Life after death

Chiorino

This may seem like a bit of a strange one but I was just wondering if it's something anyone else thinks about.

A couple of things in life over the last couple of years (births, deaths) have had me really thinking about what comes after we die. I don't like, and don't want to imagine the idea of when you die, that's it, end of story.

But I also find the idea of an afterlife continuing into infiniteness unsettling too. I think is's something to do with the linear nature of human existence which conflicts with the idea of an everlasting afterlife. Is it just the human mind that cannot grasp the concept of an infinite existence and that we are raised to an entirely different plane of understanding when we die?

Dewdropdeb

I wonder about this too. I mean, I am a firm Catholic and believe in heaven, hell and purgatory, but even when reading the mystics and the thousands of documented cases of people who have died and come back, it seems to all deal with the short term life after death. I can't say that waving palms at God for the rest of eternity sounds like a lot of fun.

However the one thing that does stand out from all the writings is the fact that there are no human words that can describe the beauty and ecstasy of heaven. I think you hit the nail on the head that it's beyond human comprehension. I guess that's where faith and trust come in.

BengaLover

I wouldnt worry about purgatory....

After reviewing what Catholic writers have said regarding such texts as 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, Matthew 12:32, and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”

“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.

“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.

Limbo has been done away with as a teaching too hasnt it..

Dewdropdeb

There's plenty of scriptural basis for purgatory:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

The catechism states the following:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=734

Furthermore many of the mystics have seen it/been there, here's one of the greatest:

...I saw my Guardian Angel, who ordered me to follow him. In a moment I was in a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls. They were praying fervently, but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid. The flames, which were burning them, did not touch me at all. My Guardian Angel did not leave me for an instant. I asked these souls what their greatest suffering was. They answered me in one voice that their greatest torment was longing for God. I saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory. The souls call Her “The Star of the Sea”. She brings them refreshment. I wanted to talk with them some more, but my Guardian Angel beckoned me to leave. We went out of that prison of suffering. [I heard an interior voice which said] ‘My mercy does not want this, but justice demands it. Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls.’” (Diary of St. Faustina, 20)

Purgatory is something that gives me much hope, in that I know that no matter how hard I try, I will likely never be pleasing enough to God to get straight into heaven when I die and if there's no purgatory... there's only one other option and I'd rather not deal with that....

SonOfAdam

Dewdropdeb wrote:

Purgatory is something that gives me much hope, in that I know that no matter how hard I try, I will likely never be pleasing enough to God to get straight into heaven when I die and if there's no purgatory... there's only one other option and I'd rather not deal with that....

You will not 'likely never' but really never and God also knows this, hence the reason for sending Jesus as our representative and substitute. We are saved purely by grace not by keeping the law, not by trying harder, not by doing - the only thing we bring to our salvation are the sins that made it necessary in the first place.

Dewdropdeb

SonOfAdam wrote: »

You will not 'likely never' but really never and God also knows this, hence the reason for sending Jesus as our representative and substitute. We are saved purely by grace not by keeping the law, not by trying harder, not by doing - the only thing we bring to our salvation are the sins that made it necessary in the first place.

If that were the case, I might as well sit on my butt right now, do nothing good for my neighbour, do nothing to further myself or humanity and wait for death. Sure, at the end of the day it will be grace that saves us, but I highly doubt that grace is going to be poured upon someone who has never made any effort to keep to Christ's teachings.

SonOfAdam

It IS the case - maybe you just missed it when you were reading Ephesians 2. You are NOT saved by those things you do noble as they may be. You are saved by the grace of God. Why did Paul go ballistic at the Galatian church if keeping the law was enough to 'earn' salvation ? If we are justified by the law then Christ died for nothing. But I think this has been done to death already.

Jester Minute

BengaLover wrote: »

I wouldnt worry about purgatory....

After reviewing what Catholic writers have said regarding such texts as 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, Matthew 12:32, and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”

“The church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 7.

“What goes on in purgatory is anyone’s guess.”—U.S. Catholic, March 1981, p. 9.

