Pope responds question from atheist - Can a non-believer be saved?

[superfreddy]

A Christian God? Is the poor pope off his r...? Since when is there a Christian or some other type of god? Has the pope defined god as yet or is he simply following ancient definitions, traditions and beliefs?
I think most of the major religions are failing their followers by not advancing into the 21st century. Since Christ there have been many progressive thinkers and scientists, by and large all ignored by modern religions who derives some advantage of sticking their respective heads in the sand, and who by the way solicit moneys from people they profess to serve. So, who is serving who?

I'm sure the pope believes in a Christian God (Yahweh/Jehovah + Jesus + Holy Spirit) rather than Vishnu, Allah or Viracocha.

 

[Navigator]

Not that long ago I was challenged to back up a statement that 'America is a Christian country'. In this thread - The Prayers Of American Presidents

Now I wonder why many posters in this thread are arguing that Christians follow Jesus.

Christendom is as much a follower of Jesus as America is as much a Christian country.

 

[superfreddy]

Not that long ago I was challenged to back up a statement that 'America is a Christian country'. In this thread - The Prayers Of American Presidents

Now I wonder why many posters in this thread are arguing that Christians follow Jesus.

Christendom is as much a follower of Jesus as America is as much a Christian country.

What?

Non-sequitur?

Thread hijack?

 

[eight bits]

superfreddie

My apologies - my last post should have addressed you as well as Craig, who had some similar questions. Good thread.

The NT says that you can only achieve it through Jesus, the pope seems to saying otherwise.

The Catholic and big-O Orthodox deposit of faith is larger than the canonical Bible. Catholic and big-O Orthodoxy see Jesus' death and resurrection as making it possible for human beings to attain the beatific vision (theosis in the East). Whether any particular person does attain it is God's prerogative. Achieving salvation in time and space is one way to succeed. To follow your conscience in time and space, even without salvation, is another. God's mercy, presumably administered outside time and space, is his to grant just as he pleases.

The Church claims a monopoly on the salvation route. Obviously, anybody can follow their conscience with no church at all, or any particular religious beliefs. God's mercy is God's alone.

A practical difference is that you would, in principle, know where you stand if you were pursuing the salvation route, and the Church's sacraments provide grace and remission from sins, things which are unavailable outside of the Church.

Again, the pope it saying otherwise, so, why bother going through the motions of being a Catholic? Seems like Francis is making a compelling case for atheism.

If atheism is what your conscience tells you is the right approach, then the Church says that atheism is what you ought to do. That's not new with Francis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "going through the motions." On the "Christian God" thing, the Pope himself used the phrase "God of the Christians," so I think you're golden on that.


CraigB

Insofar as I am or am not personally going to heaven, ...

As far as I know, you don't have any say about that . Won't Richard Dawkins be pissed.

if God's mercy is different from salvation, what is its effect on a soul which has received it, assuming the soul has been denied salvation on account of being outside the church, being non-believing, or whatever?

The soul is granted the beatific vision (theosis in the Eastern Church), and when reunited with a glorified body, the whole person participates in the new heaven and new earth along with everybody else who passed their judgment. The Church is the only route to salvation, but salvation isn't the only route to a good outcome, just a supposedly effective route to a good outcome.

 

[Craig B]

superfreddie ... The Church claims a monopoly on the salvation route. Obviously, anybody can follow their conscience with no church at all, or any particular religious beliefs. God's mercy is God's alone.
...
The soul is granted the beatific vision (theosis in the Eastern Church), and when reunited with a glorified body, the whole person participates in the new heaven and new earth along with everybody else who passed their judgment. The Church is the only route to salvation, but salvation isn't the only route to a good outcome, just a supposedly effective route to a good outcome.

So there's a route to the beatific vision other than the salvation route? That's a new one on me! So when Boniface VIII stated that it was absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, he meant that those who rejected his authority would also enjoy the Beatific Vision, only they would reach it by another route. I don't believe he meant anything of the sort, and neither do you. He meant they were going to Hell.

 

[eight bits]

That's a new one on me! So when Boniface VIII stated that it was absolutely necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, he meant that those who rejected his authority would also enjoy the Beatific Vision, only they would reach it by another route. I don't believe he meant anything of the sort, and neither do you. He meant they were going to Hell.

