Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

[Amechania]

God transcends every thing including the churches that proclaim him.
He "Belongs" to no one Church.
Or one set of believers.
Every one and every thing is subject to his will.
Our Beliefs are not a criterion or measure of God's authority over us.

Sola gratia, lah de dah. This stuff has been hashed over for more centuries than I care to remember. It's all trivial anyhow. The only signifigant difference between heaven and hell is the quality of the potato salad.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sola gratia, lah de dah. This stuff has been hashed over for more centuries than I care to remember. It's all trivial anyhow. The only signifigant difference between heaven and hell is the quality of the potato salad.

You must be very old to remember the centuries.

Attitudes to these things are changing hence Pope Francis' sermon.

I was not aware any one had brought Heaven and Hell into this discussion. Neither of which I believe are "Places"

 

[Open_Minded]

You must be very old to remember the centuries.

Attitudes to these things are changing hence Pope Francis' sermon.

I was not aware any one had brought Heaven and Hell into this discussion. Neither of which I believe are "Places"

I really do wish attitudes were changing. Hopefully they are, but it's hard to tell. I'm thankful for the Pope's words, but neither was I surprised when a friend sent me the following link:

Vatican Representative: Just to Be Clear, Atheists Are Still Going to Hell

On Thursday, the Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning to ‘salvation.’”


The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

Seems heaven and hell are part of the discussion, whether we prefer they be (or not).

 

[Copernicus]

I really do wish attitudes were changing. Hopefully they are, but it's hard to tell. I'm thankful for the Pope's words, but neither was I surprised when a friend sent me the following link:

Vatican Representative: Just to Be Clear, Atheists Are Still Going to Hell
Seems heaven and hell are part of the discussion, whether we prefer they be (or not).

I agree, but I would still prefer to focus on the change of tone coming from Pope Francis. The Vatican sent out a message intended to pacify all the grumbling from conservatives, who perhaps prefer a more combative tone when it comes to atheism. I see Francis as taking a step in the right direction and his minion as trying cushion the shock of any movement at all in that direction.

 

[Open_Minded]

I agree, but I would still prefer to focus on the change of tone coming from Pope Francis. The Vatican sent out a message intended to pacify all the grumbling from conservatives, who perhaps prefer a more combative tone when it comes to atheism. I see Francis as taking a step in the right direction and his minion as trying cushion the shock of any movement at all in that direction.

We agree there ... Pope Francis will (hopefully) be around for awhile. I affirm that as time goes on he will continue to push the edges. Of course - I'm not so naive as to think that 2000 years of history is going to change in my lifetime. But .. I do hope we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Vouthon]

I really do wish attitudes were changing. Hopefully they are, but it's hard to tell. I'm thankful for the Pope's words, but neither was I surprised when a friend sent me the following link:

Dear Open,

TBH There isn't much debate among "ordinary" Catholics (that is ones not on the extreme conservative or liberal end of the spectrum) regarding the salvation of atheists and non-Christians in general. We have been officially taught for decades that non-Christians, including atheists, can receive salvation and that the mercy of God is infinite. So the import of Francis' speech is not in the area of soteriology. The media, not aware of the complexities of Catholic theology, seemed to think that Francis had made some kind of incendiary, mind-blowing statement that represents a change in Catholic understanding of the salvation of atheists. He didn't. Vatican II did do that fifty years ago. Even Cardinal Ratzinger (today Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) fully recognised back in 1964 that there were "many paths to God" and that people of all faiths and none can receive salvation in Christ. In fact the really hot topic is what this meant for "poor" (in their own eyes) Catholics who had to attend mass and say their prayers while an atheist could get to heaven without having the burden of Catholic doctrine. Such a viewpoint is sad IMHO and stems from some kind of primal fault in human nature but there ya go.

The big change is in how Francis views atheists as individuals in relation to the church, compared with the previous pope and the understanding of many lay Catholics. This is what much of the media missed, ironically, because they were unaware that the Catholic Church already has recognised that atheists can "get to heaven" so to speak.

Fr. Rosica has his own opinions, although I think that his words could be misunderstood and were somewhat imprecise (on purpose, I somewhat suspect, hmmm). "Know" theologically speaking for Catholics means a rational understanding of something (a belief that is) rather than knowledge such as knowing XYZ about the church's teachings. Its about knowing that the church has the fullness of Truth, not being knowledgeable about what it teaches but rather having come to believe in it. If a person does reach an understanding that the church is true in what it teaches but would (for some inexplicable reason) not desire to join the church, it would be presumed that he "cared little for truth" because a person should always stick with what they believe and know is true. If an atheist is absolutely convinced of his atheism, then he can certainly receive salvation because he does not know the church even if he knows its teachings thoroughly.

