In your post, “this” looks like it refers to “literalism” from the sentence you quoted.
That is very well put. To say that Christ is the only way is different from saying Belief of Certain Propositions About Christ Before You Die is the only way.
In Catholic theology, redemption is different from salvation. Francis is not saying that everyone is saved, or that everyone is going to heaven. He’s saying the effects of Christ’s death are universal. But Catholic theology does not claim that Christ’s death is, all by itself, sufficient for each person’s salvation.
I thought the general idea was that Jesus’ crucifixion takes care of original sin and you have to seek salvation and forgiveness for the rest of it. Is it unusual to describe the first part of that as redemption? I think Frylock’s post answers this.
Sure you did:
I took that to mean that being a literalist was something you thought was dogma among Christians. So did JRDelirious from his response to the same post.
I was specifically addressing John 14:6 (one sentence) of the bible.
Sorry if that was vague.
My son was like that actually, when he was about 3. It was hilarious!! He didn’t believe in God or Heaven, but he did believe in Satan and Hell, which he imagined was some sort of awesome Heavy Metal eternal party. I have NO IDEA where he came up with that stuff; neither I nor his father was particularly into heavy metal or anything. But he loved drawing pictures of him hanging out with Satan and rocking out in Hell. It really disturbed my mom (a Christian) and it sort of annoyed me for the same reason it annoyed BigT but he outgrew it in about a year.
Now, at 13, he finds it deeply embarrassing.
Count me in for a big fair play to the Pope, even though I certainly am a non-believer.
This does sorta ruin Pascal’s wager, though.
I’m not much of an armchair theologian, and I certainly don’t speaka the language well. But:
-
My understanding of what Christians generally believe is that Jesus’ sacrificial death atones for all sins, not just original sin.
-
Here’s where my lack of ability to use words like redemption properly kicks in, so I’ll use my own words: at least in the non-Calvinist parts of Protestantism, the proper analogy would be to see salvation as a gift that Christ’s death and resurrection made available to all. But you still have to be willing to receive the gift of salvation to be saved.
It’s as if someone wrapped a million dollars in a box and put it under your Christmas tree: you still need to open the box for all that cash to do you any good.
I’m a universalist, in that I believe that eventually all people will come to be reconciled to God, in this life or the next. There is no other theory of salvation that I can square with God as revealed in the Bible.
I also believe Jesus when he says “No man comes to the Father, but through me” and Peter when he says "Salvation is found in no one else [but Jesus], for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
There is really no contradiction - you don’t have to believe a specific doctrine about Jesus to be saved; you can explicitly reject him. But eventually all people will succumb to God’s irresistible grace and that is because of Jesus.
ETA: I very much doubt that Francis is a universalist, as implied by the headline in the OP. That would be big news. But as has been pointed out, there is a difference between saying all people have been redeemed and all have been (or will be) saved.
So why should anyone be a Catholic? I get to say no Hail Marys and get Sundays free? Awesome.
In any case, good on the pope for trying to be inclusive. Bad on the pope for promulgating woo.
That sounds about right. In other words, the sentiment was nice but the statement was much less broad than it appeared. Posters are continuing to struggle with what he said, too.
Speaking as a Catholic, and a fairly conservative one, I don’t regard this as radical.
To use one of C.S. Lewis’ arguments, think of Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats. In that parable, it appears that some people who DIDN’T think they were serving Jesus really were, and will be rewarded for it. And some people who THOUGHT they were Jesus’ friends didn’t demonstrate through their actions that they really were, and WON’T get the reward they were expecting.
Or think of the parable of the man who told his two sons to work in the vineyard. One son said, “Hell, no” but went ahead and did the work. Another said, “Yes, sir,” but didn’t actually do any work. Mightn’t we interpret that as meaning that ostensibly devout Christians who DON’T actually live CHristian lives are like the latter son, while an atheist living a virtuous life is like the former son? In the end, if the former son is actually doing what his father commanded, HE will be rewarded, despite his previous disrespect.
Given Jesus’ own words, it doesn’t strike me (or, I guess, the Pope) that an atheist living his life in accordance with Jesus’ commands could find himself in Heaven, even if he never thought it existed.
As an atheist, why does it matter to you?
How can you guys not understand this?
It doesn’t matter to him. That’s, basically, part of what he’s saying. The entire post is tongue in cheek. He doesn’t believe anything he’s saying. He is (presumably with somewhat gentle intention) mocking the view being discussed.
Sure, but do Christians go to Hel, Valhalla, or Folkvangr? Who decides? What if you die in combat but you’re also a bad person? What if the battle is at sea? Does Rán keep you? This is the kinda stuff we need a Pope for.
That, and how we should conduct our sex lives.
What ^he^ said.
I’m an ex-Catholic, and although I have no love (nor hate) for my former church, I hate to see it slandered for ‘doctrines’ it does not preach. I’ve sporadically been trying to correct people’s misconceptions and ignorance on the RCC’s doctrines since I signed up here. It’s taking longer than I thought.
Several people have beaten me to this thread. Some of whom are acknowledged, practicing Catholics. I think I’ll leave it to them, this time. Saves me from having to look up all the shit I’ve long since forgotten, due to non-belief and consequent lack of interest.
I have a great respect the Eastern Orthodox position- Heaven & Hell (Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, not Hades) are immersion in God - joyous for a believer but dreadful for an incorrigible non-believer.
Better seats.