Like most when I heard “it’s an American Pope!” I registered some shock as truly I thought “certainly time for perhaps an African or Asian pontiff.” What really inspired me though was his chosen name Leo XIV….Leo XIII is one of my all time favorites, he served during a time of immense world change what with the Industrial Revolution, mass migration, and a coarsening of the culture. All themes in play today. Leo XIII left an indelible mark on the 19th century, John Paul II on the 20th maybe this Pope will be as consequential.
The name Leo, echoing back to Leo XIII, is one that sends the message of papacy that looks to being together Catholics. Leo is admired by some for his emphasis on Catholic social teaching and also admired by the other Catholics for his legacy with composing the St. Michael prayer.
The homilies that I read all retuned to themes of living a life of holiness by means of community & love for one another. Prevost’s homilies led with Jesus’ words—Prevost preaches Jesus Christ. He has a missionary spirit. Reading his work, he strikes me as his own man, not the next version of Pope Francis. Instead of a Francis 2.0, why not Leo XIV 1.0?
The idea that no one is saved alone as Bergoglio and now Provost express and teach is not found anywhere in Tradition. It’s a twisting of the doctrine that there is no salvation apart from the Church. Bergoglio was a master at twisting ideas and concepts and playing fast and loose with the truth.
Unless you have some concrete examples, I don't quite agree with your understanding that the notion of "no one is saved alone" is not found in the tradition of the Church.
I would argue that this is foundational in the history and tradition of the Catholic Church, which has been distorted since Protestantism came onto the scene. A good book on the topic that examines both the Catholic history, tradition, and biblical teaching on the issue is Gary Anderson's "Charity."
Anderson explains, "Early in the development of the church, the giving of alms was linked to the celebration of the Eucharist. The connection is easy to understand; both acts celebrated a display of mercy. In the Eucharist, one re-presents the love Christ showed the world by the self-offering of his life. In almsgiving, the layperson has the opportunity to participate in this divine act by imitating that mercy in his or her daily actions. It is not accidental that the Eucharist and almsgiving were the two privileged means of channeling grace and dealing with the baneful effects of human sin. (Gary A. Anderson, "Charity" (p. 8). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.)
Also Anderson explains, "God. In short, there is a deeply sacramental character to the act. The poor become a necessary and indeed nonnegotiable point of access to the Kingdom of God. This idea, as I will explain below, was hotly contested during the Reformation and led to the overturning of many charitable practices that had been part of the Christian tradition for more than a millennium. Since the field of biblical studies has been shaped to a large degree by Protestant sensibilities, it should not be unduly surprising that traditionally Catholic understandings of the sacramental character of charity would be overlooked by such scholars, either by intention or simply by ignorance." (Anderson, 3.)
The thesis of Anderson boils down to the fact that acts of Charity in the tradition prior to the Reformation were recognized as a sacrament with salvic ramifications for those who partake in acts of charity. It would deal with the concept of soteriology regarding the means of faith, salvation & the Mystical Body of Christ, and not much to do with No Salvation outside the Church.
I’m not sure you read my entire comment. I wrote “as Bergoglio and Provost express and teach” is not found in Tradition. They poison tradition with modernism. To say it is absolutely not present is absurd. The Trinity itself is a community of persons.
I found my way to God while I was walking down the street alone, and I immediately had the most transforming experience in my life. I didn’t know of any Church that taught me that I should literally be anxious for nothing by casting all of my care on God as the Bible teaches (cf. Philippians 4:6-7; 1Peter 5:5-7). I never heard of it in my Catholic upbringing; but when I read it in the Bible, I was drawn to it, and I eventually acted on it alone without any outside support for it that I knew of. My search for inner peace brought me to that point. I didn’t see any other way of arriving at God’s peace.
Yeah, it’s not saying we don’t each have a Damascus moment, or many, where we are faced with our eschatological moment—see my most recent Gospel reflection.
But, that alone will not be enough because faith is also a twofold movement with the wills moving the intellect to end of your search but also to charity.
That being said, I would suggest referencing some direct teaching of Jesus Christ.
What it is saying is that Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15) and what does Jesus ask us to do? Jesus give all of us a new commandment: “Love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 13:34)
How will Christ judge us? He tells us in Matthew 25:31-46. He tells us how will store up our felicity in heaven in each of the Synoptics: Mt. 19:21, Mk. 10:21, Lik 12:21. It is our cooperation with God’s grace to do His work in the world that sustains us with the grace like perseverance in which He provides the means of our salvation.
It is personal faith unto good works. The only other faith that we can draw on for righteousness is the personal faith of Jesus Christ in His Father (cf. Galatians 2:16, 20 Douay Version). Jesus provides us with His own righteousness by faith.
Like most when I heard “it’s an American Pope!” I registered some shock as truly I thought “certainly time for perhaps an African or Asian pontiff.” What really inspired me though was his chosen name Leo XIV….Leo XIII is one of my all time favorites, he served during a time of immense world change what with the Industrial Revolution, mass migration, and a coarsening of the culture. All themes in play today. Leo XIII left an indelible mark on the 19th century, John Paul II on the 20th maybe this Pope will be as consequential.
