Thought on judging members of false religions

[Philip G.]

This is a rough draft thought.  But, it seems to me that other than Judaism, false religions tend to not just be religions, but instead more church/state manifestations.  Islam which is the largest religion next to Christianity, spreads its religion by the sword(a tool of the state).  All the way down to the least pagan religion of old, there was likely a strongman(pseudo king/state) enabling/enforcing such beliefs/religions to exist.  It makes me wonder how often and to what extend the lines are regularly blurred.

We are allowed and in many cases encouraged to be patriotic.  But, if foreign lands are mixing church and state, how are we to determine if adherents in their minds and hearts are participating in the name of religion, or in the name of patriotism?  And, if they are not mindful of one or the other, it seems that they would then fall into the category of the ignorant. 

If the above is a substantial reflection of reality, and cooperation/participation in a false religion is an objective obstacle to the true faith, as opposed to an avenue; how is it that God would permit it to be so closely and mistakenly aligned with something so permissible and potentially admirable?  That being love of country and love of home land. 

If the only Catholic response is to flee such lands, because there is no salvation as a result of the religion/politics, even the land of your birth per say, so much for love of home land and country.  Is love of birthplace not natural?  And, if in the case of non christian lands, where catholic doctrine and politics suggests we flee from as a result of there being no salvation and guilt by association; would it, love of birthplace, not become then a curse as opposed to a blessing?  What do the scriptures and tradition teach us about love of birthplace/love of homeland?

This is coming from one who lives approximately 50 miles from where I was born, and from one who has lived in the same town 30 out of 31 years of my life. 

[Michael Wilson]

1. The discussion of Feeneyism is against the rules of the forum.
2. I suppose that they would state that E.E.N.S. Means exactly that, if you are not an actual member of the Church you will not be saved.

[Philip G.]

1. The discussion of Feeneyism is against the rules of the forum.
2. I suppose that they would state that E.E.N.S. Means exactly that, if you are not an actual member of the Church you will not be saved.

Thanks.  I had forgotten about that, with this being perhaps my first post proximate the subject.  I have since changed the title and other suggestive language. 

[Philip G.]

This is a post to change the title as reflected on the forum's main page recent posts display.

[Michael Wilson]

Love of birthplace is natural; but our supernatural calling exceeds and regulates this love; so if one were born in a place where practically one could not hold and profess the true faith, I would agree that one should leave that place and seek another land where such practice is possible. Somewhat like the story of Ruth, who was not a Jew; left her homeland and to Naomi and moved to Israel.

[Philip G.]

Love of birthplace is natural; but our supernatural calling exceeds and regulates this love; so if one were born in a place where practically one could not hold and profess the true faith, I would agree that one should leave that place and seek another land where such practice is possible. Somewhat like the story of Ruth, who was not a Jew; left her homeland and to Naomi and moved to Israel.

Well, if love of birthplace is natural, then it is only a blessing for Christians in geographical proximity to the true mass and a curse to the rest of the inhabitants of the earth. 

I think the crux of this conversation revolves around the four necessary beliefs a catholic must hold.  They are belief in the incarnation of Jesus, belief in the necessity of baptism, belief in a God who rewards good deeds and punishes bad deeds, and belief in merit. 

What is interesting about these is that though being fourfold, they are twofold.  And strangely, only two are explicit, while the other two are implicit.  The two that are explicit are the incarnation and baptism.  The two that are implicit are the others.  Why is that?  If you would ask me, i think it is sufficient for a heathen to know the incarnation of Jesus and baptism implicitly as opposed to explicitly, because without being preached to by missionaries, they could not know save a revelation from God these two things explicitly.  But, by the natural light of human reason, I believe they could know these two implicitly.  Examples of knowing them implicitly would be a Church void a State ruled by one God-man with a rite of passage.  Not a state, not a church/state, just a church.  Not a birthright, not a homeland, not a citizenship, just a rite of passage open to all.