As to your speculations about what I believe, I suspect that any Pope would know that he cannot say what God's judgment of anybody will be.

Didn't you just call me out, in post 29, for overlooking that you hadn't suggested that the church enjoyed the power to damn anyone? The occasion for that was that I had made an observation, one which I'll repeat now

The church does not have a power to damn anybody.

The Church does have, according to its own estimation, the power to rule that the King of France cannot start his own genuine church, or his own branch of the church, and cannot by pretending to start such a church provide efficacious sacraments, remission of sins, or any of the other elements of the salvation path. Those things are unavailable outside the Church.

Given that that's what he wrote about, I can only assume that that's what he meant.

 

[Craig B]

As to your speculations about what I believe, I suspect that any Pope would know that he cannot say what God's judgment of anybody will be.

Didn't you just call me out, in post 29, for overlooking that you hadn't suggested that the church enjoyed the power to damn anyone? The occasion for that was that I had made an observation, one which I'll repeat now


The Church does have, according to its own estimation, the power to rule that the King of France cannot start his own genuine church, or his own branch of the church, and cannot by pretending to start such a church provide efficacious sacraments, remission of sins, or any of the other elements of the salvation path. Those things are unavailable outside the Church.

Given that that's what he wrote about, I can only assume that that's what he meant.

You haven't answered my question about whether there's another "route" to the Beatific Vision apart from the "salvation route". You haven't answered my question about what Boniface VIII (or other popes who made similar statements) had in mind for people who rejected the authority of their church. Did these popes imagine that the people they denounced would attain the BV by some other non-salvation, non-church route?

I think they did not. What do you think? - I mean, think about this question, not other questions I have not asked; for example, about the powers of the King of France, a title not used since 1848 anyway.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

You haven't answered my question about whether there's another "route" to the Beatific Vision apart from the "salvation route".

I have proposed two other routes. You may pass God's judgment because you have followed your conscience, and are therefore blameless, and you may receive God's mercy, gratutiously.

You haven't answered my question about what Boniface VIII (or other popes who made similar statements) had in mind for people who rejected the authority of their church.

The Popes speak for themselves: whoever doesn't get in line with the Church, doesn't get the sacraments, which are aids to achieving a favorable outcome at judgment, nor do they get the other spiritual and temporal benefits that life in the Church supposedly confers. Nothing else is within the Popes' power to grant or withhold, by their own estimation.

Did these popes imagine that the people they denounced would attain the BV by some other non-salvation, non-church route?

Some Church officials wrote as if there was no possible, or only exceptional, sincere and conscientious disagreement with their "truth." Perhaps they actually believed that. It would follow that they would estimate that their typical opponents were acting contrary to the opponents' own consciences.

Barring God's mercy, then, such opponents, neither saved nor blameless, would be toast. No churchman can speak for God about his mercy, but it is possible that some might have estimated the prospects for God's mercy as dismal.

about the powers of the King of France, a title not used since 1848 anyway.

You brought up Boniface VIII. The French royal title was in use when Boniface wrote Unam Sanctam, which you have discussed. The bull denounced French royal infringement of Papal prerogatives. If you'd prefer that I not discuss something, then it's best not to raise the issue.

 

[kerryoke]

Considering how specific and rigid the requirements for heaven are, you would think a deity would do something about the ambiguity of his "message". Hey Pope, you already said I could go to heaven, no backsies!

 

[Craig B]

Craig ...You brought up Boniface VIII. The French royal title was in use when Boniface wrote Unam Sanctam, which you have discussed. The bull denounced French royal infringement of Papal prerogatives. If you'd prefer that I not discuss something, then it's best not to raise the issue.

I didn't. I raised the Bull on account of its clear enunciation of the "no salvation outside the church" principle, not for any of its other contents, to which I made no allusion whatever.

I don't believe that there is something other than salvation that imparts the Beatific Vision, in the doctrine of the church. The church may not have power to save and damn, but it has taught that God has made the Church, and baptism into the church, the only way to escape damnation. That was taken for granted by Francis Xavier, as I have indicated. (ETA And this teaching was foisted on the resurrected Jesus by the interpolator of the last twelve verses of Mark.) If some modern teachers wish to amend that obnoxious doctrine, I congratulate them.

 

[Belz...]

