrine. He then cited to me the maxim: Ecclesia Reformata semper reformanda–”The Reformed Church is always reforming,” which meant that one of the principal confessions upon which his church had been built was now outmoded by the progress of theological understanding, so that ministers who still held to it as normative were just as obsolete.
He didn’t really have to tell me that this was the case, for there was much very clear evidence for it lying about. But I was surprised at his frankness and the clear vehemence of his belief that Calvinists were not really Reformed. Our conversation quickly turned to the weather, or something like that, for clearly I was beyond my depth, as I am with people who don’t think the Episcopal Church is liberal. Once again, it must be my recurring problem in dealing with reality.
During a recent episcopal visit with church school children, a young girl stated that she attends a Catholic school where one of her teachers tells the class that there will be others in heaven, not just Christians. When she asked the [Orthodox] bishop about this, he said: “What this teacher is teaching is not only wrong, it is very dangerous. There will be only Christians in heaven.”
I, for one, drew nearer to hear (and I paraphrase): “I mean, we truly believe that Jesus is God, and those in heaven shall see Him as He is. God saves whom He wills, but those who are saved will know that Jesus is Lord. There is no way one could spend eternity in heaven, with God who is Christ, and not bow down and worship Him.”
– Going back to the ill phrased joke: I agree. It doesn’t work. But, all things considered and just for fun, one could honestly tweak: “A catholic Saviour saves only the orthodox — no protesting.”
I hope we’re not confusing things by willfully misunderstanding the phrase “non-Christians in heaven”.
I assume that the common interpretation of the joke is meant to be the “gotcha” that people who are non-Christian in this life may still make it to heaven. But as the Orthodox bishop in the previous comment above explains, they’ll certainly become Christians when they get there.
>I assume that the common interpretation of the joke is meant to be the “gotcha” that people who are non-Christian in this life may still make it to heaven.
And there is no good reason for such an idea.
A Catholic, an Episcoplaian, an Agnostic and a Baptist are sitting down to a baked trout for dinner.
The Catholic cuts the head third of the fish and puts it on his plate saying: “The Pope is the head of the Church”.
The Episcopalian cuts the middle third and puts it on his plate saying: “The truth lies between two extremes.”
The Agnostic takes the tail third and puts it on his plate saying: “Only in the end shall we know the truth.”
The Baptist looks at the empty dish, picks up the bowl of melted butter and throws it over the other three saying: “I baptise you all!”
>>I assume that the common interpretation of the joke is meant to be the “gotcha” that people who are non-Christian in this life may still make it to heaven.
>And there is no good reason for such an idea.
You’re absolutely sure about the universal eternal damnation of millions of Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, etc. who lived during the past 2000 years?
Steve Hutchens: “… but there are some definite advantages in being Protestant of which this encounter reminded me, one of which is fairly clear labeling.”
Some wag once remarked that politics is applied theology. If so, then that’s another way in which there is “fairly clear labeling” between the Liberal Protestant mainline denominations (which includes the Emergers) and the Conservative Protestant denominations and churches.
Please see this article which is a study showing the following:
“Activists Surveys – conducted by Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in partnership with Public Religion Research – focused on religious activists working on both “conservative” and “progressive” causes, and found that while the majority of both types called themselves Christian, they are driven apart by disagreements over social responsibility, biblical authority and the role of government.
In the past, said E.J. Dionne, one of the speakers chosen to announce the study, “Social and theological differences between denominations and faith traditions mattered a great deal. Those old divisions have largely passed away. Now conservative Catholics, Protestants and Jews tend to ally together against more liberal Catholics, Protestants and Jews.”
In fact, the study showed that among religious activists aligned with conservative causes, 99 percent called themselves Christians; while among those aligned with liberal causes, 71 percent claimed the same.
And while the majority of both groups labeled themselves Christian, some demographic differences did emerge:
55 percent of the conservative activists identified themselves as Evangelical Protestants, while only 10 percent of the progressives claimed the same label.
Conversely, among the progressives, 44 percent called themselves mainline Protestant, while only 9 percent of conservatives identified themselves as such.
Roman Catholics were more evenly split, composing 35 percent of conservative activists and 17 percent of progressives.
For example, when asked about the most important issues among a set of eight choices, conservative activists pegged as priorities abortion (83 percent) and same-sex marriage (65 percent). Fewer than 10 percent of their progressive counterparts, however, identified those issues as “most important,” choosing instead to focus on poverty (74 percent), health care (67 percent) and the environment (56 percent).
