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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well for what it’s worth what helps me reconcil the two seemingly appossing truths is to first remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church so they must not really be apposings truths so I have tried to wrap my brain around it and what I have come to understand so far is that the Catholic Church encompasses more than I originally understood.
All Truth is found in the Catholic Church. If any one of us has a part of that Truth in us that we live by faithfully and continue to nurture and allow that little bit of Truth guide us and lead us into all Truth then we are all a part of the church. Some of us are in a more complete union with her than others. Think about it for a minute. Please! How many of us understand all Truth that is found in the Catholic Church. We will never fully understand everything untill we see the beautific vision and if we are seeing that then we are no longer here we have died and through some mirical made it into Heaven.

I don’t know if this helps is just the way I am beginning to understand how they may not be apposing Truths after all.
 
What helps a great deal is your honesty is recognizing that there is at least an apparent contradiction and that part of knowing and defending our Faith is to understand it.

JMJ
 
Forgive me for coming late the the thread - I have not read all of the posts. The issue has been complicated by a distorted article in Huffington Post. I read the true version this morning and share it now. Hopefully, it will clear up some questions that may have been posted.

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.
 
I don’t know. maybe I am just dense or something but to me it appeared that what the Holy father was saying was that the only thing that was necessary for salvation was good works or deeds.

If I misread what he said please explain it to me. I thought it took a lot more than just good deeds.

I mean if all it takes is good deeds, and those that only perform good deeds can be saved, then why believe in anything at all? Why jump through all the hoops that all organized religions have in the first place? Do good deeds and chill out.

I really don’t understand it at all, and trust me, I am a long way from the only one who doesn’t understand it.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Salvation vs. Redemption

Man has fallen to sin because of Adam and Eve. Due to the aftereffects of the Fall, man was beyond redemption. Our soul was incapable of being saved. Christ, by becoming man, who lived and died like all men, has redeemed us because He shared in our humanity so that we may share in his divinity. Now we are capable of receiving His grace and living with Him in heaven for all of eternity.

So redemption, as the blog post noted, is something that Christ did for all. When He died on the cross, He died for all. He died for Mary as much as he died for Hitler. But this was the redemption of man, as a whole. He redeemed our humanity, we became those who cannot be saved, to those who can be saved.

Now being saved is another matter. And that is salvation. Because we are redeemed, we can now be saved. But that now depends on us. Do we accept God’s love and grace? Do we live according to Christ’s commandments? Do we put our whole being into God’s hands?

Being redeemed doesn’t get you into heaven, being saved does. But you cannot be saved if you are not redeemed. So that is the first step and Christ did that for all. Now is the second step and it requires our cooperation.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Mike30 said:
I don’t know. maybe I am just dense or something but to me it appeared that what the Holy father was saying was that the only thing that was necessary for salvation was good works or deeds.

If I misread what he said please explain it to me. I thought it took a lot more than just good deeds.

I mean if all it takes is good deeds, and those that only perform good deeds can be saved, then why believe in anything at all? Why jump through all the hoops that all organized religions have in the first place? Do good deeds and chill out.

I really don’t understand it at all, and trust me, I am a long way from the only one who doesn’t understand it.
Click to expand...
We cannot take his words out of context, since he focused on he daily scripture reading, as is required of any pastor to expound in his homily.

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation."

Do you believe that God works through “actual grace” within all beings, inspiring them to do good? Isn’t this the message of the sheep versus the goats parable, that we do it unto Him? I don’t believe he is promoting a gospel of good works to the exclusion of all else. He is merely explaining the scripture of that day more profoundly. In conclusion, he said:

"Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”
 
JMJCatholic said:
What helps a great deal is your honesty is recognizing that there is at least an apparent contradiction and that part of knowing and defending our Faith is to understand it.

JMJ
Click to expand...
In the defence of a lot of good faithful Catholics they may not see a discrepency and so are left scratching their heads trying to figure out what people are talking about when they claim there is one.

The only reason I can understand something of what you are talking about is strickly through the grace of God and a lot of good holy souls. I just hope and pray I am understanding what you are seeing as apposing correctly.

My prayers are with every one here. I can feel the pain some souls are in trying to reconcile everyhing.I know we are all going through what I like to call labor pains in trying to wrap our brains around things of this nature. Remember to breath and please keep me in your prayers.
Remember to go to Him who reconciles everything unto, or is it into, Himself.
 
I think that Pope Francis is inclined to off-the-cuff comments that at times can be refreshing, but at times can lead to great confusion.

I can understand this thread drifting from its intended focus which is:

How does one reconcile the new teaching with the old. See my previous post which clearly shows how “infallible” teaching regarding the No Salvation Outside the Church has changed.

