Other Religions

Do please read this entry at face value as it is easily misinterpreted. Some will think it an expression of Christian arrogance while others may think it says one's choice of religion doesn't matter. Most of all, this is strictly in the category of "what if . . . ."

There is so much remarkable similarity between the world's major religions that it does make one wonder. What if this religious diversity is very much part of God's way of leading us to perfection, to perfect love for Him and each other?

First of all, let me make it clear where I stand. I am a Christian. I am a Catholic Christian. Indeed, I wish the whole world were Catholic Christians. Why? Because what does one do with a man who rises from the dead? There was a man who claimed to be the very son of God, God incarnate, and he would give but one sign to prove it - he would rise from the dead. Then we had twelve, and likely many more, people who gave their lives under torture testifying not just to a belief as so many martyrs nobly do but to the historical fact that Jesus did rise from the dead. These twelve, given their authority by the risen Lord, passed down their message and authority to those they had chosen with God's guidance and so it has continued in unbroken succession to our day.

In other words, how do I know the truth? For most of us, the truth is what we agree with. We may not state it so bluntly but that is what most of us do. Even if we do not agree with it initially, if someone persuades us they are right and we now agree with them, they have spoken the truth. I've made enough serious mistakes in judgment in my life that this method of determining the truth seems highly problematic. I would rather guide my life by saying God is the source of truth and the one risen from the dead as God incarnate has spoken, taught, and lived the truth. Thus, following what He has said and done as passed down by those He taught and commissioned is my path to truth. So that is why I choose to be a Catholic.

The Cone

But what about all those other religions? Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism. For one, I believe salvation is like a cone. We all start somewhere on the cone. For some of us, it is as Catholics. For others, it is as Baptists or Methodists. For yet others it is as Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform, Sunnis or Shiites, Theravada or Mahayana. Wherever we start, if we are truly and sincerely pursuing God, we ultimately arrive at convergence at the top where we find God. In Christian terms, our journey toward God will ultimately converge at Jesus which is why we can believe there is salvation in no other name and yet acknowledge the presence of God in other religions. At the top of the cone, hidden in the clouds beyond where we can see with our limited, earthly vision, is pure truth, God Himself. The same God who walked the Earth as Jesus.

Indeed, the cone analogy should help us keep our carnal, Christian arrogance in check. If we think of the geometry of a cone, individuals on different parts of the cone, the Buddhist, Jewish, or Hindu, portions of the cone for example, may actually be much closer to the top than we are as individuals on our Christian part of the cone.

God's Children's Game

But there is more. What if . . . . what if God was very much present in each religion's founding? As a Christian, I would certainly acknowledge God's working with Moses and the founding of what we now call Judaism. Did He likewise work with the Buddha? With Mohamed? With Lao-Tse? With the great Brahmans of antiquity?

What if God intervened with major groups within the family of man and told them each the same thing - love me and one another and teach others to do likewise - without letting each know He had told the others the same thing. As He watches their interaction, He is not so much concerned with who wins (as we so frequently pollute evangelization by making it a game of conquest rather than love) as how we each play the game. In other words, He is the one who will ultimately bring us to the top of the cone but how we navigate our journey will teach us much about ourselves.

What sort of things might God be looking at? What characteristics of our play is He observing?

One might be fervor. How ardently are we pursuing the game? Does it matter to us any more or is it simply a task, a legacy, or worse yet, an encumbrance? Again, it's not so much a question of are we winning but of how hard are we trying.

Another might be fidelity. How faithful are we to what we have been asked to do? Are we flitting about seeking our own spirituality or our own entertainment or are we sincerely trying to hold faithful to the truth of God as we understand it? If God has said, "this is your faith," are we faithful to it? Of course, this sounds very much like canonical faith which flies in the face of evangelization. But that's OK in this musing. Again, it is quite acceptable for God to simultaneously say, "Be faithful," and, "Evangelize," to multiple players if the goal is not to see who wins the evangelization or fidelity game but rather to teach us through the process of playing the game. In other words, the process is more important than the outcome because the process leads us to an even more important outcome - seeing ourselves clearly so we can see God clearly so we can love Him as He should be loved so we can love all as He wishes us to love.

That has led me in a very round about way to the point. Perhaps the most important part of the game is observing and learning love through the process. In other words, the contradictory game instructions of fervor, fidelity and evangelization inevitably lead to conflict. As we encounter this conflict as children of one family, how do we behave? Has the game become more important than our love for our brothers and sisters who are playing the same God given game? Our is God beaming with joy in His family as He sees their love for one another conquering this inherent conflict?