While the study itself didn’t delve into a diagnosis for the differences, it did identify at least three foundational worldview issues that may be contributing factors: biblical authority, the role of government and social responsibility.
Among conservative activists, there was a total of 84 percent affirming the Good Book as the Word of God.
Among progressives, however, only 22 percent of respondents combined to call the Bible the “Word of God.” Instead, 36 percent answered that the Bible merely “contains” the Word of God, and 21 percent called the Bible simply “one important source of wisdom.”
I should like to quote Steve Hutchens two more times (from a previous thread) with respect to this situation that is within the Church:
o “While the lambs should be handled gently, the wolves must be treated to hot steel–if only to identify them as such to the lambs. This, I think, should be clear from our Lord’s manner of teaching.”
o “The farmer does not become a warrior because he loves war, but because there is a war he must fight.”
The war is not only from without, but even fiercer from within.
Luke1732: In the way you clearly mean it? Yes I am.
I have heard that particular joke since I was a girl and I’m now 64. In those days, it was the Church of Christ that was behind the closed door or wall.
What I’m surprised to hear is the Catholic priest say that followers of Mohammed and the Hindus are in heaven. The Scripture does not support this albeit fictional assumption. In that regard also, CCC 841, of the most recent Catechism is in error. Has the Catholic Church joined the Episcopalian General Convention Org. in apologizing for evangelism to Hindus and Mohammedans and other religions? Recently, the Hindus even gave an award to two Episcopal priestesses in appreciation for their apology that the church once evangelized the Hindus. The Episcopalians have removed evangelism from their budget altogether and are putting their resources into litigation.
I do not think the scriptures, or the experience of the Church, its missionaries especially–who have seen the proevangel among those to whom they have been sent–oblige us to believe that those who do not yet know the identity of the Christ of God (beginning with the Old Testament saints) have been abandoned, that they have been given only enough light to condemn them, as some teach. “How can they hear without a preacher?” to be sure, but “have they not heard? Indeed they have, for their voice has gone out to all the earth.” This is a long story about which we are terribly curious, but about which we have been supplied few details, since it is not the practice of God, as someone has observed, to tell us very much at all about other people’s stories.
There is one true Light that has come into the world; he is full of grace and truth and has lighted every man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he calls upon all men everywhere to repent. How could he offer repentance and salvation unless he gave what was sufficient for it? As I grow older I become more impressed with how much truth and goodness I see outside the boundaries of the visible church and how much evil and untruth I see within. I am not vouching now for “other religions” (except Judaism, to which has been given the oracles of God) as repositories of truth, for the gospel of Christ is the possession of the Church, but of evidence of non-Christians knowing and following the same light I see. They appear to be on the same path and headed the same direction. While I have been blessed with more information than they have, I sometimes wonder if in their ignorance they aren’t better off, since so many Christians are using their maps to make hats, cook their meals, show them where they can conveniently leave the path, or have discarded them altogether and struck out on their own.
Nor am I vouching for Christianity-as-religion (I’m with Kierkegaard here), for so much that I find in what is reputed to be “Christianity” seems as false as anything found elsewhere–although true Christianity is true, and the Church is the ground and pillar of Truth. God save us from religion: may we, along with our fellow Gentiles, find Christ and his Church.
It is better, I think, to concentrate on keeping our own ways clean and straight than to indulge in curiosity about how the Lord will lead in the other sheep who are not of this fold–which he, knowing them as he does, surely will.
The gift of missionary labor, yes–curiosity (which Paul J. Griffiths reminds us in Intellectual Appetite (CUA Press, 2009) used to be regarded as a vice) about the ways of the divine Lover with other souls, no.
True, SMH, the Heavens proclaim Him. Romans 1:20 says the invisible things of God are ‘clearly seen in creation, even the eternal power and Godhead, so that they (we) are without excuse.’
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. (18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. (125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (128) 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. (19*)
>LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
I must say that document makes me glad to be a Protestant.
The assertion that Islam worships Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not digestible.
Even though I attend a PCA congregation and grew up in a LC-MS congregation, I confess I did laugh at the joke.
John Stott says that it is not our place to decide what God’s judgement is of the Muslims. We are to strive to enter the narrow gate, not judge others.
>John Stott says that it is not our place to decide what God’s judgement is of the Muslims.
