Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion

[TMC]

If Grace must be accepted then God’s grace is not all that is required for salvation.

Sheesh!

You are being a bit semantic here, don’t you think? Grace is all that is required, but if you reject Grace you don’t have it. Y

Your position has been (as I understand it) that certain theological beliefs are required for salvation. That is not what the Church teaches. It also makes no sense, as I think we would all agree that no one actually truly understands God, and hence all of our theological beliefs necessarily fall short. Are you backing off of that belief and agreeing that accepting God’s Grace is all that is required?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I teach plenty of atheists, and not these American agnostics, mind you. They have no issue with the idea of sin.

Have you ever done something you either know or perceived to be wrong, but did it anyhow? Yes. That is sin.

A real atheist has no problem with sin, as it just defines a concept clearly provable. An “anti-theist” (someone who doesn’t like religion or religious people) does because they can’t separate the theological term with its truthful definition. It is easy to do so.

Sin is just a disordered love. That’s all. It is when we love something not worthy of love, or when we choose a love that is lesser in value.

Made a promise and broke it? Sin: illogical action
Knew you shouldn’t have eaten a third helping, but did it anyhow? Sin: illogical
Ever betrayed the trust of a friend, while knowing you shouldn’t have done so? Sin: disordered love.
Knew you shouldn’t have eaten the last of your child’s easter candy, but did it anyhow? Sin: disordered love

No one can claim to have never sinned. No rational person ever has, in my experience. This is so evident, I rarely have to say anything in addition during teaching.

Speaking about grace is fruitless? Not if you can demonstrate that every human is sinful or disordered in some way. Inductive generalization has little trouble doing so.

There are many variations atheism, of course, and I do include the range from agnostics to anti-theists, but what they all have in common is a denial of God in one way or another and, thus, any notion that God defines the true and good. Yes, atheists can comprehend the concept of right and wrong, secular society has fatwas up the wazoo and it’s own penance rituals. See e.g. politicians in therapy.

But people can easily claim never to have sinned and they do because they deny God. They may make mistakes, they may even be sorry from to time, but they are not waiting with baited breath for someone to tell them about God’s grace and mercy. If they are concerned at all about such things it is the grace and mercy of secular society.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

Your problem is that you refuse to get into the heads of those who do not share your beliefs. As a result you do not understand them and you will be unable to change their minds.

That is incorrect. I teach all kinds of students. My atheists ponder what is being said all the time. And just last year two of them entered the Catholic faith. You are not asking the philosophical questions, instead you are asking theological questions and demanding sporadic philosophical proofs along the way. It is nearly impossible to meet your demands, when you demand theological answers and then gawk at how they weren’t philosophical enough for an atheist. What you seem to refuse to understand is that although philosophy and theology work in tandem, they still have separate approaches.

For my atheistic students I do pre-evangelization, which is philosophical. After a year, we are ready to do theological arguments.

Your real question seems to be why must there be a Church if God’s grace is sufficient. But this is not correct. God’s grace is necessary, but only God Himself would be sufficient. Until you have God Himself, you lack any fullness.

It is possible to have grace on earth, but not have God fully. If this is so, then grace before death is not completely sufficient. This is also clear because Adam and Eve were able to fall, even though they had sacramental grace.

At this point, accepting the Fall of Adam and Eve, we need to move to the theological idea of redemption, which is Christ. Why the Church? Really the question is why Christ? If you don’t understand the need for a material savior, you can’t understand the need for a Church. I have already given a lengthy response to why man needs a material savior, and spiritual prompting is not sufficient.

Obviously the former answer is a theological one. If you wish to ask a philosophical question, such as “why would we need God in the first place?” so that an atheist could wonder at the idea of grace, then ask it. Don’t throw a Red Herring Fallacy and create some fallacious vicious circle.

A philosophical idea of Church would be more like this:

What human being has no government, no form of order or management? If you have sports, you have rules to govern them. If you have a business, you have rules and a form of governance: must be to work by 8AM, or lunch break not to exceed half an hour.

So too even with spiritual concepts such as religion and mathematics and physics. There are governing laws and orders that give it shape and direction. Without which, there would be chaos and no purpose. It seems that religion, dealing with the highest purpose of man’s life, would also have a form of order and governance, seeing as all other aspects of spiritual concepts also has governance.

If human beings need directing, then just having a physical savior who lived once, long ago would not suffice. We would need continual direction. This is what Christ meant when he said to Peter: look after my sheep/flock. Without someone to direct and guide, it would be lost and no longer a flock at all.

