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

[Love4All]

He could have prepared something worthy of a doctorate dissertation and it can still be interpreted poorly. People can believe what they want to believe regardless of what is presented before them. He or any of us can’t worry about this too much. We can’t prepare for all eventualities, someone somewhere will always find something to criticize.

I think Papa Francis very wisely trusts in God. Real trust in God removes an awful lot of worry.

 

[Tigg]

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.

Just some thoughts I received in an e-mail this morning. Is anyone familiar with this Catholic “philosopher?”

Are You Saved Just Because You are “Good”?
By Jim J. McCrea​

Often it is heard that if a person does not believe in Jesus Christ, but is “good,” it would be unjust for a good and just God to condemn him to hell.

That on the surface sounds reasonable. For it seems right that God should allow a person into heaven because he is kind, just, good to others, and civic minded, rather than because he accepted a point of doctrine from a particular religion.

However, to see the fallacy of that, we have to look at exactly what “good” is and its structure within the human soul.

We can use an analogy from the 2009 Star Trek movie. In that movie, the villain would destroy planets by drilling to their core with a giant ray machine and then dropping a miniature black hole in. That black hole, at the center of the planet, would within minutes consume the entire planet because the planet would collapse around the black hole into it.

Now lack of Jesus Christ and God’s grace in a soul is like a black hole in the center of it.

The idea that God should reward a soul for simply “goodness” presumes that goodness proper to a soul is completely on the natural level and is that which can be empirically perceived.

However, our souls are structured so that they have a God shaped hole within them. At their depths, if they are what they should be, they have an infinite supernatural good dwelling there. That infinite supernatural good is Jesus Christ and His grace. All other levels of goodness in the soul depend upon that infinite good for their proper integrity.

Now to remove that infinite good in the soul, by knowingly and willingly rejecting Christ and His law, the rest of the goodness there does not have a proper foundation.

That is why Catholics who dissent against Church teaching or other Christians who live in a morally compromised way are in grave danger of losing their eternal salvation. If willfully and knowingly done, there is a black hole at the center of their soul, which is the absence of God’s grace (for a Catholic to knowingly and willingly dissent against even one point of Church teaching is to reject Christ as untrustworthy and hence is to reject Him).

Without God’s grace, the empirical goods that a person exercises may last most his life, because of the support of society, others around him, and his own psychology.

However, if rejection of God’s grace continues, collapse is inevitable, like the planet collapsing into the black hole. The natural levels of goodness in the soul eventually disintegrate because there is no supernatural core of Jesus Christ to support them.

This can be seen when “good” people, with the onset of death, become vile and abusive (however, we cannot judge the individual case. Bad behavior with the onset of death may be caused by psychological factors due to a deteriorating brain rather than a deteriorating soul).

Once in hell, all natural goodness disappears, and a person is converted into pure evil.

However, the Good News is, Jesus came to earth to save us sinners (John 3:16).

Unlike the black hole at the center of a planet, where due to the laws of physics collapse in inevitable, we can always reverse course in our life - even at the last moment - to accept Christ and His mercy into our soul - avoiding ultimate collapse, and having that supernatural core of goodness which eventually brings the whole soul to eternal life in God.

 

[JMJCatholic]

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. 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.

I agree with much of what you say, however, I think that evangelization and conversion efforts should be based on a desire to bring others to the “fullness of the truth” even though they may be saved without formal membership in the true Church. As for me, I desire not only salvation, but to know, love and serve God, with His grace, as best I can, and to find His peace in the boundless blessings He gives to us through His Church. Love our neighbor means to desire that others find the “pearl of great price” too. For example, one can live on nourishment through a feeding tube, or thrive on a feast of wonderful, healthy foods. If we want to live life “abundantly”, we would want the same for our neighbor.

JMJ

 

[JMJCatholic]

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)

Here is where we disagree. Please read my original post and compare the teaching of the past with current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church. Popes through the ages have stated that there are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even martyrdom in the name of Jesus Christ. How can anyone say that current teaching is not a reversal but a development?

JMJ

 

[JMJCatholic]

LOL…yep, this is what I’m talking about.

And “so-called” original sin???

Doesn’t this anger anyone but me?

I guess if a so-called Vatican spokesman says it, it’s OK.

JMJ

 

[clem456]

Here is where we disagree. Please read my original post and compare the teaching of the past with current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church. Popes through the ages have stated that there are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even martyrdom in the name of Jesus Christ. How can anyone say that current teaching is not a reversal but a development?

JMJ

How can anyone say? I dunno. The only question I need answers to is “what does the Church say”.
And there is a mountain of Church teaching on this subject. If people can’t understand it, they need to pray and reflect. If they disagree, that’s their choice. If you’re worried that a poor soul will go to hell because of the Pope’s words, you have a challenge to answer. Go out and live the Gospel so they might have fuller understanding.