Back in the 40s, their were these great and very orthodox priests who held an American Catholic talk show on radio like Fr. Rosica's today by the name of Rumble and Carty. Read this transcript, its about Judaism but its points are somewhat to all belief systems. They were theologically good for their time and are even respected today

179. Would a good and practicing Jew go to heaven, despite his not being baptized a Christian?

Yes, provided through no fault of his own he did not at any time advert to the truth of Christianity, and to the necessity of actual baptism; and provided he sincerely believed Judaism to be still the true religion, and died truly repentant of all serious violations of conscience during life.

Source: Radio Replies, third volume, by Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul 1, Minn., U.S.A., copyright 1942, page 43.

So it all depends on the individual persons understanding of Truth and faithful adherence to their conscience. A person must always be faithful to what they know is true and live it out. If that truth is atheism, then they must be one hell of a good atheist and be faithful to it as they can be. If they do this, then they can certainly receive salvation.

If an atheist sincerely believes in atheism then I don't for a minute think he's "damned". In our eyes Hell is not a place God sends you too anyway but a state you put yourself in and God essentially accepts.

If your faithful to your conscience, you basically can't go to hell according to Catholic dogma. Yet since no one can get inside another person's head or read their heart, its impossible for us to know if they are following their conscience or simply doing what they want with no regard for truth or morality. Hence why hell is always a "possibility" even if everyone eventually finds themselves in the state of eternal heaven before the Beatific Vision of the Godhead.

Saint Edith Stein (Teresia Benedicta of the Cross) once noted:

"...I am not at all worried about my dear Master. It has always been far from me to think that God's mercy allows itself to be circumscribed by the visible church's boundaries. God is truth. All who seek truth seek God, whether this is clear to them or not..."

- Saint Edith Stein (1891 - 1942), Jewish Catholic mystic & Holocaust victim, speaking about her atheist/agnostic mentor Edmund Husserl

The pope is the authority, not a priest with a talk show (he is a Canadian Television presenter with a Catholic show know as "Salt + Light"). That isn't exactly putting him in a position to make doctrinal statements on behalf of the church. Pope Benedict XVI appointed Fr. Rosica to a five-year term as consulter to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications. That is not a theological office, its rather minor as you can imagine (tv, radio, publicity etc.).

On Wikipedia we find that someone has already written:

On May 22, 2013, Pope Francis made the statement, "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!" [3] Two days later, Fr. Rosica directly contradicted the Pope: "...people who know about the Catholic church 'cannot be saved' if they 'refuse to enter her or remain in her.' " [4]

So some already see him as making a kind of "excuse" on behalf of certain Catholics.

Truthfully, redemption is to do with the universal offer of salvation rather than a guarantee of salvation itself. The Catholic Church holds that we cannot judge the eternal fate of another person (only God can because he All-knowing and beyond time with all history known to Him from eternity), so this is the only reason for this.

What the church does teach, as evidenced by my previous quotes, is that atheists can be saved. What is not known is how many people of any religion, including Catholics, will be saved. Only God knows this. Catholics are allowed to hope, and to an extent believe (so long as the possibility of a person rejecting God entirely still exists) that everyone will eventually be saved. We just can't teach this as definite fact, because that would be presuming to know too much on our part.

God gives his grace to all equally, it is our own choice whether to accept it or not. One does not have to be a Christian to accept this grace. All that is needed is faithful adherence to one's own conscience, provided they have not reached an awareness of the truth (from our perspective) of the Catholic Church.

Hell is not considered to be a place in Catholicism but rather a state of being which begins with actions, thoughts, decisions in this life and extends into eternity, separating our hearts from God and cutting off his saving grace.

This means that one can receive salvation if they have not reached an understanding of the truth (from our perspective) of the Christian, and in particular Catholic, revelation. If they genuinely are committed to another belief, live honest lives and have no violations of their own conscience, then they can receive salvation whether they be atheists, Muslims, Jews or whatever. God judges the heart, not the profession of faith.

That is why St. Augustine said this:

"...How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!...When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body.... All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark..."

- Saint Augustine, Church Father (354–430 AD), Baptism 5:28:39

"...He was ours [a Christian] even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside [the Church] belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need only the name, having the reality..."

- St. Gregory of Nazianzus, <Oration> 18.5 (c. 374 AD)

There are many Catholics who don't live up to the ideals of the Church, while their are many non-Christians who do. Who is the better "Catholic" in the eyes of the church? The non-Christian.

The significance of what Pope Francis says is less in the realm of salvation theology. There is nothing particularly incendiary here because the Catholic Church has officially and publically taught for nigh fifty years that atheists can receive salvation and for centuries before this theologians answered affirmatively that they believed this too even before it was publically defined at the Council.

His tone and view of atheists as people with whom we can work and respect as "valued allies" is what counts.

 

[Open_Minded]

Hello Vouthon:

Thank you for your response. Just some background information here. Although I've not been involved in the Catholic church since the I graduated a Catholic Highschool in the mid 1970s, I did grow up Catholic. My parents both belong to large Catholic families.