How are you playing the game? How am I? Has winning become more important than loving or has love conquered all? I think I know which is more important to God.

Virginia
Posts: 1

Re: Other Religions
Reply #11 on : Tue December 02, 2008, 14:20:46

Like you, I am a Catholic Christian and the historical reality of Christ's relationship with the Church matters to me - and the reality of the sacraments, especially Eucharist, is at the root of my faith.
But I also recognize that other ways of worship and recognizing God do bring people to Him. It's interesting that you chose this subject at this time of year when we look back through human history for the signs and prophecies of Christ's coming. And among those, the coming together of the lion and the lamb, which might also shed light on how we are to find ways to come together rather than to pull apart. We celebrate the Prince of Peace.
A year ago my nephew gave me a book entitled "Ornament of the World" by Maria Rosa Menocal. It is a history of the Andalusian period in medieval Spain during which Muslims, Jews, and Christians did create a culture of tolerance which survived for a few hundred years and nurtured the development of literature, science and the arts. Not only does it reveal what once was but also how it came to unravel. And quite naturally we can ask, 'Can we make it happen again?'
Besides watching us, God is here with us.

ibelieve
Posts: 1

All Religions
Reply #10 on : Mon September 14, 2009, 02:30:42

I am a Baptist Christian.
I read you article "Other Religions" and was quite impressed by it.
Since the time became a Christian (about 6 months ago), I have been haunted by one question.
"I believed in Christ and became a Christian. But do I need to believe that all other religions are false? "
This question haunted me to such an extent that I was on the verse of giving up Christianity once and for all.
But somehow I decided against it(Maybe God did not want it).
Sometimes I feel that God wants everyone to stick to our beliefs whatever that may be.
Sometimes Christians become too arrogant.　They think only they have the passport to heaven.
As you told we need to keep our Christian arrogance in check.
Sometimes we become so much interested in maintain the inerrancy of Bible that we become arrogant which is unbiblical instead.

I also agree with Billy Graham about his viewpoint regarding heaven.

"When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people... Graham says:

'Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won't... I don't want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.'"

jsullivan
Posts: 1

Re: Other Religions
Reply #9 on : Mon September 14, 2009, 06:37:56

Hello, ibelieve. Thank you for your insights. Just a housekeeping note - for some reason the system posted four copies of your comment so I deleted three and published one. Just wanted to make sure you didn't receive a delete notice and think I had a problem with your post. Peace - John

brian
Posts: 3

A question
Reply #8 on : Tue November 03, 2009, 17:17:35

Hi, I came across your website and read question number two and thought to ask you:

Does Rome Provide Infallible Certainty About the Gospel? The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim and you have decided to trust what Rome teaches after seeking the truth. Please take a look at the many "infallible" statemets the Roman Church makes about the gospel. Are they all correct? Do they all say the same thing? Has the gospel changed over the years? Has the Roman Church contradicted herself? Has the gospel evolved? Was Paul wrong in Galatians when he said that the gospel was already delivered?

I hope my questions direct you to the Scriptures for answers, because trusting in Romanism will leave you with the following:

The Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical (and hence “infallible”) Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

Yet, section 841 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993) says:

The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

In a similar way the Pope seemed to be in line with section 841 when he said,

VATICAN CITY, SEP 9, 1998 (VIS) - At today's Wednesday general audience in St. Peter's Square, the Pope spoke on the theme of The Spirit of God and the 'Seeds of Truth' in non-Christian Religions. The 'seeds of truth', said John Paul II, are 'the effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body', the wind 'which blows where it wills'. The Holy Father explained that in all authentic religious experiences, the most characteristic manifestation is prayer. ... Every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior. The attitude of the Church and of individual Christians with regard to other religions is characterized by sincere respect, deep kindness, and also, where it is possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator and Savior of the human race. Nor does it imply lessening the missionary effort to which we have an obligation, in obedience to the command of the Risen Lord: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'. This attitude of respect and dialogue, concluded John Paul II, represents a due recognition of the 'seeds of the Word' and of the 'groans of the Spirit'. It also prepares the proclamation of the Gospel in awaiting the time when the Lord shows his mercy.

Yet, scarcely two years later, we encounter a Papal encyclical Dominus Iesus, which reads in part,

4. The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability -- while recognizing the distinction -- of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church.