Limbo has been done away with as a teaching too hasnt it..

Re: Limbo: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

I wouldn't pay much attention to anything from the US Catholic. It is a dissenting publication and is best avoided [ http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1521&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=676672 ]. For the doctrine of the faith, look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Dewdropdeb

SonOfAdam wrote: »

It IS the case - maybe you just missed it when you were reading Ephesians 2. You are NOT saved by those things you do noble as they may be. You are saved by the grace of God. Why did Paul go ballistic at the Galatian church if keeping the law was enough to 'earn' salvation ? If we are justified by the law then Christ died for nothing. But I think this has been done to death already.

Ok then, pray tell, if that were the case why on earth would Jesus have even preached all that he did? If we were not to love our neighbour more than ourselves, if that won't help us be saved, then why would he even mention it? Yes, I agree it is grace that will save us, but if we do not strive to be like Jesus, that grace will not come near us. Rom 2, Matthew 15 and 16, 1 Ptr 1, Rev 20 22, 2 Cor 5 to name but a few all speak of works.

I'm sure this doctrinal difference between denominations has been debated before ( I r new here!), so no need to derail this thread, if there's another one better suited to discuss it on?

antiskeptic

Chiorino wrote: »

This may seem like a bit of a strange one but I was just wondering if it's something anyone else thinks about.

I'm really looking forward to it..

A couple of things in life over the last couple of years (births, deaths) have had me really thinking about what comes after we die. I don't like, and don't want to imagine the idea of when you die, that's it, end of story.

Such events do tend to focus the mind a bit. It's one thing to take a ce la vie approach from the comfort of your intellectual armchair, quite another when faced with (or watching others close up facing..) death.

But I also find the idea of an afterlife continuing into infiniteness unsettling too. I think is's something to do with the linear nature of human existence which conflicts with the idea of an everlasting afterlife. Is it just the human mind that cannot grasp the concept of an infinite existence and that we are raised to an entirely different plane of understanding when we die?

I don't base my looking forward to eternity life on any grasp of what eternity would be like. I base it on things such as:

-knowing that I won't be a sinner anymore and that such an existance can only be fantasitc.

-that God is a wonder even when viewed "through a glass darkly" and must be something to behold closer-up. Seeing him is the thing I can wait for least of all (even though it fills me with a certain amount of trepidation)

-that a God who can create the amazing world around us (sullied as it is by sin) and who promises that "no eye has seen and no mind has conceived the wonderful things that God has prepared for those who love him" will look after the details.


Unlike the Catholics here, I've no reason to suppose such a thing a Purgatory so I, like the thief on the cross, expect a direct route to Paradise.

Dewdropdeb

antiskeptic wrote: »

-that a God who can create the amazing world around us (sullied as it is by sin) and who promises that "no eye has seen and no mind has conceived the wonderful things that God has prepared for those who love him" will look after the details.

LOVE THIS - excellent point! Thanks for the scriptural reminder.

Fanny Cradock

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

I can't say that waving palms at God for the rest of eternity sounds like a lot of fun.

I agree. Fortunately the earliest Christians didn't believe that the goal was to get to heaven and spend eternity as God's grovelling lap-dog. Rather, they believed that we are to be participants in a new creation.

SonOfAdam

Some of those differences are discussed in this megathread

You're putting the cart before the horse - grace comes first not striving or doing or earning. If you do those things , helping others etc. to gain God's favour or help towards your salvation then Jesus is of no benefit to you. We are either saved entirely by grace or we're not. I know it's shocking and radical but thats the Gospel of Grace !

Piano man

BengaLover wrote: »

I wouldnt worry about purgatory....

After reviewing what Catholic writers have said regarding such texts as 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, Matthew 12:32, and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. XI, p. 1034) acknowledges: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.”

Hi BengaLover,
I couldn't find that quote in the current Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

And even if it were there, I'm fairly certain it would be Tradition, not tradition that was referred to. The capital T makes a difference!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Limbo has been done away with as a teaching too hasnt it..

Actually, Limbo was never a defined doctrine, just an idea proposed by theologians. Jester Minute's link, six posts up, has a good explanation.