Even though I am no longer Catholic some of my siblings are and most of my cousins, Aunts, Uncles, etc... remain Catholic.

The significance of what Pope Francis says is less in the realm of salvation theology. There is nothing particularly incendiary here because the Catholic Church has officially and publically taught for nigh fifty years that atheists can receive salvation and for centuries before this theologians answered affirmatively that they believed this too even before it was publically defined at the Council.

Honestly - I attended Catholic Schools from 1st Grade through High School. And If what Pope Francis said was "officially taught" for nigh fifty years - it wasn't my experience. In fact THEE reason I started questioning Catholic theology was the whole "salvation" issue. Even in 1st Grade, I remember thinking how horrible it was that (according to the nuns at my school) my neighborhood Protest friends would not go to heaven. Thankfully my parents encouraged my questioning - by the time I was a teen they left the church.

In High School we had one Priest who was "cool" (back in the early 70s ). He never talked about his ideas on salvation. But we students always considered that he felt everyone would go to heaven. I don't think he talked about it publicly because it would have been too "risky". So... although.. I understand the sincerity of your position, it is not my own experience.

There isn't much debate among "ordinary" Catholics (that is ones not on the extreme conservative or liberal end of the spectrum) regarding the salvation of atheists and non-Christians in general.

Honestly - if you've some survey numbers I would really appreciate seeing it.

Maybe my family is different from most Catholic families. Although most of my siblings and parents have left the church (I have as well), the few siblings still involved are nominally so ... for many reasons. One of the big reasons is their local parish's stance on "salvation". There are other contributors of course - the roll for women in the church and society, etc... but the teachings on "salvation" rank up pretty high.

In my extended family, on my mother's side - most of my cousins have left the church for the same reasons I have.

On my father's side - most of my cousins are still involved in the Catholic Church and they are VERY conservative. They are wonderful people, but I'm quite sure that my parents and siblings and myself continually receive prayers for our "salvation".

I remember when one of my cousins married a Lutheran, my Grandmother was devastated because she honestly thought her grand-daughter would go to hell for marrying a Lutheran.

To me - that is hell on earth - believing that someone you love is going to fry in hell for eternity - all because they belong to the wrong church (or no church at all).

Again - I honestly hope your impressions of "ordinary" Catholics are closer to reality than my experiences growing up or within my extended conservative Catholic family.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've had the honor of participating in inter-faith dialog with individual Catholics who think more along the lines you do. Additionally - I'm a Christian Contemplative and most of what I've learned in the Western Contemplative Traditions come from Catholic writings. I do know that down through the ages there have always been Universalists within the Catholic church because I've read their writings through the mystic traditions. I also know the Gnostic texts were considered heretical in their time - so this debate has been going on for the entire history of the church. I've learned much from Western contemplative writers (both ancient writings and current authors - Father Keating as an example). But, sadly, the openness within Catholic mystic tradition is not shared by most Catholics I know.

Again - I see and honor the sincerity of your position. If you've any surveys to shed light on the topic it would really interest me.

In Peace - O_M

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Open Minded :bow:

Peace be with you and thank you for your post brother.

I'm afraid that surveys of public opinion are not per se my area of expertise

Official church documents, theology and mysticism are my forte. I honestly wouldn't know where to look to find a survey.

May I ask, are you American? The reason I ask is because there tends to be a problem in the US, whereby Catholicism has become Protestantized.

Here is the definition which Douglas Jacobson, a sociologist who specializes in "the World's Christians", describes Catholicism as being like in academic terms:

"...Enormous diversity exists within Catholicism, including many different schools and sub-schools of spirituality. Rather than forcing members to choose between one style of faith or another, Catholicism has typically opted to be a tradition of 'both/'and'. Whatever is seen as having spiritual merit and value can be incorporated into Catholicism, even when the opposite emphases are also present within the tradition...Catholicism's both/and stance has also allowed it to adopt and adapt various ideas and practices from other Christian traditions...This same commitment to catholicity has allowed Catholicism to welcome and appreciate spiritual insights and practices of many non-Christian religions and cultures...Up until the mid twentieth century, Catholicism existed largely as a separate subculture within the American social order...The Catholic Church continued to function as a kind of separate world that existed apart from mainstream America. This was largely a result of Catholic choice, a reasonable reaction to the anti-Catholic prejudices of the Protestant majority...More than anywhere else, North America is Protestant turf...This is so much that Catholics - with the exception of the French Catholic population in Canada - behave in an almost Protestant fashion to Catholics in the rest of the world..."

In the US particularly, Catholicism has for a long time pretty much become mired in "Mainline Christianity" both in its intensely fundamentalist and liberal ends. It is not so much the case in other native Catholic nations such as Malta and Poland.

Therefore Evangelical Protestant beliefs in salvation may have influenced Catholic laity and even clergy.



In terms again of official teachings:

"...I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize &#8220;the seeds of the Word&#8221; present and active in the various religions (Ad gentes, n. 11). This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, &#8220;there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life&#8221;.

