Crabsy makes a good point.

It could be argued the Church has always been about relativism which is reflected in the enormous number of Christian denominations. Even within denominations there is much discussion and debate on some issues. So who knows what Jesus really said, it is all in the reporting.

It is a veritable supermarket of choices out there allowing people to choose the Church that already best fits their worldview. The exception if of course for those who are born and raised within a particular Church and who have not come to it of their own adult free will.

I am not sure how Judaism fits in with this, given Jesus was Jewish, or how Judaism differs in essentials from Christianity

McReal...Jesus IMO was a poor sole, which in his time, saw many disastrous inflictions upon the people he cared about, and so he was born into. In his mind, humanity as we see it, was any-thing but, so with nothing to loose, he spoke out, and thats what made him a man of strength.

See! not everyone can be a blood wheedling swordsman or the clinical righteous one, but many others are very humble indeed, and need the light, so the darkness will not get them, and at the morning rise at Stonehenge, the sun will always remind us, from where the true men are born.

Truth is always out there, if you want to find it.

LEA

Hi Saltpetre,

I'll try to shed some light on Lumen Gentium here, but be warned that my understanding is far from perfect. As with many church documents, it is quite verbose and at times confusing. It is, however, official church doctrine and one of the most important products of Vatican II.

For starters, 'Lumen Gentium' is loosely translated as 'light of the nations'. It deals with Jesus' role in the salvation of mankind, and asserts that He wishes for all of mankind to achieve salvation. It identifies three types of people who will be saved:

1) Those who know the Word (specifically, Catholics) and strive to follow it in all that they do (i.e. good Catholic citizens, not those who are Catholic in name only).

2) Those who do not know the Word (atheists) but, unbeknownst to them, lead good lives in accordance with the Word.

3) Those who have an imperfect understanding of the Word (people of other faiths; Jews are implied, while Muslims are specifically mentioned), but strive to follow their understanding of the Word in all that they do.

Damnation is the exclusive destination of those who know the Word, but choose not to follow it; specifically, those who KNOW that the Church is 'the right path' but choose not to be a part of it, and those who KNOW that they are sinning but do not attempt to desist.

(cont'd) ...

... (cont'd)

There is a lot of talk of 'knowing the Word' and 'seeking God', neither of which is defined with any real clarity. My understanding is that 'knowing the Word' is a matter of Christian morality; if you know that something is a sin but do it anyway, then you know the Word but choose not to follow it. As for seeking God, it is my understanding that 'God' is manifested in all that is right and good. Therefore, when we seek what is right in the world, we seek God. We may never actually seek God as an entity, but if we seek the same aims - a world of peace, love and charity - then we seek God without necessarily knowing it.

By my understanding, then, the Church still aims for all of mankind to join in its communion, but does not blame non-Catholics for failing to do so. Instead, it blames those of us who know the Word but do not endeavour to spread it for this failing. Again, this opens 'the Word' to interpretation. I don't spend my life preaching; I do, however, endeavour to live a life of virtue in the hope that others will follow in that example. Obviously, I'm not virtuous all the time - cut me off at a roundabout and I'll often demonstrate that - but I try. I believe that I spread the Word by living the Word; I know that this is the approach adopted by many Catholic schools, including my employer. We recognise that we can preach all we want, but our kids will lead Christian lives only if such lives are modelled for them. Obviously, many Catholic schools have consistently failed in this mission.

(cont'd) ...

... (cont'd)

I think Lumen Gentium is one of the reasons that I'm content with my Catholicism: it mirrors my own understanding of morality, and my own ability to accept that not everyone sees things the way I do. That damnation is only a path for those who knowingly and unashamedly sin is comforting to me. While the church sets out its own understanding of virtue and sin, it acknowledges that not everyone will receive or understand this message, and that is not the fault of those people. If they continue to sin because they don't know any better, then that is hardly a cause for their damnation.

I hope all of this helps. If any readers disagree with what I say, please help me to understand why I am wrong. I'm aware that many in the Catholic Church - even many in high places in the Church - still don't follow the principles of Lumen Gentium. That is a shortcoming on their part, rather than on the part of Catholicism as a whole. It's there in writing, as a statement of what the Catholic Church believes. While the last couple of paragraphs are my interpretation, I'd appreciate it if people could tell me WHY I'm wrong (with specific reference to the document or to other more recent teachings of the Church) rather than simply saying that I am wrong. I'm not saying with any authority that it is correct - just that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Otokonoko, Thank you for your very thoughtful and informative response. You have certainly made things clearer for me, and I think you have put it very well. For myself, I also try to live in the way of the word, but I freely admit I am far from perfect in this, and I really should make a conscious effort to do better. Thank you for reminding me of communion, for this is a union in mind and contemplation which I had not really thought about for quite a long time.

I also hope your post will make things clearer for some others on this forum, and particularly those who seem to hold some confused and, in my opinion, at times some unfair and unfortunate views of Christianity. (I had also better try harder to take a more Christian approach to my interpretation and response, or avoidance of response, to some posts which occasionally rattle my cage.)

My best regards,
Peter.