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

[PJM]

=JMJCatholic;10784614]"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.”

I am still trying to reconcile the “No Salvation Outside the Church” as strictly interpreted in the past with recent interpretations as the one about by Pope Francis in the light of the teaching that doctrine cannot change, only develop. Would you consider the above a development of:

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the “eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may,** no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”**

JMJ

I JUST KNEW THIS WOULD MAKE THE FORUM

HERE’S THE DEAL FOLKS

WHAT DOES “REDEEMED” MEAN?

BY HIS BIRTH; LIFE, DEATH AND RESURRECTION CHRIST HAS REDEEMED THE ENTIRE WORLD!

THIS MEANS THAT HEAVENS ACCESS WHICH HAD BEEN BLOCKED BY THE SIN OF ADAM AND EVE WAS NOT OFFSET AND THE SOULS IN THE LIMBO OF THE FATHERS COULD NOT ACTUALLY ATTAIN THE BEATIFIC VISION.

PROTESTANTS AND UNDER EDUCATED JOURNALIST USE “REDEEM” AND “SAVIOR /SALVAION” AS SYNOMOUS TERMS, WHICH IS WHERE AND WHY THEY ARE SO VERY WRONG ON THERE INVENTED MEANS FOR ONES SALVATION.

AS WE CATHOLICS WOULD AND SHOULD EXPECT; OUR POPE IS RIGHT:thumbsup:CHRIST HAS REDEEMED THE ENTIRE WORLD; BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERYONE IS SAVED; OR THERE IS A NEW CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. NOT

 

[McCall1981]

Redemption and salvation go hand in hand, as several have described so well. It is similar to a “mental reservation” for Pope Francis to speak as he does in a spirit of joy and rejoicing that non-believers are redeemed, This is in distinct contradiction to emphasis by previous popes that redeemed non-Catholics are not saved (and some have said so in such severe and inhuman terms as to condemn to hell even a martyr in the name of Christ!)

JMJ

This is exactly why it is so easy for so many to be confused by what was said.

 

[Lucky7]

Redemption and salvation go hand in hand, as several have described so well. It is similar to a “mental reservation” for Pope Francis to speak as he does in a spirit of joy and rejoicing that non-believers are redeemed, This is in distinct contradiction to emphasis by previous popes that redeemed non-Catholics are not saved (and some have said so in such severe and inhuman terms as to condemn to hell even a martyr in the name of Christ!)

JMJ

OK, I think I see what you’re getting at here. I think you have certainly made a good point and perhaps it is this that also troubles me about this homily. Even though he does not say “saved” he does come across as if the redemption of atheists is enough (ie. the joy and rejoicing you alluded to). However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the exclamation points was not so much about joy and rejoicing but to make a strong statement that ALL (!!!) have been redeemed. So, I do not necessarily think that what he said/how he said it is a departure from Church teaching/a change in Church teaching. Although I can absolutely see why you are saying this. He still does not say that the atheist is saved.

ETA: But I do have to add that notice the clarity in Pope Eugene’s comments. No room for misunderstanding/confusion there.

 

[Kevin12]

OK, I think I see what you’re getting at here. I think you have certainly made a good point and perhaps it is this that also troubles me about this homily. Even though he does not say “saved” he does come across as if the redemption of atheists is enough (ie. the joy and rejoicing you alluded to). However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the exclamation points was not so much about joy and rejoicing but to make a strong statement that ALL (!!!) have been redeemed. So, I do not necessarily think that what he said/how he said it is a departure from Church teaching/a change in Church teaching. Although I can absolutely see why you are saying this. He still does not say that the atheist is saved.

ETA: But I do have to add that notice the clarity in Pope Eugene’s comments. No room for misunderstanding/confusion there.

I’m not so sure about that, since many people seem to misinterpret it as limiting God himself. But then again, some people think love and mercy are trifling things compared to tradition. Because, of course, Christ never challenged tradition in his own age or warned the faithful against those who made it the focus of their beliefs while neglecting what was really important.

 

[McCall1981]

OK, I think I see what you’re getting at here. I think you have certainly made a good point and perhaps it is this that also troubles me about this homily. Even though he does not say “saved” he does come across as if the redemption of atheists is enough (ie. the joy and rejoicing you alluded to). However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think the exclamation points was not so much about joy and rejoicing but to make a strong statement that ALL (!!!) have been redeemed. So, I do not necessarily think that what he said/how he said it is a departure from Church teaching/a change in Church teaching. Although I can absolutely see why you are saying this. He still does not say that the atheist is saved.

ETA: But I do have to add that notice the clarity in Pope Eugene’s comments. No room for misunderstanding/confusion there.

This is what I think too. What he said is perfectly orthodox, you just have to know the terms etc. The problem is the way it was said is just begging to misunderstood/misinterpreted.

 

[JMJCatholic]

For those who made comments that lack of clarity is due to poor catechesis, I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37 ‘’

JMJ

 

[Kevin12]

This is what I think too. What he said is perfectly orthodox, you just have to know the terms etc. The problem is the way it was said is just begging to misunderstood/misinterpreted.

Again, it was begging to be misinterpreted by those on both sides whose hearts aren’t in the right place.

 

[Lucky7]

For those who made comments that lack of clarity is due to poor catechesis, I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37 ‘’

JMJ

Well now, if that isn’t confusing (yay, more confusion!). Since the catechism is not infallible, I am going to say that that was unfortunately poorly worded. Christ won the possibility of salvation for all.

