Vatican contradicts the Pope...
#1
...according to the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28...46201.html

Quote:Shortly after Pope Francis gave a groundbreaking homily in which he said even atheists who do good are redeemed, a statement from a Vatican spokesman seemed to walk back the pope's words.

Just one day after the pope's now famous remarks in Rome on May 22, a Vatican spokesman the Rev. Thomas Rosica released comments stating that people who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ can't be saved after all.

"All salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body," Rosica wrote. "Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her."

Rosica goes on to say that, "We can never say with ultimate certainty whether a non-Christian who has rejected Christianity...is still following the temporary path mapped out for his own salvation which is leading him to an encounter with God, or whether he has now entered upon the way of perdition," according to his statement, published by the nonprofit news agency Zenit.org.

Rosica's statement was written in response to the many calls and messages he received after Francis' controversial homily.

In his homily, the pope said everyone, "even the atheists," have been redeemed "with the Blood of Christ," according to Vatican Radio.

"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," Francis said. "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 Vatican's statement seemed to attempt to do damage control for Francis' remarks, emphasizing that his job is more to speak well than to provide an indisputable interpretation of the Bible.

"[Pope Francis] is first and foremost a seasoned pastor and preacher who has much experience in reaching people," the statement said. "His words are not spoken in the context of a theological faculty or academy nor in interreligious dialogue or debate." 

My head is spinning! Those of weaker constitutons might want to avoid the comments :puke:, it might be a occasion of sin for some.

I remeber reading the explanatory note(http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explana...-of-may-22) when it was released, didn't think much of it, certainly didn't think it would cause a stir either, guess I was wrong.
Reply
#2
The pope was just giving the same E.T. homily ya hear at any given novus ordo parish on any given Sunday......

Beeeeee goooood!
[Image: et.jpg]
Reply
#3
(05-29-2013, 12:29 AM)Juanthetuba Wrote: My head is spinning! Those of weaker constitutons might want to avoid the comments :puke:, it might be a occasion of sin for some.

I remeber reading the explanatory note(http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/explana...-of-may-22) when it was released, didn't think much of it, certainly didn't think it would cause a stir either, guess I was wrong.

Nothing to get hung about. A bunch of know-nothings are talking about what the Pope said even though they don't understand a word of it. The "Vatican" here said nothing that contradicts the Pope.
Reply
#4
Since when do we go to the Huff Post for solid Catholic news?  ???

I think the problem stems from people's (including Catholic's) ignorance of the Faith, a lack of shared terminology, a reading into people's statements, and a knee-jerk reaction to soundbites. Christ redeemed all men. This fact does not mean that he saves all men. Redemption and salvation are not the same. Furthermore, there wasn't one lick of problem with the content of his sermon. His sermon was sound theologically and logically. He spoke in particular in support of these dogmas:

For the performance of a morally good action Sanctifying Grace is not required. (De fide.)
The Grace of faith is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
Actual Grace is not necessary for the performance of a morally good action. (Sent. certa.)
Christ did not die for the predestined only. (De fide.)
Christ died not for the Faithful only, but for all mankind without exception. (Sent. fidei proxima.)

And to beef up your understanding of redemption. Basic catechism:

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REDEMPTION?

By the Redemption is meant that Jesus Christ, as Redeemer of the whole human race, offered His sufferings and death to God as a fitting sacrifice in satisfaction for the sins of men, and regained for them the right to be children of God and heirs to heaven.

...

Christ died for all men, without exception. He is the Redeemer of all men. Not all men are saved because not all accept the graces which Christ merited for us by His death. Many do not believe in Him. Of those who believe, many lead sinful lives.

My Catholic Faith, p. 77 (Emphasis in original.)
Reply
#5
I'm not even an armchair theologian, but doesn't redemption mean that salvation is made possible, vs. actually working out your salvation throughout your life and attaining heaven?
Reply
#6
(05-29-2013, 08:32 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REDEMPTION?

By the Redemption is meant that Jesus Christ, as Redeemer of the whole human race, offered His sufferings and death to God as a fitting sacrifice in satisfaction for the sins of men, and regained for them the right to be children of God and heirs to heaven.

...

Christ died for all men, without exception. He is the Redeemer of [b]all men. Not all men are saved because not all accept the graces which Christ merited for us by His death. Many do not believe in Him. Of those who believe, many lead sinful lives.[/b]

My Catholic Faith, p. 77 (Emphasis in original.)

Thank you Scriptorium. That's the best Redemption  vs. Salvation that I've heard in a long while.
Reply
#7
Because this issue has not been discussed in its extremely and vitally important historical/liturgical context, I respectfully submit the following for your prayerful consideration.

Concerning the issues of Redemption and Salvation, which can become confusing at times, this is an issue that was actually resolved back in the 15th and 16th Centuries, having been taught by two Infallible General Councils of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the context concerning the Form to be used for the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood:

Quote:“41.  And [It uses this Form of Words in the Consecration] of His Blood:

‘For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New and Everlasting Covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins’.

(Latin:  Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni  testamenti;  mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.).”

(Infallible Papal Bulla of the Roman Catholic Pope Eugene IV, Gabriele Condulmer [Thursday, March 3, 1431 -  Tuesday, February 23, 1447], “Cantate Domino”, Union with the Copts, with the Infallible Œcumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, Friday, February 4, 1442 A.D.).

120 years, and a little over 7 months, later, the Roman Catholic Church, in the Council of Trent, indirectly re-affirmed the Form for the Double Consecration:

Quote:“CANON VI. If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated [abolished]; let him be anathema.” (Infallible Œcumenical Council of Trent, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562 A.D., On the Sacrifice of the Mass.).