I have to get back to teaching students, yes, atheists included. I fear I can spend little more time on this topic as I have already addressed your concerns and philosophically dismissed your ideas that sin come from God, that there is no grace without sin etc.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You are being a bit semantic here, don’t you think? Grace is all that is required, but if you reject Grace you don’t have it. Y

Your position has been (as I understand it) that certain theological beliefs are required for salvation. That is not what the Church teaches. It also makes no sense, as I think we would all agree that no one actually truly understands God, and hence all of our theological beliefs necessarily fall short. Are you backing off of that belief and agreeing that accepting God’s Grace is all that is required?

My position is that telling people about grace and mercy is not a very useful opening because it presupposes a belief in sin against God. I countered the claim that belief (faith) was unimportant by arguing that it was (and good works too), which is generally what. What does the Church specifically teach is entailed in accepting God’s grace? The CCC is pretty a long document with lots of specific instructions.

My position is that, at a minimum, “certain theological beliefs are required” such as the belief that God is good and true and that we have sinned against God and must repent, invincible ignorance aside. I have made no claim about “truly” understanding God.

It may even be the case that those who reject God’s grace are saved by his mercy but that is not what the Church currently teaches. Maybe Pope Francis plans a new dogma.

 

[Coolhandlukeboy]

There are many variations atheism, of course, and I do include the range from agnostics to anti-theists, but what they all have in common is a denial of God in one way or another

That is not true. There are many atheists who haven’t heard the notion of God. I have students from China, they have never heard of God, let alone Jesus Christ. It takes about two years to give them the logical reasons for God and why the Catholic faith makes sense in relation to philosophy.

Yes, atheists can comprehend the concept of right and wrong,

On what grounds? Honestly, good is defined only as that which fulfills its purpose. To say what right and wrong is, is to admit a final purpose for man. Otherwise it is not possible to say someone is good or bad, thus right or wrong.

I would never deny that atheists would say that they have a purpose for living, but it would be relative, and completely dependent upon the individual. Thus it would be an opinion, no more right or wrong than any one else’s. On what truth would it be based? If right and wrong is relative, there is no such thing.

But people can easily claim never to have sinned and they do because they deny God.

To claim is indeed easy. But it is not easy to prove. I shoot down those arguments all the time. None of my students ever have said no when I asked them if they have every knowingly chosen something of lesser value. Not a one in over seven years of teaching. I don’t just teach Catholics either. There are plenty who hate the name “sin” because they think it means something else, something “Churchy”. But once they see the philosophical idea, no one denies it. Even an atheist can sin against his/her “relative” good, since even though it is self-imposed, they can illogically break their own commitment… one has only to think of the myriad of people who try to lose weight, but yet fail constantly, despite their best intentions.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

That is not true. There are many atheists who haven’t heard the notion of God. I have students from China, they have never heard of God, let alone Jesus Christ. It takes about two years to give them the logical reasons for God and why the Catholic faith makes sense in relation to philosophy.

Granted, let’s leave them aside for the moment and concentrate on those who have lived in Christian societies and rejected Christianity in favor of secular culture.

On what grounds? Honestly, good is defined only as that which fulfills its purpose. To say what right and wrong is, is to admit a final purpose for man. Otherwise it is not possible to say someone is good or bad, thus right or wrong.

I would never deny that atheists would say that they have a purpose for living, but it would be relative, and completely dependent upon the individual. Thus it would be an opinion, no more right or wrong than any one else’s. On what truth would it be based? If right and wrong is relative, there is no such thing.

The list of theories of morality and ethics is even longer than the list of variations of atheism. It is sufficient for our purposes here to note their existence and adherence.

To claim is indeed easy. But it is not easy to prove. I shoot down those arguments all the time. None of my students ever have said no when I asked them if they have every knowingly chosen something of lesser value. Not a one in over seven years of teaching. I don’t just teach Catholics either. There are plenty who hate the name “sin” because they think it means something else, something “Churchy”. But once they see the philosophical idea, no one denies it. Even an atheist can sin against his/her “relative” good, since even though it is self-imposed, they can illogically break their own commitment… one has only to think of the myriad of people who try to lose weight, but yet fail constantly, despite their best intentions.

As I said, nonChristians will often acknowledge mistakes, even “sins” against nonChristian ethics. In any case, we are now heading down the path of discussing sin, not grace and mercy.

Now I have heard of, but never met, atheists who feel a need for forgiveness and seek out God on that basis. Such a person would be open to a discussion that began with God’s grace and mercy.

But far and away more common are those who hate the name “sin” not simply because it is “churchy” but because it implies that the good and true is defined by God (and communicated through the Bible and the Church) and not by politics or reason or intuition or whatever substitute the atheist has found.

