Pell was asked about evolution and his religion. He alleged that those in his communion can believe almost whatever they like about it. He took the position that men are descended from Neanderthals (Dawkins reacted to this much the way a Star Wars geek would react to you talking about Hans Solo instead of Han Solo and Pell blew it off). He said that the first time a soul was "human" was when it had various characteristics of communication and the like. When question about Adam and Eve, he took the position that they were just mythological, like "everyman." (around 30 minutes) He said he wasn't sure whether the Old Testament recounts God himself inscribing the ten commandments (33 minutes in).
Dawkins asks where original sin comes from if there is no real Adam and Eve.
When an atheist asks Pell (around 41 minutes in) what will happen to him when he dies, he says
(Cardinal) Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody. But every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God. And when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty. But in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn their back on him through evil acts.Dawkins acts shocked that Christians will be bodily resurrected.
(Moderator): Oh, so athiesm - not an evil act.
(Cardinal): No, not a - well, no I don't - in most cases its not.
...
(Moderator): Is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
(Cardinal): Well, it's not my business.
(Moderator): No, but well, you're the only authority we have here.
(Cardinal): I would say 'certainly, certainly!'
Later on the Cardinal asserts that the idea of any child going to hell is grotesque and does not represent the Christian God (48 minutes in)
Around 49 minutes in, the Cardinal shares his views on hell and salvation from it:
(Moderator) Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?The Cardinal's theodicy is, in essence, that freedom is necessary.
(Cardinal) No, no, no. The only people - Well, (1) I hope nobody's in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history, that the scales of justice should work out and if they don't, life is radically unjust: the law of the jungle prevails.
-TurretinFan
25 comments:
'I certainly believe in a place of purification.'
Purgatory.
This is why the Cardinal hopes no one is in Hell. His viewpoint sounds like C S Lewis's.
This "debate" is between and official unbeliever - Dawkins and unofficial unbeliever masquerading as believer Pell.
Churchmouse:
Of course, these days "conservative" apologetic groups like "Catholic Answers" don't refer to Purgatory as a "place" but rather a "state."
Unfortunately Cardinal Pell's comments have caused a bit of stir. As a Catholic I have reflected on it deeply. Here are some thoughts on the debate and Adam and Eve, original Sin and origins. http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/pell-vs-dawkins-question-of-adam-and.html
I'm curious whether your reflections included thoughts on the fact that Pell may be, or at a minimum, elect the next bishop of Rome?
Very good point Turretinfan. Another one would be that "prince of church" Cardinal Pell is not a loner in views he testified on Australian TV... In fact he is in majority of Roman Catholic clergy as far as that.
That's a good question. Fortunately for Catholics the gift of infallibility for a Pope ensures that when declaring matters of faith and morals a Pope cannot err. In fact even when dodgy popes have ruled they NEVER declared anything infallibly that was incorrect or against any established teaching.
Fortunately any priest, bishop or Cardinal cannot express any views that cannot be checked or assessed against Magisterial statements as in the Catechism of Church Councils. Whether or not liberal Catholicism is in dominance re numbers it matters not to true orthodoxy.
Actually that is not what I meant at all - private judgement can never trump the hierarchy when the proper conditions are met for infallible teaching. Christ has guaranteed that the magisterium will always be in line with Scripture PROPERLY interpreted and not according to the particular prefrence of individuals or organisations. This is what I mean here - http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2011/12/conundrum-of-proof-text-christianity.html
Again it all comes down to authority - http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2011/12/conundrum-of-proof-text-christianity.html
re Historicity and validity of papal infallbility - I suggest if you are truly open minded you will take a look at the following - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
I see that you enjoy twisting what I say. So perhaps a question for you. How do you know your interpretation of Scripture is according to God's will and more infallible than someone else's?
Dear TF
I fail to see how you come to the conclusion that I exalt private judgement since I clearly do not. What is your yardstick for knowing whether or not your comparison of Scripture with Scripture is correct? If you cannot claim personal infallibility (and I am glad to hear it) then why should I listen to your interpretation? With regards to your question about why I think I know more than any Cardinal about what the Church teaches the answer is simple - the Church's teaching is for all to see and know - and I have also spent a great deal of time studying in this area especially the devlepment of teh dogma dealing with Salvation outside the Church. And once again, Pell did not have time to explore this question deeply. Remember, he stated that the POSSIBILITY of atheists being saved was a certain one not that it was a given. What he did not announce were all the qualifications for this. I would be happy to go through each of those with you if you so wish. So, no I do not know more than anyone who knows where to find the information. Therefore, I in no way believe in my private judgement being infallible - everything I know and will come to know about soteriology, eschatology and ecclesiology with regards to salvation will come from others and the Church's official teaching in particular.
Regards
Renato
An individual cardinal is not infallible - pure and simple. The Church does not teach that.
The Magisterium decides when the proper conditions are met trusting that when Christ said he would send His Spirit to guide the Apostles and hence their successors in all things he meant what he said.
If you do not call "the Gates of Hell will never prevail" a guarantee from Christ as long as we have a "Peter" at the helm I don't know what you will. It si clear that this entails the retaining of Truth since Satan is the Father of Lies. Again - this is all from Scripture. And in Scripture we see the primacy of Peter. See here and following: http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2011/12/introductory-comments-on-papacy.html
Pell as an individual is not infallible. I only trust any individual no matter how high up if his teaching is consistent with official Church teaching.
