Pope Francis assures sceptics: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven

[Yerusalyim]

Once again…the press making mountains out of plains.

 

[brjoseph]

Who are all these people he is winning over to the light? Atheists?

Look, we can explain away what the Pope said, we can give it context. But it is what it is. He said it. One only has to follow one’s conscience. You can talk about “well formed” or some sort of qualifier, but that is not what he said.

This will be used by many to justify many things. From ABC to homosexual marriage.

QUOTE]

Why are we all pretending he didn’t say- and that no one SAW him say- nonbelievers must come to God in contrition?
THAT is what he SAID. Very clearly.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

And where did the Pope say that atheists can get to Heaven without faith?

What the Pope said was:

“Given – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits, if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”

Let me emphasize that again:

***“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,”
“if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart,” ***

He continued saying this which is obvious:

"The issue for those who do not
believe in God is to obey their conscience. "

That’s all what you have to do as an atheist, because by definition atheists can’t believe in a god but thru their actions they can be good.

They can’t.

The only ways they can be saved are either to convert (go to God with a sincere and contrite heart, exactly as Pope Francis said), or to be invincibly ignorant of the Gospel (in which case it is possible that God could save them). An atheist that is aware of the Gospel is not saved.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199160

 

[KEP1983]

He continued saying this which is obvious:

"The issue for those who do not
believe in God is to obey their conscience. "

That’s all what you have to do as an atheist, because by definition atheists can’t believe in a god but thru their actions they can be good.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199160

And where does Pope Francis say that if they obey their conscience they will be saved? All he says is that atheists should follow their conscience. He said nothing about them being saved.

It appears you don’t honestly believe the Bible, the catechism, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, or the Council of Ephesus. It seems you believe in Pelagianism, even though the Church infallibly defined Pelagianism as a heresy.

Anything to embrace modernism though, I suppose (even though modernism was proclaimed the heresy of all heresies, of course).

 

[McCall1981]

He continued saying this which is obvious:

"The issue for those who do not
believe in God is to obey their conscience. "

That’s all what you have to do as an atheist, because by definition atheists can’t believe in a god but thru their actions they can be good.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=199160

Gaudium et Spes doesnt say anything different. Believers can contribute to Atheism, so what? Youre just splitting hairs on who should be considered “ignorant of the Gospel”, which is an interesting question, but doesnt contradict what I said.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

And where does Pope Francis say that if they obey their conscience they will be saved? All he says is that atheists should follow their conscience. He said nothing about them being saved.

It appears you don’t honestly believe the Bible, the catechism, the Council of Trent, Vatican II, or the Council of Ephesus. It seems you believe in Pelagianism, even though the Church infallibly defined Pelagianism as a heresy.

Anything to embrace modernism though, I suppose (even though modernism was proclaimed the heresy of all heresies, of course).

You are right, of course atheists don’t go to heaven, that’s what I think to.

Pelagianism looks fine.

 

[KEP1983]

You are right, of course atheists don’t go to heaven, that’s what I think to.

Pelagianism looks fine.

hahaha wow! Pelagianism looks fine? It’s a heresy, defined by an infallible Ecumenical Council. You can’t be a Catholic and knowingly embrace Pelagniasm. I hope you’re not serious.

So you’re saying that atheists don’t go to Heaven? Weren’t you just arguing that atheists can go to heaven by following their conscience and don’t need to believe in God? That’s a self-contradiction.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

hahaha wow! Pelagianism looks fine? It’s a heresy, defined by an infallible Ecumenical Council. You can’t be a Catholic and knowingly embrace Pelagniasm. I hope you’re not serious.

I wonder what is the truth when everything except the Church is considered a heresy.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

hahaha wow! Pelagianism looks fine? It’s a heresy, defined by an infallible Ecumenical Council. You can’t be a Catholic and knowingly embrace Pelagniasm. I hope you’re not serious.

So you’re saying that atheists don’t go to Heaven? Weren’t you just arguing that atheists can go to heaven by following their conscience and don’t need to believe in God? That’s a self-contradiction.