The name Leo, echoing back to Leo XIII, is one that sends the message of papacy that looks to being together Catholics. Leo is admired by some for his emphasis on Catholic social teaching and also admired by the other Catholics for his legacy with composing the St. Michael prayer.
The homilies that I read all retuned to themes of living a life of holiness by means of community & love for one another. Prevost’s homilies led with Jesus’ words—Prevost preaches Jesus Christ. He has a missionary spirit. Reading his work, he strikes me as his own man, not the next version of Pope Francis. Instead of a Francis 2.0, why not Leo XIV 1.0?
Amen! God is love, so let Love led the way
The gospel is the power of God for the salvation of everyone, Paul writes to the Romans.
I choose joy, we all should choose joy. God is love as you say!
The idea that no one is saved alone as Bergoglio and now Provost express and teach is not found anywhere in Tradition. It’s a twisting of the doctrine that there is no salvation apart from the Church. Bergoglio was a master at twisting ideas and concepts and playing fast and loose with the truth.
Greetings Father,
Unless you have some concrete examples, I don't quite agree with your understanding that the notion of "no one is saved alone" is not found in the tradition of the Church.
I would argue that this is foundational in the history and tradition of the Catholic Church, which has been distorted since Protestantism came onto the scene. A good book on the topic that examines both the Catholic history, tradition, and biblical teaching on the issue is Gary Anderson's "Charity."
Anderson explains, "Early in the development of the church, the giving of alms was linked to the celebration of the Eucharist. The connection is easy to understand; both acts celebrated a display of mercy. In the Eucharist, one re-presents the love Christ showed the world by the self-offering of his life. In almsgiving, the layperson has the opportunity to participate in this divine act by imitating that mercy in his or her daily actions. It is not accidental that the Eucharist and almsgiving were the two privileged means of channeling grace and dealing with the baneful effects of human sin. (Gary A. Anderson, "Charity" (p. 8). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.)
Also Anderson explains, "God. In short, there is a deeply sacramental character to the act. The poor become a necessary and indeed nonnegotiable point of access to the Kingdom of God. This idea, as I will explain below, was hotly contested during the Reformation and led to the overturning of many charitable practices that had been part of the Christian tradition for more than a millennium. Since the field of biblical studies has been shaped to a large degree by Protestant sensibilities, it should not be unduly surprising that traditionally Catholic understandings of the sacramental character of charity would be overlooked by such scholars, either by intention or simply by ignorance." (Anderson, 3.)
The thesis of Anderson boils down to the fact that acts of Charity in the tradition prior to the Reformation were recognized as a sacrament with salvic ramifications for those who partake in acts of charity. It would deal with the concept of soteriology regarding the means of faith, salvation & the Mystical Body of Christ, and not much to do with No Salvation outside the Church.
I’m not sure you read my entire comment. I wrote “as Bergoglio and Provost express and teach” is not found in Tradition. They poison tradition with modernism. To say it is absolutely not present is absurd. The Trinity itself is a community of persons.
I’m not sure if you read the entirety of my comment. So, aside from Pope Francis, can you give me examples in Prevost’s writings & history?
Yes. I can.
Of course, I am open to reading anything you send my way, Father.
I found my way to God while I was walking down the street alone, and I immediately had the most transforming experience in my life. I didn’t know of any Church that taught me that I should literally be anxious for nothing by casting all of my care on God as the Bible teaches (cf. Philippians 4:6-7; 1Peter 5:5-7). I never heard of it in my Catholic upbringing; but when I read it in the Bible, I was drawn to it, and I eventually acted on it alone without any outside support for it that I knew of. My search for inner peace brought me to that point. I didn’t see any other way of arriving at God’s peace.
Greetings Peter,
Yeah, it’s not saying we don’t each have a Damascus moment, or many, where we are faced with our eschatological moment—see my most recent Gospel reflection.
But, that alone will not be enough because faith is also a twofold movement with the wills moving the intellect to end of your search but also to charity.
That being said, I would suggest referencing some direct teaching of Jesus Christ.
What it is saying is that Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments (John 14:15) and what does Jesus ask us to do? Jesus give all of us a new commandment: “Love one another, as I have loved you.” (John 13:34)
How will Christ judge us? He tells us in Matthew 25:31-46. He tells us how will store up our felicity in heaven in each of the Synoptics: Mt. 19:21, Mk. 10:21, Lik 12:21. It is our cooperation with God’s grace to do His work in the world that sustains us with the grace like perseverance in which He provides the means of our salvation.
It is personal faith unto good works. The only other faith that we can draw on for righteousness is the personal faith of Jesus Christ in His Father (cf. Galatians 2:16, 20 Douay Version). Jesus provides us with His own righteousness by faith.
So, you’ve admitted that willing the intellect is a twofold movement of the will to acts of charity, that’s great!
“For it is God who works [Gr. energeō] in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13).