"(T)his ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God...ADDED:
And that, simply, is blasphemy."...
To both atheists and believers, he said that “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: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.”
२४ मे, २०१३
God "has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! Even the atheists.... Everyone!"
So says Pope Francis.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११८ टिप्पण्या:
He might have noted the right and duty to resist evil men with, as necessary, deadly force as allowed or required under Natural Law, the Catechism Of The Catholic Church and as advocated by St. Bernard of Clairvaux in his "De Laude Militae Novae".
He could have added, "If your God tells you that you have a duty to kill those who don't believe as you do, then your God is a lousy sonovabitch."
Sounds like I'm going to heaven too. Even though...
I don't doubt the atheists will resent his putting in a good word.
Even the Pope isn't above a little "helpful" PR.
It's not like it's an encyclical or something.
Good for Pope Francis.
“[I]f 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: we need that so much."
It's almost Ann's statement of purpose for this blog. But the "culture of encounter" will also have to deal with the Evil One (to say nothing of the Arch-Druid), who isn't all that interested in doing good.
St Francis would be proud of this dude. I suppose we should ender unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's, and to PETA those things that are Gaia's.
Or we could consider our America Presbyterian third option which to is to pray briefly and then kill Caesar, kill his Roman Legions and kill his High Priest in Rome.
Or as Pope Benedict put it, "There are many roads to God."
Take that, Mohammad.
If Jesus tried to donate His blood to the Red Cross, they'd still ask him a bunch of personal questions to see if it was good enough.
And the true agents of hate, liberal progressives supporting gay marriage, will continue to mock and spew nasty rhetoric toward the Pope.
God isn't the only one who can do some redeeming.
My Aunt Martha once redeemed a bunch of S & H Green Stamps for a toaster.
A priest implored François de La Rochefoucauld on his deathbed to renounce Satan. "My dear fellow, this is no time to be making enemies," he answered.
Hope you find this helpful. Tits.
The Catholic church has been tricking people into trying to do good deeds for years.
I don't doubt the atheists will resent his putting in a good word.
Speaking *as* an atheist, I am entirely in favor of the head of the world's largest religious organization coming out against religious people killing nonbelievers. :)
Uh, I think Francis is on a little power trip right now. Redemption as a function of salvation only occurs when Christ is deemed as your lord and savior and you ask him for your soul to be saved. Good works do not redeem anyone, much less an atheist.
Revenant said...
I don't doubt the atheists will resent his putting in a good word.
Speaking *as* an atheist, I am entirely in favor of the head of the world's largest religious organization coming out against religious people killing nonbelievers. :)
You seem to be an exception to the rule.
"But I don't wanna be redeemed, I wanna go on arguing with The Big Guy," says the impossible Jew.
killing in the name of God...
And that, simply, is blasphemy...
I take it he's never read the old testament.
I think he's right.
Why would anyone be upset about it even if he isn't. What did he say that would offend anyone. Unless they are just looking for a way to be offended.
Bring back fish on Friday.
Nice little dig into atheists, but this Pope spends way too much time talking about "social justice", "slave labor", and "workers rights".
"I think about those who are unemployed often because of an economic conception of society that seeks egoistic profit regardless of social justice,” the pope told a crowd in St. Peter’s Square for a May Day audience."
What the heck?
JG
EMD said...
The Catholic church has been tricking people into trying to do good deeds for years.
Maybe we can get a 9 year old to tell him off...
Revenant: "Speaking *as* an atheist, I am entirely in favor of the head of the world's largest religious organization coming out against religious people killing nonbelievers. :)"
Yes because Catholic "radicals" lashing out and killing non-Catholic believers is a real issue in our time.
Good thing the Pope has potentially nipped some of that in the bud.
We can all rest easier now.
"Redemption as a function of salvation only occurs when Christ is deemed as your lord and savior and you ask him for your soul to be saved."
Do you have some special inside info that the Pope doesn't have?
I think about those who are unemployed often because of an economic conception of society that seeks egoistic profit regardless of social justice,
The Pope is welcome to hire as many of them as he wants, and pay them as much above the local minimum wage as he wants.
Problem solved.
It goes without saying, and the whole judgement thing is often misused but I guess some folks might hear it for the first time.
Truth coming from the pulpit - what a novelty.
And your point is...?
Small-c 'catholic'. Seems about right.
John Gout said...
Nice little dig into atheists, but this Pope spends way too much time talking about "social justice", "slave labor", and "workers rights".
"I think about those who are unemployed often because of an economic conception of society that seeks egoistic profit regardless of social justice,” the pope told a crowd in St. Peter’s Square for a May Day audience."
What the heck?
JG
That's what you get from a liberation theology pope. I wished him the best of luck, but he clearly has decided that socio-economic justice is going to be the altar on which he will disseminate the word of the lord. Not good.
