Author Topic: Video: NO Priest: Athiests Can Be Saved (Read 7302 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2011, 04:42:44 PM »

Santo Subito said:

Quote

How can they [ atheists ] be morally culpable for holding a position that they in good conscience believe to be true? This belief could be due to mental blocks of understanding, insufficient information, or faulty information.

Santo, there is a minimum that must be believed to be saved. Theologians have argued about this for centuries, but the BARE minimum is to believe, at least, that there is a God and He is a rewarder. No one says that you can be saved knowing less than that.

An atheist doesn't fit that category, and I've never heard of invincible ignorance reducing the culpability of an atheist. I don't think it's even possible to be invincibly ignorant that there's a God, since the world could not have created itself.

As for how many Prots or Quakers or Ooga-Boogiens from darkest Africa are invincibly ignorant, only God knows. It seems unlikely to me, considering that their church was founded as a reaction to the Catholic Church and they are even named "Protestants," that there are very many invincibly ignorant Prots... But who knows. We don't know.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #31 on:** September 22, 2011, 05:25:36 PM »

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/atheism

Quote

Q:“ Someone told me that atheists could be saved if they acted charitably, but I said that apart from God's saving works, man cannot save himself.

”A: While you are correct that man cannot save himself, God can choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have. Gaudium et Spes states about atheism:

Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation . . . To the extent that they [believers] neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion. (19)

This implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation of his culpability for unbelief. Ultimately we must trust that even he is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally (cf. Lumen Gentium 16). The second great commandment is love of neighbor (Matt. 22:39) and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s sake:

Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (Matt. 25:37-40).

Caraffa · « **Reply #32 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:20:55 PM »

To repeat the point that Raoul made, you can't be invincibly ignorant that a God exists. Belief that a God exists is not faith and can be known without supernatural grace/faith. The atheist believes that way he does because of a bad will of sin, whether that be in the past or present. Hence the charitable atheist is impossible. The answer from "This Rock" is a good example of anthropocentric humanism.

TraceG · « **Reply #33 on:** September 22, 2011, 06:35:20 PM »

This came up in catechism for me recently. This is no different than "there is salvation outside the Church, all are saved, all religions are equal"...dun dun dun heresy.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #34 on:** September 22, 2011, 07:23:58 PM »

One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account. Thus if an atheist of good will sincerely believes there is no God based on what he believes sincerely to be true, he is mistaken, but commits no sin and is still able to be saved.

TraceG · « **Reply #35 on:** September 22, 2011, 07:32:27 PM »

Then why did Christ say to teach all nations?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #36 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:35:08 PM »

Quote from: Hermenegild

Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), but not by this religion.

What Raoul said. People keep trying to use this and another quote to show ABL was a heretic but he didn't mean you could reject God and still be saved.

Some food for thought: if ABL really believed that then why was he so upset with Assisi? It's common sense.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:38:26 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account. Thus if an atheist of good will sincerely believes there is no God based on what he believes sincerely to be true, he is mistaken, but commits no sin and is still able to be saved.

That is very wrong. It is a sin to reject God. Atheists don't reject Him out of good will, that is impossible. They look over the evidence and conclude on their own part that He does not exist. Again, using your logic practically nobody would go to hell because everyone who did what they thought was right would be saved. That is a direct contradiction of both the Bible and what the Catholic Church teaches.

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:46:00 PM »

Supposing an "atheist" is invincibly ignorant that God exists, such ignorance does not supply for the defect of lack of supernatural faith and divine charity. An erring conscience may bind for a time, but it does not excuse in necessary matters. And in the matter of the question of the basic fact of the existence of God, it is so rudimentary, bordering on self-evident, that there could be no practical justifying excuse to deny it. Thus, St. Paul says there is "no excuse" for such persons. The doctrine of invincible ignorance merely means that a person will not be punished for a particular personal sin, it does not mean that they are ipso facto placed in a state that prepares them for salvation; that they are thus translated from a state of sin to the state of justification.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #39 on:** September 22, 2011, 08:52:25 PM »

Quote from: Caraffa

To repeat the point that Raoul made, you can't be invincibly ignorant that a God exists. Belief that a God exists is not faith and can be known without supernatural grace/faith. The atheist believes that way he does because of a bad will of sin, whether that be in the past or present. Hence the charitable atheist is impossible. The answer from "This Rock" is a good example of anthropocentric humanism.

I agree with this completey. Doesn't St. Paul say that without faith it is impossible to please God and that those who deny Him will be without an excuse at the judgement? God has given us more than ample proof of his existence.

TraceG · « **Reply #40 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:17:45 PM »

[/quote]I agree with this completely. Doesn't St. Paul say that without faith it is impossible to please God and that those who deny Him will be without an excuse at the judgement? God has given us more than ample proof of his existence.[/quote]

To be revealed the TRUTH then deny it dooms a person. Like I said before Christ said to teach all nations! If they deny Truth, well not too good for them. Same with the jews that said "Crucify him" and same with jews of today or anyone else that denies Christ.

Santo Subito said:
One can most certainly be ignorant that God exists. The basic moral rule applies that if you don't know something is a sin, there is no sin, and you cannot go to Hell on that account.

Then why was there an imperative to teach all nations?? Then what of Original Sin?

twiceborn · « **Reply #41 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:26:39 PM »

Quote from: TraceG

Then why was there an imperative to teach all nations?? Then what of Original Sin?

There are 8 sacraments of The Church now...besides the well known 7 there is also the 8th: Ignorance and Good Intentions. This, like all other Sacraments is also a cause of grace and by having it a man may be saved.

Pelagius has also been revived, for it is now true that a man may earn the grace of God by virtue of his good will, and that it is not due to said grace that a man has a good will.

LordPhan · « **Reply #42 on:** September 22, 2011, 09:35:54 PM »

The Heretics entire Last post was heresy, it is true that ignorence of some sins mostly church laws not divine laws, that ignorence can reduce CULPABILITY, but it is still a mortal sin and it still produces a mortal stain upon their soul just as Original Sin produces a mortal stain on our soul's that must be removed via Baptism.

The Mortal stain upon one's soul automatically sends one to hell, it is possible that the Souls of dead babies are sent to limbo instead, it is also possible that God could if he so wished send them to heaven, but that would never apply to anyone who has achieved the age of reason.

Mr. Subito would be wise to reject his false protestant faith and join with God's Church then he may learn what has always been believed and attain supernatural grace through the proper sacrements, those he listens to now are fastly leading him to hell.

twiceborn · « **Reply #43 on:** September 22, 2011, 10:05:57 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Mr. Subito would be wise to reject his false protestant faith and join with God's Church then he may learn what has always been believed and attain supernatural grace through the proper sacrements, those he listens to now are fastly leading him to hell.

Some Protestants actually have a far clearer view on this matter than the modernist Catholics. For instance, Calvinists believe that:

Westminister Confession of Faith, Chapter X
"...much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."

Simple, straight...to the point. No compromise or subterfuge.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #44 on:** September 22, 2011, 10:52:54 PM »

Quote from: TraceG

Then why did Christ say to teach all nations?

Because atheists are in a perilous state as regards salvation as are other non-Catholics. Just because they CAN be saved doesn't mean they will be. They are in a much safer position if they converted, certainly. But some of you would completely close the door to salvation to these people for a supposed sin that is not a sin at all and not their fault.

How can God possibly hold someone accountable for an action that they in good conscience did not know was wrong and, in fact, they sincerely believed to be true? This goes against natural justice.