Correct, based on what I was told in high school mumble-mumble years ago. ISTR that the term was “hidden church”; but whatever the term, the concept was that someone who does good — preferably out of love for God and/or their fellow man rather than out of self-interest — is a member of the Body of Christ whether they know it or not. It’s also tied in with the idea that works are the way faith manifests itself. Something about knowing a tree by its fruit.
(As one might suspect, the above was explained by a Jesuit. The Dominican nuns I had in grade school would have responded to any mention of it with a vigorous round of knuckle-whacking.)
Yep summed up nicely, it’s also a part of his plan to open dialogue with the Orthodox Churches and other faiths. I think what we are seeing is an acknowledgement that there are many ways to God and also a direct attack on atheism, but saying it loud might be a few years off yet.
And if you die in combat but didn’t like fighting, are you still stuck in Valhalla until Ragnarök, or can you light out for the nude beaches of Asgard favored by hot Scandinavian girls? You need more than one pope to work out this sort of detail.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit paleontologist who spent years studying Peking Man (Homo erectus pekinensis). One of his other projects was Piltdown Man, but we all have bad days. Gregor Mendel, who discovered the laws of inheritance so vital for explaining modern genetics and evolution, was an Augustinian friar.
Won’t happen. Some people like to be ignorant.
But that was the part of my childhood that made eight years of Catholic education (by Dominicans, of course–see OttoDaFe’s post) a bit more bearable.
What I find interesting about what the Pope said is that he did not limit it to those who have not have the opportunity to accept or deny Jesus, like the old theological questions of “Did Aristotle, who lived before Jesus, go to Heaven?” or “Will these Pagan Babies[sub]TM[/sub] we’re collecting pennies to buy–er–save go to Hell if I don’t put my full allowance in the box?” (Per the Dominican nuns, no and yes.) This is much more inclusive than what the laity was told when I was still Catholic, and an attitude like his would’ve done a lot to keep me in forty years ago.
Aye. And doing good things out of love, not of pride (parable of the widow and the rich man) - going “nyah, nyah, you’re going to He-eeeell!” is neither a good deed nor what I’d call a lovin’ 'tude.
The trail of sourcing for this story seems to originate with this CNN report:
The problem here is that this can’t be right, either. It would be really helpful to know Rosica’s actual words, instead of an interspersing of quotes and paraphrases, with the quotes not including so much as a full sentence.
It has been several decades, at least, since the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the position that you have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved. But the implied meaning here is that not just atheists, but even non-Catholic Christians who are aware of the existence of the Catholic Church, are headed to hell.
So like I said, this can’t be right. Whatever Rosica may have actually said, it’s been garbled by the reporter. We don’t know what he really meant.
ETA: My Google-fu hasn’t turned up Rosica’s actual words, unfortunately. But English is his native language, so whatever the problem was, translating from another language shouldn’t have been part of it.
Catholic doctrine does say that if you refuse to enter the church, you can’t be saved. Some catholic theologians, though, take note that if the Catholic church isn’t behaving, people might understandably make the mistake of thinking the Catholic church isn’t the church, and in such a case, by refusing to be catholic, they will not thereby have refused to enter the church.
“…they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.”
That word “knowing” allows for a lot of doctrinal wiggle room.
Oh, please let it be that we’re looking at the start of a pattern of Francis saying/writing how he feels about something, the newspapers reporting it their way, and the Curia frantically running to explain that there has been a misunderstanding or a quote out of context or a mistranslation or remember he’s not infallible 24/7 or whatever. That would be a trip. If he can’t fire them all he might as well keep them awake at night…
Does anyone really understand what they are trying to say? It seems to me it’s just a bunch of word games to avoid the arrogance of coming right out and saying you are all damned unless you belong to our group.
Check out this passage from DOMINUS IESUS, who knew how complicated it is saving people from the eternal torture of hell from the omni benevolent God.
As Frylock pointed out, the “going to hell” scenario is always predicated on the idea that a person deliberately chose to take a path that he or she knew was wrong. It is similar to the issue of matrimony and annulments: if one party enters into the marriage and says all the right things, but is later discovered to have been unwilling to or incapable of making the necessary commitment, the marriage may be annulled.
If one looks around at the world and simply cannot believe that there is a god, one can hardly be expected to go through the motions of pretending to believe just on the off chance that one might go to a place one also does not believe exists after one dies.
The church includes a lot of people who want to run an exclusive club. (Augustine of Hippo was all for sending unbaptized babies to hell. Despite the influence he wielded on the church, the church never adopted his beliefs and recently even dumped the workaround of “limbo” that was postulated to counter his assertion.) The teachings of the church are always more nuanced than shows up in single-line quotes. And, when dealing in particulars, they have often been modified through the years.
No position of the church is going to be in “plain language.”
I have asserted a position very close to that stated by Pope Francis on several occasions on this board. (It pleases me that I have a pope on my side, now.)
I am not at all sure that we can find a “plain language” declaration on the topic with which everyone in the church would agree. It might take the form of:
[ul][li]people who know that God exists but choose to deny it are going to hell;[/li][li]people who have no idea that there might be a god, but who try to live ethical or moral lives will be saved;[/li][li]people who have heard the Gospels preached, but who do not find them persuasive or who look on the sinful nature of humans in the church and are not persuaded to join, either are or are not more like the first group or the second group.[/li][/ul]
Which atheists? (And why should my opinion matter?)
If it is really important to you and you cannot already tell from what I have already posted, I would guess that rather few atheists “know there is a god and refuse to admit it.” Therefore, the vast majority of atheists simply do not believe in a god and will be judged on their ethics, not their “faith.”
The atheists that don’t believe that gods exist but do good works(as opposed to atheists that believe that gods exist and do bad works I guess:rolleyes:-this hemming and hawing on your part is getting rather silly). Why shouldn’t I be asking your opinion? You are posting in this thread, aren’t you?
At this point in the conversation I am trying to decide what is more insulting-Christians telling atheists outright that they are going to Hell, or Christians believing that atheists are going to Hell but letting them think they may not be out of…concern for feelings? Vindictiveness? Something else?
Edited to add: This bit about there being no official Roman Catholic position on whether atheists go to Heaven or Hell? Not buying it.
