Pope on Jesus' redemption for all, inc atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter kingal86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have been quick to chide people for improperly restating your words, so please do not do it to me. I did not say it was impossible, I said I failed to see it. In addition, I did not judge them in anyway. Judgement of souls is for God alone. I readily acknowledge that.
Semantics, Jason. “I do not see how one can rationally argue that we can have any sort of reasonable expectation in the salvation of those who are in such a state.”

My apologies for using the shorter synonym “impossible” rather than the longer version as you stated above.
 
For the good of the souls of the many, it makes far more sense for us to evangelize as best as we can to bring such people into the arms of Holy Mother Church so that they can receive the sacraments and properly form their consciences.
(FWIW - I fully admit to being WAY out of my depth in this discussion and hope that you will charitably allow for my intrusion.)

From my interpretation of the translation I read of Pope Francis’s words - Isn’t he trying to say just that - that we will meet them (atheists/non-believers) while we are both performing good works and it seems to me that someone already performing those works would then be more open to witnessing our joy in the Lord as we do the same work, providing (hopefully) a living example that there is even more beyond the feel-good benefits of the good work itself, and thus, perchance leading them to question their own non-belief? (Yes, ouch, I know, run-on question!)

I guess what I’m trying to say is shouldn’t the focus be more on the process Pope Francis is proposing? Sorry, I’ve been on both sides (believer, non-believer, back to believer) and the idea of eternal salvation never played a part in my return - but love and positive examples certainly did. Even now, nothing makes me want to skip mass more than someone telling me I’ll go to hell if I don’t go. Nothing makes me want to go to mass more than be able to experience community while celebrating God’s mercy and love through the presence of his Son.
 
Someone can object, “‘But I don’t believe, Father, I’m an atheist.’ But do good and we’ll meet there,” he said. ~ Pope Francis.

I think it was intended as a “meeting point and we’ll go from there.” I don’t think His Holiness meant, “we’ll meet in Heaven.” Don’t we need common ground before we can bridge the gap?

I remember when I was a child in about 7th grade or so… our social studies teacher said that any of us could be president. I don’t recall her saying all of us would be president.

Jesus died so all of us can go to Heaven (REDEMPTION). Will we all go to Heaven…(SALVATION)?
 
Someone can object, “‘But I don’t believe, Father, I’m an atheist.’ But do good and we’ll meet there,” he said. ~ Pope Francis.

I think it was intended as a “meeting point and we’ll go from there.” I don’t think His Holiness meant, “we’ll meet in Heaven.” Don’t we need common ground before we can bridge the gap?
I think you are very much correct in your interpretation. I believe the comment was about the establishment of common ground. “Let’s do some good in this world together, and perhaps we can see that the other is not some lunatic in the process…”. 🙂

His Holiness certainly knows scripture well enough that he would never dismiss the importance of Faith in salvation.
 
(FWIW - I fully admit to being WAY out of my depth in this discussion and hope that you will charitably allow for my intrusion.)

From my interpretation of the translation I read of Pope Francis’s words - Isn’t he trying to say just that - that we will meet them (atheists/non-believers) while we are both performing good works and it seems to me that someone already performing those works would then be more open to witnessing our joy in the Lord as we do the same work, providing (hopefully) a living example that there is even more beyond the feel-good benefits of the good work itself, and thus, perchance leading them to question their own non-belief? (Yes, ouch, I know, run-on question!)

I guess what I’m trying to say is shouldn’t the focus be more on the process Pope Francis is proposing? Sorry, I’ve been on both sides (believer, non-believer, back to believer) and the idea of eternal salvation never played a part in my return - but love and positive examples certainly did. Even now, nothing makes me want to skip mass more than someone telling me I’ll go to hell if I don’t go. Nothing makes me want to go to mass more than be able to experience community while celebrating God’s mercy and love through the presence of his Son.
As the poster right after you noted as well, I think you are correct in your interpretation. I think the thread got off that way because some were interpreting this differently than the Holy Father intended.

As for the rest, I have been in similar situations. I went from atheist, to deist, to Christian deist, to Catholic. So, I have seen the transition first hand and am quite comfortable saying that with my past there is no chance in the world for me without the sacraments.

I also know what you mean about being pushed or backed into a corner. I don’t think we should evangelize from a position of “you are going to go to Hell”, that never works, or at least rarely. Rather, as you suggested, we should be so on fire for God that others will want what we have. However, we should always proclaim the truth in the process and if someone asks the question, we should be prepared with an answer, even if it is an answer that they aren’t going to like. It isn’t charitable at all to soften things or skew them, and I know that isn’t what you were suggesting anyway.
 
