Devil knows Christians are one: Pope Francis

[FollowChrist34]

Even Blessed Pope Pius IX said that it is not out of the realm of possibility for those who, through no fault of their own, have never heard of the Catholic faith, to be saved thanks to God’s goodness and clemency.

I think it stands to reason that this could also include those who have heard of Catholicism but have never found a convincing reason that they should convert to Catholicism. Correct me if I’m wrong on that?

I have always been very afraid to presume who is saved in the eyes of God and who is not. It is scary enough to worry about your own fate. To me, that is where your focus should be. Don’t get me wrong - I am all for evangelization and sharing the Catholic faith; that is your responsibility as a Catholic. But leave some room for God to work. You don’t know what is in another’s soul. The publican came out ahead of the Pharisee. The more perfectly you practice your faith, the more Christlike you become. The highest form of evangelization. Leave the rest to God.

 

[JackVk]

I have always been very afraid to presume who is saved in the eyes of God and who is not. It is scary enough to worry about your own fate. To me, that is where your focus should be. Don’t get me wrong - I am all for evangelization and sharing the Catholic faith; that is your responsibility as a Catholic. But leave some room for God to work. You don’t know what is in another’s soul. The publican came out ahead of the Pharisee. The more perfectly you practice your faith, the more Christlike you become. The highest form of evangelization. Leave the rest to God.

Agreed. My own soul is too high-maintenance for me to worry about whether others are saved. There is a difference between evangelization and nagging.

Here’s another way I see it: non-Catholic religions, in and of themselves, are not sufficient for salvation. Nevertheless, members of said religions can be saved by Christ and brought into the Catholic faith, the Body of Christ, by Christ Himself.

 

[TEPO]

The Holy Spirit leads souls to the Roman Catholic Church. To believe anything else is heresy.

True. But the Holy Spirit also leads souls to holiness -which is why non-Catholics are capable of selfless deeds.

…So all Christians really are one in holiness, since were all Baptized in the Holy Spirit, and all baptisms are valid.

…And even non-Christians can be persueded by the Holy Spirit if they are open to it.

 

[TEPO]

Amen.

To lose charity is to descend into darkness - and to reject the Holy Spirit.

That’s true too. But the pope does mention the blood of martyrs in his message. It’s not okay to allow false prophets to confuse the faithful.

…It’s also the work of the devil to teach people against the Holy Spirit -such as what jihad is for example.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Agreed. My own soul is too high-maintenance for me to worry about whether others are saved. There is a difference between evangelization and nagging.

Here’s another way I see it: non-Catholic religions, in and of themselves, are not sufficient for salvation. Nevertheless, members of said religions can be saved by Christ and brought into the Catholic faith, the Body of Christ, by Christ Himself.

Yes. This question really bothered me for years. What happened to basically good souls outside of the Church, native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, etc., etc., etc. Especially when contrasted with men and women who practice much evil and who call themselves Christian. In my personal life, I’ve known really devout Christians to be so cruel and sinful and people who never set foot in Church to be quite kind and self-controlled. (the other way round of course happens too) Really mind-boggling. The only answer I could ever accept was that God’s ways are not mine - I don’t know what the final outcome was. Which makes perfect sense, right? I mean you don’t know anyone else’s soul, where it goes in judgment. That God condemned outsiders out of hand, I rejected. So does the Church as it turns out.

 

[JackVk]

Yes. This question really bothered me for years. What happened to basically good souls outside of the Church, native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, etc., etc., etc. Especially when contrasted with men and women who practice much evil and who call themselves Christian. In my personal life, I’ve known really devout Christians to be so cruel and sinful and people who never set foot in Church to be quite kind and self-controlled. (the other way round of course happens too) Really mind-boggling. The only answer I could ever accept was that God’s ways are not mine - I don’t know what the final outcome was. Which makes perfect sense, right? I mean you don’t know anyone else’s soul, where it goes in judgment. That God condemned outsiders out of hand, I rejected. So does the Church as it turns out.

