.
It's the way the media present it that is wrong, not what the Pope said.
But the Pope opened the door by being ambiguous.
Everyone is redeemed, true enough, but what good does that do for
those who die in mortal sin or without Baptism? Redemption does not
take the place of Baptism, nor of absolution, nor of perfect contrition.
How can an atheist have perfect contrition and still be an atheist? If his
contrition is perfect, it necessarily includes the abjuration of error, among
which is no faith in the existence of God. How can someone who does
not believe in God be perfectly sorry for his sins?
The Pope doesn't want to "go there," apparently, but he really should
be "going there" all the time. That's what a pope is for.
The pope should be speaking on spiritual matters, but here this on is
talking about material, temporal things, like doing good, getting along,
working with each other, being happy, feeling good. What does that have
to do with salvation?
This is a big problem. He might as well be a Buddhist and talk like this.
He wasn't even ambiguous. He said that we are all redeemed by the blood of Christ (fine) and that that Blood makes us all Children of God of the first class.
That is error, plain and simple. Atheists are not Children of God in any sense other than the very basic and vague sense which says they were created by God. Only baptized members of the Church (Catholics) are Children of God in any meaningful sense at all.
Again, it's a philosophical nuance that introduces ambiguity.
There is no reason for the Pope to speak this way, except to promote
confusion, which is not what a pope should be doing.
We are all redeemed by the Blood of Christ -- that is a fact. God desires
the salvation of all men, but that doesn't mean it therefore happens.
The Blood of Our Lord is fully capable to save every human creature, for
it has that power -- are you denying this?
The Blood of Our Lord has the power to make us all Children of God of the
first class -- are you denying this?
What is the difference?
At the risk of repeating myself, I'm going to repeat myself:
The day before the wedding are bride and groom married?
In a sense, they are: in potency they are married. They have the
intention, and the desire, and they have invited guests, and they have
rented things for the reception, and they have promised themselves to
each other, and if they would remain faithful, they could say "We are
married," and they would not be lying, even though they have not yet
exchanged vows -- they would not be lying, provided they understand
that
their marriage is in potency, that is, everything is ready for it to
take place, and they truly intend for that to happen as planned. But
just like so-called baptism of desire, the marriage has not happened
yet because they have not made their public profession of it, and they
have not exchanged vows yet. Therefore the marriage has not been
formalized, and
it is not a marriage in act yet. Don't confuse this
with whether the marriage is consummated or not. That's a different
issue. That involves legitimacy or illegitimacy.
Their promise to each other makes them
husband and wife of the
first class -- in potency, but not in act. They will become husband
and wife of the first class in act when they exchange vows, and that
is supposed to happen with witnesses, so they can testify to the fact
to a third party at a later time, if necessary. The reason this is the
tradition is, a con man could say, "We are married if we just make
this exchange of vows right now," and he and the woman could go
through the motions of their little private ceremony with no witnesses,
and then he could claim that they are married, and therefore, "there's
nothing standing in our way anymore," etc., etc. But then the next
day, he could deny it, and when she says, "But you said..." it would
be of no effect, because THERE ARE NO WITNESSES to testify to
the fact. The con man would be a liar, and a cheat, and in mortal
sin (if he knew what mortal sin is), but there is a serious defect in
the so-called marriage, namely, even though he said he was taking
her as his wife to have and to hold from this day forward, etc., he had
no intention of doing so, as he proved the next day by denying it.
So the wedding and the witnesses and the minister are all there for
the protection of the wife-to-be, and in some sense for the husband-
to-be as well.
Similarly, the Blood of Christ makes us
all Children of God
of the first
class, but not
in act, only in potency.
So for the Pope to say this in this context is a HALF TRUTH, as is
clearly demonstrated by the confusion it instills in those who hear him,
those who do not understand this philosophical nuance, and perhaps
even those who read this post and don't want to believe it.
And any half-truth is a whole lie, therefore, the Pope lied. That's bad.
I have provided the example of the con-man schemer for a reason,
for when the Pope says these things about redemption in such an
ambiguous way, and it is indeed ambiguous, he becomes therefore a
supporter and a defender of the con-man schemer, as it were, for he
is saying that it's okay to be confused with whether one is a child of
God in potency or in act. But it's not okay to be confused, so what
the Pope is promoting by this ambiguity is
EVIL and it is therefore
OF THE DEVIL, and that is BAD.
Sede note: But that doesn't mean he is therefore not the Pope.
Topic: Pope Francis opens the Gates of Heaven to Atheists (Read 6334 times)