Any theologian who supports the Magisterium in defining dogma or doctrine is evidence of the fact that only once the Magisterium has accpeted the teahcing can it be held as part of God's truth. That private judgment ha snow become sanctioned by the teachers Christ appointed. Once again your argument does not relate to what I am talking about. Finally why would I seek to interpret Scripture differently to the authority CHrist has appointed? Don't you see it all comes back to whether or not Christ did in fact leave this authority. Again I urge you to dispute with evidence - theoogical, scriptural and historical the teaching of papal primacy as found in my summary of Scott Hahn's exploration of it. http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2011/12/introductory-comments-on-papacy.html
As for the RCC and evolution. As one RC friend said--"Creation, evolution--we do both." Evolution apparently came into the RCC as a result of Vatican 2 or maybe V2 just solidified it. Those who hold the current Pope is not the Pope & the traditional Latin Mass folk do not as far as I know ever teach evolution. It's pure creationism.
Dear Godith
What you suggest is simply not accurate. Always be careful what you think the Catholic Church actually teaches. Vatican II has nothing to do with Evolution and the Church has not officially accepted it since it is a theory and not a theological reality regardless of what individual theologians might make of it. The following is what the Church does indeed teach and the last magisterial statement made about the claims of evolution was in 1950. http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/pell-vs-dawkins-question-of-adam-and.html
Warm regards
Renato
Inspired by comments on this blog - I invite comments on the following.
http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/salvation-and-interpretation-of.html
My final installment on the possibility of salvation for atheists - hope it contributes to the questions about the issue recently after the Q&A debate two weeks ago. Hope it also illustrates what the Catholic Church teaches about t this - and makes for open discussion. God bless,
Renato http://alegacyofgrace.blogspot.com/2012/04/ordinary-and-extraordinary-ways-of.html
Rennats:
Contrast your post with Unam Sanctam, which seems to dogmatically define a doctrine that submission to the pope is "absolutely necessary" to salvation.
How something can be "absolutely necessary" and not necessary at all is an interesting problem.
-TurretinFan
The doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" has been so misunderstood. I have studied it in depth including the reference you have made turretinfan. Happy to send you my essay on that if you wish - but suffice it to say there is no contradiction - the Church's teaching has been consistent - but it has developed given the nature of the mystery of teh Church as both the mystical Body of Christ (wth no physical boundaries) and the society of people on earth with physical boundaries. Too much to write in a post - perhaps I will turn my essay into another blog post as I had originally intended. (Unfortunately I am back at work this week so that will need to wait a while). God bless you.
"The doctrine "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" has been so misunderstood. "
Clearly it has been misunderstood by someone - the question is by whom. It seems that the Feenyites had the better argument from tradition. But, obviously, what they taught is not what Rome teaches today. Vatican II was pretty clear that people can be saved in Islam.
-TurretinFan
I know what the Feeneyites taught and the teaching was devoid of recognition of the complete thought and development of the teaching. Whether or not the Feenyites followed the trend from medieval tradition is , I think, not relevant. In fact what the Feenyites taught and believed is neither here nor there. They are not the Magisterium. Different theologians and Church Fathers were divided on the interpretation of the axiom showing once again why only magisterial statements should be ultimately considered and studied in depth hen seeking orthodoxy. It is in these statements that we find the articulation of the axiom in ways that could be misconstrued as contradictory - until you once again realise the context of each statement made. In that light Vatican II's teaching on how those outside the visible confines of the CHurch can be saved are to approached via hermeneutic of continuity in renewal rather than of rupture which is what you seem to be suggesting.
"showing once again why only magisterial statements should be ultimately considered and studied in depth hen seeking orthodoxy"
Unam Sanctam looks and quacks like a magisterial statement.
"Different theologians and Church Fathers were divided on the interpretation of the axiom"
I cannot think of any church fathers that thought "no salvation outside the church" meant that honest pagans can be saved. I was just reading from William of St. Thierry today, who makes faith absolutely necessary for salvation, suggesting that those who never heard the gospel may receive a milder hell. Aside from those with universalistic tendencies, like Origen, I cannot recall anyone suggesting something contrary to Wm. of St. T.
Do you have someone in mind?
"In that light Vatican II's teaching on how those outside the visible confines of the CHurch can be saved are to approached via hermeneutic of continuity in renewal rather than of rupture which is what you seem to be suggesting. "
Scripture is clear that there is only one way of salvation. Whether Vatican II represents rupture or continuity with prior Roman tradition is of much less concern to me than whether Vatican II denies what Scripture teaches. Benedict XVI has suggested that V2 should be read with a hermeneutic of continuity, but trying to do that on this topic creates rather extreme tensions.
Okay - you have convinced me - time to write another blog post using my research on the matter including Unam Sanctam which is one of the most poorly misunderstood. There is indeed division among the Fathers as I will show you. I think you do need to be concerned about hermeneutics - you are using yuour own when approaching both Scripture and Church teaching so it is indeed a relevant question. I think a close look at Vatican II and once again -its context - will highlight that the tensions which seem extreme are more a reflection of the disunity in the Church than any real tension. But please forgive me - this post will take time - have just gone back to work and have three children keeping me busy (and one on the way - not me of course - my lovely wife). God bless.
Post a Comment