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

[JMJCatholic]

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p2s2c1a1.htm

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

1243 The newly baptized is now, in the only Son, a child of God entitled to say the prayer of the children of God: “Our Father.”

 

[Christian_Soul]

See the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p2s2c1a1.htm

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

1243 The newly baptized is now, in the only Son, a child of God entitled to say the prayer of the children of God: “Our Father.”

I understand. But then why does CCC in the parts I quoted about non Christians, also speak of as his children even those of his children who are scattered and astray?

 

[Lucky7]

I understand. But then why does CCC in the parts I quoted, also speak of as his children even those scattered and astray?

I think you have a fair question. They seem to contradict one another, don’t they? Do you know what document, if any, the scattered and astray comment is referenced from?

 

[InLight247]

When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle. Man could worship the Holy of Holies directly afterwards. Redemption is like a bridge over the huge gap between man and God caused by original sin. Without redemption, no one is allowed to approach the Father. With the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection, mankind has been provided an opportunity to cross the bridge of redemption and receive eternal life – salvation.

Jesus died for all, not only for his followers at the time, nor just for his future believers from the time. That’s how redemption is universal. Whereas salvation, it is a choice. God never forces us. He always respects our free will. Salvation is not forced on us. If salvation is automatic, there is no need of baptism or repentance, there will be no one in hell except Satan and his fallen angels. That is simply not what the Scriptures said.

Holy Father Francis’ homily is not anything new. Redemption is universal. Salvation is a personal choice. Please do not mistake redemption with salvation.

 

[Christian_Soul]

I think you have a fair question. They seem to contradict one another, don’t they? Do you know what document, if any, the scattered and astray comment is referenced from?

Well they seem to contradict one another to me. But then I’m not a scholar of CCC. Sorry no I don’t. I had just seen your earlier post and googled something like “CCC and non Christians” to see what came up and the section of CCC came up with those parts I quoted in it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[Lucky7]

Well they seem to contradict one another to me. But then I’m not a scholar of CCC. Sorry no I don’t. I had just seen your earlier post and googled something like “CCC and non Christians” to see what came up and the section of CCC came up with those parts I quoted in it.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

And thank you for doing that. You’re the only one who actually answered my original question. I think I will try to research further because they do seem to contradict each other and of course that makes no sense to me either.

 

[hmomolams]

Christ died for all in the sense that all could potentially have been saved. But the reprobate reject the conditions for salvation whereas the Elect do not. The Elect are the many who receive the Redemption of Christ “unto the remission of sins” and depart this life in the faith with worketh through charity, that is, believers departing this life in the state of grace.

“Culture of encounter” is not a good thing. Encounter is a hostile meeting. Just consult the dictionary on that. I desire to die in the friendship of God, and greet the Lord. I have no desire to “encounter” Christ.

 

[JMJCatholic]

Christ died for all in the sense that all could potentially have been saved. But the reprobate reject the conditions for salvation whereas the Elect do not. The Elect are the many who receive the Redemption of Christ “unto the remission of sins” and depart this life in the faith with worketh through charity, that is, believers departing this life in the state of grace.

“Culture of encounter” is not a good thing. Encounter is a hostile meeting. Just consult the dictionary on that. I desire to die in the friendship of God, and greet the Lord. I have no desire to “encounter” Christ.

I had asked earlier what this meant. Not a traditional term I have ever encourtered before
JMJ

 

[McCall1981]

When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle. Man could worship the Holy of Holies directly afterwards. Redemption is like a bridge over the huge gap between man and God caused by original sin. Without redemption, no one is allowed to approach the Father. With the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection, mankind has been provided an opportunity to cross the bridge of redemption and receive eternal life – salvation.

Jesus died for all, not only for his followers at the time, nor just for his future believers from the time. That’s how redemption is universal. Whereas salvation, it is a choice. God never forces us. He always respects our free will. Salvation is not forced on us. If salvation is automatic, there is no need of baptism or repentance, there will be no one in hell except Satan and his fallen angels. That is simply not what the Scriptures said.

Holy Father Francis’ homily is not anything new. Redemption is universal. Salvation is a personal choice. Please do not mistake redemption with salvation.

This is very well said, thank you.

Christ died for all in the sense that all could potentially have been saved. But the reprobate reject the conditions for salvation whereas the Elect do not. The Elect are the many who receive the Redemption of Christ “unto the remission of sins” and depart this life in the faith with worketh through charity, that is, believers departing this life in the state of grace.

“Culture of encounter” is not a good thing. Encounter is a hostile meeting. Just consult the dictionary on that. I desire to die in the friendship of God, and greet the Lord. I have no desire to “encounter” Christ.

Is it the concept of a culture of encounter that you object to, or the use of the particular word “encounter”?

 

[JMJCatholic]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please read number two. The pope does not have to speak according to our preference.

Unless someone can prove to me that arguing about what the pope should have said and how he should have said it is going to get to the pope and “help him out”, the discussion is not helpful to the forum.

From an interesting article in Crisis magazine:

crisismagazine.com/2012/lets-raise-a-glass-to-the-bad-popes

It may seem odd, on the feast day of the Roman Fact, to discuss the less-than-stellar occupants of the Chair of Peter. I would propose that it is precisely these weak and sometimes sordid men who offer one of the most startling historical and apologetical claims for the indefectibility of the church. Catholics ought not to be reticent or ashamed about such men. A frank analysis of their weaknesses shows that often the Church survives in spite of the papacy, while the office endures as a witness to the seamless garment of Church tradition

Mr. Casey, intelligent people should be able to respectfully discuss important topics, such as in this article without being accused of being disrespectful to the magisterium.

