The Catholic Church has never taught and Pope Benedict never said only Catholics can be saved. I read the original text. You have to understand that the press does not care for the man and will print anything that will put him in a bad light. Everything else he said was a reiteration of what Church has been saying for the past thousand years.
Well, I guess the Inquisition, the Reformation, and the Crusades pretty well made that wishful thinking. Pope John Paul II himself publicly apologised for the "errors" of the Catholic Church. "We ask forgiveness for divisions between Christians," the Pope said, "for the use of violence in the name of truth, and for the diffidence and hostility against followers of other religions." According to a document by the Vatican's international theological commission, the historical sins are classified into seven categories, including divisions within Christianity, proselytizing by force, the inquisition, anti-Jewish prejudices, sins against minorities, women and human rights. The church goes back to Paul does it not? Paul was not one of the twelve. And he came to faith through a vision, rather than by an apostle of Jesus. Even if he had an apostle as a mentor, may not the other ten surviving apostles also have an unbroken succession of "truth". Yes, I know--I don't understand how the Holy Spirit works. But I do appreciate that you do not fear critical questions. You, at least, understand how a logical world works. I'm just suspicious of any "truth" that hinges on dogma, special understandings, and the sage counsel of a succession of holy men. Interestingly, I do have a great deal of respect for JPII as a human being, that I never had for his predecessor and have not yet acquired for his successor. I don't believe in holy men, but he made me proud for my species.
I have read some but not all of this thread. This is my problem with religion especially when man becomes involved. Keep in mind that I consider man flawed and where man enters the picture is where the grey area begins. A Church or religion can lead someone to christ as well as lead them away. It is up to the individual to find christ, not up to the church. Once the individual finds christ, the holy spirit then he will guide you into all truths. That just may lead you away from some or most churches or religions.
Jesus... hmmm.... Yeahhh.... Is this not the man who reportedly came to condemn all who dont submit to his will to eternal damnation in a lake of fire? Good for about 20% of the population; sucks for the rest of us, especially the people who were native to the American continent and had no chance of ever hearing about Jesus until after the 1400s. Yep. Good ole' loving Jesus.
First of all, I'm not going to get into an arguement with you. But the Bible says that Jesus came "not" to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. I don't really know about the percentage thing. Hey! He made the "rules." (whether you or I like it) But you are exactly right!!! GOOD OLE' LOVING JESUS :thumb:
The Crusades were justified wars of defense to halt Muslim aggression. Some of the crusaders were murderous savages, but their acts of murder were contrary to the mission of the Crusades. I suggest you read a modern scholarly work on the Inquisition. The Inquisition was probably very different than what you suspect. There is a disconnect between the teaching authority of the the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit and the sinfulness of men. While many people in the Church have done horrible things, and many, including popes, have led scandalous lives no Church teaching would condone their scandal. JPII's apology was for the sinfulness of members of the church, not for errant teachings. The Church goes back to Christ. It is on his mandates and promises that the Apostles taught. The Apostles were led by Peter, who was appointed as the leader by Jesus, after Christ's death and resurrection. All doctrinal decisions were subject to Peter's authority. The Apostles would not teach something not approved by Peter. The Council of Jerusalem is the clearest Biblical example of this. I would argue that the truth does not depend on any "dogma, special understandings, or sage counsel of a succession og holy men", but that all those things depend on the truth. We should all admire the dude. If he accomplished nothing else, and all the Jesus stuff is nonsense, he was a boulder working contrary to Communism.
Those who never hear(d) of Jesus through no fault of their own are not subject to the same judgement as those who do. We are only judged based on the knowledge we are given. Less is expected of those who are given less. More is expected of more given more. We cannot say with certainty that any person is in Hell, but we know many have been saved.
Is not the logical inverse of "The world through him might be saved" equal to "The world who doesn't go through him be dammed", but just doesn't sound as pretty? Sounds like condemnation to me...