I can defend Pope Francis’s comments, as many of you have, and make sense of them. Yes, the Catholic Church can have the fullness of truth, and yes, the God we know, I feel safe to say, wound not condemn all non-Catholics to etermal torments of hell. Can one imagine, Hitler making a last second “conversion” out of fear of hell and is saved, yet his victims, the Jews, are all in hell?? This is twisted and diabolical.

So again, the original point of this post was to ask for help in reconciling the old doctrine with the new (and I know some insist on calling a total turn around a “development of doctrine”).

JMJ
 
ConstantineTG said:
Definitely. People miss the differentiation of redemption vs. salvation and thought that the Pope was talking about universalism, which is a heresy.

I know Pope Benedict got into a lot of this problems too, being a master Theologian he often used terms that are technical and often misinterpreted by the masses. But anyone who knows their theology knows that Pope Francis isn’t preaching heresy or changing Catholic doctrine, he has taught something the Church has taught since the beginning. People just assume it is something else, it is not his fault.
Click to expand...
I want to bring out another point here as well. The dynamic does go, as you point out, Redemption → Salvation, but there are other steps in between, that we cannot ignore. And some, I think, confuse some of these steps, to the peril of their souls.

Redemption → Conversion → Salvation.

And Conversion, also, has steps.

Conversion to Faith → Conversion from Sin.

This is the point that it seems to me our Protestant brothers and sisters miss. Heaven consists entirely in sinlessness, and sinlessness does not come about without our co-operation. There is no road to Heaven for any sinner that does not pass through Purgatory in one way or another. Now several of the Saints have explained that it is possible, and yes, desirable, to pass through Purgatory while still on Earth. The process of so doing is called Conversion from Sin. It entails suffering, because we are very attached to our sins, and when God gives us the grace to renounce them, it hurts us because of that attachment. But if we do not overcome our sins in this life through Conversion, they will be burned away from us in the next life, in Purgatory. It is not God’s Will that anyone should have to pass through the Fire in the next life; it is, rather, His Will that we should accept all of His graces, in this life, so that at the end of this life we can be brought directly to Heaven.

I very much like something I have encountered in Orthodox Theology regarding the reality of the next life. In the next life, we will encounter God directly. Those who love Him purely will be completely set afire with Love, and it will not hurt them at all, but rather make them shine like the stars. Those who love Him, but imperfectly, will experience all their imperfections being burned away in the Fire of His Love. And those who hate Him will, unfortunately, experience the burning of their own sins, forever, in Hell.

“Our God is a consuming Fire.”
 
ConstantineTG said:
But then we would reduce his homilies to simplistic preaching meant for unbelievers, which would then deprive the Catholics spiritual nourishment from their chief pastor.

I certainly wouldn’t want Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA to pull his punches on a homily. If he’s speaking to a general audience, then yes. But even with the knowledge that what he says can be put on the media, he should preach to an Orthodox crowd if he is preaching in a homily. The same for Pope Francis. This was a homily, it should be addressed to Catholics.
Click to expand...
The Pope, since he is the Pope, is always speaking to the whole world. Comes with the territory.
 
JMJ-

Read Srach’s post. The line that jumped out at me was " Jesus broadeneds the horizon" along with the rest of what he quoted should help. I pray it does.
 
Love4All said:
The Pope, since he is the Pope, is always speaking to the whole world. Comes with the territory.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with that. A homily is a homily, it is directed to the people inside that church at that time. Sure, you can take the homily and bring it to the world, but that doesn’t change the nature of a homily which is originally directed to the people attending the specific Liturgy it was preached.
 
=Lucky7;10784963]But that’s the thing. The Pope has got to know that his homilies get out there to the rest of the world. His intended audience is really “the world”.
Click to expand...
LETS BE CLEAR ON THIS;

OUR POPE DID NOTHING WRONG!

ALL HE DID WAS ARTICULATE A TEACHING THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HELD IF RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD.

WE CATHOLICS SAY THESE WORDS EVERY TIME WE PRAY THE STATIONS OF THE CROSS:

Leader; “We adore thee O Christ, and we bless thee”

**ALL:“Because by thy holy Cross you HAVE Redeemed the world” **

**The PROBLEM IS that All Protestant [and somesemingly underinformed catholics as well it would seem]; want to use the terms of **Redeemer and Savior interchangeably.

NO! They have seperate and seperated meanings:

Redemption applies to all humanity; past; present and future.

It’s primary reference as used, is the sacrifice of Christ was both sufficient too, and intended to reopen the Gate of heaven [for which Peter Alone has been granted the KEY]. Certainly it other applications as well; BUT is NOY synomous with Salvation/ Savior; even though BOTH roles are exclusively Jesus Christ/ God’s.

This the “Limbo of the Fathers” was no longer required.

Salvation is a seperate issue; highly conditional issue, and ONLY accomplished as Christ orders, commands and mandates. Not as mn-made religions would like it to be. Because there is but one faith; there can be and IS in God’s view; only His Own One set of Faith beliefs, entrusted, guided and guarded through the ONLY church He founded.