The &#8220;seeds of truth&#8221; present and active in the various religious traditions are a reflection of the unique Word of God, who &#8220;enlightens every man coming into world&#8221; and who became flesh in Christ Jesus (cf. Jn 1:14). They are together an &#8220;effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body&#8221; and which &#8220;blows where it wills&#8221;.

Every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.

In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer. Because of the human spirit's constitutive openness to God's action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that "every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person". We experienced an eloquent manifestation of this truth at the World Day of Prayer for Peace on 27 October 1986 in Assisi, and on other similar occasions of great spiritual intensity.

3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. "The Spirit's presence and activity", as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, "affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions" (n. 28). Indeed, the Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through history.

Normally, &#8220;it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God&#8217;s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)

Indeed, as the Second Vatican Council teaches, &#8220;since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery&#8221; (Gaudium et spes, n. 22).

This possibility is achieved through sincere, inward adherence to the Truth, generous self-giving to one&#8217;s neighbour and the search for the Absolute inspired by the Spirit of God. A ray of the divine Wisdom is also shown through the fulfilment of the precepts and practices that conform to the moral law and to authentic religious sense...

For the reasons mentioned here, the attitude of the Church and of individual Christians towards other religions is marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race...May the Spirit of truth and love, in view of the third millennium now close at hand, guide us on the paths of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and of the dialogue of peace and brotherhood with the followers of all religions!..."

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, General Audience Address, September 16, 1998, Vatican

__________________



In the Catholic Church there has long been a lamentable difference between the faith understood as theology and the faith as understood by laity. For example, in the middle ages, lay Catholics in France participated in a cult honouring a mythical dog who saved a baby from being eaten by a serpent and was popularly called St. Guinefort. The church authorities investigated it and tried to suppress it, yet it held strong.

At the local level, Catholicism has always had much diversity. Local traditions are often blended with the faith.

I think that the relation between laity and the teachers of the flock has been improving in recent years. However there are still a great deal of misconceptions.

I am sorry in regard to your own family's views. I cannot say anything more than that they are not mine. I attended a Catholic school where we had 10% Muslim pupils, and a great diversity of creeds. Interfaith has always been a part of my life and practise of my faith.

I can only surmise that the post-Vatican II attempts to better catechize at the local level are still greatly wanting.

At the top level (the pope) the message has been clear since 1965. I am sad that at the local level we still have such problems.

In terms of mystics, you are correct many Catholic mystics have had great openness, such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa - the most powerful churchman of his time after Pope Pius II himself and the papacy's right hand man:

"...But, how should we bring the manifold of religions to one unity, since our people have defended their religion with blood, and they hardly will be willing to accept a new, unified religion?

The Divine Word answers: You should not introduce a new religion...You will find that not another faith but the one and the same faith is presupposed everywhere...Moses had described a path to God, but this path was neither taken up by everyone nor was it understood by everyone. Jesus illuminated and perfected this path; nevertheless, many even now remain unbelievers. Muhammad tried to make the same path easier, so that it might be accepted by all, even idolaters. These are the most famous of the said paths to God, although many others were presented by the wise and the prophets...Even though you acknowledge diverse religions, you all presuppose in all of this diversity the one...It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious faiths..."

- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), German mystic

If only all Catholics thought as he did - 600 years ago and a Cardinal too. It is very much my belief.

 

[Vouthon]

And again:

"Mystic, theologian and cardinal, Nicholas found that the insane war between Christians and Muslim was caused by prejudices and misconceptions about each other and the tendencies to assert one&#8217;s own religion as the absolute norm for all others. He took the risk of journeying to Constantinople in order to meet Muslims and get first-hand information about their religion with an open mind. He procured a copy of the Holy Quran, studied it carefully and wrote a treatise on it: Cribratio Al Corani (Shifting the Quran) in 1461 in order to help Christians understand the concerns of the Quran. For Nicholas, the Divine is &#8220;absolute mystery, incomprehensibly intelligible and named without names.&#8221; Hence, no religion is absolute in the sense that it could claim to have comprehended the Divine fully; every religion contains elements of revelation and hence each religion has to be understood in relation with the others. Each is in everything. As finite beings we have access to the Divine not through &#8220;proud pursuit of the reason&#8221; but in humility and intuitive perception in which a &#8220;learned ignorance (docta ignorantia) enlightens our mind. &#8220;One is more learned the more one has become aware that one is ignorant.&#8221; Then we realise that we cannot comprehend God in our logical categories, but we can only become aware of God&#8217;s all pervasive presence through a mystical insight into the deep &#8220;harmony of all things&#8221;: the entire creation is the &#8220;mirror of God&#8221; (speculum Dei). Diversity in creation and cultures is the language of God. (explicatio Dei). God is therefore &#8220;the radical unity of the opposites&#8221; (coincidentia oppositorum). &#8220;In God, absolute unity is absolute multiplicity, absolute identity is absolute diversity; absolute actuality is absolute potentiality&#8221; (Docta Ignorantia, 1932, pp. 1,5,21,50,74). With this mystical vision Nicholas wanted to open the perspectives of Christian theology to the universality of God&#8217;s plan of salvation and help the Christians be more tolerant of the believers of other religions. He prayed: &#8220;It is you, O God, who is being sought in various religions in various ways, and named with various names. For you remain as you are, to all incomprehensible and inexpressible. When you will graciously grant it, then sword, jealous hatred and evil will cease and all will come to know that there is but one religion in the variety of religious rites.&#8221; (De Pace, 1956, p. 15)