Semantics, Jason. “I do not see how one can rationally argue that we can have any sort of reasonable expectation in the salvation of those who are in such a state.”

My apologies for using the shorter synonym “impossible” rather than the longer version as you stated above.
Reasonable expectation does not mean impossible, nor does what I said in the post you actually quoted from, which was “remote possibility”. Furthermore, I said “I do not see how…” not, “it is impossible…”. In addition, throughout this thread I have been consistent that we cannot always know where God will decide to share His grace. However, based upon the councils, the writings of the Fathers, Popes, Doctors, theologians, etc. I am at the conclusion that atheists who due to sin, have their intellects darkened to the point that they cannot see truth for what it is, or those who have violated the natural law, stand a poor chance of salvation, which is why we must evangelize. I have seen nothing even remotely compelling suggesting otherwise.

So it is nuanced, I’ll grant you that. But no, it isn’t just semantics.

Please do me the courtesy of quoting my posts properly, and I will endeavor to do the same for you. That seems fair enough.
 
Reasonable expectation does not mean impossible, nor does what I said in the post you actually quoted from, which was “remote possibility”. Furthermore, I said “I do not see how…” not, “it is impossible…”

So it is nuanced, I’ll grant you that. But no, it isn’t just semantics.

Please do me the courtesy of quoting my posts properly, and I will endeavor to do the same for you. That seems fair enough.
Then may I ask that you quote me correctly? Note my use of the word “almost” impossible, which was the entire thrust of your thesis here, and was understood to be your premise by Vouthon, also.
40.png
Vouthon:
In theory therefore it is possible for atheists to receive salvation. How many do is a different topic (you may legitimately argue very few) but to deny the possibility is in conflict with church doctrine as it has developed.
40.png
Sirach2:
I’m in agreement with Vouthon, however; it is not our business to judge or to proffer such ideas of God’s mercy in a narrow, almost impossible chance of salvation. Is this how you would evangelize?
 
Hello! I basically understand this entire homily and what it means except one part where he says:
Someone can object, “‘But I don’t believe, Father, I’m an atheist.’ But do good and we’ll meet there,” he said.
You have been exposed to an article that is not faithfully representing the Pope’s true message. Look at the distortion here in blue:
Huffington Post: “The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”… We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

Vatican Radio:
The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.** If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there."**

The meaning of “there” is more clear in his actual homily. We’ve seen a lot of hullabaloo here at CAF over an incomplete reporting of what he really said.
 
Thanks, Huffington Post. If it wasn’t for this article, I have no idea what we’d talk about…

Seriously, I don’t think I REALLY knew before now what the difference was between redemption and salvation. Pope Francis, this story, and CAF helped me to learn something. Thank you.
 
Then may I ask that you quote me correctly? Note my use of the word “almost” impossible, which was the entire thrust of your thesis here, and was understood to be your premise by Vouthon, also.
I did quote you correctly. As you can see in in the post where I asked you to quote me correctly, I was referring to this quote, rather than the one where you said “almost”. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10785931&postcount=81. Here, again, is the quote I responded to:
Therefore, saying that it is an impossible situation for salvation unless there is perfect contrition or the absolution of the sacrament, is ascribing to oneself the judging that should be God’s alone.
 
Are you finished derailing yet? Two of us understood you in that light, but if you feel you were misunderstood, I think you’ve made it abundantly clear.
So let me get this straight:
  1. You quote me incorrectly after getting on other people for doing that to you
  2. I point it out
  3. You say I am wrong
  4. I provide evidence otherwise using your own quotes to prove it
  5. I am somehow the bad guy.
Well that makes a bunch of sense. Very rational.

Regardless, I am done conversing with you. I will be placing you on my ignore list, so if you have anything to say to me, I won’t see it. Have a great day.
 
All I’ll say is that it has been fun dealing with all the “why do you Catholics even need to go to mass then?” and “lol I can get into heaven without all that church garbage you have to do” type comments on forums I read.

Good times. Mr. Akins’ blog post has been helpful, but still. 😑
 
Don’t you show the enormity of the myopia that heaven is so easy to attain? So the myopic are living in a fool’s paradise.
 
“Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics”

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

I think there is a bandwagon assuming he’s talking about universal salvation, rather than simply stating - I as understand it (and is mentioned in the article) - the central Christian belief that Jesus died for everyone’s sins.

Have I understood this right?
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created.

“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”, he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the cause was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him. He ran as fast as he could. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that moment, the Atheist cried out “Oh my God!..” Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, “You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don’’’'t exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?”

The atheist looked directly into the light “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?” “Very well,” said the voice.

The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the bear dropped his right paw … brought both paws together in prayer…bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

Harry:👋
 
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods, admiring all that evolution had created.