I just wrote out a very nice argument with the Pope and the frickin' internet ate it.
So never mind.
Sorun said...
"Redemption as a function of salvation only occurs when Christ is deemed as your lord and savior and you ask him for your soul to be saved."
Do you have some special inside info that the Pope doesn't have?
Redemption and salvation are separate things. Unless this pope is equating the two, then he still seems to be neglecting the fact that his inclusionary message is missing the very important ingredient of what salvation requires. My inside info is in the scriptures. He would do well to remember that himself.
IOW, who cares about starving and impoverishment? Moral and spiritual problems are more concerning!
Great way to become irrelevant as advised by, well...
I've twice now had religious people, one a born again, and another a Baptist, tell me because I didn't accept Jesus Christ as our savior, that I was going to hell.
I wonder what that must be like, living life thinking that a large percentage of the people in the world are going to burn in hell.
"In my house are many mansions" ... and the atheists get to party on the back porch.
Personally, I believe in an afterlife, and I when I cross over, I expect to meet the souls of more than a few confused ex-atheists. -CP
If you are going to quote the Pope, please do NOT use the Washington Post as your source. They are absolutely certain to get it completely wrong and distorted. Most especially is David Gibson a politically-slanted and biased writer (one cannot accurately call him a reporter) who seeks to always put his own spin (and snark) on things.
If you wish to quote the Pope, please use an authentic Vatican source, like Vatican Radio.
Pope is Catholic! In other news... bears continue to sh!t in the woods.
Seriously, this is not a new teaching.
Wow, this is good news.
Here is Vatican Radio on the homily, in which Pope Francis is commenting on Mark 9:38-40 --
Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:
"The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:
"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! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. 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: we need that so much. 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.”
“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”
Jesus saves!
... but Moses invests!
Mohammad (Piss Be Upon Him) is the one true word... and that word is "NO!" (too subtle?)
The bhudda is my bhuddy, and zen-some.
-CP
But notice the key point here, which is not that even atheists can be redeemed, but that it is Jesus which is the Redeemer.
And second, that we all -- even atheists -- are subject to the commandment to do good.
And third, if an atheist does do good, then it is possible for him to find God. No one is lost forever, not even atheists.
I am glad he said what he said. I have always joked that I don't believe in God but I am a good girl.
And third, if an atheist does do good, then it is possible for him to find God. No one is lost forever, not even atheists.
That does it, I'm paying my taxes!
You seem to be an exception to the rule.
Really? You polled the world's 1 billion atheists and arrived at that conclusion, did you?
Considering that we are all born atheists, it's so sweet of the Pope to include atheists in God's Plan.
The big problem is that the RC church continues to do bad, by treating women as second-class citizens who need male approval in the exercise of their privacy rights, by support of wealth-transfer, blue laws and laws against pornography, sex in strange positions, and homosexuality, and by opposition to suicide, cloning and contraception.
@Bender,
Thanks for the complete quotation!
But, to echo something Methadras said above, redemption & salvation are two different things. The RCC believes that Christ's death redeemed all of creation. It is a universal Atonement, as opposed to those (e.g. Calvinists) who believe that Christ only redeemed the Elect.
Our redemption by Christ makes personal salvation possible for all men, but it is not by itself sufficient. And here's where it gets sticky.
I cannot believe that the Pope is saying that 1) good deeds alone can lead to salvation, or 2) one can be saved outside the Church, be it Visible or Invisible. The Pope is not a pelagian.
I think what he is saying is, as a matter of living in the modern world 1) that Catholics/Christians should not make it their moral business to judge their fellow men as to the status of their salvation, but that 2) just as St. Paul says that the moral law is written on the hearts of all men, we Catholics should use that moral law as a way to build bridges to do good in the world with both believers & unbelievers.
There goes Jimbino with his baby atheists again. Are they baby socialists, too?
"Mommy! Feed me!"
But notice the key point here, which is not that even atheists can be redeemed, but that it is Jesus which is the Redeemer.
And second, that we all -- even atheists -- are subject to the commandment to do good.
And third, if an atheist does do good, then it is possible for him to find God. No one is lost forever, not even atheists.
Well said. The WaPo article did not convey truly what Pope Francis taught, unfortunately, much to the detriment of its readers.
Are babies nudists, jimbino?
"Look at me! No pants!"
Even if you want to argue that religion is learned behavior, so is not shitting on yourself.
The big problem is that the RC church continues to do bad, by treating women as second-class citizens who need male approval in the exercise of their privacy rights, by support of wealth-transfer, blue laws and laws against pornography, sex in strange positions, and homosexuality, and by opposition to suicide, cloning and contraception.