Richard Dawkins is of the opinion that the Church is evil.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I think there is some confusion in this discussion on salvation. I am not a theologian, but I do my best to understand what the Church teaches.

Catechism:

169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16).

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

According to Jesus, and therefore the Church, Belief and Baptism are required for salvation. It is possible for a non-Baptized person to be saved, but that is up to the mercy of God. Clearly, this doesn’t translate to a definite “anyone can be saved” statement.

 

[TMC]

My position is that telling people about grace and mercy is not a very useful opening because it presupposes a belief in sin against God. I countered the claim that belief (faith) was unimportant by arguing that it was (and good works too), which is generally what. What does the Church specifically teach is entailed in accepting God’s grace? The CCC is pretty a long document with lots of specific instructions.

I don’t have a position as to whether opening with a discussion on grace is good evangelism. BTW, I don’t read the Pope as suggesting that. He seems to be saying that we should begin by talking to each other and learning about each other, which I think is a good approach.

My position is that, at a minimum, “certain theological beliefs are required” such as the belief that God is good and true and that we have sinned against God and must repent, invincible ignorance aside. I have made no claim about “truly” understanding God.

In that case, we disagree. I don’t think belief in God, or any particular belief about God is required. My reading of Church teaching is that the Church doesn’t teach that either. If you agree that none of us can truly understand God, then I am curious why you believe that God will draw the line of permitted beliefs below your own limited understanding, but above the limited understanding of certain others.

It may even be the case that those who reject God’s grace are saved by his mercy but that is not what the Church currently teaches. Maybe Pope Francis plans a new dogma.

I agree that the Church does not teach that one may reject God’s grace. But the Church also does not teach that holding certain beliefs about God (or any belief in God) is necessary to accept God’s grace. That is clear from the Church’s teaching that non-Christians and even atheists can be saved.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In that case, we disagree. I don’t think belief in God, or any particular belief about God is required. My reading of Church teaching is that the Church doesn’t teach that either. If you agree that none of us can truly understand God, then I am curious why you believe that God will draw the line of permitted beliefs below your own limited understanding, but above the limited understanding of certain others.

See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=822366

 

[TMC]

See: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=822366

OK. Are you attempting to rebut or reinforce my comments? Because I think the Pope’s statements are consistent with what I have said about salvation, and also consistent with the Church’s teaching.

 

[SaintAugustine]

OK. Are you attempting to rebut or reinforce my comments? Because I think the Pope’s statements are consistent with what I have said about salvation, and also consistent with the Church’s teaching.

Catechism:

Quote:
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16).

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Me: According to Jesus, and therefore the Church, Belief and Baptism are required for salvation. It is possible for a non-Baptized person to be saved, but that is up to the mercy of God. Clearly, this doesn’t translate to a definite “anyone can be saved” statement.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

OK. Are you attempting to rebut or reinforce my comments? Because I think the Pope’s statements are consistent with what I have said about salvation, and also consistent with the Church’s teaching.

The gist of that thread is that the pope made comments that the press spinned as asserting that atheists can go to heaven without believing in God. You will find a lively discussion there with plenty of citations but few are defending the press spin. I don’t see the point in repeating that discussion here.

Catechism:…
Me: According to Jesus, and therefore the Church, Belief and Baptism are required for salvation. It is possible for a non-Baptized person to be saved, but that is up to the mercy of God. Clearly, this doesn’t translate to a definite “anyone can be saved” statement.

Yes, you will find this and much more in that other thread. (And let’s note that you posted this just above without TMC’s acknowledgement.)

 

[TMC]

Catechism:

Quote:
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: “We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation.” Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.

183 Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mk 16:16).

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Me: According to Jesus, and therefore the Church, Belief and Baptism are required for salvation. It is possible for a non-Baptized person to be saved, but that is up to the mercy of God. Clearly, this doesn’t translate to a definite “anyone can be saved” statement.

How do you square your conclusion with 1260, which expressly states that all may be saved:

"we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"

 

[TMC]

The gist of that thread is that the pope made comments that the press spinned as asserting that atheists can go to heaven without believing in God. You will find a lively discussion there with plenty of citations but few are defending the press spin. I don’t see the point in repeating that discussion here.

Yes, you will find this and much more in that other thread. (And let’s note that you posted this just above without TMC’s acknowledgement.)

I am aware that many Catholics are trying to spin the Pope’s comments in order to deny that he said that atheists can be saved - but that is what he said. I think he meant what he said.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I am aware that many Catholics are trying to spin the Pope’s comments in order to deny that he said that atheists can be saved - but that is what he said. I think he meant what he said.

