Nicklin' and Dimin' Pope Francis

Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | 29 May 2013 | Teófilo de Jesús (@vivificat)

[Teófilo]

David Gibson wrote a very good piece for the Religious News Service which was republished by the Washington Post’s On Faith blog which I think you all ought to read. It is titled Is Pope Francis is a heretic? No, but he does raise questions and here’s an excerpt:

Drawing of Pope Francis
courtesy of Graphic News

Speaking on Wednesday (May 22), Francis said that as human beings created in the image of God, everyone has a “duty to do good.”

“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,” he said, answering his own query. “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!”

Cue the jaw dropping and head scratching. Atheists were pleasantly surprised, conservative Catholics were dazed and confused, and the pope’s comments raced around the Internet; for a while they were the second-most shared piece on Reddit.

So was Francis preaching a form of “universalism”? That is the unorthodox teaching that says, essentially, that all faiths are equal and all are going to heaven, especially if you are nice to people here on earth. It’s also a heresy that Francis’ predecessor, Benedict XVI, spent a career quashing every time he thought he thought he spied a hint of it in some theologian’s writings.

But the short answer to the question is easy: No. Francis was only affirming the doctrine that Christ redeemed the whole world. Whether people accept that belief is another matter.

In fact, popes going back to Leo XIII in 1891 and up through John Paul II – not to mention authoritative texts from the official Catholic Catechism and the Second Vatican Council – have said the exact same thing Francis did…

Please, continue reading here.

Commentary. I think that every Catholic should pay attention to what Pope Francis says and how he says it, without erecting oneself as a judge over the Successor of Peter and presuming to measure his intellect and thought by self-righteous convictions as to what the Pope and the Church are or ought to be. Tragically, there are many in the Catholic blogosphere – here’s but one example – who think themselves qualified to render condemnatory judgments against Pope Francis. They are otherwise good Catholics with whom I would agree about many things, but not in this instance.

Considering that Pope Francis is the Successor of Peter one should be inclined to grant him all benefit by thinking that it is his wish that everything he says be received with the meaning intended by the Mind of the Church. “Nicklin’ and dimin’” everything Pope Francis says in a quest for doctrinal error is a sign of an insecure and immature Catholic conscience. We should all pray not to fall into this temptation.

I like Pope Francis’ simple approach. May be he’s aiming at the simple-minded and if that applies to me I would call that real spiritual progress.

Maybe if we were less like Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:40) and more like Nicodemus (John 3) we would understand Pope Francis better. May the Holy Spirit grant this grace to all of us.

[Teófilo]

Typos. Blunders. Mine. Fixed on the blog as soon as detected.

[Teófilo]

PING!

[Tax-chick]

I like Pope Francis’ simple approach. May be he’s aiming at the simple-minded and if that applies to me I would call that real spiritual progress.

I agree with you, and I like your article. It's as if many people are thinking, "If he doesn't do everything exactly as I would do it in his position, then he's a bad Pope." To paraphrase the "National Sarcasm Society" t-shirt, "Like he needs your support."

(I didn't see any typso, but the reflections are weird in here today and the cats have smudged the monitor.)

[Alex Murphy]

I think that every Catholic should pay attention to what Pope Francis says and how he says it, without erecting oneself as a judge over the Successor of Peter and presuming to measure his intellect and thought by self-righteous convictions as to what the Pope and the Church are or ought to be.

Ping for later

[LurkingSince'98]

Hi Teo..

what all the “critics” miss is that Francis said “...and the blood of Christ has redeemed us all!”

He did not say the blood of Christ ‘saved’ us all.

It is sad that they don’t understand the difference.

Lurking’

[Teófilo]

Thank you! Your cats have good discernment - or so I pray. ;-)

~Theo

[wolfman23601]

Based on my personal history, I am generally distrustful of the Jesuits. He seems to be doing a good job teaching and spreading the good news, and hopefully he is a good administrator, but I would like it if he keeps his nose out of politics. In all likelihood he is a European-style socialist.

[Teófilo]

Thank you!

I can’t understand either what’s this pretension held by many Catholics that they can judge the Pope at every instance. Beats me!

~Theo

[Tax-chick]

The cats know that the best way to get food in their bowl is to jump on the keyboard when I’m trying to FReep.

[Mrs. Don-o]

We get enough "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" from the LCWR. How tiresome to get that same yapping and butt-sniffing from from Real Catholics^TM.

[Iscool]

It is sad that they don’t understand the difference.

Even a small amount of bible study will show you there is no difference...Any one to get redeemed will be saved first...

But the short answer to the question is easy: No. Francis was only affirming the doctrine that Christ redeemed the whole world. Whether people accept that belief is another matter.

So the Catholic doctrine is wrong...Jesus did NOT redeem the whole world...Jesus 'showed up' to redeem the whole word but it hasn't happened...Some in the world will ultimately be redeemed...It's just more ignorance of scripture...

What's comical is that there are so many defending (by making excuses for) your pope, but we don't get a peep out of your pope...