“What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”, he said to himself. As he was walking along the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. When he turned to see what the cause was, he saw a 7-foot grizzly charging right towards him. He ran as fast as he could. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing, He ran even faster, crying in fear. He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. His heart was pounding and he tried to run even faster. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up, but saw the bear right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that moment, the Atheist cried out “Oh my God!..” Time stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent. Even the river stopped moving.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky, “You deny my existence for all of these years; teach others I don’’’'t exist; and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?”

The atheist looked directly into the light “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as Christian now, but perhaps could you make the bear a Christian?” “Very well,” said the voice.

The light went out. The river ran again. And the sounds of the forest resumed.

And then the bear dropped his right paw … brought both paws together in prayer…bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, for this food which I am about to receive, I am truly thankful.”

Harry:👋
Cute joke. 😃

Thanks,
 
“Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics”

huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html

I think there is a bandwagon assuming he’s talking about universal salvation, rather than simply stating - I as understand it (and is mentioned in the article) - the central Christian belief that Jesus died for everyone’s sins.

Have I understood this right?
Since an Atheists denys God, they cannot be saved, no matter how good they are. They must believe in A God. A Higher Power. The goods they do is from self, and not from God.

From Swedenborg’s True Christian Religion 14
Whoever does not acknowledge A God is excommunicated from the church and condemned. Whoever does not acknowledge a God is excommunicated from the church, because God is the all of the church; and Divine things which are called theological are what constitute the church; consequently a denial of God is a denial of all things pertaining to the church; and this denial is what excommunicates the man; thus he is excommunicated not by God, but by himself. And he stands condemned because he who is excommunicated from the church is also excommunicated from heaven; since the church on earth and the angelic heaven make one, like the internal and the external or the spiritual and the natural in man; and man was so created by God that in respect to his internal he might be in the spiritual world and in respect to his external in the natural world; consequently he was created a native of both worlds, in order that the spiritual which belongs to heaven might be implanted in the natural, which belongs to the world, just as seed is planted in the ground; and that man might thus become fixed and endure to eternity.

The man who has excommunicated himself from the church and thus from heaven by a denial of God has closed up in himself his internal man in respect to his will and its genial love; for man’s will is the receptacle of his love, and becomes its dwelling-place. But he cannot close up his internal man in respect to its understanding, for if he could and did he would be man no longer. Nevertheless, his will’s love infatuates with falsities the higher faculties of the understanding; and in consequence the understanding becomes closed to the truths pertaining to faith and the goods pertaining to charity; thus more and more against God, and also against the spiritual things of the church. Such a man is shut out from communion with the angels of heaven, and when so shut out he enters into communion with the satans of hell, and thinks like them; and all satans deny God, and think foolishly about God and the spiritual things of the church; and in the same way does the man think who is conjoined with them.

When such a man is in his spirit, as he is when left privately to himself, he suffers his thoughts to be led by the delights of evil and falsity which he has conceived and brought forth in himself; and he then thinks that God has no existence, but is merely a word uttered from the pulpit to hold the common people in obedience to the laws of justice, which are, the laws of society. He also thinks the Word, from which ministers proclaim a God, to be a mass of missionary tales, which have been made holy by authority, and the Decalogue or catechism to be merely a little book to be thrown aside when it has been well worn out by the hands of little boys, since it teaches that parents ought to be honored, forbids murder, adultery, theft, and false witness; and who does not learn the same things from civil law? He thinks of the church as an assembly of simple, credulous, and weak-minded people, who see what they see not. He thinks of man, and of himself as a man, as being like a beast, and of life after death as of the life of a beast after death.

Thus does his internal man think, however differently his external man may speak. For, as just said, every man has an internal and an external; and it is the internal that makes the man, that is, the spirit, which is what lives after death; while the external, in which by a semblance of morality he plays the hypocrite, is laid in the grave; and on account of his denial of God the man then stands condemned. In respect to his spirit every man is associated in the spiritual world with his like, and becomes as one of them. It has frequently been granted me to see there in societies the spirits of men still living, some in angelic and some in infernal societies, and also to converse with them for days; and I have wondered how the man himself while still living in the body could be wholly ignorant of this. Thus was it made clear that he who denies God is even now among the damned, and that after death he is gathered to his own.

Harry:wave:
 
Will someone please explain the difference between ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ to me?

I looked up the definitions for both and they sound the same to me :confused:
re·demp·tion
Noun
The action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil.
Synonyms
ransom - salvation
sal·va·tion
Noun
Deliverance from sin and its consequences.
Synonyms
rescue - saving - deliverance - redemption - escape
As you see Google definition is almost the same… and both are synonyms of each other.

Since some of you are saying there’s a distinction, help me out with the distinction?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top