God bless

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm really looking forward to it..





Such events do tend to focus the mind a bit. It's one thing to take a ce la vie approach from the comfort of your intellectual armchair, quite another when faced with (or watching others close up facing..) death.





I don't base my looking forward to eternity life on any grasp of what eternity would be like. I base it on things such as:

-knowing that I won't be a sinner anymore and that such an existance can only be fantasitc.

-that God is a wonder even when viewed "through a glass darkly" and must be something to behold closer-up. Seeing him is the thing I can wait for least of all (even though it fills me with a certain amount of trepidation)

-that a God who can create the amazing world around us (sullied as it is by sin) and who promises that "no eye has seen and no mind has conceived the wonderful things that God has prepared for those who love him" will look after the details.


Unlike the Catholics here, I've no reason to suppose such a thing a Purgatory so I, like the thief on the cross, expect a direct route to Paradise.

I wanted to thank this! and I still do...cept for the 'Catholics' and all of ancient Christianity, Orthodox etc. etc. is concerned that believe there is a middle state of purification and trial before the final destination..

With respect of course!

lol, love this forum!:)

PDN

Dewdropdeb wrote: »

Ok then, pray tell, if that were the case why on earth would Jesus have even preached all that he did? If we were not to love our neighbour more than ourselves, if that won't help us be saved, then why would he even mention it? Yes, I agree it is grace that will save us, but if we do not strive to be like Jesus, that grace will not come near us. Rom 2, Matthew 15 and 16, 1 Ptr 1, Rev 20 22, 2 Cor 5 to name but a few all speak of works.

I'm sure this doctrinal difference between denominations has been debated before ( I r new here!), so no need to derail this thread, if there's another one better suited to discuss it on?

With all due respect, and nothing to do with denominational squabbles, but your post seems to massively miss the point of Christianity.

God wants to enter into a relationship with us - and a relationship must be based on more than what you feel you have to gain from it.

If our motive for obeying the teachings of Jesus is simply to earn some rewards or heavenly brownie points then the beauty of the Christian Gospel is reduced to a selfish desire to save our skins.

As a husband, I like to do things that please my wife. I don't do this in a calculating way in order to avoid divorce, to stay married, or to put her in a good enough mood to sleep with me. I do it because I love her, and bringing her pleasure and joy is therefore one of my goals in life. In the same way, once you know you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then you want to do the things that please Him because of your love for Him. It really is that simple!

Dewdropdeb

PDN wrote: »

With all due respect, and nothing to do with denominational squabbles, but your post seems to massively miss the point of Christianity.

God wants to enter into a relationship with us - and a relationship must be based on more than what you feel you have to gain from it.

If our motive for obeying the teachings of Jesus is simply to earn some rewards or heavenly brownie points then the beauty of the Christian Gospel is reduced to a selfish desire to save our skins.

As a husband, I like to do things that please my wife. I don't do this in a calculating way in order to avoid divorce, to stay married, or to put her in a good enough mood to sleep with me. I do it because I love her, and bringing her pleasure and joy is therefore one of my goals in life. In the same way, once you know you have a relationship with Jesus Christ, then you want to do the things that please Him because of your love for Him. It really is that simple!

Wow, talk about reading a lot of stuff between the lines that wasn't there. I actually thought of responding to SOA regarding the fact that one doesn't do these things to please God, but I really didn't want to enter further into a debate that no one is going to win.

Of COURSE one does not do good things just to get something in return. If that's the case, it completely negates whatever one is doing. Love is the key and anything done without love is nothing.

Apologies if I wasn't clear, I guess I would have thought most Christians understood that of one another.

Dr_Phil

Chiorino wrote: »

what comes after we die.

It will be exactly the same like before you were born.

philologos

OP: personally right now, I wouldn't say that the assurance of an afterlife is the primary reason why I believe. I believe because I am convinced that the Gospel is true, and I believe that Jesus Christ is at work through us in this world. I believe that we will be raised to new life in Him, but I think that we shouldn't turn this life into a waiting room. I want to be challenged by God to become more and more obedient to Him, to rely on Him more, and to share the good news (evangelion - Gospel) and His testimony to as many people as I can before I die.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I... believe there is a middle state of purification and trial before the final destination.