John Stott is a annihilationist.
John Stott is a annihilationist.
And that’s idisputably wrong because….?
David Gray: “The assertion that Islam worships Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not digestible.”
Wow. I just finished reading J. Daryl Charles’ article in this month’s issue of Touchstone magazine titled “Regensburg Left Behind
Christians Responding to Muslim Invitations Haven’t Been Listening to Benedict XVI” which addressed the Yale Response to a “Common Word” letter that was written by over a 100 Muslims and given to Pope B16.
In Charles’ excellent article he certainly does not countenance any suggestion that Islam worships the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit contra what you are stating what Lumen Gentium states.
I haven’t had a chance to read Dr. Charles’ article yet, so I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to that he wrote, but just for the record, he himself is not Catholic and so would not feel bound by what a Catholic document states.
>In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind
TUAD, how would you interpret that sentence?
Lumen Gentium: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”
David Gray: “The assertion that Islam worships Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not digestible.”
David, there is a difference there. C’mon.
“What I’m surprised to hear is the Catholic priest say that followers of Mohammed and the Hindus are in heaven. The Scripture does not support this albeit fictional assumption. In that regard also, CCC 841, of the most recent Catechism is in error.” – Sybil
“The assertion that Islam worships Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not digestible.” – David Gray
While I have reservations in the wording of both the RCC Catechism (sections 839-845) and Lumen Gentium, and the parallel passages in the current RCC Catechism (see sections 839-856), that is not what is being said in either document, and both are being misunderstood here by being quoted out of context.
E.g., Lumen Gentium states: “the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God”. This of course deliberately echoes the opening of each chapter of the Koran, “In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful,” in order to reference something immediately familiar to Muslims. But in so doing, it deliberately references them as among “those who acknowledge the Creator” — not “those who believe in the triune God.”
In other words, it asserts that they have a partial and very imperfect grasp of part of the whole truth of the Christian faith, in understanding (in contrast to polytheistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic religions, as well as agnostics and atheists) that there is indeed one God, who is the Creator of all things and not not thing among others (and thus rank “In the first place amongst these”). It is not making Muslims into crypto-Trinitarians.
Similarly, Sibyl appears to be reading section 841 of the RCC in isolation from the immediately following sections of the Catechism, “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (sections 846-848) and “Mission – a requirement of the Church’s catholicity” (sections 849-856), which reassert Christ’s imperative in the close of the Gospel of Matthew — while also holding (per SMH) that “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church . . . may achieve eternal salvation” (CCC, section 847) in the sense indicated in e.g. Rom. 2:14 and Acts 17:22-31.
Those desiring to judge the import of these passages in their proper context, and then agree or disagree with them, may see:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
(Catechism of the Catholic Church)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
(Lumen Gentium)
>David, there is a difference there. C’mon.
It asserts we worship the same God. We do not. They worship an abomination which causes them to persecute the body of Christ. Their god is not “merciful” nor will their god “judge mankind” on the last day.
David Gray: “It asserts we worship the same God. We do not.”
I quite agree that Christians do not worship the same God as Muslims.
I posted the section from Lumen Gentium because I thought it germane. For full disclosure, I’m a mutt Evangelical. It does seem to highlight a rather significant divide between Protestants and Catholics with regard to salvation. Contrary to what I take “An observer” to be saying, what is at issue is not so much whether there are some outside Christianity who have some grasp of the Creator (the opening of Romans makes this non-controversial), what is at issue is that Lumen Gentium (seems to) identifies Muslims, as such, as part of the plan of salvation. Perhaps the opening of section 16 helps an outside like myself read the rest of it more charitably:
“those who have not yet received the Gospel”
That implies perhaps that somehow in God’s plan they will.
Perhaps this turn in the discussion, however, is not salutary. But it does seem that what is held in common (“mere”) can only be defended and built upon if we are frank about some of the remaining significant cleavages.
Speaking of “mere” Christianity, there’s this:
I think that every prayer that is made even to a false God or to the very imperfectly conceived true God is accepted by the true God, and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers whom they follow. In the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:3 and following) those who are saved do not seem to know they have served Christ. But of course our anxiety about unbelievers is most perfectly employed when it leads not to speculation but to earnest prayer for them and the attempt to be in our own lives such good advertisements for Christianity as will make it attractive.
