Pope: You don't have to believe in God to go to heaven

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:confused: The Pope said “God’s mercy has no limits”, I do not read anywhere that he said “You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven”.

Please correct me if I’m wrong!!!
 
My understanding of the Pope’s meaning is that a non-believer, like the well-known atheist to whom the letter is addressed, but also non-Christian believers (he mentions Jews in the letter) can be saved without converting, if:
  • their failure to convert is in good conscience, out of invincible ignorance,
  • they sincerely seek truth, do good, and avoid doing evil.
All who are saved are saved by Christ, but some who are saved do not realize, in loving and doing good for their neighbor, they are loving Christ and cooperating with His grace.

But the path of salvation is more difficult for non-Christian believers, and very difficult for non-believers. So it is not as if we have no advantage in our faith over those who do not believe. In the end, all who die in a state of grace will be united with God in Heaven.
 
Ron_Conte said:
…But the path of salvation is more difficult for non-Christian believers, and very difficult for non-believers. So it is not as if we have no advantage in our faith over those who do not believe. In the end, all who die in a state of grace will be united with God in Heaven.
Click to expand...
Building upon what you’re saying, it may well be that the Catholic Church is only advantageous for some.

This isn’t a perfect analogy, but we could compare it to a certain kind of education, beneficial to those who are wired to learn that way. Meanwhile, others grow more and learn more in a different kind of environment.
 
Ron_Conte said:
My understanding of the Pope’s meaning is that a non-believer, like the well-known atheist to whom the letter is addressed, but also non-Christian believers (he mentions Jews in the letter) can be saved without converting, if:
  • their failure to convert is in good conscience, out of invincible ignorance,
  • they sincerely seek truth, do good, and avoid doing evil.
All who are saved are saved by Christ, but some who are saved do not realize, in loving and doing good for their neighbor, they are loving Christ and cooperating with His grace.

But the path of salvation is more difficult for non-Christian believers, and very difficult for non-believers. So it is not as if we have no advantage in our faith over those who do not believe. In the end, all who die in a state of grace will be united with God in Heaven.
Click to expand...
I really like this post. There are just too many people I know who have a solid relationship with God who are not Christian for me to think otherwise. I don’t measure the worth of my Christianity by whether or not it gets me into heaven (it does) as much as by the benefits I am experiencing now- in this life- in my marriage and all other areas. It is Gods grace, now in my life that makes me follow Christ. Relationship with God is its own end, it is not a means to an end. My relationship with God has been increased and continues to increase through Christ.

I am an independant Christian however of the various forms of it I am most partial to the Orthodox and also the Catholic faiths. The reason is because of the saints- I want what they have and I want it in this life, I want that to benefit humanity. The saints and the experience they have with God are the only hope for humanity.

Also as a side note-- invincible ignorance is fed often by the arrogance, judgment, scandal, abuse, and dogmatic thinking of many many believers. I would say this is one of the great sins of religious people-- that while preaching Christ we often tend to contribute to insurmountable obstacles for those already positioned to find it difficult to believe. There is not nearly enough accountability in the hearts and minds of the faithful on this matter. It ought to weigh heavily on us all-- it does on me.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Well, funny you should ask…a buddy and I were discussing this very issue this morning.

I think there are possibilities. First, Francis himself could see that he is being misquoted in the press routinely, and he may learn to speak in soundbites that the press can understand. He’s not in Kansas anymore, and every word he speaks has the potential to be broadcast around the world in minutes if not seconds. All famous people learn to “handle” the press, but they often have a learning period during which they are misquoted and misunderstood.

A second possibility is that one of his confidants or someone with sufficient gravitas within the Curia might pull him aside and in a private, respectful manner suggest that he consider that the “low information” consumers of religious news are not sufficiently cognizant of the nuances of theology regarding the salvation of non-believers. Or any other issue. He would do well to choose his words very carefully to avoid screaming headlines. For example:

He washed the feet of a Muslim woman on Holy Thursday. That required background work.

He called the gay guy about something (I wasn’t paying attention then). That required clarification.

He says you don’t have to be a Christian to go to heaven. That will keep the Vatican communications office busy for a few days answering questions and clarifying Church teaching.

JPII kissed the Koran. Benedict had his Regensburg moment. For more on that: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture

My :twocents:?

Francis is going to have his moments. I hope they are fewer and less frequent going forward.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I think you’ve summed everything up pretty well. I only wonder if we don’t have a problem in the West (both Roman and Protestant) that we don’t hold our teachers and pastors responsible for their teaching and pastorate. The Orthodox churches have a very high doctrine of the priestly office, but woe betide an Orthodox bishop (even a Patriarch) who says things that sound unorthodox. I’m not saying that Francis is unorthodox at all (or, if he is, not anything close to the heterodoxy one sadly sees in certain part of the CofE and our American cousins), but surely someone should be calling him out on this. Surely the collegial bishops of the Catholic Church should be telling him that this kind of extempore, media-ignorant teaching will do harm to the preaching of the Church as a whole?
 
franklinstower said:
Also as a side note-- invincible ignorance is fed often by the arrogance, judgment, scandal, abuse, and dogmatic thinking of many many believers. I would say this is one of the great sins of religious people-- that while preaching Christ we often tend to contribute to insurmountable obstacles for those already positioned to find it difficult to believe. There is not nearly enough accountability in the hearts and minds of the faithful on this matter. It ought to weigh heavily on us all-- it does on me.
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council would seem to agree with that point:

“To the extent that they believers] neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.” [Second Vatican Council, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html”]Gaudium et Spes, n. 19.]
 
Well then we should take note of the popularity of the current pope among non-Catholics and understand simplicity is a winner.
 
ffg said:
Well then we should take note of the popularity of the current pope among non-Catholics and understand simplicity is a winner.
Click to expand...
The problem is, is he popular among non-Catholics because of his humility etc., or because they think (falsely) that he is confirming them in their lifestyle choices – e.g., unrepentant sodomy, unexamined atheism, etc.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top