Is it too late for me to become an atheist? Do I have sign somewhere?
Pope Francis has told us that all that is needed for atheists to get to heaven is to follow their own malformed consciences.
I really wish I knew this earlier. I would have avoided a lifetime of difficult Truths in favor of my conscience.
My old unformed conscience, it turns out, was fairly forgiving of many things. That seems much easier.
It may be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. But it is easier still for an atheist to get to heaven.
Of course, it is possible for an atheist to get to heaven but it would seem to me that it is immensely difficult without faith and sacrament. Generalizing it as in such a way will not be interpreted correctly by most.
The Pope makes it seem simple. How many atheists do you know that
think they follow their conscience? Why believe if that is sufficient?
It is like saying “All you need to do to get to the Hall of Fame is bat .500 over a 10 year career (while blind)”
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of jhe Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. No no, stay. Just kidding.”
September 12, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Dear Dave. Thanks heavens The Brick By Brick Bund, right?
Without him speaking for The Pope the Pope might be taken at his own words about atheists.
Now, he said a similar thing in March and so one may be forgiven for taking the Pope at his own words, but then a Vatican Spokesman told us what he really meant back then, so, who knows what he ever intends?
So, where do I order the secret decoder ring that tells me that what the Pope said on two different occasions is not what he said or that what he said is not what he meant?
And what about when the Pope says something you agree with?
How do you know he intended what he said on that occasion unless The Brick By Brick Bund authoritatively interprets what The Pope said?
Why have a Pope at all when we have Fr. Z. ?
BTW, where is he incardinated and what Parish does he serve?
September 12, 2013 at 7:38 pm
It’s strange how little things in life pop up at opportune times. I’m finishing up a book on the Counter-Reformation era. This scene is focused on the political intrigue around Henry Navarre ascending to the throne of France in the 1590s. Henry was a life-long Huguenot and antagonist of Philip II of Spain:
"Henry, on his side, saw that if he obtained the crown as a Protestant, he would still have the [Catholic] League and all the most sincerely Catholic minds of France against him. He decided boldly, then, to risk offending the Protestant minority. It is not so certain that the cynical remark, 'Paris is worth a Mass,' does him justice. There is another story of his being profoundly influenced by the arguments of the Jesuits. According to this version Henry, after much thought, assembled a group of Protestant ministers and asked them if they believed a man could be saved in the Roman Catholic Church. They agreed he could. 'Why, then, have you abandoned it?' demanded Henry. 'The Catholics contend that there can be no salvation in your church, but you admit that you could be saved in theirs. My common sense prompts me to take the safer side and to prefer a religion in which, according to the testimony of the whole world, I can secure eternal happiness.'"
From Philip II, William Thomas Walsh, p 683
My hope is that Papa Francis means his words to be interpreted through the lens of established Catholic teaching, because he knows he can't change it. But what are we to make of the muddle he creates around doctrines that could convert Kings by their sheer simplicity and common sense?
September 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Father Z really helped with this. You just can't trust the media to give you an accurate read on the Pope.
September 12, 2013 at 7:53 pm
Dear Sparrow. Fr. Z. is part of the media but as to why you think his personal opinions about what the Pope really intended to say this time is definitive is beyond me because The Pope has said the same thing two different times (at least) during the past five months.
Will Fr. Z. tell you when you can trust the Pope in what he clearly says?
BTW, do you know where Fr. Z, is incardinated?
September 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm
It wasn't Father's Z opinion I valued but his production of a much longer quote from the Popes letter that helped. What difference does it make where the priest is incardinated? Could you be any less relevant? Your lack of trust is astounding.
September 12, 2013 at 8:10 pm
You're exactly right JoAnna
September 12, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Dear Sparrow. I do not think I could be any less relevant but I wasn't asking you your opinion about my relevance but, rather, I was asking about where Fr. Z. is incardinated.
Such a question is not without value: ( wandering priests and all that)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_PX.HTM
but I think I sense in you a defensiveness about Fr. Z. that is not unwarranted.