Actually I was saying what I think the pope and Catholicism teach, but I could be wrong. I personally do not believe in Heaven.

 

[KEP1983]

I wonder what is the truth when everything except the Church is considered a heresy.

Not “everything outside of the Church” is heresy. Most of them are simply false religions, not heresies. Heresy relates to incorrect Christian teachings. Not other religions. For instance, Buddhism and Hinduism aren’t heresies. They are false religions.

And you don’t have to wonder what the truth is. Only modernists have to wonder what truth is, because modernism by definition doesn’t believe in objective truth. Rather, Christ founded His Church and protected Her from error, so that people like me and you don’t have to sit around all our lives wondering what’s true.

 

[KEP1983]

Actually I was saying what I think the pope and Catholicism teach, but I could be wrong. I personally do not believe in Heaven.

Ok, so that’s another heretical belief. I assume you’re not a Catholic? Then why are you trying to interpret Catholic teachings to Catholics?

 

[Veridical16]

Veridical16,

I never said any Catholic should apologize for their beliefs. I post questions or my opinion, but I claim to know nothing. Others however seem to “know” all there is know about God and what will and will not happen, which frankly shocks me. Whoever claims that they really understand God is simply someone I have no interest in talking to; that to me is unbelievably arrogant, verging on insane.

I said, it was a common thing we see and your post brought up a reminder of it. I do not know whom you are referring to, whether it be those Catholics who wrongly Lord their faith over others, or if it actually the faithful who have great certitude in what they profess?
IF it is the latter , Is it as insane and arrogant as a man claiming to be all Truth? He was called blasphemous and arrogant, and killed for it. He knew all there is to know about God and claimed he was one with the father.

There are people who post here that I can easily see getting to the gates of heaven just to argue with God when they find out that every single doctrine in the Catholic Church is not accurate. They are the ones that will argue that He shouldn’t be letting in so and so, instead of embracing God’s love and forgiveness.

If you read the gospel, you can see those people were arguing with JESUS Already, about the Samaritans and gentiles and tax collectors. I’m pretty sure Jesus refers to those people, but some perceive those who believe as St. Peter and the apostles as those who knew more than the pagans they preached to…

However you too have to watch what exactly you have a problem with, what you may perceive as arrogance. Do YOU CALL the saints insane? Or St. Augustine or Padre Pio?
St. Justin Martyr:

Just before Rusticus sentenced them he asked Justin, “If you are killed do you suppose you will go to heaven?” Justin said, “I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it.”

catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=74

What I am arguing is from the perspective of the poorly catechized Catholic, there is this predisposition to be afraid of preaching one’s faith boldly. That is what I say rings false.
There is this modernist sense that as Catholic we are to not have any certitude in what we believe, and we must now defer to the world and what it says about the faith.

When someone has an answer for everything and “knows” they are right, I don’t see that has faith.

St. Paul and St Peter believed in the resurrection and knew it to be true because they knew enough to know they know nothing, while also believing that they knew what Jesus did could not fill all the libraries in the world.
It is an error to believe that we follow Christ and the Church he has given us but without any confidence in its doctrines, nor is it righteous to persist in fear in all the Church has to say about our neighbor in respect to their salvation.
St. John Chrysostom said,

“If every Christian lived his vocation faithfully, there would be no more pagans”

I think you have a problem with the wrong things. It would not be the fault of those who are not saved outside the church, but on the negligence of those WITHIN the Church. That has nothing to do with arrogance

---

"1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it " ***

2nd Vatican Council, says ,

All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks. So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

So whether or not it is merited that one who professes the faith at times can be deemed arrogant. It matters not, because it has no bearing on the fact that what the Church says is true.

A Saint doesn’t have to know anything about the scholarly aspects of the Church and scripture or all of canon law or be a doctor of the Church or theologian, but he as a little child can still know what the church and all that the faith encompasses says is true, with certitude.

I don’t see how that is arrogant.

Look up what the Church says about the Supernatural virtue of faith, then you can remedy the difference between the false understanding of faith, has nothing to do with the intellect or arrogance of the person possessing the Faith.