What is in “the Canon of the Mass”? 

It contains the most important part of the Sacrificial part of the Mass, which is the Double Consecration, which effects Transubstantiation.

Said another way:

IF the Form for the Consecration of the Most Precious Blood was either defective or in error, the Infallible Œcumenical Roman Catholic Council of Trent could never have said what it said in Canon VI. 

Anyone who would claim otherwise must automatically claim either that the Infallible Œcumenical Roman Catholic Council of Trent was not Infallible, which is contrary to its historical and dogmatic status in the Roman Catholic Church, having always been accepted as being Infallible and Dogmatic, or, using typical NEW Theology Theologian nomenclature, that “Infallible” does not really mean “Infallible” because Modernist Heretics believe only in the “evolution of dogmas”!

Quote:“13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles....

“26. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself.”  (Roman Catholic Pope, Saint Pius X Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical Letter “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”,  On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Sunday, September 8, 1907; # 13 and 26).

Quote:“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the officially approved Fathers, in exactly the same sense and with always the same meaning.  And, therefore, I completely reject the heretical notion that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one meaning which the Church held from the beginning.  I likewise condemn every erroneous notion according to which, instead of the Divine Deposit of Faith entrusted by Christ to His spouse, the Church, and to be faithfully guarded by Her, one may substitute a philosophical system or a creation of the human mind gradually refined by human effort and capable of continual and indefinite development....” (Roman Catholic Pope, Saint Pius X, Papal Motu Proprio (On His Own Initiative), “Sacrorum Antistitum”, Oath Against Modernism, Thursday, September 1, 1910; Acta Apostolica Sedis, 2-655; “Fontes”, n. 689, Volume III, p. 774).

According to Canon Law, the Oath Against Modernism is to be taken immediately after the “Profession of Faith” in the presence of the respective superiors by all those mentioned in Canon 1406.

For the Record, I have taken the required Profession of Faith and the Oath Against Modernism per the requirements of Canon 1406. 

Furthermore, it was the custom for all of the Catholic Traditional Clergy to renew their Profession of Faith and their Oath Against Modernism at each of our Clergy Conferences which were held in various places in the U.S.A. over the years.

So that there would not be any doubts or confusion about Canon VI of the Council of Trent, Session 22, Monday, September 17, 1562 A.D., in its official Catechism, the Council of Trent gives the exact Form of Words to be used for the Double Consecration and it also explains why “for many” is used, and not “for all”.

Quote:“With regard lo the Consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the Priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its Form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words:

‘This is the chalice of My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.’”

“With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine’.” (“The Catechism of the Council of Trent”, The Sacrament of the Eucharist, by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., pp. 225; 227-228)

Quote:"The words ‘Pro vobis et pro multis’ (For you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits; for the Blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault.  Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who co-operate with Grace.  This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.”  (Bishop Saint Alphonsus DeLiguori [b. Marianella, near Naples, Italy  on Thursday, September 27, 1696 A.D. - d. Nocera de’ Pagani on Wednesday, August 1, 1787 A.D.], Bishop of Sant’ Agata dei Goti, Doctor of the Church, “Treatise on The Holy Eucharist”.).

This should more than suffice for the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the proper distinctions between:

Quote:1)  Salvation, which is efficacious (efficacy - efficaciter) “for many”.

2)  Redemption which is sufficient (sufficiency - sufficienter) “for all”.

Truly, especially in the Mass:

Quote: Legem Credendi Lex Statuit Supplicandi.  [The Liturgical form of prayer becomes the standard of Faith.]. (Pope Saint Celestine I [Saturday, September 10, 422  - Tuesday, July 27, 432 ].)

This is sometimes shortened to simply Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi:  The Law of Praying is the Law of Believing.

Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this.  :tiphat:

God Bless You!  :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic: Father Jim
Reply
#8
(05-30-2013, 01:27 AM)A-Catholic-Catholic Wrote: Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this.   :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic: Father Jim

I haven't replied to your other post (in the thread about Dodd, the "Masonic priest" thread, but I did enjoy it, and read all up on Dodd, her online book, etc), just had to say that this was an awesome post, too! Do you have a blog, Father? If so, can you link it?
Reply
#9
(05-30-2013, 12:48 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote:
(05-30-2013, 01:27 AM)A-Catholic-Catholic Wrote: Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to read this.   :tiphat:

God Bless You!   :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic: Father Jim

I haven't replied to your other post (in the thread about Dodd, the "Masonic priest" thread, but I did enjoy it, and read all up on Dodd, her online book, etc), just had to say that this was an awesome post, too! Do you have a blog, Father? If so, can you link it?

Hi StCeciliasGirl - :tiphat:

Thank you so much for your kind response.

I understand, it takes time to do things so no problem about your not replying to my other post in "Masonic priest" about Dr. Bella Dodd.  Glad you had a chance to read up on Dodd.  I did not realize her book was online. 

Thank you also for your kind comments regarding my post on this page also.  :tiphat:

The answer to your question is that, no, at least at this time, I do not have a blog - there is just not enough time for it.  I barely have the time just to post the few things I do on this forum.  Thank you for your interest in this regard.  :church:

God Bless You!  :pray:

A-Catholic-Catholic:  Father Jim
Reply
#10
(05-29-2013, 08:32 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Since when do we go to the Huff Post for solid Catholic news?  ???

Very good quick thinking! It saves a lot of useless speculation for me on this latest incident. Although, I respect those here who are going to such trouble for those who might be unfamiliar with what is going on in our struggle to pray for and save our Church.

This website has gained some very smart cookies since my last post.

We shall simply just have to pray for him, and watch and see what the Holy Father says because these are the end times, and we should pay attention now or never.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)