This thread is chock full of suspicion, doubt, second guessing, parsing of the Pope’s clearly stated words. I don’t see much joy expressed here at the Pope’s beautiful and profound words. That is very sad. His words should be an occasion for joy. All reading this thread should see how much joy Catholicism can bring to the world.

“Well he said things that can be misunderstood”. No kidding…Honestly, everyone here is saying things that are going to be misunderstood, hence we have a double standard at work… as if the Pope is responsible for spoon feeding the faithful, but the faithful can indiscriminately say what they please and expect full understanding.

The Pope is saying things that make people uncomfortable. I think he’s doing a tremendous job showing how the Gospel is lived and taught.

 

[SirStephen]

I hope I didn’t jump the gun. I read the first page of comments and decided to rush to a comment - hoping no-one else got there first. As many reporting on this want to use it as a line of departure - to establish a break - from Pope Benedict, it is worth noting that when still a Cardinal, Ratzinger wrote the following article that seems in direct alignment with what Pope Francis said

ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

In another article, Father de Souza explained the changes in the new translations of the Roman Missile leading up to Advent 2011 - focusing on the move away from “for all” to “for many” where he relied on Pope Benedict’s explanation as stated in his book J**esus of Nazareth - Holy Week where the same distinction was made yet again

bcc.rcav.org/opinion-and-editorial/658-fr-raymond-de-souza-

Hence, not only is what Pope Frances said neither new nor novel, it was completely in line with Pope Benedict’s views - in an area where Pope Benedict took direct action to clarify what had been permissively allowed to be blurred. In this, the view is Apostolic in origin and constitutes original doctrine.

Also, in Sunday Masses, Catholics say the Gloria and in the Gloria it states “peace to people of goodwill” – “et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntaries”. It does not say “peace to all people” (overinclusive) nor “peace to all Catholics/Christians” (underinclusive). The point here is that there is nothing new or novel in what Pope Francis said. There is not even anything deficient in how he said it. Could it be that the confusion reflects societies dissipating understanding of such language?

 

[Lucky7]

Here is where we disagree. Please read my original post and compare the teaching of the past with current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church. Popes through the ages have stated that there are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even martyrdom in the name of Jesus Christ. How can anyone say that current teaching is not a reversal but a development?

JMJ

Wouldn’t Pope Pius IX been the one to have changed it first then (with his comments about salvation for those who are “invincibly ignorant”)?

 

[JMJCatholic]

How can anyone say? I dunno. The only question I need answers to is “what does the Church say”.
And there is a mountain of Church teaching on this subject. If people can’t understand it, they need to pray and reflect. If they disagree, that’s their choice. If you’re worried that a poor soul will go to hell because of the Pope’s words, you have a challenge to answer. Go out and live the Gospel so they might have fuller understanding.

This thread is chock full of suspicion, doubt, second guessing, parsing of the Pope’s clearly stated words. I don’t see much joy expressed here at the Pope’s beautiful and profound words. That is very sad. His words should be an occasion for joy. All reading this thread should see how much joy Catholicism can bring to the world.

“Well he said things that can be misunderstood”. No kidding…Honestly, everyone here is saying things that are going to be misunderstood, hence we have a double standard at work… as if the Pope is responsible for spoon feeding the faithful, but the faithful can indiscriminately say what they please and expect full understanding.

The Pope is saying things that make people uncomfortable. I think he’s doing a tremendous job showing how the Gospel is lived and taught.

There is so much I can comment on here, but really! “His words should be an occasion for joy…” What part of this is joyful: Everyone is redeemed!! Athestist, too!!! (But you’re not saved, sorry…infallible teaching = you’re going to hell.)

If people don’t understand, could it be because something does not add up? All the prayer and refletion in the world is not going to reconcile a teaching that 2 plus 2 = 4, but when it equals 5, that is due to a development of the theology of mathametics to which you must assent.

JMJ

 

[McCall1981]

**The Pope is saying things that make people uncomfortable. **I think he’s doing a tremendous job showing how the Gospel is lived and taught.

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

 

[Tigg]

Here is where we disagree. Please read my original post and compare the teaching of the past with current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church. Popes through the ages have stated that there are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even martyrdom in the name of Jesus Christ. How can anyone say that current teaching is not a reversal but a development?

JMJ

Waiting for an answer to this one from someone much smarter than me!

 

[clem456]

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

I post from work and a reply to this would take more time and pastoral skill than I have. Maybe someone can help me out here.

I would say the answer revolves around the gospel value of self denial and detachment.

 

[simple_soul]

Here is where we disagree. Please read my original post and compare the teaching of the past with current teaching on No Salvation Outside the Church. Popes through the ages have stated that there are NO EXCEPTIONS, not even martyrdom in the name of Jesus Christ. How can anyone say that current teaching is not a reversal but a development?

