The latest “papal” heresy…
Talk about Pelagianism: Francis tells Boy his Atheist Father is in Heaven because he was “good”
[UPDATED 21-DEC-2018 with new video link as prior one had been removed]
No one who has not experienced it himself can possibly understand the incredible grief a little child who has lost his father has to endure. Such grief must be infinitely worse when the father in question was an atheist, since anyone who dies an atheist will certainly be damned:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mk 16:16)
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. (Heb 11:6)
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory. (Eph 2:8-9)
On Sunday, Apr. 15, 2018, such a tragic case of a young child lamenting his deceased atheist father was put before “Pope” Francis while he was visiting the parish of San Paolo della Croce (St. Paul of the Cross) in Rome’s Corviale district.
The little boy in question is named Emanuele, perhaps six or seven years of age. He, among other children who are currently receiving catechetical instruction in the Novus Ordo religion, was scheduled to address Francis to ask him a question. But he was unable to speak and burst into tears at the microphone, and Francis asked for Emanuele to be brought to him. He hugged the boy for a long time and spoke with him. The video of the incident can be watched here (Italian with English subtitles):
A description of the incident has been given as follows:
At this Pastoral Visit to the Roman Parish of San Paolo della Croce a Corviale, Pope Francis answered questions from children in their Catechism class. One child, Emanuele, at the moment to address his question, burst into tears at the microphone. Then the Pope invites him to get closer. As soon as the child is near the Pope he falls into his arms. Emanuele asks Pope Francis, if his father, an atheist but who had his four sons baptized (Emanuele, two other brothers and a sister), after his death went to Heaven. And not in hell. Here’s what Pope Francis answers (explaining that he asked Emanuele permission to publicly report the question, which the child has whispered in his ear):
“Maybe we could cry like Emanuele when we have pain in our heart. He cries for his father who died and has had the courage to do it in front of us because there is love in his heart – he underlines – his father was an atheist but he had his four children baptized, he was a good man. It’s nice that a son says his dad was “good.” If that man was able to make children like that he was a good man, God is proud of your father. God has a father’s heart, your dad was a good man, he’s in heaven with him, I’m sure. God has a father’s heart and before an unbelieving father who was able to baptize his children, would God be able to abandon him? God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer and to have children baptized than to be a believer [sic — should say: an unbeliever] and to have their children baptized. Pray for your dad, talk to your dad. This is the answer”.
(Source: Patheos, Apr. 15, 2018)
As we were preparing this post, Vatican Insider of the Italian paper La Stampa published an article mentioning the occurrence as well:
As soon as the child was near the Pontiff, he fell into his arms. It is obvious from the beginning that Emanuele needed to be embraced, encouraged, reassured, consoled, that he needed to receive human warmth. He received it from the Pope in person. He needed to vent his anguish and pain. Bergoglio gave him a long hug. The pope was in no hurry to let him go. The child whispered in the Pope’s ear. Emanuel asked him if his father, who was an atheist but had his four children (his two brothers and a sister) baptized, went to heaven after his death. And not to hell (the child’s full question included a specific quote regarding the danger for Emanuel’s father to end up in Hell). This is what Francis answered (explaining afterwards that he asked Emanuele for permission to publicly report the question the child had whispered to his ear): “If only we could cry like Emanuele when we have pain in our hearts. He cries for his father who died and had the courage to do so before us because there is love in his heart – he points out – his father was an atheist, yet he had his four children baptized, he was a good man. It’s nice that a son says that about his father, that he “was good”. If that man was able to raise his children like that, then he was a good man. God is proud of your father”.
Francis then emphasizes: “God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in heaven with Him, be sure. God has a father’s heart and, would God ever abandon a non-believing father who baptize his children? God was certainly proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer and have your children baptized than to be a non-believer and have your children baptized. Pray for your father, talk to your father. That is the answer”.
(Domenico Agasso, Jr., “A child cries for the death of his father. The Pope, ‘he was a good man, he is with God'”, Vatican Insider, Apr. 15, 2018; bold print removed.)