And, no, I am not very trusting when I am told that Fr so-and-so has told us that is not what The Pope said or that is not what the Pope meant when he said essentially the same thing publicly on at least two different occasions.
My question to you is when do you take the Pope at his own words and is Fr. Z. the one who makes-up your mind on the matter for it is quite clear we can not trust what the Pope is quoted as saying even when Zenit publishes his words or even when the Vatican Radio publishes his own words for then a Fr. R. must clear-up the confusions/errors in what the Pope said.
September 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Subvet,
You used a commonly misconstrued Scripture to make a false argument. Please note the words "we saw someone driving out demons in your name" (Mk 9: 38-41).
"In your name." The individual was doing good works in the name of Jesus. This is MUCH different than doing good in one's own name or philosophy.
When was the last time you saw an atheist cast out a demon or do a good work in the name of Jesus?
September 12, 2013 at 8:55 pm
The Pope said this in May
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445
and, later, a Vatican spokesman, Rev Thomas Roscia, had to correct the putatively unintended consequences of the Pope's words.
It seems that when the Pope speaks we must be silent until Fr. Z., or Fr. R, or NCR, or Catholic Vote, or the Patheos Posse, tells us what to think about what the Pope really intended to say by the use of the words he actually used.
As to how it is they know the internal motivations of the Pope and what he really intended to say has yet to even be asked, let alone answered
The strange result of all of this is that it is not the words of the Pope that can be trusted but, rather, what is to be trusted is the interpretative spin put on those words by those scrambling to get ahead of the Pope who can not be trusted to say what he really means.
Me? I tend to take at face value what it is our Holy Father says – but that is now considered to be a response suffused with malign motives.
So that being the case, why do you folks even bothering reading what the Pope says for you are all admitting that what he means by what he says can only be safely arrived at by reading Fr. Z's explanation of what he intended to say?
Me untrustworthy?
It is y'all who do not trust the words of the Pope even when the source is The Vatican Radio.
Unless Fr. Z. tells you what to think about what The Pope said then you have nothing to go on.
O, yes, this is the new springtime.
BTW, where is Fr. Z. incardinated?
September 12, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Sincere atheists, like other non-believers, can be saved. This has always been the doctrine of the Church. If they are saved, it is still through Christ and his Church (do I need to bring up The Last Battle, RE: Tash and Aslan—must I have recourse to children's stories to penetrate the bovine thickness of your ultraossified skulls?).
The reasons it is still incumbent upon us to evangelize are twofold. The first reason is that the sacraments provide a safety net; a non-believer's sins can only be forgiven if they have perfect contrition, not attrition (I trust I need not explain these technical terms?).
And the second is, the Faith is true, and is, again, the means of salvation of all who are saved, whether they know it or not. It is undignified to languish in ignorance, and also undignified to have request pity be taken on one's ignorance, when receiving salvation at the hands of the Incarnate Intellect of God. A saved atheist, as any other saved non-believer, must ride the short bus to salvation, his acts not held against him as they might be against a fully-responsible, actually aware of the cosmos he lives in, Christian.
September 12, 2013 at 10:17 pm
This is all I could find on Fr Z as pertains to incardination (at Fisheaters)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Remnant Columnist banned from Fr. Z's "blog"
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2009, 03:34:PM »
Quote from: MagisterMusicae
Fr. Zulsdorf was incardinated in the Diocese of Velletri-Segni (a Suburbicarian of Rome) beginning with his ordination in 1991 and has renewed his faculties through 2008 (according to the bona fides on his website). That leaves open the question of where he is presently incardinated. In order to function a priest must be incardinated into a diocese. If he is not incardinated into a diocese he may not function publicly. If not incardinated then, just as the SSPX there is a question regarding confessions and marriages (though Canon Law is pretty loose about supplied jurisdiction). When incardinated in a diocese he may not, without permission of the bishop, take an extended leave from his diocese without possibly being excardinated.