As I said, I’m not going to repeat that debate here.

For all we know, Hitler himself may be seated at the right hand of Jesus. We should all hope that God is very merciful. But the Church has an evangelical mission nonetheless.

 

[SaintAugustine]

How do you square your conclusion with 1260, which expressly states that all may be saved:

"we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery"

We square it with the word “possibility” in a “way known to God.”

Are you saying you disagree with the words of Jesus? Or, do you think that the fact that God is ever merciful and “may” save someone who isn’t baptized negates the need for Belief and Baptism, as Jesus states?

Maybe you think the Pope’s latest statements are contrary to Church teaching and the words of Jesus?

You’ll have to tell me…

 

[TMC]

We square it with the word “possibility” in a “way known to God.”

Are you saying you disagree with the words of Jesus? Or, do you think that the fact that God is ever merciful and “may” save someone who isn’t baptized negates the need for Belief and Baptism, as Jesus states?

Maybe you think the Pope’s latest statements are contrary to Church teaching and the words of Jesus?

You’ll have to tell me…

I find no conflict, as I think I have explained. The Church, consistent with the Gospel, teaches that all may be saved.

I send the same questions back to you. The Church says that it is possible for all to be saved. The Church does not presume to know exactly how that will happen, but teaches that, nonetheless, all may be saved. I agree with the Church on that. It appears that Pope Francis does as well. I do not find that in conflict with the Gospel.

You seem to disagree and instead believe that unless one holds certain theological beliefs he is destined to Hell. That is in direct conflict with the Pope’s statements and the Church teachings we have been discussing. So, do you think the Pope’s latest statements and the Church’s teachings are in conflict with the Gospel?

You’ll have to tell me.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I find no conflict, as I think I have explained. The Church, consistent with the Gospel, teaches that all may be saved.

I send the same questions back to you. The Church says that it is possible for all to be saved. The Church does not presume to know exactly how that will happen, but teaches that, nonetheless, all may be saved. I agree with the Church on that. It appears that Pope Francis does as well. I do not find that in conflict with the Gospel.

**You seem to disagree and instead believe that unless one holds certain theological beliefs he is destined to Hell. **That is in direct conflict with the Pope’s statements and the Church teachings we have been discussing. So, do you think the Pope’s latest statements and the Church’s teachings are in conflict with the Gospel?

You’ll have to tell me.

I have never said anything like that. Nice Straw Man.

The fact remains that Jesus, and therefore the Church, teach that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. I’m 99.99% sure that Pope Francis would agree that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. Is it possible for an Atheist, Buddhist, etc. to be saved? Yes. God is merciful. In Him all things are possible.

But, taking His mercy and stretching it to give the impression that “well, anyone can be saved. You don’t have to follow the theology of the Catholic Church, get Baptized or any of that…” is very, very poor reasoning, and a risk for many souls. This is what I believe you are doing on your side of the argument.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I have never said anything like that. Nice Straw Man.

The fact remains that Jesus, and therefore the Church, teach that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. I’m 99.99% sure that Pope Francis would agree that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. Is it possible for an Atheist, Buddhist, etc. to be saved? Yes. God is merciful. In Him all things are possible.

But, taking His mercy and stretching it to give the impression that “well, anyone can be saved. You don’t have to follow the theology of the Catholic Church, get Baptized or any of that…” is very, very poor reasoning, and a risk for many souls. This is what I believe you are doing on your side of the argument.

:thumbsup:x1000 for this post.

Vatican II did not remove the necessity of repentance, faith, or obedience!
So many people have misinterpreted this teaching to mean that everyone is saved. This is not the truth!!!

 

[TMC]

I have never said anything like that. Nice Straw Man.

The fact remains that Jesus, and therefore the Church, teach that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. I’m 99.99% sure that Pope Francis would agree that Belief and Baptism are required for Salvation. Is it possible for an Atheist, Buddhist, etc. to be saved? Yes. God is merciful. In Him all things are possible.

But, taking His mercy and stretching it to give the impression that “well, anyone can be saved. You don’t have to follow the theology of the Catholic Church, get Baptized or any of that…” is very, very poor reasoning, and a risk for many souls. This is what I believe you are doing on your side of the argument.

I guess I am confused. You certainly seemed to be arguing that some “belief” is required. If theological belief is not was is required, what belief is required?

But then you turn around and agree that atheists, Buddhists, etc, can be saved. Then you say that giving “the impression” that is true is somehow wrong. So which is it? Are you saying that is it true that atheists can be saved, but arguing that we should not publically admit that?