Satire, thy name is jimbino. Good work!
liberation theology pope.
Wouldn't a libertarian-theology Pope be a hoot?
So you too are saved, Annie.
The big problem is that the RC church continues to do bad...by support of...laws against pornography, sex in strange positions, and homosexuality, and by opposition to suicide, cloning and contraception.
Sounds like the Vatican is opposed to most of what went on in Brave New World -- what's wrong with that?
I agree with Pope Francis that we are all redeemed by the Blood of Christ. But I don't understand the good works part. I think it is my duty as a Christian to wash others' feet, but I don't think it buys me Heaven. Belief does.
It could be that he's just encouraging the good works/fellowship with the hope of exposing/enticing more non-believers to the faith. Nothing wrong with that.
Arguing with Jimbino is like debating Christopher Hitchens.
If Christopher Hitchens was naked, crying, and shitting all over himself.
My use of "buys" refers to good works, not belief, by the way.
Interesting that Anthony Weiner expects and will no doubt get forgiveness for his sins. But, the same people who extend secular redemption to Weiner refuse to consider it for the Pope who did nothing wrong and extends spiritual redemption to them.
Don't worry, baby atheists, I'm still pro-life!
Trailing clouds of glory.
Not an atheist.
But, to echo something Methadras said above, redemption & salvation are two different things. . . . Our redemption by Christ makes personal salvation possible for all men, but it is not by itself sufficient. And here's where it gets sticky.
Pope Francis would agree. Which is why this is a false dispute.
And so I refer back to my earlier comment -- please do NOT rely on the Washington Post for anything.
I don't understand the good works part. I think it is my duty as a Christian to wash others' feet, but I don't think it buys me Heaven.
Neither the Pope nor the Catholic Church say it buys anyone into heaven either. Never have said it. Never will say it.
In addition to not listening to what the Washington Post says about the Catholic Church, please do NOT listen to what Luther or Calvin or any other Protestant has ever said about the Church. For five hundred years they have been having an arguement with themselves against strawmen of their own making.
"I wonder what that must be like, living life thinking that a large percentage of the people in the world are going to burn in hell. "
===============
It's awful.
But I also suspect it's true, and I include myself among them.
I'm Catholic, and it seems to me that the there are primarily two types of Catholics: those who think that most people will go to Heaven, unless they do really, really awful things, and those who think that most people will probably go to Hell, unless they work really, really hard to get to Heaven.
My sister-in-law is the former; I'm the latter. I hope she's right, but I fear that I am. There's no comfort in that, mind you, because I doubt I'll be any more likely than the average Joe to be sufficiently good enough to get to Heaven.
That said, genuine faith in and love for Jesus Christ is manifested by ones deeds. The most evil person in the world can say "I believe." A computer can say "I believe." But empty words are worth nothing.
Jesus is our one and only Savior, but one's faith must be a true faith, demonstrated in the entirety of one's life, not merely with his mouth. And even though Jesus and only Jesus can save us, still it is incumbent upon us to affirmatively accept that salvation. We must cooperate with God, we must cooperate with grace if we are to gain the benefit of it. So, yes, our actions, our deeds, our "works" (a word Catholics hardly ever use) are part and parcel of actually getting to heaven. If we don't make the effort to accept salvation, we ain't saved.
Yes because Catholic "radicals" lashing out and killing non-Catholic believers is a real issue in our time.
You seem to be forgetting "The Troubles" in Ireland.
but this Pope spends way too much time talking about "social justice", "slave labor", and "workers rights".
And who died and made you Pope? Am I to assume that, since you put the phrases in quotes, that you think social justice, slave labor and workers' rights are illegitimate concerns?
Freder Frederson said...
Yes because Catholic "radicals" lashing out and killing non-Catholic believers is a real issue in our time.
You seem to be forgetting "The Troubles" in Ireland.
5/24/13, 3:53 PM
________________________________
Catholics by birth. Marxist by practice.
Its really not hard at all Kensington, you can't jump into the arms of God, you just have to fall.
Redemption as a function of salvation only occurs when Christ is deemed as your lord and savior and you ask him for your soul to be saved. Good works do not redeem anyone, much less an atheist.
Which Catechism?
Where I come from, Christ died to redeem me for my sins.
Period.
Everything else is the work of man.
Men ruin everything.
Are babies nudists, jimbino?
Anyone who has ever tried to keep a two-year-old fully dressed can answer THAT question...
The Irish Troubles.. The 20th and 21st century variant, anyway, is a Nationalist war. Not a religious one.
The term "Irish Nationalist" or "Republican" might clue in a smart guy.
The Irish Troubles.. The 20th and 21st century variant, anyway, is a Nationalist war. Not a religious one.
The term "Irish Nationalist" or "Republican" might clue in a smart guy.