Lewis to a Lady, November 8, 1952 in Letters of C. S. Lewis (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966) p. 247
“Contrary to what I take “An Observer” to be saying . . . what is at issue is that Lumen Gentium (seems to) identifies Muslims, as such, as part of the plan of salvation.”
Then, I fear, you are misreading the text out of context.
I appreciate the citation from Lumen Gentium, but am somewhat disquieted by the way it states case. There is nothing for it: those who believe what Islam teaches have rejected the gospel of Christ, and I do not think it good to encourage people to think otherwise.
Lewis does better here, I think. Careful readers of what I have written will understand I believe that bringing in “religion” or “religions” complicates the matter, since there is a sense in which religion, including the “Christian religion” is just what people need to escape to come to Christ and his Church. Think here of not just of Bonhoeffer, but, in an even purer form, Bunyan.
Parenthetically, I suspect it has been God’s practice to institute, not only in Israel, but in the Church, the mutually corrective priestly and prophetic dynamics, the priestly being the custodian of the true faith’s symbolic life, but tending to run into dead religion if not corrected and vivified by the prophetic, which for its part, if it does not honor and adhere to what is preserved by the priestly becomes wild and destructive of the Faith. Our Lord combines under the perfect head prophet and priest, and so is the living authority to which all questions of resolution must ultimately be submitted in unified prayer. He is the one in whom the dynamics originated, so in whom also they draw together and are perfectly reconciled.
This is why I, on one hand, read books like Eamon Duffy’s Stripping of the Altars with almost complete ambivalence, and on the other am prepared to scoff at the swarms of “prophetic” iconoclasts that plague the churches looking for altars to cast down. What I would have done as a priest or bishop during the Reformation, or the Iconoclastic Controversy (which still rages, and will not go away) for that matter, only God knows, since I would have had a strong tendency to see both sides as right and wrong–either, I suspect, be destroyed by one side or the other, or dissolve into the kind of obscurity I presently enjoy. (Lord preserve it!) In sum: there is a time, and God knows it, for casting away stones and a time for gathering them together, a time for the prophets and a time for the priests.
Lewis, you will note, speaks in the quoted passage (which follows his picture of Emeth–the name means “Truth”–in The Last Battle) of individuals, not of religions–of sheep and goats, and of “the good side of inferior teachers.” I might say, “what the demons cannot hide in their attempts to deceive the human race by concoction of false religions, or to make true religion false,” with which Lewis would clearly agree: his Emeth believed himself a follower of the god Tash, who was in fact a demon, and he put liberal bishops squarely in hell.
>I do not think the scriptures, or the experience of the Church, its missionaries especially–who have seen the proevangel among those to whom they have been sent–oblige us to believe that those who do not yet know the identity of the Christ of God (beginning with the Old Testament saints) have been abandoned, that they have been given only enough light to condemn them, as some teach.
So you believe that it is possible to be saved without confessing Christ? Or do I misunderstand?
I remember Carl Braaten puffing and blowing over the imperialism of ecumenists who wanted to arrange their theology so that everybody is really a believer: Can’t they leave these poor infidels alone? Does it ever dawn on these idiots that some people don’t WANT to be Christians? If God gives them the liberty to disbelieve, why can’t they? Or words to that effect.
So you believe that it is possible to be saved without confessing Christ? Or do I misunderstand?
Confessing Christ, as the term is normally used, is the privilege of those who have heard his gospel and know his name. These cannot be saved without acknowledging him as Lord and Savior–confessing him.
Not all believers fall into this category. Some, like Abraham, “see his day afar off and rejoice in it.” They know him truly, follow him in accordance with the light they have been given, and, like the Magi, will surely find and worship him at the end of their pilgrimage as the one they have been seeking. Missionaries tell us of such people, readied for news of Christ, for example, by dreams or tribal legends. These people are not Christians, so cannot make a Christian profession, but they seek Christ, living and dying under his promise that those who seek him shall find him. Emeth was Lewis’s explicit teaching on the matter, and he seems to me to agree with both scripture and the experience of the Church in the world.
“And all these, though well attested by their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” We know only a few of these stories–scantily, and when known, only the beginnings of them. Only God knows men’s hearts, but I believe we have been told enough to understand the outline of what is happening. We are to carry the Good News to all, but the Lord will not lose a single one of his sheep for any reason whatever, including the limitations imposed on creation (which are themselves the creation itself) by time and space. He did not create them to thwart his purposes, but perfect them.