As for the two implicit beliefs, which are belief in a good God and merit, in my opinion the lack of explicit belief in these by Christians is precisely our problem.  Yet, we only require their implicit consent.  Why the double standard?  Christians should have to know all of these four explicit, and uneducated non Christians should only be required to know these implicit for the hope of salvation in their extreme need. 

What is also interesting about this is that modernism has flipped the two traditional understandings upside down.  In new church, the church of the new evangelization, we are required to know explicitly what we used to only be required to know implicitly, and we are required to only believe implicitly what we used to be required to believe explicitly.  A pendulum cannot swing if it is not yet already off to one side.  Christians need to know all four explicitly. 

[John Lamb]

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

"And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first."

[Michael Wilson]

PhillipG,
I don't follow you; Catholics were required to know that Christ was God and that He would judge them and reward them according to their merits or sins. That is the belief in God that rewards, but not just any God but the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. That some theologians held that a negative infidel i.e. Guiltless, could be saved by at least believing in a God that rewards, is not a double standard, but rather a recognition that not all men have access to the revealed truths. I don't see the double standard, but rather the acknowledgement that God would not hold anyone responsible for those things they could not possibly know.

[Philip G.]

PhillipG,
I don't follow you; Catholics were required to know that Christ was God and that He would judge them and reward them according to their merits or sins. That is the belief in God that rewards, but not just any God but the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. That some theologians held that a negative infidel i.e. Guiltless, could be saved by at least believing in a God that rewards, is not a double standard, but rather a recognition that not all men have access to the revealed truths. I don't see the double standard, but rather the acknowledgement that God would not hold anyone responsible for those things they could not possibly know.

Without the ability to tie this into feeneyism/EENS, I have lost interest in detailing this.  Rest assured I do not deny or scorn any of the four necessary beliefs.  I simply wanted to look at the ignorant of the world in their light, and how they may potentially confuse the matter for us in our judgment of them.  But, let me pull the plank out of my eye first.  I am not their judge. 

[Philip G.]

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple."

"And Jesus said to them: Amen I say to you, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first."

I think when Jesus uses the word disciple, he is referring to those entering religious life/the sacrament of orders.  But, perhaps that is exactly what is required of those who must leave family and homeland as a result of the false religion/slave state.

I like the second quote about leaving family and "lands" for my names sake. Very good quotes John Lamb! 

[Josephine87]

Love of birthplace is natural; but our supernatural calling exceeds and regulates this love; so if one were born in a place where practically one could not hold and profess the true faith, I would agree that one should leave that place and seek another land where such practice is possible. Somewhat like the story of Ruth, who was not a Jew; left her homeland and to Naomi and moved to Israel.

What about the early Christians of Rome?  They chose to stay and practice in secret and become martyrs.

[Michael Wilson]

Josephine,
in early Rome, there was "The Empire" and nothing outside of it or anything outside of it was worse in terms of paganism.

[Josephine87]

Josephine,
in early Rome, there was "The Empire" and nothing outside of it or anything outside of it was worse in terms of paganism.

Is there much of a tradition of Catholics migrating to escape religious persecution or excessive immorality?  Serious question.

[Michael Wilson]

Josephine,
in early Rome, there was "The Empire" and nothing outside of it or anything outside of it was worse in terms of paganism.

Is there much of a tradition of Catholics migrating to escape religious persecution or excessive immorality?  Serious question.

Catholics from England and Ireland emigrated to the Continent and latter to the U.S. To escape persecution.

[Josephine87]

Josephine,
in early Rome, there was "The Empire" and nothing outside of it or anything outside of it was worse in terms of paganism.

Is there much of a tradition of Catholics migrating to escape religious persecution or excessive immorality?  Serious question.

Catholics from England and Ireland emigrated to the Continent and latter to the U.S. To escape persecution.

Thank you, I'm not sure why I didn't think of England!  They were persecuted terribly.  Poor English Catholics having to go live with garlic-eaters.