[Tax-chick]

As Jesus said ... you know, that guy that so many people got all offended at and they were sure they knew what God wanted better than He did ... “A man’s foes will be those of his own household.”

[Mach9]

I don’t understand the frenzy here. The issue isn’t whether all mankind is “redeemed” by Christ’s death; it’s whether or not individuals choose to take advantage of it. The Pope didn’t imply that all men, including atheists, would get to heaven, merely that they were certainly eligible. I think back to “Keys of the Kingdom” (A. J. Cronin)—the heroic Scots atheist doctor who just couldn’t grasp the notion of God but spent and gave his life caring for the poor. How could we ever accept that God would fail to reward such an individual?

There’s more to this, of course; but I think it’s above the pay-grade of most reporting on it.

[.45 Long Colt]

It would further the discussion if you, or anyone else, would define and differentiate redemption and salvation using Scipture.

[Teófilo]

I agree with what you say.

I think that some people get some sort of morbose pleasure from criticizing the Pope - any Pope, at any time, for very little things. That’s why they do it repeatedly, because doing so stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain. I can’t find no other explanation.

~Theo

[xzins]

Francis was only affirming the doctrine that Christ redeemed the whole world. Whether people accept that belief is another matter.

I'm still uncertain what is the hubbub about his saying Christ redeemed the whole world. Is this really new to people?

1 John 2:2 ESV "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

Francis is in the company of the Apostle John. That's not really a bad place to be.

[redhead]

Amen. And, thank you. I have had this opinion since he was elected.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"1 John 2:2 ESV "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." Francis is in the company of the Apostle John. That's not really a bad place to be."

Thank you, xzins!

[Alex Murphy]

I can’t understand either what’s this pretension held by many Catholics that they can judge the Pope at every instance.

I see it as larger than just the Pope. We've seen many examples of this in the Religion Forum, of Catholics standing as judge over many aspects of Catholic thought:

• the church did/didn't go off the rails with Vatican II
• non-Catholics can/can't go to Heaven
• the apparitions at Medjugorje can/can't be questioned
• bishops are/aren't allowed to give communion to pro-abort politicians
• the Vatican is/isn't lying about the third secret of Fatima.

Is it dissent to challenge a lay Catholic's beliefs? Is there anything to which a lay Catholic, or even a non-Catholic, may hold a priest, bishop, Cardinal or Pope accountable to? Who/what decides and defines what constitutes dissent? If you have any explanations or theories, I'd love to hear them.

[.45 Long Colt]

I don’t believe that verse has the universal meaning that you and others give it.

“He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world.” How are we to understand that? This is obviously a critical question.

Is this universalism? Does this mean that Jesus has literally propitiated God for the whole world? Does the whole world mean the whole world? Has Jesus actually satisfied God’s justice for everybody who has ever lived? If so, then where is hell in that? Where is condemnation? Why are all the warnings and why preach the gospel?

The answer is this is not a statement of universalism. It is not telling us that the atonement was literally made for everyone. What is it saying? I’ll tell you what it’s saying. John was in particular Jewish and primarily wrote to a Jewish audience. In Galatians 2:9 the Apostle Paul describes his first meeting with the other Apostles. He writes, “When James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that we should go to the heathen and they to the circumcision.” Did you get that? So in Galatians 2:9, James, Peter and John make it clear that their ministry is to the circumcision, to the Jews.

John was an Apostle to the Jews. The recipients of his epistles would be predominantly, if not completely, Jewish. He is saying to this Jewish audience, who completely understand propitiation because they understand the sacrificial system, they understand the function of the Mercy Seat, they understand Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. And what they understand about it is to be learned from several verses in Leviticus, listen to this, verse 17 of chapter 16, “When the high priest goes in to make atonement, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out that he may make atonement for himself, for his household...listen carefully...and for all the assembly of Israel.” The Day of Atonement had limitations. It applied only to Israel, only to the people of Israel. It was a sacrifice for Israel. It went on for centuries as their unique Day of Atonement. John says here, “Jesus Himself is the propitiation, Jesus Himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Himself is the bloody offering upon the Mercy Seat of God and not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world.” The normal, national, limitation of the Day of Atonement for Israel is no more. In the Jewish context, they understood Day of Atonement, they understood the language of propitiation. John is telling them that the sacrifice that Jesus offered is not just for the nation Israel, it’s now for the world because the Lord is calling out a people for His name from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

Jesus on the cross offered an atonement for those in Israel who would repent and believe and those throughout the world who would repent and believe. It is not a universal appeasement of God. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Judas because when Judas died, he went to his own place to pay for his own sins. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Herod. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Pilate. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of Adolph Hitler. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of the mob that screamed for His blood. Jesus didn’t pay for the sins of all that mass of humanity that show up at the Great White Throne and are cast into the Lake of Fire forever and ever where they will give their satisfaction to the offended Law of God. But He did pay for the sins of all who will believe in Israel and the world. The point is, it went beyond their normal provincial idea of propitiation. And He didn’t just make salvation an option, He actually purchased salvation for all who repent and believe because they are called by God. It was an actual substitution.