Didn't Jesus do good works? Aren't we supposed to emulate him? It's not by belief alone, that's just too easy.
Catholics by birth. Marxist by practice.
The local Christian conservatives are awfully quick to reject that kind of hair-splitting when they want to blame Communist atrocities on atheism...
Saint Croix said...
Even if you want to argue that religion is learned behavior, so is not shitting on yourself.
My keyboard thanks for the coffee bath it just got. Good one.
Didn't Jesus do good works? Aren't we supposed to emulate him? It's not by belief alone, that's just too easy.
It is by belief alone that we are saved. Good works come as a response to that salvation, not as a necessary precondition for it.
I think Catholics believe we get to heaven by faith and by our good works, the faith alone docrine is a Protestant thing. Am I wrong?
Of course, I already answered the question, more than once.
But then again, she doesn't pay any attention to me anymore.
Hmmmm, I must be a closet Catholic, faith and good works makes sense.
he clearly has decided that socio-economic justice is going to be the altar on which he will disseminate the word of the lord. Not good.
The first Pope I paid any attention to was John Paul II, who was awesome. So this will be my first liberal Pope. But I think it's important for liberals to hear pro-life arguments from liberals. They can't dismiss it or ignore it as coming from the Other. You are now hearing it from your own side.
The left would love to dismiss the Catholic church as a conservative anachronism. With this Pope, you can't do that.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if his selection was a response to Obama's attack on the Catholic church. If so, political genius. This Pope is genuinely concerned for the poor (unlike Obama, who doesn't give a rat's ass for them) and is also pro-life. So the political attack on the church is neutralized, while the Catholic criticism of our state-sanctioned infanticide continues, stronger than ever.
Indeed, it's entirely possible the previous Pope sacrificed his position as a strategic response to Obama's attacks on the Catholic church. And this is just idle speculation on my part. But if it's strategy, all I can say is, kudos, well-played, and bravo.
"Jesus is our one and only Savior, but one's faith must be a true faith, demonstrated in the entirety of one's life, not merely with his mouth."
Why must it? Faith is a gift. No one has it unless it is given to them. And the gift could be imperfect as given? I doubt that.
And why must it be demonstrated once given? Letting a light shine is not making it shine, that is, making it seen. Light shines of its own nature. If it's there, it'll shine, but who knows for what, to whom? None of our business, only God's. Does an ant know the ocean?
Faith isn't for the benefit of others. It's for the benefit of one's self. And not even that. It's to announce the Glory of God. The faithful are "pawn[s] in game of life."
"Fundamentalists/Evangelicals" are as despised as "Puritans" because, like Puritans, they think they're important. Calvin would dismiss them both from his presence as prudish snobs, noses in air.
And I don't mind sitting through a sermon about greed. Greed's a sin, too.
"Indeed, it's entirely possible the previous Pope sacrificed his position as a strategic response to Obama's attacks on the Catholic church. And this is just idle speculation on my part. But if it's strategy, all I can say is, kudos, well-played, and bravo."
Hmmm.
I wish Father Fox would put in on this one.
Thanks for the full quote, Bender.
Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”
Headline suggestion:
Pope Accuses Terrorists of Blasphemy
I think it's wrong to call him a "liberation theology" Pope.
Francis, the original, is the more fitting model. The present pope was not, by any means, on the side of the key liberation theologians. That doesn't mean, however, he doesn't share their core concerns that the church should express a message of Good News to the poor and freedom to the captives and suchlikes.
And that Pope Francis believes in an unlimited atonement isn't particularly surprising either.
The bane of religion is the impulse to think it demands something, anything, prescribes or proscribes something, anything. Religion is the gift of freedom to those mired in the endless cycle of knowing good and evil, a "knowledge" which is a curse. Religion is the antidote for law, which not only demands but also punishes and is therefore an object for defiance by cunning as well as a cynosure of tyrants. The more laws you make, the more cunning defiance you arouse, including in yourself, and the more you encourage tyrants. The more you think you know what is right and what is wrong the less do you have of freedom from struggle. The more you try to do good, the more you cause sorrow. No. Redemption is being repossessed by your owner and salvation is being enabled by him to have fun. More are redeemed than are saved. That is what the senses-based liberation theology Jesuit said.
"the previous Pope sacrificed his position as a strategic response"
Yes, but not to Obama. Ratzinger the theologian had previously argued that it was right for a Pope to step down when he became too frail to lead. I would almost guarantee that Benedict began his papacy with this as his plan. He had to, because if he didn't either he would be betraying his earlier comments on the topic and his successors would not follow the guidance if he himself didn't lead by example.
American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, Michigan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOSPgp4Bk3M
What's bracing about the Catholic church, to me, is the fearless moral argument.