 

[Open_Minded]

May I ask, are you American? The reason I ask is because there tends to be a problem in the US, whereby Catholicism has become Protestantized.

Yes - actually - I am American.

Well - as my kids say when they settle their disputes with research over their I-phones, "when all else fails, get the facts". I did some quick googling and found this:

Taken as a whole, these responses reveal that most American Christians, including evangelicals, have more than just other Christian denominations in mind when they say there are many paths to salvation. For example, among white mainline Protestants (85%), black Protestants (81%) and white Catholics (88%), more than eight-in-ten of those who say many religions can lead to eternal life cite at least one non-Christian religion that can do so. .....

How Does One Obtain Eternal Life?

American adults express a variety of views on how people can achieve eternal life. When asked to describe in their own words what determines whether a person will attain eternal life, nearly three-in-ten (29%) say that a person's actions are most important. A similar number (30%) says that belief is the key factor in achieving everlasting life. One-in-ten refer to a combination of belief and actions as necessary for eternal life, and almost as many (8%) cite some other factor as most important. In addition, more than one-in-ten (14%) indicate they are unsure of what leads to eternal life, and another 7% volunteer they do not believe in eternal life.

You should read the entire PEW Research article - it's a mixed bag. But - in general - I'm more optimistic than I was before reading the article.


About experiences within my family ... as in anything else - situations are always more complex than can be outlined in a few paragraphs.


Firstly - no matter the beliefs of various family members - I honestly feel blessed and lucky to be part of such a large and supportive family.


Beyond that - the leadership of the Catholic Church here in America seems to encourage the more conservative theology. My observation in watching the American Catholic Church is that the Conservative American dynamic is not something limited to the laity.


I do thank you for your own information. It is wonderful to know that Catholic churches in other countries are involved in interfaith efforts. When I led interfaith efforts in my home metro area, getting the Catholic leadership involved wasn't possible. They wanted nothing to do with it. It was always individual Catholic lay people who got involved. So... it is good to know this isn't the case everywhere.


Also ... my experience with mainline Protest churches in America is that they are very open to interfaith efforts and have an open-minded attitude about "salvation" as well. It is the conservative, evangelical Protest churches (and the American Catholic Church) that are dragging America to the far right.


Thank you again for all the information you've provided. It is helpful.


In Peace - O_M

 

[PastorClark]

I think its great Pope Francis is defending atheists. I think people just need to stop fighting with each other. Its really getting old, its like everyone is a child and mommy wont give them the toys they want.

Its like this.

Atheists: Evolution created everything.

Religion: Show me Evidence that evolution created everything.

Atheists Show me evidence that God created everything.

Religion: God is all around us you just need faith.

Atheists: HA HA that is why you need faith because God isn't real. You wouldn't need faith if something is real.

Religion: You need to believe in God or else you are going to hell.

Atheists: Didn't you're little book say, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Religion; I'm a Christian and i have the right to Judge people because God has sent me for i am his servant.

Atheists: you still haven't shown me any evidence for God so i'm going to end this debate.

Do you see where i'm getting at lol.


but one thing i have to say is that Benedict XVI sometimes creeps me out. With how people takes his pictures.

Mainly this picture, be because its saying, "come to me little ones so that i can take your souls."

 

[Shiranui117]

but one thing i have to say is that Benedict XVI sometimes creeps me out. With how people takes his pictures.

Mainly this picture, be because its saying, "come to me little ones so that i can take your souls."

That is all.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I agree, but I would still prefer to focus on the change of tone coming from Pope Francis. The Vatican sent out a message intended to pacify all the grumbling from conservatives, who perhaps prefer a more combative tone when it comes to atheism. I see Francis as taking a step in the right direction and his minion as trying cushion the shock of any movement at all in that direction.

We agree there ... Pope Francis will (hopefully) be around for awhile. I affirm that as time goes on he will continue to push the edges. Of course - I'm not so naive as to think that 2000 years of history is going to change in my lifetime. But .. I do hope we're moving in the right direction.

I support both your sentiments.

