Will you at least grant that your position tends to the more rigorist side? I think a lot of ignorance is a good deal more invincible than people consider, and that some of the resistance to the Church is because of our failings.
I do htink there is an adult responsibility to test all things and to hold fast to that which is good. On the other hand, my childhood best friend was thoroughly indoctrinated against the Catholic Church, to the point where I would think it would take therapy before he would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively.
As for moi: My favorite person to study in college was Thomas Aquinas. Dante was a joy and delight and still is. Eckhardt appealed and still appeals. It is clear to me that (a) God was saying, "get a clue, you need to be a Catholic and a Dominican;" and (b) that being Catholic never occurred to me as a possibility for me, until after I'd been an Epsicopal minister for a decade and could see for myself what a disaster 'my' church was.
I think I and my life path have suffered for my blindness, but I think there were what you might call invincible aspects to it.
Mad Dawg wrote: Will you at least grant that your position tends to the more rigorist side?
verdadjusticia responds: I’m afraid that any position other than “all who are nice are saved” is rigorist today. That is why no one is too worried about their standing as far as salvation is concerned, everyone but Adolph Hitler is in Heaven, and to some, even he is in heaven.
Mad Dawg wrote:
I think a lot of ignorance is a good deal more invincible than people consider,
verdadjusticia responds:
“Invincible ignorance” has no dogmatic status. I would not bank my salvation on it. I would not even bank my salvation
on so-called “baptism of desire”. God can keep anyone alive long enough to convert them. God can get the water to anyone. No one dies by “accident”. Catholics need to teach dogma, not un-infallible theories.
Mad Dawg wrote:
re: and that some of the resistance to the Church is because of our failings.
verdadjusticia:
True. However, anyone of good will get’s past that, and becomes a better Catholic than those bad examples. Any baby can get baptized and be called a Catholic in adulthood. That means nothing. Hitler was a baptized Catholic.
Mad Dawg wrote:
re: my childhood best friend was thoroughly indoctrinated against the Catholic Church, to the point where I would think it would take therapy before he would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively.
Of myy greater family, like 300 people, all cradle Catholics, I doubt that 20 go to mass every Sunday.I too “would think it would take therapy before they would be able to consider the issues anything like objectively”.
We should forget non-Catholics till you convert Catholics. In order of priority:
1) convert ourself (pornography, fornication, no contraceptives, divorce, sins. Go to mass and confession.)
2)convert our children and wives to behave as #1
3) convert our parents nad close relatives
4) convert our greater family
Do the above and the world will convert to our good VISIBLE example.
Forget about making excuses for why others don’t convert and how they’ll be saved outside of the Church. If I not not gamble my salvation on fallible theories like invincible ignorance and baptism of desire, why would I teach that to anyone else? Till Invincible ignorance and baptism of desire become infallible defined, I’ll stick with dogma.