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, ** because he is truth itself. **
182 We believe all “that which is contained in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed” (Paul VI, CPG § 20).

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"

Is that arrogant to say? Just as Christ incarnate professing to be the way the truth the life, is perceivably arrogant, so the Church is often accused of that same arrogance.

 

[Veridical16]

Here is a talk by a Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate about the faith. It is one of four talks , you can look up the other three elsewhere.

airmaria.com/?sn=142&vp=19838&prefx=conf&plyrnb=1&ttl=Conferences&med=audio

airmaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/conf142.pdf

This helped me grow in my faith as well as understanding the errors against the Faith.

As a priest said, in respect to the supernatural virtue of faith with the Catechism

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.

" why? not because it makes sense, not because we understand, no, but because he is truth himself because of the authority of the one who reveals, he who can neither deceive nor be deceived. That may not satisfy people with unbelief, but in fact. **That **is the way it is.

He says,

"We believe what the Church teaches, because the Church teaches with authority, NOT BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND – think about how ridiculous that would be
if a person’s faith depended on their understanding, given that we all have different gifts and abilities, and different intellects? that wouldn’t make any sense – and yet that is the faith of protestants, of cafeteria Catholics

. . ."*

Jesus isn’t just one side or the other. He is both mercy and justice.
He can’t be merciful if we couldn’t choose against him. Pagan or Christian alike.
And the Psalmists wouldn’t have cried out for justice, if injustices weren’t committed by the errors man produces in their lack of understanding of God and his relation toward him.

Certainty of Faith does not imply arrogance. If one does not rely on ones power or strength.
From that same link

“continued acts of the virtue of faith, we can increase the supernatural light, to the point where it becomes evident, the truths of the faith are evident. There is no shadow of a doubt”

It is precisely the opposite that one is arrogant, Mary is the example, that humility produces the supernatural gift. Be leery of accusing those who are sure of what is revealed. The martyrs didn’t become martyrs because they were guilty of their certitude and therefore arrogance.

Pope Francis referenced an atheist with a disposition to repentance let us not turn it into a green light to feel there an affirmation toward universalism.

 

[pnewton]

Once again…the press making mountains out of plains.

I guess journalism is a major for those who flunked English. Reading the letter in light of the article I wonder if those who wrote the two article I read are really that ignorant of the language or just habitual liars. I get so frustrated sometimes when the media even lies about basic facts. Since they do not link the actual letter in the journalism article, I am more inclined to believe they are simply lying, as an agent of the Father of Lies.

We need to quit taking Church teaching from journalists, especially those who despise God.

 

[slappyhappy]

Who are all these people he is winning over to the light?

Well, he has won me over. My exploration of Catholic ideas has been happening over a course of several years, but Pope Francis is one of the reasons I decided to fully jump in.

 

[CradleJourney]

Well, he has won me over. My exploration of Catholic ideas has been happening over a course of several years, but Pope Francis is one of the reasons I decided to fully jump in.

 

[franklinstower]

FranklinsTower here. I was in the middle of a good discussion with a number of you and i would like to finish it however I have to begin by making a correction. I meant to say I was quoting from the book “Catholicism” by Richard P McBrien and not the Catechism. This mistake explains some of the miscommunication that was going on. As it turns out this book is not considered orthodox and so I cannot argue from it as an authority on matters Catholic.

Id still like to discuss things further however but it looks like I missed the boat while working.

 

[franklinstower]

So what do you make of this:
"Christ, present among us in His Body which is the Church, is the one mediator and the way to salvation. Expressly asserting the need for faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), he asserted the need for the Church, which men enter through baptism as if through a door. For this reason, men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessity" (Lumen Gentium 14).

I imagine you would say that the Buddhist in question does not “know the Church was founded by God” because they weren’t raised Chirstian etc, that this Buddhist falls into the invincible ignorance catagory. My question would be, in your opinion, who does NOT fall into the invincible ignorance catagory? In other words, who, in your opinion, is NOT saved?