I've read some speculation that while you can't achieve salvation without Jesus, non-believers can achieve salvation because they they had a relationship with Jesus without knowing it. Footprints in the sand, maybe.

Makes one wonder what's the point of the religion, then.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

I didn't. I raised the Bull on account of its clear enunciation of the "no salvation outside the church" principle, not for any of its other contents, to which I made no allusion whatever.

Just your bad luck, then, that I read the whole thing. Meh, it's short.

I don't believe that there is something other than salvation that imparts the Beatific Vision, in the doctrine of the church.

Ok, then, we have a disagreement about fact. Since the church is completely exoteric, the impasse is unresolvable here.

If some modern teachers wish to amend that obnoxious doctrine, I congratulate them.

But, as to our topic, that someone wasn't Francis I. His remarks are routine stuff, and as noted, did not deal with salvation. According to his recital of the question, that isn't what he was asked.

My guess is that it isn't accidental that he wasn't asked about salvation or being saved. Atheist or not, the editor apparently grew up in a Catholic country. He would plausibly know from cultural exposure the rudiments of Catholic soteriology, would already know that there was nothing for him to ask about how salvation relates to non-believers (it doesn't), and know that separation from the Church did not determine the answer to what he did ask about.


Belz...

Makes one wonder what's the point of the religion, then.

Much like any other service business, what they offer, they say, helps you achieve some goal you might have. If you don't have that goal, then there is no point to buying the service. Or, if you do have the goal, but don't think what they offer helps, then ditto.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I heard that explanation before, but it's not what Francis said. Here's a Google translation of his response from the Italian original:

"God's mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere heart and a contrite , the question for those who do not believe in God is to obey their own conscience . Sin, even for those who have no faith , there is when you go against conscience. Listen and obey it means, in fact , decide in the face of what is perceived as good or as bad. And on this decision you stake the goodness or evil of our actions"

He seems to be saying that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be saved. If that's so, why going through the motions?

Not that I know English nor Italian, but just to avoid any possibility of souls lost in translation .

 

[A'isha]

Makes one wonder what's the point of the religion, then.

The idea is that it vastly increases one's chances of salvation. You can maybe be saved without it, but you're (mostly) sure to be saved with it.

It's like making a reservation for an airline ticket instead of trying to fly standby.

 

[Slowvehicle]

"Saved" from what?

"I'm Jesus--let me into your heart so that I can save you from what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me into your heart..."

 

[superfreddy]

The idea is that it vastly increases one's chances of salvation. You can maybe be saved without it, but you're (mostly) sure to be saved with it.

It's like making a reservation for an airline ticket instead of trying to fly standby.

Interesting analogy but I don't think it's supported by the NT or the teachings of the RCC.

I mentioned "going through the motions". Just like others posters said, why be a Catholic at all and go through all sacraments if the pope himself is saying that God almighty will save you if you're a good guy?

 

[Craig B]

Eight Bits says in post #44:

Achieving salvation in time and space is one way [to attain the beatific vision]. To follow your conscience in time and space, even without salvation, is another. God's mercy, presumably administered outside time and space, is his to grant just as he pleases.

The Church claims a monopoly on the salvation route. Obviously, anybody can follow their conscience with no church at all, or any particular religious beliefs. God's mercy is God's alone.

A practical difference is that you would, in principle, know where you stand if you were pursuing the salvation route, and the Church's sacraments provide grace and remission from sins, things which are unavailable outside of the Church.

ANTPogo writes in post #57

The idea is that it vastly increases one's chances of salvation. You can maybe be saved without it, but you're (mostly) sure to be saved with it.

It's like making a reservation for an airline ticket instead of trying to fly standby.

These two statements are very different. Eight Bits insists on keeping the church's monopoly on salvation but avers that there are other ways of getting to Heaven, apart from salvation. In my view that's absurd. Salvation means being saved, and the alternative is to be damned. Earlier church teachers were clear on this. But evidently Eight Bits can't be brought to say that there is salvation outside the church.

ANTPogo, on the other hand, has a more rational definition of salvation, and says, unlike Eight Bits, that it is available outside the church, albeit with less certainty.

The whole idea of salvation and damnation seems obnoxious to me, but if the pope wants to introduce a more liberal version of the doctrine, that represents a step in the right direction.

