Christ’s death made the salvation of all men POSSIBLE. It did NOT accomplish the salvation of all men. Every person beyond the age of reason must cooperate with the salvific work of Christ through FAITH. The fruit of that faith will then be works, upon which we will all be judged. The atheist, by definition, has zero faith and relishes in the fact that he has zero faith. The atheist has positively, proactively embraced the position that God Himself does not exist. Ratzinger has written that the foundational premise of charity (caritas, love) is happiness at the fact of the existence of another. “I am happy that you exist.” That statement is the essential beginning of charity. The atheist rejects the existence of Goodness Himself, of Love Himself, which is a complete rejection of faith. Thus, no matter how many good works an atheist performs, so long as he remains faithless, rejecting the very existence of Goodness and Love, there is no way he can be saved. And, as a corollary, since the Church is both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ making the two “one flesh”, and since Christ is the Second Person of the Triune Godhead, the Church Triumphant (heaven) is actually extant INSIDE of God (John 17). Thus, there is no salvation outside of the Church. Spes Unica.
Pope Benedict just finished a huge theological and liturgical war over correcting the words of consecration of the Precious Blood in the Novus Ordo (new) Mass. The Marxist-sodomite infiltrators in the 20th century succeeded in changing the phrase “which shall be shed for you and for many” (pro multis) to “for all” (pro omnes). This was clearly wrong, and is why Pope Benedict corrected it, thanks be to God. If Christ’s salvific work applied to all men in fact, instead of in potentiality, then men are nothing more than chessmen or toys in the eyes of God. Our lives and our decisions have no meaning. Do what you want. Sin boldly (as Herr Psychopath Luther said.) You’re saved. You are a saved object. And at that point, can God really be happy that you exist, when He doesn’t even care whether or not you love Him, whether or not you sin (stop and think about that) or care whether or not you even believe that He Himself exists?
This is wrong. Christ said, “for you and for many” precisely because He loves us, is happy that we exist as created individuals, and thus gifts us with the sovereignty to a.) believe that He exists in the first place and then b.) to freely choose to love Him. The freedom to reject Him is the ultimate proof set of His love for us. If Christ had actually said, “for you and for all” then He would be nothing more than a strong-arm dictator and we would be nothing more than mindless drones that He created for His purely selfish amusement. Francis’ sloppy little sermonette just undid a massive amount of the good work that Pope Benedict did in regards to this profoundly important and temporally relevant issue. This is why Francis, even if he 100% sound on these questions in his own mind, is STILL doing terrible harm. When you are the Pope, the game changes. You haven’t merely been transferred from being the leader of the diocesan community of Buenos Aires to being leader of the diocesan community of Rome. You are the Vicar of Christ. Humility DEMANDS that you recognize this … and tremble.
Re-read that last paragraph and then ask yourself why it is that Marxist infiltrators would be so insistent upon pushing the “for all” mistranslation. Then, ask yourself if the false description of God as a “strong-arm dictator” using humans as mindless drones for His amusement sounds like any other political system. Ah, indeed. It is basically a description of the musloid political system, isn’t it? This is why we need to be building walls, not bridges. Big, enormous walls.
Now, to historical precedence. Pope John XXII (22nd) reigned from AD 1316 to AD 1334. Pope John made a theological mistake in an informal sermon he delivered in a private papal chapel. (Sound familiar?) Pope John said that no one will enjoy the Beatific Vision (heaven) until after the General Judgment. This is flatly wrong, and there was a huge uproar by theologians and the laity when he said this. A group of theologians wrote a stern rebuttal letter, told the Pope, gloriously reigning, that he needed to sit down and shut his gob on this question until such time as he was able to recant in writing, because he was wrong, and his little off-the-cuff sermon in the private papal chapel in the 14th century was freaking everyone out and causing intolerable confusion and scandal. Pope John XXII did indeed issue a written correction, and his successor, Pope Benedict XII (12th) promptly promulgated the apostolic constitution Benedictus Deus which once and for all corrected John XXII’s mistake. And thus we see from this episode that papal infallibility does NOT extend to informal sermons made by the Pope in daily Mass. But then, we already knew that.
Finally, just a word to all of you effeminate ninnies out there gnashing your teeth over how mean I am, and how it isn’t nice to say anything bad or in criticism as such a NICE man as Pope Francis, who always gives you such a warm, fuzzy feeeeeeeeling whenever you see him on teevee. Darn right I’m mean. It’s called zeal. It’s called courage. And despite what some people think, it is something that is supposed to INCREASE if one is indeed drawing nearer to God. If one actually reads what the prayers of the Mass really say each day, a constant theme all year long, but especially around Pentecost, is the begging of God to ever increase our zeal and to save us from lukewarmness. Come, Holy Spirit! Fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love! Dear God, please never permit me to “calm down”. This effete sentimentality, if not curbed, will be the death of us all.
Humility means “honesty”. It doesn’t mean physical poverty. It doesn’t mean false modesty. It means having the gift of self-awareness such that one can see one’s own strengths and *especially* faults. Pope Francis is not a good speaker. If he truly wants to embrace humility, he will stop the confusion and scandal that are coming from his excessive extemporaneous talks, will work doubly hard on making certain that any written texts he either publishes or reads verbatim are not only sound, but also well-written and constructed, especially since this is AD 2013, not AD 1330, and every word the Pope speaks can now be instantly transmitted all over the world. I strongly suspect that Pope John XXII would concur enthusiastically.
Does this all mean that everything Pope Francis says is wrong? Of course not! But, it does mean that we should expect more of these types of incidents, and be able to parse them accordingly. Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and face facts. He isn’t a Ratzinger and never will be. Not even close. Thus, these sermonettes must not be assigned the kind of gravity that even the most casual of Ratzinger’s remarks merited.
Viva il Papa.