The Church has always made it clear that faith in Christ leads to salvation. For those, “who through no fault of their own” (the invincilby ignorant) do not know Christ may (not will) be saved through God’s mercy.

I’m sure there are some invincibly ignorant people in the world somwhere, but do you honestly believe that the Buddhist you know down the street is completley ignorant of Jesus, and completely ignorant of the Church?

The problem is that they are not unaware of the Church, its scandals, corruption, abuses sexual and otherwise. I can tell you that this kind of endless scandals arrogance and corruption contributes intensely to peoples (invincible ignorance). You can say whatever you want in response but nothing you can say will change many peoples minds more than these problems. It seems the greatest stumbling block in the world today is Christianity itself.

And to answer your question of who is invincibly ignorant I would just say that Love and Charity demands that I have hope that all people who have not accepted Christ are, or most, or as many as possible…

 

[Veridical16]

I guess journalism is a major for those who flunked English. Reading the letter in light of the article I wonder if those who wrote the two article I read are really that ignorant of the language or just habitual liars. I get so frustrated sometimes when the media even lies about basic facts. Since they do not link the actual letter in the journalism article, I am more inclined to believe they are simply lying, as an agent of the Father of Lies.

We need to quit taking Church teaching from journalists, especially those who despise God.

I think it’s not JUST the press. I’ve notice that they omit his homilies translations , but his emphasis on certain things are ripe for the picking of the Evil one. Saying “just do good” or " if a homosexual has good will" those are unpacked statements!

For instance for those outside the Faith, stating “just do good” his emphasis on it alone while not erroneous in isolation for that could mean that is the starting point ( which is not far off from what Bishop Sheen said to those who have no faith but seek it, start by helping their neighbor) it would still mislead those who do not understand what St. Paul preaches, about the difference between good works done with true charity,** that are meritorious in the eyes of the Lord**, as opposed to good works that amount to nothing. If pleasing the Lord amounted to just doing “good” then all the stuff Hollywood does, in spite of supporting causes that are antithetical to Christ is enough to relieve their consciences. And by those ripe to be misled, I am referring to poorly Catechized Catholics who should know what it means to do good, but do not. So both many Catholics and Atheists are left in the dark from that emphasis.

Again the Holy Father’s emphasis on JUST the conscience, just reiterates his first initial statement when preaching to the atheists. That doing “good” is enough for salvation, and we know the Holy Father knows this as one of his earlier homilies , if good works was what salvation was ONLY about, then the Church itself is no better than a NGO… as well as his admonition of pelagian minded Catholics.

Just as Pope Benedict later adjusted in speaking about Islam, I hope Pope Francis re-asserts what he says with more clarity, the way he did when he was Cardinal in Argentina when speaking about Gay Marriage being from Satan…
Pope Francis definitely needs prayers and I hope that there should be much more clarity and completeness in his evangelization as he was very clear last week on the position of war as well as his condemnation of the evils that come from Capitalism in previous statements.
He is capable of being weak in certain areas and I believe in this case it may be prudence because Pope benedict did not have to do deal with this adversarial as rampantly in matters of hot button issues. So just as Pope Benedict was not so good at what Pope JPII was good at, but was excellent in matters of reforming the liturgy.
But again, what they do or do not do well in the temporal realm , is not to be overly focused on as laity, because that is admission of a lack of confidence in Christ and his vicar.

 

[Veridical16]

FranklinsTower here. I was in the middle of a good discussion with a number of you and i would like to finish it however I have to begin by making a correction. I meant to say I was quoting from the book “Catholicism” by Richard P McBrien and not the Catechism. This mistake explains some of the miscommunication that was going on. As it turns out this book is not considered orthodox and so I cannot argue from it as an authority on matters Catholic.

Id still like to discuss things further however but it looks like I missed the boat while working.

Fr Richard McBrien, that explains a lot of your earlier posts. He is very dissident.

If you want anything that clarifies well the Catechism of the Catholic Church, read books put together by Fr. John Hardon SJ who past away already