Mt. 10:18
Mt, 16:15-19
Mt. 18:18
Jn.14:16-17
Jn.20:21-22
Mk. 16:15-15
Mt. 28:18-20
and Jn.17:15-19 verify and support what I just shared.👍

AGAIN: Pope Francis did NOTHING WRONG or even new. It is the Secular Press, who like sharks smelling cut-bait blood; and lacking right understanding but making up for it with malice [IMO] that is the REAL issue here.

They wish to asume as do Protestants that both terms means identically the same thing. It’s NOT biblical, and it’s not true.🙂

God Bless,
Pat /PJM
 
*The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

At the same time, Rosica writes, “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”*

Is the above a CLARIFICATION??

"No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin."

JMJ
 
Tigg said:
Sorry to be so nit picky, but it would be nice if they first even believed in God! 🤷
Click to expand...
Go ahead and pick, no bother.
So, are you saying that God does not “will the good of” (this is Aquinas’ definition of love) atheists?
They must first believe in him, then he will love them?
Or does he love them, and because he loves them, they can move towards him?
 
JMJCatholic said:
I think that Pope Francis is inclined to off-the-cuff comments that at times can be refreshing, but at times can lead to great confusion.

I can understand this thread drifting from its intended focus which is:

How does one reconcile the new teaching with the old. See my previous post which clearly shows how “infallible” teaching regarding the No Salvation Outside the Church has changed.

I can defend Pope Francis’s comments, as many of you have, and make sense of them. Yes, the Catholic Church can have the fullness of truth, and yes, the God we know, I feel safe to say, wound not condemn all non-Catholics to etermal torments of hell. Can one imagine, Hitler making a last second “conversion” out of fear of hell and is saved, yet his victims, the Jews, are all in hell?? This is twisted and diabolical.

So again, the original point of this post was to ask for help in reconciling the old doctrine with the new (and I know some insist on calling a total turn around a “development of doctrine”).

JMJ
Click to expand...
We did get away from your original question, didn’t we? Sorry about that.

Huh. Well. Um. I do think it seems as if there is a change in doctrine (although I am not convinced that there was one.) This particular doctrine and how it is taught (or rather not taught) post Vatican II does give me pause and I definitely struggle with it. It seemed pretty clear that in the past if you weren’t an actual member of the Catholic Church you were not saved (except for baptism by blood and desire). Now it seems as if you can be saved but it is through Christ and his Catholic Church that saves you anyway…even if you never really accepted either one. :confused: Talk about confusion.

Although you are trying to reconcile the (supposed) change in teaching, it sounds like you are happy with the “change”. On the other hand, if doctrine has changed, I find that very upsetting because Church teaching is that church doctrine does not change. So, if it did, then what does that mean???

For you the “new” teaching is better because it is softer and more understanding, etc. However, Catholic teachings have never been easy. Why would a hard teaching such as Outside the Church there is No Salvation all of a sudden be any different than any other hard, Catholic teaching?

Now, people will come in here and explain how the doctrine did not change, but developed (and again, I’m not completely convinced of either side)…that ultimately the Church still teaches that the Catholic Church is the surest way to Heaven and that the Church needs to still fulfill its mission and obligation to evangelize the world.

However, what continues to bother me is that it’s rare that you actually hear Church leaders speak as if one should be Catholic. Instead we get confusing homilies (from the parish level all the way up) that lead folks to believe that you don’t have to be Catholic and perception is everything. So which is it? Should we be striving to convert others to the Catholic religion, or not? Does it make a difference whether we are Catholic or not?

The fact that the answer to the question is not made clear in our Church concerns me greatly even if others are annoyed by my concerns.
 
JMJCatholic said:
How does one reconcile the new teaching with the old. See my previous post which clearly shows how “infallible” teaching regarding the No Salvation Outside the Church has changed.

JMJ
Click to expand...
There is no new truth. There is development of the understanding of the truth. Keep in mind the Church is composed of human beings, who have finite understanding, so it should be no surprise that the fullness of truth is continually being understood more fully.

There is no salvation outside of the Church. That has not changed. Everyone in heaven is in communion with Christ and his Church. That doesn’t mean they necessarily professed Catholicism during their life.
And not everyone who is a card carrying Catholic will attain heaven. (personally, that gives me a healthy sense of fear)
 
JMJCatholic said:
*The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

At the same time, Rosica writes, “every man or woman, whatever their situation, can be saved. Even non-Christians can respond to this saving action of the Spirit. No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin.”*

Is the above a CLARIFICATION??

"No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin."

JMJ
Click to expand...
LOL…yep, this is what I’m talking about.

And “so-called” original sin???

Doesn’t this anger anyone but me?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top