My own (Episcopal) church is more like comfort food. The services are nice and pleasant and it's a very happy place to visit. When I was a kid, I hated going to church, and now I love it. It's an emotional experience for me. I almost cry sometimes, I'm so happy.
But abortion is ignored. My church has nothing to say about it, either way. This is in my local parish. Our sermons are never, ever controversial.
My national church sounds (surprisingly) exactly like Ann Althouse!
I'm not sure the Catholic church is helping when it conflates abortion with birth control and says both are bad. I would ask the Catholic church to ask and answer the hard questions. When do people die? And what about rape?
But at least the Catholic church is speaking out on this issue. I know my church isn't grappling with abortion at all, nor does it have anything to add to our fight.
Contrast the (atheist) Althouse, who despite her pro-choice stance, continues to expose her audience to the horrors of abortion. That is pure honesty and moral courage. And she does this even as it challenges her own stated opinions and beliefs.
She's doing a far better job of this than my church, whose silent acquiescence I find very distressing.
YoungHegelian said...
@Bender,
Thanks for the complete quotation!
But, to echo something Methadras said above, redemption & salvation are two different things. The RCC believes that Christ's death redeemed all of creation. It is a universal Atonement, as opposed to those (e.g. Calvinists) who believe that Christ only redeemed the Elect.
Our redemption by Christ makes personal salvation possible for all men, but it is not by itself sufficient. And here's where it gets sticky.
I cannot believe that the Pope is saying that 1) good deeds alone can lead to salvation, or 2) one can be saved outside the Church, be it Visible or Invisible. The Pope is not a pelagian.
I think what he is saying is, as a matter of living in the modern world 1) that Catholics/Christians should not make it their moral business to judge their fellow men as to the status of their salvation, but that 2) just as St. Paul says that the moral law is written on the hearts of all men, we Catholics should use that moral law as a way to build bridges to do good in the world with both believers & unbelievers.
The act of salvation by the Blood of Christ requires you to physically and spiritually call for the Lord to save your soul. Then and only then are you redeemed. Even as the thief, oddly enough named Titus, and the murderer being crucified next to Christ believed in him on that day and said so, did Christ claim their souls as saved to be taken with him into heaven.
Everything else is feel good populist theatrics that I believe that Pope Francis is trying to sow as good will towards the church. He's certainly free to do that, but he would be incorrect in that I believe. Being witness to those that testify in their salvation is a foundational premise of Christianity right next to the fundamental foundation of salvation that only Christ can bring. Salvation first, redemption comes second.
Bender said...
That said, genuine faith in and love for Jesus Christ is manifested by ones deeds. The most evil person in the world can say "I believe." A computer can say "I believe." But empty words are worth nothing.
Jesus is our one and only Savior, but one's faith must be a true faith, demonstrated in the entirety of one's life, not merely with his mouth. And even though Jesus and only Jesus can save us, still it is incumbent upon us to affirmatively accept that salvation. We must cooperate with God, we must cooperate with grace if we are to gain the benefit of it. So, yes, our actions, our deeds, our "works" (a word Catholics hardly ever use) are part and parcel of actually getting to heaven. If we don't make the effort to accept salvation, we ain't saved.
No offense bender, but this is philosophical bullshit. Christ IS the savior. You come to him to be saved. Your salvation starts from the instant you proclaim it so in faith, in spirit, in voice. You believe in him and it is so. What you did before means nothing. You are tabula rasa at that point. A murderer even has a soul as tainted as it is, but his soul can be saved even by Christ. A computer has no soul, therefore it cannot be saved even if it says so. Distinctions matter in the respect that ingredients I mentioned above are what is required. Nothing more. Let's stop making his more than what it is. Francis is wrong. Period.
"Jesus is our one and only Savior, but one's faith must be a true faith, demonstrated in the entirety of one's life, not merely with his mouth."
Why must it?
Because Jesus said so.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21)
Faith is a gift. No one has it unless it is given to them.
And it is a gift freely offered to everyone. All you have to do is accept it.
And such faith is not only for the benefit of our own sorry asses, but for the benefit of others as well. "Love one another," Jesus said.
If you are self-centered and only concerned about your own salvation, then that is not love, it is not faith.
I'm not sure this is Catholicism. It sounds like Universalism. My most early American ancestor claimed to be a Universalist, in 1788. His children were all raised as Methodist, I assume because of his wife. I am Presbyterian with Methodist tendencies.
To both atheists and believers, he said that “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: we need that so much.
This reminds me of Timothy Keller's provocative and interesting book, The Prodigal God. (And I refuse to link to the Kindle version, because you're going to want to write in the margins!)
Keller's entire book is about the parable of the prodigal son. But Keller's fantastic thesis is that the parable is actually about two lost sons, not one.