5. As a remedy for this relativistic mentality, which is becoming ever more common, it is necessary above all to reassert the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ. In fact, it must be firmly believed that, in the mystery of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, who is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), the full revelation of divine truth is given: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him” (Mt 11:27); “No one has ever seen God; God the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him” (Jn 1:18); “For in Christ the whole fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9-10).

For this reason, the distinction between theological faith and belief in the other religions, must be firmly held. If faith is the acceptance in grace of revealed truth, which “makes it possible to penetrate the mystery in a way that allows us to understand it coherently”, then belief, in the other religions, is that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God and the Absolute.

This distinction is not always borne in mind in current theological reflection. Thus, theological faith (the acceptance of the truth revealed by the One and Triune God) is often identified with belief in other religions, which is religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself. This is one of the reasons why the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.

Hence, those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.

But, only a few months later, we get this:

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday 6 December 2000

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The theme of our General Audiences during this Great Jubilee Year has been the glory of the Trinity, and today we ask what we must do to ensure that the glory of the Trinity shines forth more fully in the world. In essence, we are called to be converted and to believe in the Gospel. We are to accept the Kingdom of God in our hearts, and to bear witness to it by word and deed. The Kingdom indicates the loving presence and activity of God in the world, and should be a source of serenity and confidence for our lives. The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes - the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life - will enter God’s Kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this Kingdom. In the Lord’s prayer we say: "Thy Kingdom come"; may this be the hope that sustains and inspires our Christian life and work.

Do you really think Rome clarifies the issues of the gospel, or does she muddle them?

For His glory alone,

Brian

brian
Posts: 3

thanks
Reply #7 on : Tue November 03, 2009, 17:21:29

Thanks. I'm going to challenge you on some things. I hope you're open to that. If not, let me know. It's your forum.

Sincerely

brian

jsullivan
Posts: 4

Re: Other Religions
Reply #6 on : Tue November 03, 2009, 22:19:28

Certainly. Constructive and sincere dialog is always healthy.

jsullivan
Posts: 4

Re: Other Religions
Reply #5 on : Tue November 03, 2009, 22:45:45

Hello, Brian. Good questions. The gospel has not changed at all and never will. Our understanding of the gospel will grow as God's grace grows in us individually and collectively and as we adapt to new situations. We see this in the earliest days of the Church, e.g., Acts 10 and the call of Cornelius and the Gentiles and Acts 15 as the Church struggled and succeeded in discerning God's will and the proper application of the Gospel to new and unexpected circumstances. Indeed the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth (John 16:13) implies an unfolding. The truth has not changed but our understanding of it will grow and continues to grow.

I can understand how the statements you cite might at first appear contradictory but they are not. The danger is when we take a complex, multi-dimensional subject and try to simplify it with one dimensional thinking because it is either simpler or because it fits our presuppositions. If I take a three dimensional sculpture, I may describe a face one time, and ear and profile another time, and the back of the head a third. If I take each one alone as absolute and complete truth, they contradict. When I seek greater understanding by seeing how they complement, I come to an understanding of the three dimensional object which is far greater and more beautiful than any of the two dimensional descriptions.

This is why I used the cone analogy. Ultimately, there is no salvation outside of Jesus, outside of His body, and thus outside of His Church - the one He founded and entrusted to His chosen apostles - not to whomever decided on their own authority to speak for Jesus. It is this Church which is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim 3:15) and is the true body of Christ and thus the great sacrament, i.e., both the symbol and agent of God's grace - no ifs, ands, or buts.

However, that is the view from the top of the cone. That is the end game when all is clear. For some that is now, for some that will be the moment of death. But one thing is sure - when it is all over, all said, done, and judged, only those who submit to God and accept and reflect His love will be with Him.

But we must be very careful to not confuse the end with the process. No matter where we start, all people of good will, those sincerely following God, will converge to Jesus and, by extension, His body, the Catholic (Universal) Church. That's the end. It is neither the middle nor the beginning. The top of the cone is not the same as the bottom or middle and the view from the top is not the same as the view from the bottom or the middle.

Thus, it is not contradictory at all to hold that God is at work in other people temporarily outside the corporate Church and who may not even know God by the name of Jesus. Eventually, they will. For now, we do our best to educate, to shine, to share, and to bring people to fall in love with God - to live now what they will live for all eternity. But, ultimately, it is not our responsibility or role to bring everyone to God. It is the work of the Church given to us by Jesus but we are only agents and tools. It is God Himself, Jesus Himself, who ultimately turns hearts.