So do I. I just don't call it Purgo, I call it a pilgrims progress.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

So do I. I just don't call it Purgo, I call it a pilgrims progress.

LOL! I got to thank your post

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unlike the Catholics here, I've no reason to suppose such a thing a Purgatory so I, like the thief on the cross, expect a direct route to Paradise.

The thief did not get much of an opportunity to sin again after Christ forgave him. Would that the rest of us will be so lucky.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The thief did not get much of an opportunity to sin again after Christ forgave him. Would that the rest of us will be so lucky.

Unfortunately, that position relies on reading your doctrine into the text, not extracting it from it - a dubious technique practised with bewildering frequency here:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html


The text itself tells us merely that the thief confessed Christ as Lord. Not that he did or didn't sin subsequently. From the text we conclude paradise the fruit of confession.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

- a dubious technique practised with bewildering frequency here:

Ah, condesension and mockery. True to form AS.

Enough of the insults.

A better apologetics explanation resides here

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

and

http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp


.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Ah, condesension and mockery. True to form AS. Enough of the insults.

You misconstrue. I consider the practice of laying one's doctrine over scripture as dubious and I was no so much intending to mock as point out a fact. The Catholic apologetics site linked (referred to by a Catholic apologist earlier in the thread) does do this to a bewildering extent.

Rather than take things off topic, I'll check out your links via the RC mega-thread


edit: turns out that thread is locked so we can't discuss alleged RC eisegisis

philologos

antiskeptic: You don't really want to open that again do you? It seems very Pandora's Box.

antiskeptic

Jakkass wrote: »

antiskeptic: You don't really want to open that again do you? It seems very Pandora's Box.

More like the 100m sprint - given the speed with which the conversation moves from starting blocks (what scripture exegetically says) to finish line (what the early fathers/tradition/OTC/Bible eisegitically ... says)

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

More like the 100m sprint - given the speed with which the conversation moves from starting blocks (what scripture exegetically says) to finish line (what the early fathers/tradition/OTC/Bible eisegitically ... says)

Are the early church fathers teachings not worth considering?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Are the early church fathers teachings not worth considering?

Not if their teachings are required to form the foundations for a doctrine not taught in scripture, no. I'm not supposing them inspired authors. Which means they could be in error.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not if their teachings are required to form the foundations for a doctrine not taught in scripture, no. I'm not supposing them inspired authors. Which means they could be in error.

So what protects your interpretation from error? Or for that matter the interpretation of anyone who disagrees with the Church Fathers interpretations?

By your logic no interpretation is sound in which case we must follow the Bible without interpretation. A tricky situation of you have no knowledge of the original languages or access to copies of the original scripts.

UB Dude

The magic of the gift of eternal life offer two wonderful dimensions:

1.) Eternal life implies infinite potential

2.) Infinite potential implies the potential to experience the Infinite!

Finite realities may have beginnings, however our destinies may be transfinite!

We begin in finitude but our end is in the infinite. Our Deity creators have created a path for us, one step at a time, into ever expanding meaning and ever deepening value, through the realisation of the Divine Spirit Self - with its corrollary of ever broadening horizons in deity attainment. The future's so bright we gotta wear shades!

Praise Deity! The Source and Centre of of all Things, Values, Meanings and Beings.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

So what protects your interpretation from error?

Whatever I find a reasonable approach to be: whether I sit in a cave interpreting for myself, or in a group study, or on a discussion forum. Or whether I accept the interpretation of others, fully or in part.

It's less a question of whether I err and more a question of my being content to live with the consequences of my doing so (if there be any). That's where the rubber meets the objective road.

By your logic no interpretation is sound in which case we must follow the Bible without interpretation. A tricky situation of you have no knowledge of the original languages or access to copies of the original scripts.

