You are right. There was an attempt to explain which brought more confusion. His message was incomplete,non-Catholics are redeemed, and the missing part ofthe message, if restricted to past teachings, still go to hell. He couldn’t say that because the Chruch no longer believes that to the be case. The pope can not say that the Church has changed it’s teaching or that would deny papal infallibility.You keep talking about “defending the Pope”. No, this is not about defending the Pope. This is about clarification so as to send the correct message about Church teaching. It appears that the whole world is having some sort of discussion about this particular homily. Our Pope’s homilies are spread throughout the world daily. Whether you think it shouldn’t matter to the rest of the world because it’s technically a “homily” is irrelevant. It apparently does matter. What is relevant is that the world is getting the WRONG message. If our Church is so concerned about evangelization, then here is the perfect opportunity to evangelize those who misunderstand. WHY DOESN’T IT??
Again, how can you deny the difference between “No salvation outside the Church” NO EXCEPTIONS even for a martyr in the name of Christ, with the new?I think ConstantineTG’s link to the Orthodox priests at the beginning of this thread and the one where I cited continuity with Pope Benedict and historic Church teachings really does answer the question. The comment Pope Francis made was completely in line with Church Tradition and teachings and some of the discussions are wandering way off the path into speculative questions of theology on an unrelated issue.
Pope Francis’ comments were in relation to the Gospel reading of Mark concerning some preaching the gospel of Jesus who were not of Jesus’ group. He spoke on the fact that all are redeemed (even if only many are saved). There is nothing new or novel about it. He was picking up right where Pope B left off.
SCC
Thanks for this.When I first reverted back to Catholicism, my faith was very experience oriented. I had a profound experience of God and began to come back out of a sense of joy. All was very joyful and reassuring, which is fine- for a time.
I have found that whenever my comfort zone in the faith is challenged, pain results, and growth from that. And usually I find that I have not been truly following the Christian life, have not been listening to the Church, not accepting what is being proposed but rather imposing my own views first, cause they are comfortable and reassuring for me.
Contraception is one such issue.
Alms-giving is another big one where I put my own feelings about societal problems ahead of Church teaching.
Paying to Caesar what is due to him is another.
General obedience…I am comfortable obeying just so much.
In my experience, if I’m comfortable in the faith and feeling like I have answers to all the problems, I am needing God’s corrective action. And he always comes through in some way.
I attempt to always give the Church…my pastor, catechists, up to the Pope… the benefit of the doubt if I don’t understand something, cause my salvation depends on my being in communion with the Church. It is so simple but so hard to do.
Or,…maybe the Church really has never changed her teachings. She has just really started to see and understand what she actually it teaching.You are right. There was an attempt to explain which brought more confusion. His message was incomplete,non-Catholics are redeemed, and the missing part ofthe message, if restricted to past teachings, still go to hell. He couldn’t say that because the Chruch no longer believes that to the be case. The pope can not say that the Church has changed it’s teaching or that would deny papal infallibility.
JMJ
Well, then, what am I worried about? This cinches it for me.Did anyone see this article (love that title!) posted on a Catholic website?
catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
At least there are some people in the comments trying to clear it up.Did anyone see this article (love that title!) posted on a Catholic website?
catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
So exactly when did the Church realize/decide it wasn’t just physical membership? It seems like it happened overnight. It took over 2,000 years for the Holy Spirit to clarify this, very critical tenet of the Catholic Church?Hi JMJCatholic- the Church did not change the doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Church. That remains true. Anyone who is saved, is saved through Christ’s body here on earth, the Church. There is a great explanation of this by Dr. Fastiggio (it is about 1/3 of the way through the mp3).
stanastasia.libsyn.com/that_all_may_be_one_q_a
That’s right. Why do I bother being Catholic? Pffft.Well, then, what am I worried about? This cinches it for me.
Did Church teaching change or are Pope Francis’ words giving the impression that it did?From Baltimore Catechism No. 4:
If you are in a state of mortal sin you lose the merit of any good works you perform. God promises to reward us for good works, and if we are in the state of grace when we do the good works, God will keep His promise and give us the reward; but if we are in mortal sin, we have no right or claim to any reward for good works, because we are enemies of God.
Isn’t this quite different from what we understand today? I do not bring this up because I disagree with Pope Francis, only more support for the fact that Church teaching has changed.
JMJ
We have the consolation of the Holy Spirit that it will all work out to God’s good pleasure, that truth is truth and doesn’t change. The question that is hard to swallow isBut what if one feels uncomfortable about Church leadership, or (potential) changes to Church doctrine, or doubts about the validity of the Church etc. This kind of discomfort doesn’t motivate me to live a more Christian life, it just pulls me away. So how this kind of discomfort be good, or can it?
I don’t think the above explanation would be comprehensible to the average Catholic, and not due to poor catechesis, as was stated; hence the need for clarity and consistency.JMJ, I think you misunderstand the CCC. You cited 1741 to make a point that I don’t think the CCC was making. 1741 is in the section on the Catechism titled “Man’s Freedom / Human Freedom in the Economy of Salvation” making it clear that the freedom in 1741 is separate from the salvation. In fact, 1741 on “Freedom and Grace” make the point that the two ideas are not in conflict properly understood. In fact, the entire discussion on freedom in this section in specifically in line with the language of redemption so that man has the freedom to make freewill choices like, for example, to accept or not accept God’s free gift of faith. This point is made more explicit as that section of the catechism continues but 1744 states it well: “Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one’s own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good.”
A fuller reading of that portion of the Catechism would help bring greater context to what is meant by “freedom” from a CCC perspective.
Because you love God, for who he is, not for what he can do for you. You love God because he is God, and you are in a loving realtionship with him. And the Catholic Church offers the fullest experience and expression of this relationship.That’s right. Why do I bother being Catholic? Pffft.
I didn’t mean it clem. Of course I’ll remain Catholic for all of what you said … and MORE.Because you love God, for who he is, not for what he can do for you. You love God because he is God, and you are in a loving realtionship with him. And the Catholic Church offers the fullest experience and expression of this relationship.
842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin… All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth…Could someone show me where the Catechism states that the un-baptized are “children of God”?