Ideally, everyone must become Catholics. And it is our duty to make the Catholic faith known. But it doesn’t make sense that God would create so many souls who would live their whole lives as non-Catholics through no fault of their own, then condemn them to hell

 

[Pulvis]

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

They are not of the world, as I also am not of the world. [17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20] And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;

[21] That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

These are our Lord’s words, pointing us to Him as our savior, His intention of one church, and giving his vicar authority over the Church. I could fill up several pages with qoutes from previous Councils, Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church elaborating and defending this truth. If you recite the creed at Mass, you state that you believe in “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”. Are they simply words, or is this part of the core of the faith? I do not doubt that some holy people outside of the church are saved. And invincible ignorance is accepted. But to doubt what the church has held as fact for centuries, without some new revelation or interpretation as to why is a bridge to far for me.

 

[JackVk]

If you recite the creed at Mass, you state that you believe in “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”. Are they simply words, or is this part of the core of the faith? I do not doubt that some holy people outside of the church are saved. And invincible ignorance is accepted. But to doubt what the church has held as fact for centuries, without some new revelation or interpretation as to why is a bridge to far for me.

Nobody is doubting that by any stretch of the imagination. I also desire for the whole world to become Catholic. But God is clement and merciful, and the fate of another person’s soul is His call to make, not mine. As the Fatima prayer says: “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy”.

For the record, Pulvis, I am not hearing any indifferentism from my parish priests. Also, Vatican II was actually condemning coercion in religion, not promoting indifferentism. Vatican II reaffirms the absolute necessity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church for salvation. I have also read Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors; as one who accepts Vatican II, I found nothing in the Syllabus with which I disagreed.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Nobody is doubting that by any stretch of the imagination. I also desire for the whole world to become Catholic. But God is clement and merciful, and the fate of another person’s soul is His call to make, not mine. As the Fatima prayer says: “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy”.

For the record, Pulvis, I am not hearing any indifferentism from my parish priests. Also, Vatican II was actually condemning coercion in religion, not promoting indifferentism. Vatican II reaffirms the absolute necessity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church for salvation. I have also read Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors; as one who accepts Vatican II, I found nothing in the Syllabus with which I disagreed.

Of course, when read in light of Tradition, *Dignitatis Humanae *along with the rest of the documents of the Second Vatican Council uphold and support the perennial teachings of the Church. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II”, drawing support from the perceived ambiguities of the Council documents, which has in many circles supplanted the intentions of the majority of Council Fathers with a false ecumenism that certainly promotes indifferentism. We need to be aware of this fact. We can’t ignore that there will be those who will indeed interpret the Holy Fathers words as being supportive of indifferentism. There will be (and already are) bishops and priest who do so. And quite frankly, unless we start getting more clarifications from Rome about some of these statements, it will become more and more difficult for faithful Catholics to defend the One True Faith with confidence.

 

[mkoopman]

Of course, when read in light of Tradition, *Dignitatis Humanae *along with the rest of the documents of the Second Vatican Council uphold and support the perennial teachings of the Church. The problem is the “spirit of Vatican II”, drawing support from the perceived ambiguities of the Council documents, which has in many circles supplanted the intentions of the majority of Council Fathers with a false ecumenism that certainly promotes indifferentism. We need to be aware of this fact. We can’t ignore that there will be those who will indeed interpret the Holy Fathers words as being supportive of indifferentism. There will be (and already are) bishops and priest who do so. And quite frankly, unless we start getting more clarifications from Rome about some of these statements, it will become more and more difficult for faithful Catholics to defend the One True Faith with confidence.

It appears Pope Francis has come to better comprehend the distillations on “The (dry) spirits of Vatican II” from a view on the whole church rather than the local church which he guided. So, many “givens” about who Mother Church should be understood to be can not be applied at a global level in the way that they might be known, even if not practiced, by a local church.