No interpretation can be proven sound. What can occur is that an approach is followed which is (personally) considered sounder than alternative methods. Exegesis over eisgesis for example (although some may disagree). Strong underpinnings for big doctrine over a smattering of isolated verses plucked hither and thither for another example (although others may disagree)

Increasing the resolution by referring to original languages might well reveal hitherto unrevealed facets but I find the commonly available resolution (an English translation) sufficient for purpose. Similar to my discerning a recognisable image from other than a 20 megapixel camera.

Festus

so you have no protection.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

so you have no protection.

I have whatever I find good to deploy. I don't see how anyone can argue to do anything else.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

I have whatever I find good to deploy. I don't see how anyone can argue to do anything else.

The Holy Spirit would be the best protector but clearly you have made your own choice.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

The Holy Spirit would be the best protector but clearly you have made your own choice.

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

philologos

TOPIC: Life after death?

What do you think? - I think that purgatory is difficult. If Jesus paid for all sin, why do we need to pay for them in purgatory? It seems like going through the carwash twice.

As I would see it it would be saying that Jesus' death was not all sufficient.

Even in 2 Maccabees it says that Judas Maccabeus (Yehuda HaMaccabi) found that many of his soldiers had died because they were wearing symbols of pagan gods. He said that he and others offered a prayer to God in order to forgive them. However, it does not say what actually happened in the end.

It is talking about what Yehuda did, not what God did.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

georgieporgy

as humans we know we each have had a beginning. We have not always existed and we know that. At the same time we have an inbuilt intuition that we will never 'end'. Never die so to speak, yes of course our present life comes to an end, but we know that's not the end.

God has revealed himself to us so the bits we couldn't figure out on our own, we know them because God told us.

So to comment on the issue of Purgatory I would suggest to the inquiring Scripture believer to follow the entreaty of Our Lord; "ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened unto you".

So, ask God to reveal to you the truth about purgatory- you have to do a bit of sincere seeking and knocking, but you have Christ's promise of a truthful answer. This link is a good place to start:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=2ea78e600fc6eb0e931c7453395df025c10fdb3622d35f43c95965eaa7bc68bc

philologos

Thanks for your answer Plowman. One of the best explanations I have heard. I'm still not convinced but it is nice when people can explain what they believe in an effective manner unlike some other answers on this thread.

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

Aren't the spirits to be tested?

Festus wrote: »

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

Wise?

philologos

Festus wrote: »

What do you call testing the Holy Spirit?

Your logic seems to be flawed though. From the get go most Christians would regard the Holy Spirit to be their guide when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that one cannot say that Jesus Christ is truly Lord without the Spirit in Him. This means that this Spirit is in all Christians, not just those who happen to be in the RCC.

Secondly. You ask "what protects your interpretation from error?". Indeed, what does?

Not only do you have to ask this of yourself. You also have to ask what protects the Church Fathers interpretation from error that doesn't protect us from error also?

Indeed, not only do you have to regard the Bible as being the inspired and perfect word of God, you also have to regard the words of the Church Fathers and the church as being perfect even when the church is comprised of fallible men. This is evidenced very clearly.

Edit: Where Church Fathers directly contradict the interpretation of another, how does this prevent disagreement?

Plowman wrote:

Jesus' death was wholly sufficient for redeeming humanity because it repaid original sin and conquered death. But even though we are saved, as mere mortals we can never be entirely sinless. Therefore we must make reparation for all our sins in order to attain perfection and this is where I think purgatory comes in. It's like getting brand new clothes and wearing them all the time: they are going to get increasingly dirty until they are washed!

Just chewing on this a bit more Plowman.

You believe that Jesus died for the original sin of the world?
However, didn't Jesus die for all sin past, present and future?

We become more and more holy by walking with Christ until the point of death, being continually washed to the point of His return.

Let me know your thoughts on this. Its certainly a lot less banal than this same old discussion over interpretation.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

Your logic seems to be flawed though. From the get go most Christians would regard the Holy Spirit to be their guide when reading the Bible. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians that one cannot say that Jesus Christ is truly Lord without the Spirit in Him. This means that this Spirit is in all Christians, not just those who happen to be in the RCC.

