Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!
#21
outstanding Vox! Thanks for posting that. :)
Reply
#22
: Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too! 

I think we should focus on how we are living the holiness that God is calling us to so that we can get to Heaven. I have too many sins to worry about the sins of other people.
Reply
#23
(03-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(03-19-2016, 05:26 PM)knish Wrote:
(03-19-2016, 05:03 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: To whom much is given, much is required.

I think it goes to spiritual pride if one is angered at the idea of God granting His mercy to a benevolent but ignorant person.  The Parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard comes to mind. If God wants to save a non-Catholic, what's it to us? He can do as He pleases.

We're Catholic because we know Catholicism is true, that it's the most perfect way to worship God, that that's where His Sacraments are, that if everyone were to be evangelized then we'd have sane, orderly societies based on the True, Good, and Beautiful, etc.

We spread the Gospel because we're commanded to, because it's true, because it's beautiful and brings peace, and because it leads to those aforementioned orderly, sane societies.

But in the end, Christ is King and can save whom He wants.
What? No, we spread the gospel for the salvation of souls, and nothing else. This is secular humanism and contrary to Catholic teaching. What's more, it seems awfully presumptuous and arrogant to claim people can be saved while rejecting the Church and the explicit teaching of Our Lord.

(snip)

Obviously we spread the Gospel to save souls. That's one reason (you think there can't be more than one?) why He told us to spread it, and His telling us to spread it, whether it's for the puprpose of saving souls or winning a game of Tiddly-winks, is good enough reason for us to do it. That's my point.
There certainly could be many reasons, however, there was only one given by Our Lord -- which was the salvation of souls.

(03-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: And obviously what I said had nothing to do with "secular humanism" given that I was talking about the importance of spreading the Gospel, of having societies ordered around Church teaching, etc. That's pretty much the very opposite of secular humanism. As opposite as it gets.
The problem was your justification for it was the temporal well-being of man, not the salvation of souls, i.e., Christ the King for wealth and health. One could say, secular humanism with a traditionalist spin. Unless, I misunderstood, which is very possible.
Reply
#24
knish Wrote:There certainly could be many reasons, however, there was only one given by Our Lord -- which was the salvation of souls.

Not so. Christ told His Disciples to evangelize with these words -- Matthew 28:18-20:  "And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

knish Wrote:The problem was your justification for it was the temporal well-being of man, not the salvation of souls, i.e., Christ the King for wealth and health. One could say, secular humanism with a traditionalist spin. Unless, I misunderstood, which is very possible.

Yeah, Knish, you don't understand. I mean, stop to think about it: you think I spent years of my life writing the FishEaters website because I'm a secular humanist?
 
Reply
#25
The obstacles in the way of a non-Catholic and especially an atheist getting to heaven are so many that I don't see how it could work. If a non-Catholic lives a life without ever committing a mortal sin, then I guess it could be possible. How can one who is not Catholic be forgiven of their sins without the Sacrament of Confession? We'd have to assume baptism by desire and a perfect act of contrition for any person who commits a mortal sin in their lives... but how can someone perform a perfect act of contrition without loving God?
Reply
#26
(03-20-2016, 01:10 AM)GangGreen Wrote: The obstacles in the way of a non-Catholic and especially an atheist getting to heaven are so many that I don't see how it could work. If a non-Catholic lives a life without ever committing a mortal sin, then I guess it could be possible. How can one who is not Catholic be forgiven of their sins without the Sacrament of Confession? We'd have to assume baptism by desire and a perfect act of contrition for any person who commits a mortal sin in their lives... but how can someone perform a perfect act of contrition without loving God?


This is exactly why what Pope Francis said is so deeply distressing.

We now are second-guessing ourselves on clearly defined dogma...Sure we could argue that one needs to focus on their own salvation and just leave this evil be....but remember that you will be dead in a generation and with that your voice and knowledge of the Truth is drowned out by the heresy.


The Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 5:

“If anyone says that Baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
Reply
#27
I think nowadays a lot of people are taking a too protestant view of Our Faith, like one pointed in this post "why bother being catholic [if one can be saved being atheist]", well, the answer is simple, because of Purgatory!

Yes! Purgatory! Yes an atheist can get to Heaven, after burning like hell in Purgatory for immeasurable time of spiritual punishment in the hottest fires of Purgatory, whereas a catholic will simply pay a much shorter visit to Purgatory and then head on straight to Christ's realm, and that mate, makes a great difference, I'd say.
Reply
#28
This is such a mess.