JMJ

 

[simple_soul]

When Jesus died, the veil of the Temple was torn in the middle. Man could worship the Holy of Holies directly afterwards. Redemption is like a bridge over the huge gap between man and God caused by original sin. Without redemption, no one is allowed to approach the Father. With the Lord’s Passion and Resurrection, mankind has been provided an opportunity to cross the bridge of redemption and receive eternal life – salvation.

Jesus died for all, not only for his followers at the time, nor just for his future believers from the time. That’s how redemption is universal. Whereas salvation, it is a choice. God never forces us. He always respects our free will. Salvation is not forced on us. If salvation is automatic, there is no need of baptism or repentance, there will be no one in hell except Satan and his fallen angels. That is simply not what the Scriptures said.

Holy Father Francis’ homily is not anything new. Redemption is universal. Salvation is a personal choice. Please do not mistake redemption with salvation.

InLight-

I beleive I am beginning to see why this thread seems to be going around in circles. Is it ok if I use your post here to start a new thead?

 

[JMJCatholic]

InLight-

I beleive I am beginning to see why this thread seems to be going around in circles. Is it ok if I use your post here to start a new thead?

I think the thread is not sticking to the point: that of reconciling the differences between the teaching of prior popes with that of contemporary popes in light of the doctrine of papal infalliblity.

The closest I have come to reconciling the two apparently opposite teachings (possiblity of salvation for non-Catholics and absolutely no salvation outside the Church as specified by various popes in no uncertain terms) is the proviso that unless a teaching is consistent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it can not be ijmposed upon the faithful as infallible. I do not have the first source of this, and if anyone finds it, I would be grateful if it were posted here.

JMJ

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It is interesting to me that we always look at it through the lens of the past and say that the previous Popes are speaking “correctly” and the more recent Popes are “wrong”. I it not possible that the previous Popes expressed what they know as clearly as possible and the current Popes - speaking with a more complete understanding - are also expressing things as clearly as possible, but are explaining a fuller/more complex understanding?

I think the thread is not sticking to the point: that of reconciling the differences between the teaching of prior popes with that of contemporary popes in light of the doctrine of papal infalliblity.

The closest I have come to reconciling the two apparently opposite teachings (possiblity of salvation for non-Catholics and absolutely no salvation outside the Church as specified by various popes in no uncertain terms) is the proviso that unless a teaching is consistent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it can not be ijmposed upon the faithful as infallible. I do not have the first source of this, and if anyone finds it, I would be grateful if it were posted here.

JMJ

 

[simple_soul]

I think the thread is not sticking to the point: that of reconciling the differences between the teaching of prior popes with that of contemporary popes in light of the doctrine of papal infalliblity.

The closest I have come to reconciling the two apparently opposite teachings (possiblity of salvation for non-Catholics and absolutely no salvation outside the Church as specified by various popes in no uncertain terms) is the proviso that unless a teaching is consistent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it can not be ijmposed upon the faithful as infallible. I do not have the first source of this, and if anyone finds it, I would be grateful if it were posted here.

JMJ

This is all a smoke screen. What is really going on here is there seems to be this fear that some way some how all of mankind will be miraculously saved. I want to know why and if it is true. If it is true that would be so awesome that words could never explain and fills my whole being with so much joy. If it is true I want to learn about it so that I can help the Salvation of Mankind happen with every fiber in my being. So if any one knows if there is any Truth to this “fear” please help me to know and understand.
If you do not want to post on a public forum then please just PM me.

 

[simple_soul]

It is interesting to me that we always look at it through the lens of the past and say that the previous Popes are speaking “correctly” and the more recent Popes are “wrong”. I it not possible that the previous Popes expressed what they know as clearly as possible and the current Popes - speaking with a more complete understanding - are also expressing things as clearly as possible, but are explaining a fuller/more complex understanding?

That’s what my understanding is.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

LAST NOTICE

Limit your comments to the actual subject of the pope’s homily. The thread is too scattered.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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??

You’re right that it is not defending the Pope himself, but rather defending what the Pope said.

Don’t you think a discussion is good? I think its great, if we get people talking, the better. There is no canned solution to this. The Pope can’t say something that is so polished that it will leave no question in anyone’s mind. If that is possible, it would have been done already. If that was possible, then the Protestants are right about Sola Scriptura, and that everything can be written in the Bible and be clear to everyone. But we know that is impossible. That is why we have our traditions, that is why we have discipleship where we learn from the previous generation what the correct teaching is. Because it cannot be accurately captured merely by writing. It is impossible. Like I said, the Pope can write a doctorate dissertation and it still would produce questions (that is why there’s a defense for such writings).

 

[ConstantineTG]

LAST NOTICE

Limit your comments to the actual subject of the pope’s homily. The thread is too scattered.

Speaking of the actual subject of the homily, did anyone provide a link to the full text of the homily (and hopefully translated into English)?

 

[Lucky7]

Speaking of the actual subject of the homily, did anyone provide a link to the full text of the homily (and hopefully translated into English)?

I thought McCall did but I can’t seem to find it now.

Actually, he didn’t…it was an article. It doesn’t look like it’s up on the Vatican website yet…perhaps by Monday.

 

[Love4All]

But that is the truth. The Orthodox Church says the same thing, Christ died for all, He loves all, and He has redeemed all.

As I said before, anything can have lack of clarity. People do not have the same level of understanding. What we are posting here will be interpreted differently by different people. It is just the way it is. We can’t worry about it. Pope Francis did not say anything wrong, and if people want to make something else out of it, it is their problem.

This reminds me of that condom comment from Pope Benedict.

That was completely different.