Secondly. You ask "what protects your interpretation from error?". Indeed, what does?

Not only do you have to ask this of yourself. You also have to ask what protects the Church Fathers interpretation from error that doesn't protect us from error also?

Indeed, not only do you have to regard the Bible as being the inspired and perfect word of God, you also have to regard the words of the Church Fathers and the church as being perfect even when the church is comprised of fallible men. This is evidenced very clearly.

Edit: Where Church Fathers directly contradict the interpretation of another, how does this prevent disagreement?

As a Catholic I accept the Churches interpretation without question as she is protected from error in faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.
I rely on the Magesterium to impart the Truth.

I do not accept that anyone else can interpret the Bible and do so without error as evidenced by the growing number of non-Catholic Churches that fail to agree.

There is only one Truth. There can be only One Truth. The huge number of Protestant churches servers only to prove that their interpretations are in error as are the interpretations of individuals.



Further reading:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

philologos

You mentioned the Church Fathers. If they contradict, are they all guided by the Holy Spirit, which protects people from error in understanding Scripture?

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

As a Catholic I accept the Churches interpretation without question as she is protected from error in faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

Says who and what prevents them being in error?

I do not accept that anyone else can interpret the Bible and do so without error as evidenced by the growing number of non-Catholic Churches that fail to agree.

Fail to agree with whom? Each other?

If failing to agree with each other is evidence of error then what about the Roman Catholics failure to agree with each other? And if the Roman church are permitted not to agree with each other yet be considered without error then why not anyone else?

There is only one Truth. There can be only One Truth. The huge number of Protestant churches servers only to prove that their interpretations are in error as are the interpretations of individuals.

But isn't the Roman Church's view but one amongst many - in which case the same 'proof' applies to the Roman Church.

There is no argumentation here - just a bald assertion. And seeing as anyone can do that, what value your statement?

Festus

antiskeptic wrote: »

Says who and what prevents them being in error?

See Matthew 16:18, john 16:13 and Timothy 3:15

antiskeptic wrote: »

If failing to agree with each other is evidence of error then what about the Roman Catholics failure to agree with each other? And if the Roman church are permitted not to agree with each other yet be considered without error then why not anyone else?

Your statement is not true and illogical. While individuals may disagree with each other, and maybe even with the Magesterium thereby making themselves heretical, you seem to be implying that the teachings of the Church disagree with itself. The Magesterium presents one view and does not contradict itself.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't the Roman Church's view but one amongst many - in which case the same 'proof' applies to the Roman Church.

The Roman Church is but one rite within the Catholic Church. All in concordance with the Holy See present the same view on faith and morals, that of the Magesterium.

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is no argumentation here - just a bald assertion. And seeing as anyone can do that, what value your statement?

That would be your assertion.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

You mentioned the Church Fathers. If they contradict, are they all guided by the Holy Spirit, which protects people from error in understanding Scripture?

Actually you mentioned the Church Fathers.

Jakkass wrote: »

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Is salvation the goal? Is all that we are interested in just getting ourselves into Heaven?
There seems to be much disagreement among those outside of Catholicism that seem to think that getting into Heaven is not a priority. Perhaps you could clarify.

Festus

Jakkass wrote: »

You go on about their being one truth. I believe this to be Christianity. However your view has implications for salvation:
Do you believe that non-Roman Catholics can be saved?

Read John6: 26 - 59. Compare this to the Catholic Mass. What does it say to you.

Then read John 6: 60-66. Compare this to those who claim to be Christians but are not Catholics. Compare it if you will to the Reformation and the rise of the Protestant churches and denominations who do not eat the bread that is the Body and Blood of Christ.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Is salvation the goal? Is all that we are interested in just getting ourselves into Heaven?
There seems to be much disagreement among those outside of Catholicism that seem to think that getting into Heaven is not a priority. Perhaps you could clarify.

Not at all, I was asking because it could be a very significant stumbling block to interdenominational dialogue. I'm interested to hear your answer.