The Lord has redeemed all of us....Pope Francis

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One point, in relation to the OP’s question and the possible contradictory tone of the Pope’s recent sermon with, for example, Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, in the 1400’s could be: (My apologies, as this is not worded well - but I hope you get where I’m coming from).

In the 1400’s, as there was only one Christian church the guidance given to the Pope(s), by the Holy Spirit, would no doubt be a ‘hard sell’, so as to ensure as many as possible belonged to the church. As, missionary work would not be as wide spread due to travel and communication restrictions - specifically so,when compared to the 21st century, if a Pope had been more liberal in his wording of sermons in the 1400’s, there would no doubt be NO Catholic church. At that time, in history, there was extreme poverty, much shorter life spans of people, extremely limited access to churches/literature/priests/religious knowledge, etc, which continued up to the 19th/early 20th century. Hence a hard hitting message of repent and convert or die would be more in the order of the day. Today the greater percentage of people now have access to God’s word in some shape or form, so Pope Francis’s message is using the more ‘softly, softly’ approach.

The above theory could be compared to Jesus’s words in relation to marriage and divorce and the differences between the OT/NT teachings.

Matthew 19: They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss [her]?” 8He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9e I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” *
 
Speaking of separated brethren, maybe someone here can help me put my hands on something (I know not what) that Pope Leo XIII wrote in which he said that we could no longer call persons who grew up in communities separated from the Church “heretics” or “schismatics”. this was mentioned in a speech given by Sister Sarah Butler M.S.B.T. at Dunwoodie Seminary and appeared in a recent edition of Catholic New York.

Unfortunately, Sister Butler does not say where or when Pope Leo said this. Does anyone here know?
 
Thomas_Casey said:
MODERATOR NOTICE

The Holy Father is NOT
  1. A child
  2. An ignorant man
  3. A heretic
  4. Our employee
  5. Our subordinate
  6. Our student
The Holy Father has the right to
  1. Preach
  2. Use language that he finds effective for the audience
  3. Ignore what you and I think about his sermon
  4. Be respected as any other priest is respected
There will always be
  1. Confusion
  2. Misinterpretation
  3. Misrepresentation
Even if the Holy Father said that 2 + 2 still equals 4

Therefore, limit your discussion to asking and answering questions about the sermon, not questioning the pope, attempting to tell the world what you think he should have said and how he should have said, and without second guessing the man.

If you can’t do that, please do not post on this thread or you will be permanently banned and the thread may be closed.

No more warnings.

People want to read threads where they find answers, not where they find people attacking each other.
Click to expand...
I just saw this, and I don’t think I am capable of complying. Not that I wouldn’t comply purposely, but the way I would word a comment might suggest that I was doing either one or many or all of the things we are forbidden to do.

Henceforth, I will lurk.
 
Tigg said:
Simple Soul:

From the Eucharistic Prayer of the Church at the consecration of the wine:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.

(Note that it says many, not all.)

“A revision occurred with the new translation of the Holy Mass and replaces “for all” with “for many.” which is a better translation of the original Latin phrase, “pro multis.” Isaiah 53:12 prophesied that the Messiah would take away “the sins of many,” and Christ Himself also said His Blood would be shed for “many” (Mt 26:28, Mk 14:24). Christ died for ****all ****humanity, but each individual must also accept and abide in the grace won by Christ in order to **attain **eternal life. The recovery of the wording, “for many,” affirms that salvation is not completely automatic.”

I hope this helps you sort it all out. You know, SS, that many of the saints did not fully understand their catechism (like St. Bernadette) and were illiterate. And just look at the Cure 'd Ars, St. John Vianney, who almost was unable to become a priest because he didn’t understand his Latin and struggled so with his studies. It was only his deep love of Christ and the desire to be a priest that he was ordained. Perhaps it would behoove you to assent to the faith, rather than try to struggle with understanding it all. God would be greatly pleased with that, I’m certain and I suspect He would send His Spirit upon you to help you gradually understand since Understanding is a gift of the Holy Spirit. 👍.
Click to expand...
Actually the Greek would translate to “the multitude”, meaning all. I guess a closer English translation would be “everybody”.

The original is not Latin, it is Greek. None of the New Testament (or even OT) were originally written in Latin.
 
This was posted to me on another thread, in light of all that was discussed here, I think it is important to see what the church says about this:

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott

Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

In the Caput Firmiter, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved” (extra quam nullus omnino salvatur). D 430. This was the teaching also of the Union Council of Florence (D 714), and of Popes Innocent III (0 42)) and Boniface VIII in the Bull ‘Unam sanctam’ (D 468), Clement VI (D 570 b), Benedict XIV (D 1473), Pius IX (0 1647, 1677), Leo XI1I, Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis"

As against modern religious indifferentism, Pius IX declared: “By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it, will perish in the flood. Nevertheless equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord" (D 1647). The last proposition holds out the possibility that people who in point of fact (actu) do not belong to the Church can achieve salvation.