There is an older brother and a younger brother. The younger brother demands his inheritance from his father (i.e. he's saying "you're dead to me"). And then he spends it on wine, women and song. And since this is ancient Rome, he's having sex with hookers. And there's no birth control, so you can imagine all the baby-killing. So it's wine, women, song, orgies, and dead babies.
Meanwhile, the older son stays by his father's side. He's a really decent man, married and faithful. He goes to synagogue and he follows all the rules. He's a good and righteous man. Very predictable, a little boring, but good.
And the younger son runs out of money. So now he's shoveling shit on a farm. And he says, "fuck this, I'm going home and asking dad for more money." So he returns home.
So now the father does a really strange thing. He rejoices! And he gives his youngest son his best coat. "And we'll kill the fatted calf for you!" So it's a big party.
So now the older son is really pissed. He refuses to celebrate or to go to the party. "I've been good! I never left your side! Why are you killing the fatted calf for that selfish bastard?" So the father begs the older son to come inside and celebrate.
And Keller's point is that in this story, both men abandon their father. The younger son abandons his dad in order to pursue joy. And the older son abandons his dad in order to pursue righteousness.
And what Keller is arguing is that the pursuit of joy (younger son) and the pursuit of righteousness (older son) take these men away from their father, who requires love.
Anyway, it's a brilliant, subversive, and awesome analysis of one of Jesus' parables. Check it out.
"I'm not sure this is Catholicism. It sounds like Universalism."
If you mean the Pope's statement as addressed by our hostess, I'd say you're on the right track. "Liberation theology" (as if there were another kind!) is Communism dressed up in legalistic Christianity, which is an oxymoron. A characteristic of Communism (and "legalistic Christianity," such as Unitarian/Universalism and Quakerism) is the appearance of universality. It's one of Communism's attractions to unrefined, un-self-critical minds.
Taking the Sermon on the Mount as prescriptive of behavior, such as "social justice" (aka income redistribution) is typical "legalistic Christianity." It is neither legal, in the sense of just, nor Christian, in the sense of freeing.
In the 60s we were compelled by Communists - specifically KGB and PLA - to cope with a related bit of legalistic Christianity, also derived from the Sermon on the Mount: the "peace movement," make love, not war. A Communist knows as much about love as a pimp in a cheap New Orleans whore house knows about Logos Theology.
Well good on Pope Francis. Henri Joubert, S.J began our freshman English class with that play which contains I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that. And no Catholic educated by the Jesuits would not know the empathy Shakespeare achieved in the midst of an anti-Semitic viewpoint. This may seem unrelated but the statement of Francis really is about empathy.
"And what Keller is arguing is that the pursuit of joy (younger son) and the pursuit of righteousness (older son) take these men away from their father, who requires love.
Anyway, it's a brilliant, subversive, and awesome analysis of one of Jesus' parables. Check it out."
I'm unfamiliar with Keller but from what you say, he's making a point there I tried to make farther up this thread: being good or bad is irrelevant, being attached to your owner, no matter what, is. And I've maintained that that attachment is the work of the owner, not of the owned. For example, the work the second son did in staying near is immediately wiped off, nullified, by his fraternal jealousy. He hasn't a leg to stand on. But the father still wants him at the banquet. The owner governs. Luther: "I am the freest of men because I am the most bound of men."
God isn't a choice. Christ isn't an option.
As you say, the Father's love governs all. Both the gift of faith and the acceptance of that gift are the work of the Father, not of either son. It's love all the way or nothing but hell.
A metaphor for this is a difference in the life of young monkeys and young cats. Young monkeys must use their own strength to cling to their mother while she leaps about the ground and trees. Young cats wait for their mother to pick up and move them. Legalists are like young monkeys. Christians are like young cats. God is Father/Mother.
Disclosure: I'm an Episcopalian, as of last report. UCC Ordination. Also a Lutheran. Dominating attachment to Sri Sathya Sai Baba. Theological mentor - and personal blesser, when I was in the condition of an infant - is Paulus Johannes Tillich, a self-described "Christian Socialist."
ECUSA today is a storefront of the DNC. I don't attend: too dull, uninformed, un-self-critical predictably collectivist, and it irks me that the clergy won't acknowledge Anglicans' Calvinist and Lutheran roots. Dumbsquats. Anglican Sacramental Theology is pure Lutheran. Puritans are Anglican Calvinists! I don't like irksome. I love Anglican Chant.
The RCs, as you imply, are the only one among the churches really holding the line on human values, so far. The Church, of course, never wavers in that regard or any other.
Bender....thank you for your posts.
I just ask for God's mercy and forgiveness.
"And no Catholic educated by the Jesuits would not know the empathy Shakespeare achieved in the midst of an anti-Semitic viewpoint."