 

[Lucky7]

Again, it was begging to be misinterpreted by those on both sides whose hearts aren’t in the right place.

Wow. How do you know where peoples’ hearts are?

 

[JMJCatholic]

Well now, if that isn’t confusing (yay, more confusion!). Since the catechism is not infallible, I am going to say that that was unfortunately poorly worded. Christ won the possibility of salvation for all.

There’s more (confusion):

From Pope Francis’s Wednesday address in April:

“With Jesus’ resurrection,” he continued, “something entirely new occurs. We are freed from the bondage of sin and become children of God. That is, we are reborn to a new life. When does this happen for us? In the Sacrament of Baptism.

And back to the comments under discussion made by Pope Francis:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!

So in the first quote, we become children of God in the Sacrament of Baptism. In the second, it is the Blood of Christ which makes us “first class children of God”; no mention of Baptism.

JMJ

 

[McCall1981]

For those who made comments that lack of clarity is due to poor catechesis, I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free."34 In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free."35 The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."36 Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."37 ‘’

JMJ

Won salvation for all does not equal all are saved; its a potentiality. The Church does not teach universal salvation, and its not arguable.

 

[po18guy]

Well now, if that isn’t confusing (yay, more confusion!). Since the catechism is not infallible, I am going to say that that was unfortunately poorly worded. Christ won the possibility of salvation for all.

Everything contained in the “normal Magisterium” of the Church, i.e. the catechism, may be taken as infallible teaching. It is not dogma, but that is a difference only in degree of the declaration.

 

[Lucky7]

There’s more (confusion):

From Pope Francis’s Wednesday address in April:

“With Jesus’ resurrection,” he continued, “something entirely new occurs. We are freed from the bondage of sin and become children of God. That is, we are reborn to a new life. When does this happen for us? In the Sacrament of Baptism.

And back to the comments under discussion made by Pope Francis:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!

So in the first quote, we become children of God in the Sacrament of Baptism. In the second, it is the Blood of Christ which makes us “first class children of God”; no mention of Baptism.

JMJ

Actually, that doesn’t bother me. The reason why Baptism makes us children of God is because of the Blood of Christ. They go hand in hand.

HOWEVER, the latter comment makes it seem like atheists are first class children of God…even without baptism. And I don’t know about you but I was taught that baptism is what makes us children of God.

Uggh. I changed my mind. That upsets me too. In fact, I’m upset more than before.

 

[McCall1981]

There’s more (confusion):

From Pope Francis’s Wednesday address in April:

“With Jesus’ resurrection,” he continued, “something entirely new occurs. We are freed from the bondage of sin and become children of God. That is, we are reborn to a new life. When does this happen for us? In the Sacrament of Baptism.

And back to the comments under discussion made by Pope Francis:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, what about the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us first class children of God! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!

So in the first quote, we become children of God in the Sacrament of Baptism. In the second, it is the Blood of Christ which makes us “first class children of God”; no mention of Baptism.

JMJ

I think the first part is in reference to salvation/being in the Church, while the second part is about universal redemption/potential salvation.

But yeah, the problem is that we have to infer and guess, hence lots of confusion.

 

[Lucky7]

Everything contained in the “normal Magisterium” of the Church, i.e. the catechism, may be taken as infallible teaching. It is not dogma, but that is a difference only in degree of the declaration.

It looks like McCall explained the terminology, so it’s not poorly worded after all.

However, although the topics in the Catechism are based on infallible teachings, it is my understanding that the Catechism itself is not infallible (in other words, there could be typos, etc).

 

[po18guy]

Won salvation for all does not equal all are saved; its a potentiality. The Church does not teach universal salvation, and its not arguable.

Exactly. He has won it, but did not automatically award it to all. We must make our claim through our expressed faith and baptism. Even after that, we must still persevere to the end. Those who reject Him may repent and claim the rewards that Christ gained for them. Yet, for those who do not, they have thrown their salvation away. God forces nothing on us, being the Creator and Master of freedom.

 

[Lucky7]

Because they assumed that redeemed and saved are the same thing.

At Fr. Andrew’s blog post, he linked to an article by a Catholic, and I believe the title was “Why HuffPost shouldn’t be talking about theology”, or something like that. Look it up.

But all they did was what any non-catechized Catholic would do. I don’t blame them…this time.

 

[po18guy]

It looks like McCall explained the terminology, so it’s not poorly worded after all.

However, although the topics in the Catechism are based on infallible teachings, it is my understanding that the Catechism itself is not infallible (in other words, there could be typos, etc).

It is infallible in the truths it teaches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well now, if that isn’t confusing (yay, more confusion!). Since the catechism is not infallible, I am going to say that that was unfortunately poorly worded. Christ won the possibility of salvation for all.

That is the same thing, right? Christ won salvation for all, but we still have to do our part. Prior to the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection, Christ couldn’t have saved us, there was something in our human nature that necessitated for Him to become human like us for us to be saved. Like I said earlier, redemption is the first step, our salvation is at hand as Scripture says, but do we grab onto it or let go is the question each of us has to answer right now.

 

[Lucky7]

OK, so serious question:

Is it Catholic teaching that all people are children of God because they are redeemed by Christ? Or is it that we become children of God through baptism?

Because those are two very different things folks.