We have come to the point where it can be rationalized that not only heretics can attain eternal life, that the sacraments or the desire for them are not actually necessary but rather just "helps" (Anathema according to Trent, Session VII, Canon 4) but even possessing supernatural Faith in the Trinity or even a vague concept of "God" is optional for salvation.

Archbishop Lefebvre, God bless him, in describing people being saved in their religion but not by their religion, "as long as they are sincere" in their blasphemy, posits an unheard of proposition in the annals of Catholic theology up until very recently, of which I can think of no saint stating anything like it but rather the exact opposite- namely that one who dies professing a false religion or no belief in God is infallibly damned.    Pope Saint Pius X, A.D. 1903-1914, The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (1907) in answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved: "It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved.  Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned."

By Christ's sacrifice humanity has been redeemed, yes, but there is a difference between redemption and salvation.

Atheists may be capable of natural human virtue and goodness but without Faith, (The Faith) It is impossible to please God unto salvation, (Hebrews 11:6).

Francis ignores Christ and the Apostles "intolerant" commands elsewhere and speciously contextualizes scriptures like the above to fit his universalism.

The parable of the laborers in the vineyard coming late to work being rewarded as well the laborers who had been working all day simply pertains to those who
repent of sin or come into the Faith late in life, rather than having been faithful their whole lives like the others, but this is no way precludes the necessity of professing
the Faith at some time before one's Judgement.  And those who have been faithful their whole lives would be wrong to resent this. 

God can save anyone He so desires but what kind of speculation is this when He has spoken through Peter and His Church repeatedly that:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt,outside of which absolutely no one is saved, one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”

Athanasian Creed (circa A.D. 420): "Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith, which unless each one preserves whole and inviolate, without doubt he will perish everlastingly....  This is the Catholic faith, which unless each one believes faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

So why would God tell us and command us to believe through dogmas "falling from Heaven"(Vatican I) that absolutely no one at all is saved who does not have the Catholic Faith and is not inside His Church and then be saving people on the side who do not have the Catholic Faith and are not inside His Church? 

This would seem like duplicity and be plainly misleading and contradictory.  The Catholic Faith cannot be absolutely necessary and not necessary at the same time. 







Reply
#29
The more pernicious aspect of these sorts of statements, in my opinion, is that what the pope is suggesting is Pelagianism.  And he seems to be using his Pelagian conception of salvation through good works in order to advance secular causes throughout the world.  He then goes on to suggest a sort of salvation somehow related to the temporal good.
Reply
#30
(03-19-2016, 09:57 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: Obviously we spread the Gospel to save souls. That's one reason (you think there can't be more than one?) why He told us to spread it, and His telling us to spread it, whether it's for the puprpose of saving souls or winning a game of Tiddly-winks, is good enough reason for us to do it. That's my point.

No. This is voluntarism. God is not arbitrary like that. He commands because its good, and the highest good of the Church is the salvation of souls. That's its purpose and highest law, so the Church teaches and baptizes to save souls.
Only as a secondary consequence it happens that civilization occurs (though I'd say, in Catholicism, they are strongly bounded together--we cannot have vines and mills without civilization, and we cannot have the cult without those things). Here's Leo XIII, «The Catholic Church, that imperishable handiwork of our all-merciful God, has for her immediate and natural purpose the saving of souls and securing our happiness in heaven. Yet, in regard to things temporal, she is the source of benefits as manifold and great as if the chief end of her existence were to ensure the prospering of our earthly life».

The danger of falling into voluntarism is also present when you say that its up to God to save or not save. Yes, it is up to Him, but we must be careful saying this lest we end up with the Calvinist/Mohammedan, arbitrary deity.

About the article itself, it does sound very Pelagian--if an atheist is good, he might go to heaven. Well, unless you define good to be participating in the divine life through sanctifying grace this is wrong. The explanation of Fr. James Martin seems to go a bit further (even if only further by making explicit logical conclusions or premises) and it reminds me of the latest conviction of DBH. I'll post the talk again (vide infra) and ask you guys to compare. Is DBH just exposing the Catholicism five decades from now ? Notice his mockery of missionaries sounds very much like BXVI's, not mockery, but statement with, perhaps, a hint of lament (though I wouldn't know).




At the very least one can appreciate Hart's consistent and rigorous reasoning, and not the cavalier universalism of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)