I would also add that to understand these proevangelical stories as well as they can be understood, one must learn to read–enter deeply into–the languages in which they are written. These languages are usually very difficult, even unintelligible, to us, and our lives are far too short to devote to their mastery. A little of them is all the best of us can get, and the study is dangerous when engaged by a fool.
(Please, please, don’t ask me to explain everything I am saying here.)
David Gray: “So you believe that it is possible to be saved without confessing Christ? Or do I misunderstand?”
Recently deceased Avery Cardinal Dulles offers this answer in his concluding paragraph in his First Things article titled “Who Can Be Saved?” which looks to be in line with Lumen Gentium:
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”
Given Cardinal Dulles’ high standing in the Catholic community, then I too have no reason to disbelieve Steve Hutchens’ retelling of a true story about a Catholic priest sharing his joke during his homily.
Cardinal Dulles states here in lapidary fashion what I believe–as long as his prescription of obeying the commandments does not in any way conflict with what St. Paul said on the matter. Having read some of his work, I doubt whether it does.
I have known atheists who have become such because they are offended by what they have been told is Christianity, but is in fact something evil that dons its habiliments to mock and deceive. To this, atheism is the response of faith. (One must remember how often early Christians were accused of atheism–in the pagan world, a true charge.)
And of course, I do not wish to give the impression I think the joke-priest of the original posting was doing anything but denying the doctrine of his church.
“We are to carry the Good News to all, but the Lord will not lose a single one of his sheep for any reason whatever, including the limitations imposed on creation (which are themselves the creation itself) by time and space.”
At the final judgment (in Matthew 25), Christ will divide us, not by our theology or denomination, but by whether we are sheep or goats (which, it says, will be drawn from “all nations”). The determining characteristic of sheep is that they know the voice of their Shepherd, and do the Father’s will (see Matthew 7:21-27, 12:50). It also appears that God’s will is rather simple, along the lines of sacrificially loving others. And, of course, to whom much has been given, much will be required (Luke 12:48). If an “unbeliever” does what he knows of God’s will, he is in a far better place than those who are highly religioned and careless, as Dr. Hutchens noted.
Our commission, I agree, is to declare God’s name and His truth to all, praying that our words will reach those who are truly lost sheep. There’s no indication that goats are ever changed into sheep, only that lost sheep are found.
Supposing there is a difference between the joke-priest and Cardinal Dulles on the topic of salvation and who receives it, it’s not all that easy to discern the difference.
Good heavens, TUAD, have you been paying attention at all? And you are the one who brought us Cardinal Dulles! who says, “can be saved, if ….” The condition makes all the difference in the world; it is the difference between how he and Lewis and I understand orthodox Christianity on the point and the universalism the priest was teaching. It’s what we’ve been talking about here all along.
Would it be difficult to tell the difference between the dictum of a parent who tells his child, “You can get clean if you take a bath,” and the one who says “Everybody’s clean, whether they take a bath or not.” Might I propose that one’s salvation may depend on the ability to tell the difference between these two statements?
TUAD’s comment would make more sense if Peter had said (in the original joke), “these are the people who used to be Muslims and Hindus.”
That said, the Dulles quotation in itself doesn’t make clear that the atheist “converts”, though I agree that’s implicit.
It’s the sense that there will be genuine Muslims and Hindus, as Muslims and Hindus, in heaven that makes the joke so problematic (and that same sense is what made me raise my eyebrows when reading Lumen Gentium, though I’d be relieved to be disabused of the connection).
How’s this for a possibility:
The priest delivered the following joke in a homily:
“A man died and went to heaven. He was met at the Pearly Gates by St. Peter and given a tour. They came upon a group of people enjoying themselves in a broad meadow and when asked who they were, Peter said, “Those are the Muslims and Hindus.” The next group in the field, similarly rejoicing in their blessedness, were identified as Methodists and Lutherans. Then they came to a high wall from behind which also came happy sounds. “Who are these people behind the wall?” asked the man. “Those are the Catholics,” replied St. Peter. “They think they’re the only ones here.”
After the laughter in the pews died down, the priest smoothly transitioned to:
“I’m glad that you enjoyed the joke and perhaps there may have even been some nervous twitters. Let me then share with you all what Avery Dulles has written and he was an extremely well-respected and highly acclaimed Cardinal in the Mother Church, and I shall quote him verbatim:
‘Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.’”