The necessity for belonging to the Church is not merely a necessity of precept (necessitas praccepti), but also a necessity of means (nee. medii), as the comparison with the Ark, the means of salvation from the biblical flood, plainly shows. The necessity of means is, however, not an absolute necessity, but a hypothetical one. In special circumstances, namely, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapability, actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly present, but can also be included in the moral readiness faithfully to fulfill the will of God. In this manner also those who are in fact outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.

Christ ordained affiliation to the Church by founding the Church as an institution unto salvation for all men. He endowed the Apostles with His authority, gave them a universal mandate to teach and baptize and made eternal salvation dependent on the acceptance of His teaching and the reception of Baptism. Luke 10, 16; Mt. 10, 40; 18, 17; 29,19; Mk.16, 15 et seq. That those who, in innocent ignorance, do not know the true Church of Christ, but who are nevertheless ready to bow to the demands of the Divine Will, will not be cast out, springs from the Divine Justice, and from the doctrine of God’s general will of salvation, which is clearly proved in the Scriptures. (1 Tim. 2, 4). The Apostles teach the necessity of the Church for salvation by promulgating Faith in Christ and His Gospel as a condition for salvation. Peter confesses before the High Council: “Neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4, 12). Cf Gal. I, 8; Tit. 3, 10 et seq.; 2 John 10 et seq.

It is the unanimous conviction of the Fathers that salvation cannot be achieved outside the Church. This principle was extended not only to pagans but to heretics and schismatics as well. St. Irenaeus teaches that: “in the efficacy of the spirit all those have no part, who do not hasten to the Church; rather they, by their evil teaching and their evil deeds, rob themselves of life. For where the Church is, there is also the spirit of God, and where the spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Adv. haer. III 24, I). Origen formally declares: “Outside the Church nobody will be saved” (extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur; In Jesu Nave hom. 3, 5); similarly St. Cyprian: “Outside the Church there is no salvation" (salus extra ecciesiam non est; Ep. 73, 21). The Fathers, for example, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, regard, as types of the necessity of the Church for salvation, the saving Ark of Noah and the House of Rahab OOS. 2, 18 et seq.). In the Primitive Church the conviction of her necessity for salvation found practical expression in her missionary zeal, in the readiness of her children to suffer martyrdom and in her battle against heresy.

In view of the stress laid upon the necessity of membership of the Church for salvation it is understandable that the possibility of salvation for those outside the Church is mentioned only hesitantly. St. Ambrose and St. Augustine admit that catechumens who depart this life before the reception of Baptism can win salvation on the ground of their faith, their desire for Baptism, and their internal conversion (St. Ambrose, De obitu Val. 51; St. Augustine, De hapt. IV 22,29). On the other hand, Gennadius of Marseilles denies them this possibility, except in the case of martyrdom (De eccl. Dogm. 74). St. Augustine distinguishes also, not indeed using the terminology, between material and formal heretics. Thus he does regard material heretics as heretics properly so-called (Ep. 43, I, I). He seems to estimate their possibility of salvation otherwise than he does that of heretics proper.

St. Thomas, agreeing with Tradition, teaches the general necessity of the Church for salvation. Expos. symb. a. 9. On the other hand, he concedes that a person may be saved extrasacramentally by baptism of desire and therefore the possibility of salvation without actual membership of the Church by reason of a desire to be a member of the Church. S. th. III 68, 2.

As against the reproach of intolerance a distinction must be made between dogmatic and civil tolerance. The Church rejects the dogmatic tolerance which would concede the same power of justification and the same value to all religions, or to all Christian confessions (Indifferentism); for there is only one truth. But the Church recognizes the propriety of civil tolerance, by preaching the commandment of neighborly charity towards all men, even those in error. Cf. the prayers of the Liturgy on Good Friday.
 
Jon_S said:
Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation.
Click to expand...
But Pope Francis wasn’t talking about salvation, he was talking about redemption.

Here is what St. Athanasius the Great wrote in “On the Incarnation”

He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But Pope Francis wasn’t talking about salvation, he was talking about redemption.

Here is what St. Athanasius the Great wrote in “On the Incarnation”

He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.
Click to expand...
I know Pope Francis was not talking about Salvation.

Many others on this thread though believe that he was.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The original is not Latin, it is Greek. None of the New Testament (or even OT) were originally written in Latin.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of the Roman Missal:

The Roman Missal is the book containing the prescribed prayers, chants, and instructions for the celebration of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. **Published first in Latin **under the title Missale Romanum, the text is then translated and, once approved by a recognitio by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is published in modern languages for use in local churches throughout the world. (USCCB)
 
Tigg said:
I was speaking of the Roman Missal:

The Roman Missal is the book containing the prescribed prayers, chants, and instructions for the celebration of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. **Published first in Latin **under the title Missale Romanum, the text is then translated and, once approved by a recognitio by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is published in modern languages for use in local churches throughout the world. (USCCB)
Click to expand...
Regardless, the Institution Narrative is taken from Scripture, thus the original meaning is from Biblical Scripture. They didn’t just make something up for the Missal. So to understand what the phrase means, we have to go back to the original context, which is Greek.
 
my thoughts are not unique, btw…i think it’s the catholics who came up with the idea of invincible ignorance…so i believe that everyone will be saved except for those who choose not to be.

to the poster who quoted Matthew 25 …you’re correct…so when evangelicals call such actions ‘dead works’ they should take it up with Jesus, not those who are serving God by servng their fellow humans.