My Shakespeare (my minor) P at University said that, while Germans were the preeminent Shakespeare scholars of the day, the Nazis disallowed performance of *Merchant of Venice* because it rouses empathy for Jews. I don't know he was right about the Nazis in this regard, but he was right about MoV.
Shakespeare was devout Roman Catholic.
I'm unfamiliar with Keller
He's not C.S. Lewis, who's amazing. And a former atheist! What's cool about Lewis is he had an intellectual conversion, over many drinks and games of chess with Tolkien, if I'm not mistaken.
Lewis says amazing things and I'm always going "wow!"
Keller is way more touchy-feely. I write in the margins disagreeing with Keller. But he's so provocative and interesting. And his analysis of the parable is brilliant. It seems so obvious in retrospect. Yes, that's what Jesus meant!
But Lewis is an amazing writer. When I read Lewis I want to read more Lewis. When I read Keller, I want to read the Bible to check up on some things.
Although to be honest the only C.S. Lewis book I really and truly love is The Screwtape Letters. It's the perfect book for any critical thinker or law student, since it's an exercise in devil's advocacy. Brilliant, just brilliant, and utterly inspired. I really do think God helped him out with that one.
You can listen to an audio version of the book here
Redeemed means that there will be a resurrection as in reuniting of the body and the spirit right?
Doesn't that happen to everyone no matter how they lived their life or whether or not they believe?
Redeemed means that there will be a resurrection as in reuniting of the body and the spirit right?
Doesn't that happen to everyone no matter how they lived their life or whether or not they believe?
It depends on whether not God has elected you for redemption.
Hmmm,"God has elected" sounds like "I, the jury."
The Christian Courier re indulgences
...
An “indulgence” is the promise of the remission of temporal punishment upon the basis of certain prescribed “good works,” e.g., fasting, prayers, pilgrimages, etc. Mainly, though, it was alleged that the pains of purgatory could be minimized by the payment of money into the Church treasury. The construction of St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome was partially financed by the sale of indulgences.
Pope Leo X (A.D. 1475-1521) commissioned John Tetzel, a Dominican monk, to travel throughout Germany selling indulgences on behalf of the Church. Tetzel declared that as soon as the coins “clinked” in his money chest, the souls of those for whom the indulgences had been purchased would fly out of purgatory.
...
@ "It depends on whether not God has elected you for redemption."
How does He decide?
Take That, Bishop Morlino!!
@ Inga... you are on the right track,as always, in the faith alone or faith plus works being the proper Christian standard.
Just consider that Faith IS an action taken on a belief, not the belief alone.
We are not saved by our doctrines. We are saved by acting on them.
"Shakespeare was a devout Roman Catholic". Unless he was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, which seems more and more likely.
What was it again about those values more important than truth?
Jay said...
American Muslims Stone Christians in Dearborn, Michigan.
Right: a Very carefully edited video posted there. Careful to not show any provocation, like pigs' heads on long sticks, or signage that rivals that of Fred Phelps church folks at funerals for servicemen. Careful not to show that the majority of the counter protesters at the festival were kids. Very scary, why I was so scared I nearly wet myself. NOT. Did I mention I live here and was there?
Don't mention that even though it was an organized protest with megaphones and marchers with intrusive placards, no city permit was acquired by the pseudo-Christian temproary visitors from California and Florida....so that they could harass a festival organized by a Chamber of Commerce that indeed did have the requisite permits.
Don't mention that within the past couple weeks a Federal District Court threw out the lawsuit brought by the star of the video you posted, one Rueben Chavez a.k.a. Rueben Israel.
Don't mention that the Arab Festival, organized by the local Arab American Chamber of Commerce, not a Mosque or federation of Mosques, is not a religious celebration, but sponsored to specifically celebrate the supportive community [which includes me and my better half] and businesses who revitalized, rebuilt, over 65% outright new, the area the festival was held in along Warren Avenue, a couple hundred yards west of the Detroit border of a ghetto that resembles Dresden post WWII. Said local community is a mix of immigrant Arabic Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Arabic Catholics of Maronite or Chaldean orders, as well as Polish, Italian, Maltese Catholics, Irish Catholics, and sundry other Protestant churches, to include a rare, in a northern city, Primitive Baptist Church. FEw, if any, Saudis or Chechnyans that I know of...but why distinguish, right?
Don't mention that this year the local Arab American Chamber of Commerce has canceled the festival, due to liberal Democratic [those great lovers of diversity except when NIMBY pops up] city administrative pressure to relocate to a wholly unsuitable place with no connection to the purpose of the festival. See, the eunuch Democratic Obamabot city politicians fear a return of Terry Jones and/or Rueben Israel (aka Chavez), from 1000+ miles away. The cops do Not fear them, just the sniveling Democrat politicians fear them.