The priest smiles broadly and continues, “So I offer that joke and that quote from Cardinal Dulles as this morning’s prefatory remarks to our homily today about John 14:6….”
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
I don’t think anyone here disputes that it’s Jesus who does the saving; the question about whether or not all of those who are ultimately saved explicitly know that continues to be the topic and hand.
No disrespect to Lewis (whom I quoted), but I’ve thought that Matthew 7:21 was more on point:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
To further open the can of worms, it seems to me that the understanding the mechanism by which the non-Christian can be saved depends on one’s understanding of the need for explicit faith in Jesus by name versus the mercy Jesus shows to those who keep his commands and do the will of the Father (i.e. works), but whose theology may be (even highly) defective.
If we’re damned by defective theology, then we’re all in trouble since who among us can sufficiently comprehend the mystery of God?
CCC 841 is in grave error.
Mohamedanism is just another pagan (and cruel) religion.
Mohammed invented his religion of hate, coercion and conquest 600 years after the death of Jesus Christ and it is NOT related to Abraham despite his claims. The Mohammedan religion is a concoction of Judaism, Christianity mixed with a Caananite moon god Ashtar (hence the crescent and star) It is a mad pedophile warlord’s attempt to subjugate both Christianity and Judaism to himself and to exalt himself above GOD’s plan of Salvation. Mohammed demoted Jesus and placed himself and his own will above God’s and will kill all who disagree with him. In that sense, Mohammed is just another Cain.
God calls Himself and commands that He be called the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. “God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my Name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.” Exodus 3:15. It is through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that GOD, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, chose to bring HIS True salvation.
The True HOLY LIVING GOD, THE I AM, The One in Three, The Three in One, is characterized by Love Truth and Life, Mercy, Forgiveness, Peace, Justice and Freedom.
The Ten and the Two Commandments and the Words of Jesus Christ, plus the power of the Holy Spirit, produce the likeness and character of Jesus Christ in human hearts and minds.
The fruits of Mohammedism are the polar opposite. Mohammedism produces the fruits of the fallen natural mind and flesh: lust, lies, hatred, unforgiveness, conflict, conquest, bondage, coercion, torture, death. Mohammedanism produces a male who is like Mohammed and the sins of the flesh. It produces a male who is the opposite of Jesus Christ. 100 virgins in paradise as a reward for blowing up civilians is the product of lust-based thinking and the natural mind that is at enmity with the true GOD.
Women and children are treated horribly in countries under Mohammed’s Sharia law. Women who are victims of rape or are accused of adultery are stoned, but not the rapists and co-adulterers. Women are possessions. Honor killings of daughters, wives. Children are allowed to be sexually exploited and abused because Mohammed did it. Conversion is coerced and people may never leave this evil pagan system.
Many women and children in the West/North are not treated very well either, due to sin, lust, promiscuity, adultery, abortion, abuse, addictions, abandonment, apathy – which is now as prevalent among professing Christians as non-believers. Some women, however, have made lust, adultery and abortion their ‘choice’, sometimes due to early life conditioning and abuse…they may never have known real love or loving parents.
Jesus treated women as equals to men. He respected and cherished women and children and decried their maltreatment and exploitation.
For all, the abused, the pagan, the way of hope and salvation is through GOD, (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and HIS Christ. Salvation, reconciliation to God and to our humanity, are possible for both Jew and Gentile, male, female, slave and free through faith in Jesus Christ. Left alone, we are all natural-born pagans. Pray for the pagans leading the nations and the church.
The questions raised here are accurately answered, as far as answers are possible, by good theology, which I must also think possible. It does not try to comprehend mysteries, or speak of what lies beyond its powers, but brings us to their threshold and leaves us there to glorify God as he should be glorified.
That circle which appeared–in my poor style–
like a reflected radiance in Thee,
after my eyes had studied it awhile,
Within, and in its own hue, seemed to be
tinted with the figure of a Man,
and so I gazed on it absorbedly.
As a geometer struggles all he can
to measure out the circle by the square,
but all his cogitation cannot gain
The principle he lacks: so did I stare
at this strange sight, to make the image fit
the aureole, and see it enter there:
But mine were not the feathers for that flight,
Save that the truth I longed for came to me,
smiting my mind like lightning flashing bright.
Here ceased the powers of my high fantasy.
Already were all my will and my desires
turned–as a wheel in equal balance–by
The Love that moves the sun and the other stars.
Dante, Paradise, 33:137-145 (Esolen)