So the Church helps us to grasp the fullness of the beauty of God's salvific plan by elucidating and illuminating its many dimensions. These do not contradict - they complement. And when they are viewed in balance, they give us a more complete picture of salvation and the extraordinary mercy and love of God than any one perspective alone.

Thank you for bringing these issues to the fore.

Posts: 1

The mesage from Paul to the Galatian Church
Reply #4 on : Wed November 04, 2009, 12:20:40

John:

In Acts 10 and 15 the Jewish believers had difficulty understanding God's grace being extended to the Gentiles.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.
45 And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also.

And then the question of the Gentiles being circumcised came up and how God purifies hearts.

8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;
9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

If we continue on to Galatians, we see that the Jews who believed the gospel message were not acting in line with the truth of te gospel. There is no evolving in the gospel message. It is exactly the same message as when first preached, before ensripturation. Paul makes it very clear that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith. In this case again, circumcision was the means the Jews were trying to be justified by obedience to the law. Paul tells them that Christ will be of NO VALUE to you at all, if any attempt of human merrit is added to faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified, declared not guilty, in the sight of God the Father.

The statements of the Roman Church, regarding salvation clearly muddle the message of the gospel. According to modern Romanism, the apostle Paul had no right to eternally condemn men for adding one simple act of obedience to the grace of Christ. The message of the gospel, which again, hasn't changed, is that a man repent of his sins and believe, in order for God to be for you and not against you.

Good works and obedience certainly demonstrate true saving faith in the life of the believer, but never play a roll in why God is for a person and not against them anymore.

Romans 5:1 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.

Titus 3 3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared,
5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

John, I know we can go back and forth, but I truly believe, based on the testimony of Scripture, that the gospel message which saves a man from his sins didn't take hundreds and hundreds of years to unpack. Please visit Mike Gendron's website at www.pro-gospel.org. Mike has a very loving way of communicating God's Word to those following the gospel of the Roman Church. God bless you and may the grace of God lead you into The Truth.

For His glory alone,

Brian

jsullivan
Posts: 4

Re: Other Religions
Reply #3 on : Wed November 04, 2009, 12:52:01

Hello, Brian. You are absolutely correct that the Gospel has not changed and has not evolved. But I think there are some inconsistencies in what you say.

Those first century Jews you refer to WERE the Church and included the apostles. Although the gospel had not changed, Peter's understanding of what the gospel meant for all mankind certainly did. The richness of the gospel did unfold for him. Indeed, it took quite a while to sink in as can be seen by the sharp rebuke he took from Paul in Antioch.

Do you not find in your own life that your understanding of God grows with maturity? To think we fully grasp everything God has to say in an instant seems a bit presumptuous and arrogant - at least that's how I judge myself when catching myself doing that. Indeed, part of my continuing conversion and repentance is seeing where I am not in line with the truth of the Gospel which implies an understanding of the Gospel I did not have before.

The Gospel has not changed. It is still the original message preached before enscripturation, as you say. That is exactly why we look to the oral tradition which preceded the New Testament and indeed gave birth to it (II Thess 2:15, I Tim 3:15, II Tim 3:14-15, II John 12, III John 13-14, Matt 28:20, John 21:25).

None of the scriptures you cite are in contradiction with the teaching of the Church. Indeed, they fully reinforce its position as one would expect. After all, they were written by the Church. They do contradict what many people in their zeal to discredit the Church say the Church teaches but, upon examination, one finds the Church teaches no such thing.

I should know, which is why I have no need visit Mike Gendron's site. For 26 years I did everything I could to get people OUT of the Catholic Church until I realized my presuppositions, my understanding of what the Church taught, and my understanding of history were wrong.

When I actually went to the sources and read what the Catholic Church teaches (the Catechism, the Catholic Encyclopaedia) and when I read the actual documents we have from the earliest years of the Church (the Ante-Nicene Fathers), all the myths about the Church from salvation by sacraments to worship of Mary melted away. All the allegations about a Roman conspiracy to blot out the true history of the early church proved to be completely unfounded. Instead, once I understood what the Church actually teaches rather than what is is accused of teaching, I saw it was the most scripturally, logically, historically, and theologically consistent view of spirituality I had ever encountered.

I do thank you for your comments and pray this has been a fruitful exchange.

brian
Posts: 3

Questions and answers
Reply #2 on : Wed November 04, 2009, 17:42:33

John, are you saying Paul didn't understand how a man can have peace with God? That Paul was wrong for telling people that Christ would be of NO value to them if they added anything to the message he already, past tense, preached?