JMJ

I am not sure of whom or what you are quoting from but I remember something that has allways fascinated me and left me in complete wonderment.
In the days of the early church I heard that as martyrs were being killed in the arenas spectators would become so moved with what they were witnessing that they jumped in and died with the martyrs and that they are recognized as martyrs by the church baptized by thier blood.

Was I misinformed and if I was why does the Church even bother about explaining about being baptized by thier blood? If it is not referring to martyrs then who is the Chirch referring to?

 

[Tigg]

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

I don’t know about you, but uncomfortable makes me pray - A LOT! Mother Mary is the antidote to our questions and general malaise. I pray every day for a greater faith and a greater trust.

 

[Lucky7]

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

I actually think discomfort can be a good thing for various reasons. Sometimes it’s growing/stretching pains in the Faith; other times it’s our gut warning us that something’s just not right. My discomfort lately is the latter.

 

[agnes_therese]

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

Uncomfortable can be good, if it makes us think, and meditate; especially if we include in our meditation the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the conclave that chose our Pope. It’s obvious he has very important things to say to us. But we won’t hear him if we’re busy deciding that we know better than he.

 

[JMJCatholic]

Serious question. People keep saying this like it’s a good thing. Could someone please explain why?

I’ve come to feel very uncomfortable lately and it’s had a very hurtful effect on my personal faith. As I’ve become “uncomfortable”, I feel father away from God and more doubt about the Church than I ever have before. Why is uncomfortable good?

I am sorry you feel a discomfort and which you find is affecting your personal faith, and if good does not come of it, I am sorry if my sincere posts (always posted from a standpoint of love of God and His holy Church) may have contributed to what you describe in any way. It is not a bad thing to question what does not make sense as such questioning can lead us to a better understanding of truth. It helps to remember that the Chruch is divine institution of human beings who are not perfect. I love the Church so much that rather than feel threatened or uncomfortable when these issues arise, instead I am filled with a desire to stand up for Truth Himself who founded the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

JMJ

 

[McCall1981]

There is so much I can comment on here, but really! “His words should be an occasion for joy…” What part of this is joyful: Everyone is redeemed!! Athestist, too!!! (But you’re not saved, sorry…infallible teaching = you’re going to hell.)

If people don’t understand, could it be because something does not add up? All the prayer and refletion in the world is not going to reconcile a teaching that 2 plus 2 = 4, but when it equals 5, that is due to a development of the theology of mathametics to which you must assent.

JMJ

Getting back to the homily in question, I think he was really only talking about the here and now, in this life. Everything he said is valid and true, it just feels incomplete because, like you point out, it begs the question of what happens after this world. If he said all the exact same things, word for word, but kept going and explained who is saved and who isn’t, no one would have batted an eye, because the things he actually said are true.

So it’s not what he said, it’s what he stopped short of saying. I don’t think he stopped short to be ambiguous, or to challenge doctrine. I think he just intended the homily to be on the topic of “How Catholics and atheists can interact in the world doing good”.

A couple of factors (like the way he worded it, genuine misunderstanding, and intentional
manipulation by the media) contributed to changing the topic to redemption/salvation, which is something he didn’t address becasue he didn’t intend to address it in this particular homliy.

I think the question is, should it have been obvious to him that he was “stopping short”, or “begging the question”, or not addressing the elephant in the room? It seems obvious to me that most people would be thinking, exactly like you said, “yeah, but what about salvation?”.

 

[simple_soul]

I actually think discomfort can be a good thing for various reasons. Sometimes it’s growing/stretching pains in the Faith; other times it’s our gut warning us that something’s just not right. My discomfort lately is the latter.

Either way remember the Angel Gabriel’s words to Mary the words of the Angels to the shepherds and Blessed John Paul II words “Be not afraid” The Lord is with you and in Our Blessed Mother Mary’s case " He has found favor in you!"
Then take Br. Jay’s advice on how to not let things disturb your peace.

 

[Lucky7]

I am not sure of whom or what you are quoting from but I remember something that has allways fascinated me and left me in complete wonderment.
In the days of the early church I heard that as martyrs were being killed in the arenas spectators would become so moved with what they were witnessing that they jumped in and died with the martyrs and that they are recognized as martyrs by the church baptized by thier blood.

Was I misinformed and if I was why does the Church even bother about explaining about being baptized by thier blood? If it is not referring to martyrs then who is the Chirch referring to?

You’re right. I thought Baptism of Blood was doctrine (and yes it refers to martyrs not yet baptized).

So here’s the thing. We have one Pope that says one thing and another Pope that says another. I keep hearing how we should just listen to the Pope and stop thinking we know better. Well, then which Pope knew better and which one should we listen to? Was one speaking infallibly and not the other (because we all know that not everything a Pope says is infallible, right?)?