Yet, it is in practice of church teachings that we become the New Evangelization. I hear a call to draw the faithful back to the truth of the Gospel. Pope Francis can be both clever as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Recall that the serpents he faced in his youth were far from innocuous but some of the largest snakes the world has seen. How many followed these serpent paths and still dared to call themselves Christian? In truth, few.

Today, many who take the name of Catholic follow serpents paths and see no concern in living falsely and boldly. How then are these “Catholics in name only” not schismatics? And how many evangelicals hold to a path in life closer to the Lord then these? When the religious try to reform the church they have often been given the label, Heretic, by the church elect who follow the path of careerism, the path of the serpent.

In reflection on life, that gift God has bestowed upon us; and, not as theologians, a title we select through our choice and for egotistical reasons, perhaps this label of heretic is the one Pope Francis references in these comments?

 

[outremer]

We can all agree that the Pope does not often speak clearly and directly; he, like us, is fond of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I believe the Pope tries to emulate our Lord as much as possible, and that extends to Christ’s speaking in parables and other indirect manners.

I truly believe the Pope means that the religious differences between Christians don’t matter. I hope this can help foster unity.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I truly believe the Pope means that the religious differences between Christians don’t matter. I hope this can help foster unity.

In other words, you truly believe the Pope is a heretic?

 

[outremer]

I don’t use such words, especially to describe the present Pope. The Pope doesn’t use that that word, and I don’t.

 

[R_H_Benson]

I don’t use such words, especially to describe the present Pope. The Pope doesn’t use that that word, and I don’t.

You described him as such without using the word. That is a breach of forum policy.

 

[outremer]

Using a polite tone Now you’re putting words into my mouth, and I imagine that should constitute a violation of basic dialogue etiquette.

The word heretic has no place in the modern Catholic Church. Also, I refer you back to the post where the Pope himself discusses the topic by referencing the Devil’s knowledge that we Christians are one. I actually agree with the Pope if that is what he truly is saying.

 

[R_H_Benson]

Using a polite tone Now you’re putting words into my mouth, and I imagine that should constitute a violation of basic dialogue etiquette.

The word heretic has no place in the modern Catholic Church. Also, I refer you back to the post where the Pope himself discusses the topic by referencing the Devil’s knowledge that we Christians are one. I actually agree with the Pope if that is what he truly is saying.

This thread is literally about the Pope using the word “heretic”. Apparently it does have a place in the “modern” Catholic Church.

You made the claim: “I truly believe the Pope means that the religious differences between Christians don’t matter.”

In other words, you believe that the Pope submits to a blatant heresy; namely, that the differences between Christians don’t matter.

If you indeed believe that to be true, then how are you not implying that the Pope is a heretic?

 

[JackVk]

The word heretic has no place in the modern Catholic Church.

In today’s homily, my parish priest (at a Novus Ordo Mass) used the term “heretical” to describe inaccurate descriptions of the Holy Trinity. It’s statements like these that cause the SSPX and Sedevacantists to get a mad-on for regular Catholics like you and me.

Such wimpy, cubayah claims have no place in the modern Catholic Church. Those statements have been the reason for the Sesame Street catechesis and lousy liturgy that has caused the crisis of faith in the Church over the past 50 years.

And I am saying all this who is not usually one to complain about such things.

 

[outremer]

This thread is literally about the Pope using the word “heretic”. Apparently it does have a place in the “modern” Catholic Church.

You made the claim: “I truly believe the Pope means that the religious differences between Christians don’t matter.”

In other words, you believe that the Pope submits to a blatant heresy; namely, that the differences between Christians don’t matter.

If you indeed believe that to be true, then how are you not implying that the Pope is a heretic?

Read his statement. He literally said it. And now , by your words, you are the one potentially calling him a heretic, because I already said I don’t believe in or use that word.

 

[outremer]

The devil, he said, “knows that Christians are disciples of Christ, that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care if they are Evangelicals or Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic … he doesn’t care! They are Christians.”

Pope Francis.

And I said, I agree with that notion, therefore I agree with the Pope.