As for why someone may go to Mass, it’s because it’s a comfort, there’s a specific joy in praying with others and praising the Lord, plenty of people go to Church even tho their religion has no mandate, they must be getting something out of it…
 
Margy1948 said:
my thoughts are not unique, btw…i think it’s the catholics who came up with the idea of invincible ignorance…so i believe that everyone will be saved except for those who choose not to be.

to the poster who quoted Matthew 25 …you’re correct…so when evangelicals call such actions ‘dead works’ they should take it up with Jesus, not those who are serving God by servng their fellow humans.

As for why someone may go to Mass, it’s because it’s a comfort, there’s a specific joy in praying with others and praising the Lord, plenty of people go to Church even tho their religion has no mandate, they must be getting something out of it…
Click to expand...
Your opinion may not be unique but it certainly is not in line with Catholic teaching.

😦
 
Tigg said:
I was speaking of the Roman Missal:

The Roman Missal is the book containing the prescribed prayers, chants, and instructions for the celebration of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. **Published first in Latin **under the title Missale Romanum, the text is then translated and, once approved by a recognitio by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is published in modern languages for use in local churches throughout the world. (USCCB)
Click to expand...
I think you mean the latter Missale Romanum, because (Old) Catholic Encyclopedia states that “Greek was first used at Rome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (see LITURGY OF THE MASS), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries.”
newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
 
Tigg said:
I was speaking of the Roman Missal:

The Roman Missal is the book containing the prescribed prayers, chants, and instructions for the celebration of Mass in the Roman Catholic Church. **Published first in Latin **under the title Missale Romanum, the text is then translated and, once approved by a recognitio by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is published in modern languages for use in local churches throughout the world. (USCCB)
Click to expand...
I have mentioned before that the point is moot, because whatever the missal says on this particular line, the Church holds that Christ died for all men - the contrary was one of the errors for which Jansenism was made a heresy.
 
After thinking about this for a week, it seems to me the problem is not really with confusion, it is with disbelief.
We have a hard time giving our assent to the fact that Christ redeems all people **regardless of merit. ** He has redeemed (purchased us back) from sin, all of us.
This is such a radical and counter-cultural idea that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around it. How can Christ give such an amazing offer to people who -in our minds- don’t deserve it? Doesn’t seem fair or just to us. This is not the way we naturally think. And it is not the way we treat each other most of the time. We tend to be selfish and suspicious. We hold back our gifts until we are sure they will not be abused. Christ is not like that. He gives without counting the cost. Why do we envy that?

The Pope is pictured as shooting from the hip in this talk, even by many Catholic commentators. But if you read the talk again, he knew exactly what he was saying, and the radical nature of what he was saying. Note he anticipates all these objections with the following rhetorical statements:
But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’
Click to expand...
Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’
Click to expand...
This is not some sloppy shoot from the hip talk. It cuts like a laser, it is on us to accept it for what it is. Francis demonstrates that he knew exactly what he was saying, and anticipates all these objections on the spot, preemptively. And we still somehow cannot bear to accept what he says at face value.
 
clem456 said:
After thinking about this for a week, it seems to me the problem is not really with confusion, it is with disbelief.
We have a hard time giving our assent to the fact that Christ redeems all people **regardless of merit. ** He has redeemed (purchased us back) from sin, all of us.
This is such a radical and counter-cultural idea that we have a hard time wrapping our minds around it. How can Christ give such an amazing offer to people who -in our minds- don’t deserve it? Doesn’t seem fair or just to us. This is not the way we naturally think. And it is not the way we treat each other most of the time. We tend to be selfish and suspicious. We hold back our gifts until we are sure they will not be abused. Christ is not like that. He gives without counting the cost. Why do we envy that?

The Pope is pictured as shooting from the hip in this talk, even by many Catholic commentators. But if you read the talk again, he knew exactly what he was saying, and the radical nature of what he was saying. Note he anticipates all these objections with the following rhetorical statements:

This is not some sloppy shoot from the hip talk. It cuts like a laser, it is on us to accept it for what it is. Francis demonstrates that he knew exactly what he was saying, and anticipates all these objections on the spot, preemptively. And we still somehow cannot bear to accept what he says at face value.
Click to expand...
So the face value of your quotes are that Atheists are capable of doing good deeds right??

That’s what he said
 
Jon_S said:
So the face value of your quotes are that Atheists are capable of doing good deeds right??

That’s what he said
Click to expand...
Not following you there. Can you put that in the context of his whole talk? The quotes in my post were not intended to convey the substance of the whole talk. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top