Peter was being influenced by the Jewish leaders and falling back into legalism and Paul rebuked him! Peter also denied Christ, does that suggest that he didn't understand who Jesus was? Of course not. Peter gave in to pressure and Paul straightened him out. A great lesson for us not to fall back into what could never make a man right with God.

John, take a look at the passages you quote from Scripture referring to tradition. What do see in all of them? The traditions were ALREADY taught. Past tense. There were no secret traditions passed down orally that deviated from what was written. In fact, Jesus never had one positive word to say about tradition. Always negative. The traditions that were taught in a positive light, past tense, are what we are to hold to. Question, has Rome ever given you a complete list of these supossed orally communicated apostolic traditions? No. Ever ask yourself why?Take a look at the following. Thanks

2 Thes 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Were taught. Past tense.

1 Tim 3:15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

John, what does a pillar do? A pillar holds something up. In this case, the church holds up the truth. A pillar doesn't create anything new. And please don't tell me that the Roman Church doesn't create new teachings which the early church fathers never even dreamed of. aka: Marion dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, transubstantiation and the list goes on.

2 Tim 3:14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Continue in what you have learned. Past tense.

2 John 12 12 Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full.

I hope you're not implying that we are to look at this passage and accept new teachings, which developed over long periods of time, never mentioned in the written text?

3 John 14 but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by name.

John, this is really a stretch and you know it. Because the text indicates that John looked forward to seeing people in person and speaking with them, that this directs us to extra biblical teachings?

Matthew 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Observe all that I COMMANDED you. Paste tense again. Nothing new.

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.

Many things Jesus DID, not taught. This passage doesn't even slightly suggest that Jesus taught things we should believe that aren't contained in the Scripturs.

Let's look to the Scriptures alone to teach and equip us, not the whims of men over the centuries:

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

John, although you responded kindly to my original question, you never reconciled the teachings of your church regarding salvation.

John, you mention the Nicene fathers. There wasn't one early church father present who believes what Rome teaches today. Not one. You seem to want to make the early church fathers Roman Catholic. They weren't Roman Catholic and they weren't Protestant either. I can provide you the writtings of all these early church fathers, who all understand the teaching of Matthew 16:18 differently than the Roman Catholic Church.

Matthew 16:18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.

Everyone one of these early church fathers writings disagree with the Roman Churches teaching. The list is long. If you'd like to read what they wrote, go to www.christiantruth.com. William Webster is another source of accurate, fair church history.

Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Aphraates, Apostolical Constitutions, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Basil of Seleucia, Bede, Cassiodorus, Cassian (John), Chrysostom(John), Chrysologus (Peter), Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Firmicus Maternus, Firmilian, Fulgentius, Gaudentius of Brescia, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, Isidore of Pelusium, Isidore of Seville, James of Nisbis, Jerome, John of Damascus, Maximus of Turin, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Pacian, Palladius of Helenopolis, Paschasius Radbertus, Paul of Emessa, Paul Orosius, Paulinus of Nola, Prosper of Aquitaine, Tertullian, Theodoret, Comments of 6th Century Palestinian and Syriac Clergy from a Letter to Emperor Justin, Comments of Chrysostom, Cyril or Origen falsely attributed to Victor of Antioch.

John, did they all miss the meaning of one of the most important texts the Roman Church uses to claim her exclusive authority as The Church? I find that quite odd indeed.

Let the early church fathers speak for themselves. They got some things right and some things wrong, but there was NO unanimous consent on the things Rome claims. Even papal infallibility was hotly contested for a long period of time in the 19th century!

One last question. If "good" Roman Catholics and "good" Muslims are both going to Heaven, what is the advantage of being a Roman Catholic, besides spending less time in a place called Purgatory? Let's also assume that these "good" Muslims have heard the claims of Christ, which most have of course. What is the advantage and why should Muslims be evangelized, if they are going to Heaven anyway, as JPII proclaimed?

Thanks John.

For His glory alone,

Brian

jsullivan
Posts: 4

Re: Other Religions
Reply #1 on : Wed November 04, 2009, 18:53:31

Hello, Brian. The fact that I keep saying I agree with you and you are correct should indicate that you do not understand the teachings of the Church. The Church would heartily agree with much of what you say. Indeed, you are articulating Catholic doctrine very clearly.