 

[tsig]

Eight Bits says in post #44:

ANTPogo writes in post #57 These two statements are very different. Eight Bits insists on keeping the church's monopoly on salvation but avers that there are other ways of getting to Heaven, apart from salvation. In my view that's absurd. Salvation means being saved, and the alternative is to be damned. Earlier church teachers were clear on this. But evidently Eight Bits can't be brought to say that there is salvation outside the church.

ANTPogo, on the other hand, has a more rational definition of salvation, and says, unlike Eight Bits, that it is available outside the church, albeit with less certainty.

The whole idea of salvation and damnation seems obnoxious to me, but if the pope wants to introduce a more liberal version of the doctrine, that represents a step in the right direction.

It's not a more liberal form, it's the same old doctrine in different words.

The Catholic Church holds that those who are ignorant of Christ's Gospel and of the Church, but who seek the truth and do God's will as they understand it, may be supposed to have an implicit desire for baptism and can be saved: "'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 being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.' Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."[




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

 

[eight bits]

superfreddy

(I noticed that Google translation and the newspaper's human translation were fairly close.)

I mentioned "going through the motions". Just like others posters said, why be a Catholic at all and go through all sacraments if the pope himself is saying that God almighty will save you if you're a good guy?

Thanks for the further comment on what you meant by "going through the motions." Catholics and Orthodox hold that their sacraments have supernatural effects in their own right. Especially contentious with Protestants are forgiveness of sins by a priest after confessing them and the Eucharist as perfomed by a priest - and another sacrament for becoming a priest, someone able to do these magical feats.

As the partial list indicates, Catholic and Orthodox spirtual life has other goals in addition to personal attainment of the beatific vision or theosis. (The Orthodox, however, also contemplate attaining some portion of theosis in this life... this is a tricky point between the schismatics, but there is a great deal of parallelism between the Catholic account of salvation and the Orthodox theosis-in-life.)

If you don't believe any of that, then there would be no particular reason to do it. I think we can all - the Pope included - agree on that.

I should also give Protestants "equal time." The following short video clip, taken from television (Hour of Power aired on 31 May 1997), was controversial among American Protestants. The two speakers, Robert Schuller and Billy Graham, are famous Protestant preachers. What they are saying and stroking each other over is, to excellent approximation, Catholic doctrine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNCnxA91fHE

The major departure is when Graham says "they are saved." In the Catholic view they are not saved, but rather did not sin in the first place. But I agree with Graham's choice of words. He wasn't explaining Catholic doctrine, and in American Protestant speech "being saved" is effectively a synonym for "being with God in Heaven."

Which brings us to

Craig

In American speech, whether or not Protestant, "being saved" seems to be effectively a synonym for "being with God in Heaven." Maybe elsewhere in the English-speaking world, too. I haven't surveyed. Our source document, which isn't in English, doesn't have the corresponding phrase. So far as I can see, ANTPogo responded to another poster's question in her own voice. I'm sure she can call me out if she thinks we have some dire disagreement.

But evidently Eight Bits can't be brought to say that there is salvation outside the church.

Evidently not. I don't believe that there's salvation inside or outside the Church. The topic concerns the Pope's point of view, not mine. It would appear that he has gotten a different message from your "earlier Church teachers" than you have. And speaking of what he's gotten,

but if the pope wants to introduce a more liberal version of the doctrine, that represents a step in the right direction.

The Pope doesn't have that authority. There is also nothing in the Pope's statement that offers salvation outside the Church, a simple doctrine which doesn't come in "liberal" or "illiberal" flavors (although Ben16 caused quite a stir by allowing his bureaucrats to accept the Assyrian Church of the East's eucharistic service as sacramentally valid - damned hippies.)

 

[superfreddy]

It's not a more liberal form, it's the same old doctrine in different words.

The Catholic Church holds that those who are ignorant of Christ's Gospel and of the Church, but who seek the truth and do God's will as they understand it, may be supposed to have an implicit desire for baptism and can be saved: "'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 being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.' Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."[




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

I agree with this, but it's not what was asked to the pope. After all, it was an atheist who formulated the question. Basically, a person who has rejected the notion of God. We're not taking ignorance, we're taking full rejection. I may be jumping to conclusion, but Francis statement condones the concept of "not-believing + being a good person" as sufficient to achieve salvation.