What I find refreshing is that this pope is very much his own man, and is prepared to confirm what many Christians have been saying for some time now. That God is about Love, forgiveness, redemption and Guidance.
Calvin's doctrine refined and mirrored some of the earliest thoughts of the Catholic tradition. Both Catholicism and Calving have tended to major on aspects of sin,punishment and control rather than the more positive aspects of Jesus' teachings.

 

[propheticeve]

For years, I participated in inter-faith dialog. Although there were individual Catholics participating as well... I NEVER thought I'd live to see the day when the POPE would utter such words.

This is wonderful news for all of humanity. Religious warfare and violence will only end if religious leaders challenge their followers to live in harmony with others.

Sorry for the quote, just to keep myself on point so I know I'm talking relevant. If the Pope really said that unbelievers can be redeemed without going through Christ, then he opposed the Bible he claimed to believe.

Do you believe that belief that non-Catholics are redeemed like the Catholics as long as good works are done is a harmony factor? I beg to differ. The majority of modern Christians believe that non-Christians are not redeemed unless they believe because Christ said in the Bible that He is the ONLY Way, the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Him. That doesn't stop them from being nice and living in harmony with others, except that they have true compassion for the unsaved.

Analogy: When I am walking towards a pit, not knowing it's there. I would be grateful if someone informed me and took me to a safer path. Compassion is not watching as I walk and walk and walk and then dropped into the pit, then coming over and say, "You're okay." Standing above ground and looking at me, not doing anything to lift me out of that pit. You may not believe in Heaven, Hell or God or Jesus, but please meditate on the analogy to understand my definition of compassion.

No intent to offend, thanks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sorry for the quote, just to keep myself on point so I know I'm talking relevant. If the Pope really said that unbelievers can be redeemed without going through Christ, then he opposed the Bible he claimed to believe.

Do you believe that belief that non-Catholics are redeemed like the Catholics as long as good works are done is a harmony factor? I beg to differ. The majority of modern Christians believe that non-Christians are not redeemed unless they believe because Christ said in the Bible that He is the ONLY Way, the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Him. That doesn't stop them from being nice and living in harmony with others, except that they have true compassion for the unsaved.

Analogy: When I am walking towards a pit, not knowing it's there. I would be grateful if someone informed me and took me to a safer path. Compassion is not watching as I walk and walk and walk and then dropped into the pit, then coming over and say, "You're okay." Standing above ground and looking at me, not doing anything to lift me out of that pit. You may not believe in Heaven, Hell or God or Jesus, but please meditate on the analogy to understand my definition of compassion.

No intent to offend, thanks.

Who dug the pit?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sorry for the quote, just to keep myself on point so I know I'm talking relevant. If the Pope really said that unbelievers can be redeemed without going through Christ, then he opposed the Bible he claimed to believe.

Do you believe that belief that non-Catholics are redeemed like the Catholics as long as good works are done is a harmony factor? I beg to differ. The majority of modern Christians believe that non-Christians are not redeemed unless they believe because Christ said in the Bible that He is the ONLY Way, the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Him. That doesn't stop them from being nice and living in harmony with others, except that they have true compassion for the unsaved.

Analogy: When I am walking towards a pit, not knowing it's there. I would be grateful if someone informed me and took me to a safer path. Compassion is not watching as I walk and walk and walk and then dropped into the pit, then coming over and say, "You're okay." Standing above ground and looking at me, not doing anything to lift me out of that pit. You may not believe in Heaven, Hell or God or Jesus, but please meditate on the analogy to understand my definition of compassion.

No intent to offend, thanks.

That is a very Exclusive view of God and Christianity.

Christianity is simply one of the ways that God is worshipped. The early followers of Jesus had no concept of Christianity and had no New Testament. What they heard of Jesus teachings was by word of mouth. They knew nothing about salvation or hell These were concepts not yet established.

Today we argue about the written word in our Bibles and the theology derived from them, as if they are all true and not simply the work of previous generations of Christians.

Through the ages God has spoken to many peoples though the words of prophets and great thinkers. These have all become paths to God.

I believe that of all these, Jesus is the greatest, and has the most pertinent message. I do not believe all others have had a true message of God, If only because when measured by Love and individual freedom, those messages fail, and the application of those messages lead to oppression and subjugation.

However all People are individuals and are capable of living a good and Godly life, what ever they may or may not believe. It is that life and what you have done with it in promoting God's purpose for the world, that is important. Not that you have followed a particular belief system.

Much of the Bible is clearly "off message" and reflects the opinion of the writers or their society, rather than the word of God. It is not a tool to be used to define the saved.

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry for the quote, just to keep myself on point so I know I'm talking relevant. If the Pope really said that unbelievers can be redeemed without going through Christ, then he opposed the Bible he claimed to believe.

When I hear this, I hear someone who finds their identity in group membership. If you are not part of the group-identity, then you are nobody, you are not "saved" (a word used to mean in-group or out-of-group). In other words it's ethnocentric thinking with those who belong, and those who are 'outsiders'. Everything that Jesus taught against.

Reference the Good Samaritan story. The religious rejected him being outside the true believers, yet he was truer to God than any one of them. How is it despite this teaching, that religious mentality persists in a religion in his name today? I guess it's human nature to gravitate to the easy and wide path of "salvation" through group membership, rather than the hard and narrow path of humility and sincerity through which grace works and produces true "fruits of the spirit", by which you shall know them?

An atheist with the fruits of a good heart is worth far more than all True Believers who have only their "true beliefs".

Do you believe that belief that non-Catholics are redeemed like the Catholics as long as good works are done is a harmony factor? I beg to differ.

"By their fruits you shall know them". "By their articles of faith believed you shall know them". Pick which one of the two is your view, and which one is spoken by Jesus.

The majority of modern Christians believe that non-Christians are not redeemed unless they believe because Christ said in the Bible that He is the ONLY Way, the Truth and the Life; no one goes to the Father except through Him.

First, that the majority believes something to be true does not mean it's correct. That's a logic fallacy. Since when is majority opinion ever the highest truth??? Normally, majority opinion typically should be regarded with suspicion, as the truly spiritual are normally in the tiny minority. "Narrow is the path", versus "wide is the path".

You are not talking "scholarly opinion" in a specialized field of science here. You are talking adopted traditional views from a time and group of those in the church in political positions. This "majority" you refer to didn't arrive at this through their own special insight. It was merely adopted because that was taught. If that's where truth comes from, then why did Jesus ever teach anything at all? The majority believed differently than him, and according to you, they should have been right, not him.

Secondly, you misquoted Jesus. He didn't not say I am the ONLY way, such as you all-caps emphasized above. You supplied that idea and stuck it into Jesus' mouth for him. You may wish to read this thread here to understand better what Jesus was saying when he said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life": http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/147549-jesus-said-him-i-am-way.html (my own thoughts to it appear in post 14 in that thread)

That doesn't stop them from being nice and living in harmony with others, except that they have true compassion for the unsaved.

"Unsaved"? What really does that mean, other than they aren't a member of your group validated by believing as the group believes?

Analogy: When I am walking towards a pit, not knowing it's there. I would be grateful if someone informed me and took me to a safer path. Compassion is not watching as I walk and walk and walk and then dropped into the pit, then coming over and say, "You're okay." Standing above ground and looking at me, not doing anything to lift me out of that pit. You may not believe in Heaven, Hell or God or Jesus, but please meditate on the analogy to understand my definition of compassion.

No intent to offend, thanks.

Your analogy is the pits itself. No offense. I don't think you are in a position to judge others.

 

[Vouthon]

I do thank you for your own information. It is wonderful to know that Catholic churches in other countries are involved in interfaith efforts. When I led interfaith efforts in my home metro area, getting the Catholic leadership involved wasn't possible. They wanted nothing to do with it. It was always individual Catholic lay people who got involved. So... it is good to know this isn't the case everywhere.

I am sorry to hear this, truly. Here in the UK I must say that the church has been very much in line with the Vatican II reforms and other than defending moral teachings of the church, has always had a positive role in interfaith.

Consider Pope John Paul II's 1986 World Day of Prayer for Peace:

Day of Prayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was an incredible Sikh man called Harbhajan Singh Yogi. He was educated in a Catholic convent school as a child. He visited Pope Paul VI in 1972 and advised him to convene a gathering of friendship and understanding for representatives of all religions. He reminded Paul VI that catholic meant "universal" and suggested that, as head of the world's largest religious organization, he would be the most suitable leader to host such a meeting. He maintained his relationship with the Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II. In 1983 and again in 1984, they met. When the Golden Temple in Amritsar came under assault from the Indian Army with the loss of life of many hundreds of pilgrims, the Pope offered his official condolences.

In 1986 Pope John Paul II convened a gathering of religious representatives of the world such as Singh had proposed fourteen years earlier:

"Pope John Paul II organized the first World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986. In all there were 160 religious leaders spending the day together with fasting and praying to their God or Gods. They represented 32 Christian religious organizations and 11 other non-Christian world religions, including:

* Christian religions and organizations:
o Roman Catholic Church
o Greek Orthodox Church
o Russian Orthodox Church
o World Council of Churches
o World YWCA
o World Alliance of YMCA's
o Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers)
o Mennonite World Conference
o Reformed Ecumenical Synod
o Baptist World Alliance
o Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
o World Alliance of Reformed Churches
o Lutheran World Federation
o Anglican Communion
o Old Catholic Church of Utrecht
o Assyrian Church of the East
* Hinduism
* Sikhism
* Buddhism
* Judaism
* Islam
* African and North American animists
* Shintoism
* Zoroastrianism
* Baha&#8217;i

In 1993, John Paul II repeated the Day of Prayer to pray for an end to the war in Bosnia, and invited leaders of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions. And on January 24, 2002, he organized another World Day of Prayer for Peace, again in Assissi. Some 200 other religious leaders were present, including Roman Catholic cardinals, Muslim clerics, Jewish rabbis, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians and members of African traditional religions. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorism attacks, the event intended to discourage making religion a motive for conflict in the 21st Century."

Has there ever been a bigger interfaith venture?

Here is the website of the Catholic Church of England and Wales' interfaith section: Catholic Bishops' Conference


The Catholic Bishops Conference of England Wales notes in one document:

"...We must certainly enter dialogue prepared to be surprised and to change our minds, because in dialogue with people of other religions we must not be surprised, but actually expect to find God already there. It is in dialogue that we meet and are moved to collaborate with the same Holy Spirit we have received ourselves..."

http://www.cbcew.org.uk/page.aspx?pid=458

I should add that the US Bishops Conference has a similar website: Interreligious


Also the nuns of Scarboro in Canada: Scarboro Missions &#8212; A Society of Canadian catholics, priests, and laity dedicated to the mission of Jesus Christ

They produced this poster of the Golden Rule in various world religions:
Scarboro Missions &#8212; A Society of Canadian catholics, priests, and laity dedicated to the mission of Jesus Christ

It now is up in the Vatican.

Also ... my experience with mainline Protest churches in America is that they are very open to interfaith efforts and have an open-minded attitude about "salvation" as well. It is the conservative, evangelical Protest churches (and the American Catholic Church) that are dragging America to the far right.

I am sorry to hear this. I know it couldn't always have been like this, however. Back in the late 19th century and early 20th Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, was massive on the then interfaith scene. Under Gibbons the American Catholic Church was probably the most liberal in the world.

Here's his statue:

File:Cardinal James Gibbons.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It reads:

"...James Cardinal Gibbons
Archbishop of Baltimore
Devoted Churchman
Exemplary Citizen
Friend of Humanity

July 23 1834 - March 24, 1921

Citizens of Many Faiths Hereby Honour a Great American..."

He attended the first World's Parliament of Religions in 1893:

"...In 1893, the World&#8217; s Parliament of Religions was held along with other religious congresses as part of the World&#8217;s Columbian Exposition in Chicago...It gathered the leaders of religions and religious scholars from all over the world. It opened in September 11th and continued for seventeen days. The delegates met in what is now the Art Institute of Chicago...It was explicitly asserted by the Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore and Cardinal, James Gibbons who said that, &#8220;though we do not agree in matters of faith, &#8230;thanks be to God there is one platform on which we all stand united. It is the platform of charity, of humanity, and of benevolences.&#8221;...
For Catholics, the leadership of liberal prelates who occupied positions of power in the American Catholic hierarchy, such as James Cardinal Gibbons and John Keane (the rector of the Catholic University of America,) was important for their participation in both the Catholic Congress and the World&#8217;s Parliament...It was symbolic that in the procession marching to the platform of the opening session of the Parliament, the Presbyterian cleric Barrows stood on the left of the president of the Auxiliary, Charles C. Bonney, who was a Swedenborgian, and the Cardinal Gibbons stood on his right..."​

Here is Gibbons views on religious liberty:

"...A man enjoys religious liberty when he possesses the free right of worshiping God according to the dictates of a right conscience, and of practicing a form of religion most in accordance with his duties to God. Every act infringing on his freedom of conscience is justly styled religious intolerance. The religious liberty is the true right of every man because it corresponds with a most certain duty which God has put upon him. I heartily pray that religious intolerance may never take root in our favored land. May the only king to force our conscience be the King of kings; may the only prison erected among us for the sin of unbelief or misbelief be the prison of a troubled conscience; and may our only motive for embracing truth be not the fear of man, but the love of truth and of God...."

- James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, in "The Faith of Our Fathers" (1872)

 

[Copernicus]

....Christianity is simply one of the ways that God is worshipped...

Terry, when I read this, I couldn't help but feel that the statement was in need of revision: "Christianity is many of the ways that God is worshiped." Not all Christians idealize the religion in the same way.

I'm not expecting this Pope to be able to change a lot of church policies, and I doubt that he even wants to change those that I disagree most strongly with. He has shown homophobic tendencies in the past that could surface again, but his new role may transform his thinking on such subjects. By changing the rhetoric, he has opened the path to a more civil discourse in the future. It may have a reciprocal effect on some of the more combative atheists and anti-Catholic Christians out there. It is hard to stay mad at someone who is showing respect for you, even if that person does not have respect for your beliefs about religion.

 

[Vouthon]

He has shown homophobic tendencies in the past that could surface again, but his new role may transform his thinking on such subjects.

Although....

According to two gay rights activists, Marcelo Márquez and Andrés Albertsen, in private conversations with them Bergoglio expressed support for the spiritual needs of "homosexual people" and willingness to support "measured actions" on their behalf

He also washed the feet of aids sufferers, a disease often associated with homosexuality, and as bishop, while he opposed gay marriage, he supported civil partnership apparently.