Therefore, however far away you live from here, all y'all are safe from our insidious festival. Well done...you just implanted another reason for non-assimilation and planted some seed for fanaticism. With more such work we too can be like the UK, France and Sweden these days.
Don't lead by example while living within a community, pot shot and squeal like little girls from the side lines while demanding we local taxpayers fund your protection for provocations that would be allowed at any local high school football game.
@ Jay.... I normally agree with most of your comments, but this one is just pure rank unfettered propaganda. I thought you were smarter than that. If this guy and this guy represent what you call leadership, I am sorry for you...but you have good company, in Generals Petraeus and Dempsey, who of course worship at the altar of Obama....and happily use wackos who can be accused of representing conservatism. Neat trick, eh?
Correction: "...that would Notbe allowed ..."
A fantastic and detailed rebuttal, Aridog.
Sad that everyone has moved on to the next ephemeral crank fest.
PS keep up the good work.
I guess you're passionate on this Ari, and I respect that, but precisely what is the meaning of dragging Petraeus and Dempsey into this? Anti-Arab are they? Or what? Why invoke their names except generically, that they are bad dogs?
Again, if so, please to enumerate their sins. What did Petraeus do wrong other than to fuck some woman? Dempsey I don't know at all, are you blaming him for Benghazi or something? Not picking a fight, I am genuinely confused.
What frosts my mug is those who say "yay Pope Francis! he so awesome!" for saying this - whether they truly understand what he meant is another question - who otherwise are generally critical of if not downright hostile toward Catholicism in general and the pope in particular.
Pope awesome when he say things I like.
Catholic Church evil when it say things I don't like.
Nichevo asked ... [I welcome the question, so please bear with my verbosity ]
I guess you're passionate on this Ari, and I respect that, but precisely what is the meaning of dragging Petraeus and Dempsey into this? Anti-Arab are they?
1.) Yes, I am passionate on the subject, but perhaps for reasons different than many assume. My reason foremost is that spreading innuendo like the "stoning in Dearborn" nonsense creates hostility among those people that are NOT otherwise hostile and in fact are here more as refuges than anything else. This narrative about Dearborn is 100% bullcrap. If we isolate Dearborn as all Sharia seeking fanatics we will be doing just what the Brits, the French and the Swedes have done....essentially create ethnic ghettos for the immigrant workers. That is not happening here...assimilation is happening, new citizens are running for local office, and building businesses and homes in what once was a shambles ghetto....and others are enterprising and moving out to the suburbs and other places, as Americans.
2.) If you seek to pacify a population anywhere, not in Dearborn where peace and investment in community is already the narrative [the real purpose of the festival here], you start out by being a good example yourself, at least to the best you can do so...in between episodes of gunfire, in other places and lands, if necessary. This something I learned over 40 years ago. I was told by the "Sky Pilots" that there are no atheists in foxholes." I realized immediately that the enemy had foxholes too and many of them didn't really enjoy fire fights either. The original intent and mission of US Special Forces was to amplify this feature. No one anywhere is going to take a break and listen to you if you, too, are an asshole. It can cost you or some one else their life. Frequently the majority of a population would listen if not terrorized by their side and marginalized by your side.
3.) Petraeus telephone up pseudo-pastor Terry Jones , giving him unwarranted publicity and influence, in 2010 over radical Islamic issues...as if there are not other kind by radical just as in Vietnam those who though all Viets were Viet Cong and not possibly famers and families whose idea of freedom was not being shot at by either side for a day. I've posted photos of Jones, who claims to be a "doctor" (Phd) due to a honorary certificate he has from a non-accredited school...the subject of which got him tossed out of German long ago for being a cultist.
4.) Dempsey did the same thing on the morning of 12 September 2012, telephoning Terry Jones to mitigate the offensive video that he, Dempsey advised Jones, had caused the problem in Benghazi and that had left Ambassador Stevens dead. Dempsey used Jones on 12 September to set the narrative about the video and protests, and secured it by immediately notifying Reuters News Agency via his PAO. Take a good look at Jones...is he really an international mover and shaker like I said earlier? Hell, I'm surprised Panetta didn't ring him up too, like Gates did.
5.)That is two of the highest ranking military leaders in our land, neither of whom stayed in command of diddly squat for a "duration" through victory. Credit for a "surge"? Hell, that concept was Gen Colin Powell's strategy of overwhelming force. Duh...strike up the band for that innovation, eh? No matter, both Dempsey and Petraeus, the political fops they are, telephoned Jones as a beard for a narrative that was disingenuous at best on Petraeus part and an outright boldface wimpy lie on Dempsey's part.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा