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

[Elizabeth502]

I am sorry but you are simply wrong. The Catholic Church no longer teaches that only Catholics can be saved. I believe my priest over anyone on this forum,

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

(CCC, paragraph 846) And yes, this is the current Catechism. Not some antiquated Catechism.

However, here is the key point – a point which did not “change” with Vatican 2:

The grace necessary for salvation continues to come from Christ, through his Church.

The understanding of that fact, reaffirmed in the Catechism and cited above, that is now different vs. pre-V2, is that we do not know or assume how Christ does work and can work in the Hindu, the Buddhist, the unbeliever, the tepid believer, the agnostic, or even the atheist, and without the person even being aware of it, or consciously, let alone formally, choosing “the Catholic faith” per se. Christ, through His Church, can work (naturally) through unlimited ways, instruments, and circumstances, to lead non-Catholics to salvation. Whether they know it or not, they are not being “saved” outside of Christ and His Church.

The full context of Pope Francis’ remarks, which I read elsewhere, reaffirms both the Catechism above and the understanding in Lumen Gentium, one of the Council documents.

Any priest, of whatever Order or community, would know that instantly. He might have said it differently or reduced the entire concept to merely “now we think that anyone can be saved, vs. before we didn’t,” but that would be a reduction that simply doesn’t comport with the Council documents and the current Catechism. It has nothing to do with CAF members, who don’t create what the Magisterium teaches but are certainly capable of reporting and citing accurately what is currently taught.

Further from Vatican 2:

Vatican II declares: Many of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ. . . . It follows that these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive ***their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" ***(Decree on Ecumenism, no. 3).

Before Vatican 2, “the efficacy of Christ’s Church” was understood as limited by the concrete boundaries of the Church and affiliation with it.
That is the only difference. As the documents clearly state, the core of the dogma has not changed. The explanation and understanding have changed.

 

[ELCore]

Some may find this to be useful: The Salvation of Non-Catholics: A Compendium of Catholic Teaching in the 19th and 20th Centuries: “Here is a small compendium of Catholic teaching concerning the salvation of Non-Catholics. All of these documents were published before 1950. I present them here from oldest to newest, with a very brief extract from each. The links here go to pages that present the relevant passages of the documents. Those pages include links, when applicable, to the full documents elsewhere.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Some may find this to be useful: The Salvation of Non-Catholics: A Compendium of Catholic Teaching in the 19th and 20th Centuries: “Here is a small compendium of Catholic teaching concerning the salvation of Non-Catholics. All of these documents were published before 1950. I present them here from oldest to newest, with a very brief extract from each. The links here go to pages that present the relevant passages of the documents. Those pages include links, when applicable, to the full documents elsewhere.”

Very well-done.

Actually, this teaching goes back much further than the 19th century. At least since St. Paul wrote Romans 2 (see especially verses 12 through 16).

 

[Blackrook]

This Pope is careless when he speaks to the media and that is why he is so often misunderstood.

 

[ELCore]

This Pope is careless when he speaks to the media and that is why he is so often misunderstood.

I don’t think it’s that at all.

Rather, most secular reporters and editors are (1) poorly educated, (2) shallow, (3) not very smart, (4) insular, and (5) oblivious to (1) through (4). Moreover, they are bigoted against religion generally, against Christianity in particular, and especially against the Catholic Church.

In other words, they don’t usually have what it takes to do justice to the pope’s ideas, and, if they did have what it takes, they wouldn’t want to do him justice anyway.

Just calling it like I see it, folks.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Rather, most secular reporters and editors are … (2) shallow,

In other words, they don’t usually have what it takes to do justice to the pope’s ideas, and, if they did have what it takes, they wouldn’t want to do him justice anyway…

While I don’t necessarily agree with all your descriptors, I certainly buy #2. Further, their bias is toward popular opinion and popular behavior, not to independent standards of morality or any institutionalized religion’s standards of morality. To be politically correct nowadays is to be amoral.

So, with that in mind, they twist lots and lots of statements and news events to fit their various news companies’ corporate agendas. That wouldn’t bother me as much were it not for the fact that most Americans accept shallow versions of news, never looking further than that. That’s the danger when it comes to manipulating the Pope’s various messages.

 

[franklinstower]

I agree God shows up to sincere, but also to the insincere. Look at Paul (Saul).

I agree Hindus are spiritual, but they are not Spiritual. They are plenty of spiritual people in this world who are trying to gain something by being “good” according to the world’s standards. The Pharisees were the same way. Christ said in Matthew 23, “Everything they do is done for people to see.” and “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

I would disagree with your statement above. Being a CHRISTian ***does ***make you more in tune with God than a Hindu or Buddhist. A CHRISTian professes Christ as their Savior- a requirement of eternal life with the True God ( Father, Son, Holy Ghost). A Hindu or a Buddhist does not profess Christ as their Savior.

Ok Ive had a minute to think about this and I would answer with this–

Have you taken into account the Buddhist or (insert religion) who while praying one day is struck with a blinding white light that produces a radical transformation that is permanent and lasting— who possibly now has permanent access to love for humanity?

I don’t see how anyone can take things like this into account and not see God working in other religions.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Common sense, real world perspective. Hope Francis lives a long, long time. The Church needs new direction. I was in Italy just over a year ago and spoke with many who just did not like Benedict. I hope the Church continues in this new direction.

 

[livingwordunity]

Common sense, real world perspective. Hope Francis lives a long, long time. The Church needs new direction. I was in Italy just over a year ago and spoke with many who just did not like Benedict. I hope the Church continues in this new direction.

It’s easier to say that the Church needs a new direction to conform to us than to admit that we are the ones who need to change our hearts to conform to Christ. By the way, the Pope didn’t change any doctrines or dogmas.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I believe it comes down to all our lives in effect being run past Our Lord Jesus, whether we are Christian, Jew, or ‘Other’, and that He and only He is final arbiter of what fate we deserve.

I do however believe as Christians, and more particularly as Catholics we have greater privileges, duties and opportunities for salvation, BUT that also comes with a greater obligation to live a life commensurate to such privileges, duties and opportunities.

[With great office/privilege comes great obligation which is in effect the obverse side of our Catholic/Christian 'coinage;.]

 

[ephesians2]

Ok Ive had a minute to think about this and I would answer with this–

Have you taken into account the Buddhist or (insert religion) who while praying one day is struck with a blinding white light that produces a radical transformation that is permanent and lasting— who possibly now has permanent access to love for humanity?

I don’t see how anyone can take things like this into account and not see God working in other religions.

There is a plethora of “loving” people in this world. People have the God-given capacity to love because we are made in His image, but Love according to God and love according to the world is different. Love according to God is loving HIM first and others second. If you are not loving Him first (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) then you are not following Him. I suppose I will just have to agree to disagree with a lot of posters on this thread. I believe there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. That “Name” is Jesus Christ. I did not make this up though. It is not just my opinion. It is not just how I feel God feels. Peter said it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4). Peter and John and the other disciples did not tell those around them it was okay to serve the gods they were serving as long as they served them well and with all their hearts. They told them plainly that there was NO other name by which they could be saved. Christ was the only Way.

 

[Pat_the_elder]

This whole thread reminds me of the old joke:
A guy dies and goes to heaven. After St Peter gives him the ‘You never really believed in this place but because you lived a good life’ speech, he offered to show the guy around. After the extensive tour St Peter asked him for his thoughts. the guy said that he was impressed but had only one question. ’ What was the massive wall we passed earlier’.
‘Oh’, said St Peter, ‘behind that wall are the Catholics, they think they’re the only ones here’ lol

 

[Origen52]

This whole thread reminds me of the old joke:
A guy dies and goes to heaven. After St Peter gives him the ‘You never really believed in this place but because you lived a good life’ speech, he offered to show the guy around. After the extensive tour St Peter asked him for his thoughts. the guy said that he was impressed but had only one question. ’ What was the massive wall we passed earlier’.
‘Oh’, said St Peter, ‘behind that wall are the Catholics, they think they’re the only ones here’ lol

An oldie but a goodie.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

Here we go again, people trying to give an explanation of what Pope Francis “really” meant.

What he said was clear and we should heed his wisdom, rather than trying to spin it.

 

[franklinstower]

There is a plethora of “loving” people in this world. People have the God-given capacity to love because we are made in His image, but Love according to God and love according to the world is different. Love according to God is loving HIM first and others second. If you are not loving Him first (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) then you are not following Him. I suppose I will just have to agree to disagree with a lot of posters on this thread. I believe there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. That “Name” is Jesus Christ. I did not make this up though. It is not just my opinion. It is not just how I feel God feels. Peter said it through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Acts 4). Peter and John and the other disciples did not tell those around them it was okay to serve the gods they were serving as long as they served them well and with all their hearts. They told them plainly that there was NO other name by which they could be saved. Christ was the only Way.

Well your right about Jesus being the only way-- so he must be involved when people from other religions get touched by God and have their lives changed. Jesus is bigger than your religion. I have met people from other religions that love with an intensity that is clearly supernatural, that clearly does not come from themselves but of course you are more spiritual than them…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here we go again, people trying to give an explanation of what Pope Francis “really” meant.

What he said was clear and we should heed his wisdom, rather than trying to spin it.

I am probably opposite of the spectrum from you. But yeah, at some point we have to stop explaining away his words as if he is ignorant of the media or the Church and we either have to disagree with him or accept him. I remember liberals scurrying to explain away what BXVI meant. He meant what he said, I think Francis does too and I think we might have a different focus from this point.
Francis scares me. Sometimes I want to jump up and scream YES! To what he says. Sometimes I shake my head in utter disgust.

One thing I know. Francis will either be the most beneficial Pope to our faith, or the most detrimental. He will not be in between.

One thing keeps me hanging onto every word he says. I think he knows exactly what he is saying and doing and I think it is because this is the Great Harvest and a troubled time in our world. Francis is instrumental in the Syria crisis and it just seems like he knows something we don’t about our world. He is calling everyone of every faith and even no faith to repent, and turn to God the best they can immediately. He is speaking of the Devil and is out in front of world issues and conflicts. That is the mark of a Pope that is leading us through the last days or the Pope of power.

 

[franklinstower]

I am probably opposite of the spectrum from you. But yeah, at some point we have to stop explaining away his words as if he is ignorant of the media or the Church and we either have to disagree with him or accept him. I remember liberals scurrying to explain away what BXVI meant. He meant what he said, I think Francis does too and I think we might have a different focus from this point.
Francis scares me. Sometimes I want to jump up and scream YES! To what he says. Sometimes I shake my head in utter disgust.

One thing I know. Francis will either be the most beneficial Pope to our faith, or the most detrimental. He will not be in between.

One thing keeps me hanging onto every word he says. I think he knows exactly what he is saying and doing and I think it is because this is the Great Harvest and a troubled time in our world. Francis is instrumental in the Syria crisis and it just seems like he knows something we don’t about our world. He is calling everyone of every faith and even no faith to repent, and turn to God the best they can immediately. He is speaking of the Devil and is out in front of world issues and conflicts. That is the mark of a Pope that is leading us through the last days or the Pope of power.

What do you mean by “or the pope of power”? I am not Catholic and I don’t understand the reference or maybe I am just being a bit dill and didn’t get it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

franklinstower:
What do you mean by “or the pope of power”? I am not Catholic and I don’t understand the reference or maybe I am just being a bit dill and didn’t get it.

Nothing to get. I didn’t know how to phrase it. There is no mythical “Pope of power” LOL.

What I meant was something different altogether. Someone walked into the room while I was in the middle of a thought. Actually 3 little somethings. So I really don’t know what that last sentence should say.

I was lucid and sober and on point to what I was trying to say until that last sentence though!

 

[franklinstower]

Nothing to get. I didn’t know how to phrase it. There is no mythical “Pope of power” LOL.

What I meant was something different altogether. Someone walked into the room while I was in the middle of a thought. Actually 3 little somethings. So I really don’t know what that last sentence should say.

I was lucid and sober and on point to what I was trying to say until that last sentence though!

Thats so funny because I was just getting ready to look up “Pope of Power” Thanks for the reply.

 

[franklinstower]

Nothing to get. I didn’t know how to phrase it. There is no mythical “Pope of power” LOL.

What I meant was something different altogether. Someone walked into the room while I was in the middle of a thought. Actually 3 little somethings. So I really don’t know what that last sentence should say.

I was lucid and sober and on point to what I was trying to say until that last sentence though!

Thats so funny because I was just getting ready to look up “Pope of Power” Thanks for the reply.