And if you follow the links that FrZ himself has posted (http://www.wdtprs.com/bonafides/) it takes you to the diocesan website which states (in part):
http://www.diocesi.velletri-segni.it/show_page.asp?idpage=94
ZUHLSDORF don John
n. 28.10.1959;
ord. 26.05.1991
St. Mary’s Church – 408 Seymour Street (Wasau) 2802
N. 97th St., Wausau, WI, 54403 (USA)
This is all public information as published by the diocese (I excluded his telephone numbers which have also been released by the diocese)
Interestingly, St Mary's church in Wasau, Wisconsin is an oratory of the Institute of Christ the King (http://www.institute-christ-king.org/wausau/) I'm not aware that Fr Zuhlsdorf is a member of the Institute but, in any case, the church website doesn't list him among the clergy:
Clergy of the Oratory
Canon Henry Fragelli, Rector
Abbé Kevin Kerscher, Sacristan and Assistant
September 12, 2013 at 11:51 pm
St. Benedict's Thistle, where's your proof that the Scripture in question is "commonly misconstrued" and that I'm intentionally making a false argument? Be careful, calumny is also a sin.
As for "in your name", I recall that faith without works is dead and by a person's works we'll know their hearts.
While I haven't seen any demons cast out by athiests, Catholics, etc. I've run across a fair number of talking jackasses. I guess that proves Balaam's mule wasn't so exceptional.
Come to my own blog to continue this if you'd like, I don't find you interesting enough to return here.
September 13, 2013 at 12:33 am
Atheists do not believe in the conscience. The conscience is that part of the immortal human soul, in which atheists do not beleive. For an atheist to follow his conscience, the atheist would have to admit to a conscience and a human immortal soul and heaven. Why would anyone want to become a fraud (read liar) saying "I AM" an atheist. God is existence.
September 13, 2013 at 12:47 am
" a non-believer's sins can only be forgiven if they have perfect contrition, not attrition." Perfect contrition and absolution through the priest in the Sacrament of Penance. But you are speaking of a death bed convert who must promise to see to the sacrament if he lives.
September 13, 2013 at 1:09 am
From the article linked to:
" 'God forgives those who obey their conscience,' he wrote in the unprecedented letter, the latest example of the markedly different tone and style from his predecessors that he has set since being elected in March".
So, I guess Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are right.
September 13, 2013 at 1:16 am
Brandon said:
"What this means is that nobody–Catholic, Muslim, Jew, or atheist–will be held responsible for what they could not have known. Thus it is possible to be saved if, through no fault of your own, you fail to believe in God."
An atheist with faith is not an atheist. So your interpretation means that you can be saved without faith. That is an untenable position.
September 13, 2013 at 1:28 am
The VII quote above was immediately preceded by verses referencing the Abrahamic faiths. Not atheists. Even the reference to the "unknown god" is in reference to Paul talking to "believers" who had faith in an "unknown God". Not atheists.
This is what VII says of atheism:
"While rejecting atheism, ROOT AND BRANCH, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world…"
To be rejected Root and Branch means they cannot be grafted to God and His Church while they persist.
September 13, 2013 at 1:48 am
Subvet,
I have always associated that passage with those who do not have visible corporate membership in the Church but have faith in Jesus and do good works. Like an evangelical or protestant. Respectfully, it does not have anything to do with atheists because they were doing the exorcisms in the name of Jesus because they had faith in the power of his holy name.
September 13, 2013 at 2:22 am
Fr. Z. is the chaplain for the Tridentine Community in Madison. While he has said nothing more about his current status, it would not surprise me if he is in the process of being incardinated for the Diocese of Madison.
Dave P.
September 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm
@Sophia's Favorite
"Sincere atheists … can be saved"
No, that is a very serious heresy. There is no salvation without Faith. There is no salvation without Baptism. People who have not been received the Gospel but who strive to follow the moral law and to know God according to their ability and situation may be saved because they may have the implicit desire for baptism, without knowing explicitly what it is.
Atheists reject God. The catechism is very clear that this is a sin against the first commandment and that everyone is culpable for their own sins against the moral law. Ignorance is no excuse because the law is written on their hearts even if they deny it.