Yes, Paul understood how one finds peace with God. Yes, Paul is correct that the Gospel has been delivered and is not to be added to (which makes it strange that so many are willing to accept doctrines which the early Church never believed and only appeared many, many centuries after Jesus commissioned His apostles, e.g., sola scriptura (nowhere to be found in the Bible or the early Fathers), the rapture, or dispensationalism).

Peter was being Peter. He was struggling with his own cultural biases as we all do. As he grew, he was able to better discern what was the Gospel and what was his cultural bias. If we all understand the Gospel immediately in all its fullness, we preclude growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus (to use Peter's own words - II Peter 3:18).

The knowledge Jesus brought was already taught by the time the New Testament was written - you are exactly correct. And how was that knowledge handed down? By word of mouth - oral tradition. This is why Paul admonishes us to hold to all we were taught - by word and by writing. This is why John wants to communicate face to face. When Peter or Paul raised up a new Church, did they hand them pamphlets and tracts or did they preach by word of mouth.

The Bible is not a complete collection of everything Jesus spoke, taught, and did in three and half years of ministry. Otherwise He must have taught, spoken, and did very little. This is John's point. The written gospel is to give us enough to believe. It is not a complete record by its own statements.

The Church speaks of Tradition and tradition. There are many traditions which are traditions in the traditional sense (every pun intended), e.g., how we decorate for Christmas, the format of the Mass (although it is largely unchanged from the first century), and whether priests can marry. These are all subject to change because they are human traditions and adaptations of the principles of the Gospel to current and historical situations.

However, THE Tradition, the oral tradition is the deposit of faith given to us by Jesus. This is not subject to change. The Church does not create it or change it. It preserves it. You are stating exactly the Catholic position.

Your understanding of the early Church Fathers is in error. Read them in full yourself instead of digested and interpreted by others. Read the earliest ones - Clement (mentioned by name in the writings of Paul), Mathetes, Ignatius of Antioch (who personally knew Peter, Paul, and John and addresses folks named Onesimus and Philemon by name in his letters), Irenaeus (who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by John). You will find they are very, very Catholic.

In an age torn by heresy and in which almost the entire New Testament was available, Ignatius does not point people to the Bible but to the Bishops - to the teachers entrusted with the teaching authority of the Church by the apostles and condemns those who would oppose the Bishops with their own interpretation of the Gospel as presumptuous and self-willed.

The statement that every one of the early Church fathers disagree with the Roman church's teaching is a sweeping generalization which is completely unfounded.

You will find Mariology, purgatory, indulgences, and transubstantiation not only in the Church Fathers but in the Bible. We just tend to either ignore those scriptures, call them difficult scriptures and give them contorted meanings, or we just don't see the connection because we've already concluded those doctrines are not in the Bible.

The Church does exactly what you describe - uphold, preserve, and pass down what has already been taught while ever growing in how it understands it (as promised via the Holy Spirit) and how it applies its principles to ever changing cultural circumstances.

Your last question is very insightful and revealing. The reward of being a Christian is not just experienced in the life to come. It is not a selfish rush to gain Heaven for ourselves like some other trophy. Why be a Catholic now if I can receive salvation as some other (actually I cannot - it is just a matter of when I become Catholic)? Because as a Catholic I can learn the fullness of the faith as faithfully preserved by the Church. Because as a Catholic I can participate in God's gift of the sacraments and especially Eucharist. Yes, transubstantiation has been part of the Gospel from the beginning - it is hard to read John 6 and I Cor 10 without believing in it. Because as a Catholic I follow in the steps of the man who rose from the dead. Why would I not want to be? It's not a matter of what do I have to do in order to GET salvation. It is a matter of how can I most completely and fully fall in love with God and obey Him with all my heart with as much of His truth as I can comprehend.

If we're looking to do the minimum to achieve salvation (not that you are), we're missing the point. Let us labor in God's field with joy and not despise His generosity to those who may finally turn to Him, His body, and His Church at the moment of death (Matt 20:15).

We share the Gospel and evangelize not in conquest but in love - to heal others and bring them now to know the beauty of life in God. Because we love our brothers and sisters, we wish to share the precious gift of the Gospel, of Eucharist, of God living within us, of God sanctifying us and changing our natures so we are no longer so hurtful to one another. We evangelize for love and the benefit of being a Catholic now rather than just later is well worth the labor.

Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 19:46:07 by jsullivan

One must be logged in as a coworker in order to post a comment

Welcome everyone to . . .

Spiritual Outreach Works

Coworker Section

Current Ideas:

Other Religions

The Cone

God's Children's Game