What we have here is a clear case of the heresy of Pelagianism.
The Catholic Dictionary describes “Pelagianism” succinctly as follows:
The heretical doctrine of Pelagius (c. 400), a native of Britain. Its principal tenets were: rejection of original sin…; that death is not due to original sin, but is a law of human nature; that Baptism is not necessary for blotting out original sin, but is merely a title of admission to the kingdom of Heaven; that grace is not necessary for salvation.
(Donald Attwater, ed., A Catholic Dictionary, 3rd. ed., s.v. “Pelagianism”)
In a nutshell, Pelagianism holds that we are saved by our own efforts, that is, by our own good works, done without the help of grace. Our natural powers alone suffice for us to attain eternal life, and hence there was no need for a Redeemer. Grace may be useful but it is not necessary for salvation. That is what the fifth-century monk Pelagius taught, and of course the Catholic Church has condemned these ideas as heretical. They are directly contrary to the truth revealed by God.
It has likewise been decided that whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason: that what we are ordered to do through free will, we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even if grace were not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him he anathema.
(Pope St. Zosimus, Council of Carthage, Canon 5; Denz. 105)
If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session V, Ch. 2)
The holy council declares first, that for a correct and clear understanding of the doctrine of justification, it is necessary that each one recognize and confess that since all men had lost innocence in the prevarication of Adam, having become unclean, and, as the Apostle says, by nature children of wrath, as has been set forth in the decree on original sin, they were so far the servants of sin and under the power of the devil and of death, that not only the Gentiles by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom, though free will, weakened as it was in its powers and downward bent, was by no means extinguished in them. Whence it came to pass that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when the blessed fullness of time was come, sent to men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had both before the law and during the time of the law been announced and promised to many of the holy fathers, that he might redeem the Jews who were under the law, and that the Gentiles who followed not after justice might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him has God proposed as a propitiator through faith in his blood for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
(Council of Trent, Session VI, Chs. 1, 2)
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 1)
[Holy Scripture] also compares us to sick persons who, as long as their malady lasts, are incapable of fulfilling the duties and offices proper to persons of sound and vigorous health. In the same way neither can we, without the assistance of divine grace, undertake actions such as are acceptable to God. Even should we, while in this condition, succeed in doing anything good, it will be of little or no avail towards attaining the bliss of heaven. But to love and serve God as we ought is something too noble and too sublime for us to accomplish by human powers in our present lowly and feeble condition, unless we are assisted by the grace of God. […] “Not only this, but our folly and blindness are even greater than those of children; for they are merely destitute of human prudence which they can of themselves acquire in course of time; whereas, if not assisted by God’s help and grace, we can never aspire to that divine prudence which is so necessary to salvation. And if God’s assistance should fail us, we at once cast aside those things that are truly good and rush headlong to voluntary ruin.
If anyone shall have said that man cannot be drawn by divine power to a knowledge and perfection which is above the natural, but that he of himself can and ought to reach the possession of all truth and good by a continual progress: let him be anathema.
(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Ch. 2, Canon 3; Denz. 1808)
Lastly, as if responding to Francis directly, the great anti-Modernist Pope St. Pius X declared not only that natural goodness will not avail to salvation, but that it is a “counterfeit” of virtue: “…merely naturally good acts are only a counterfeit of virtue since they are neither permanent nor sufficient for salvation” (Encyclical Editae Saepe, n. 28). Too bad St. Pius X didn’t know about all those “good atheists” who have their children baptized!
The error of Pelagianism is related to Naturalism, another heresy of which Francis is a most loyal adherent, as the following links show:
- A Naturalist Lent: Dissecting Francis’ Ash Wednesday Sermon
- A Naturalist Easter: Francis inverts Christ
- A Perfect Example of Naturalism: Francis reflects on Death without Judgment, Heaven, or Hell
- Evangelii Gaudium Reloaded: Francis’ Message to G20 Summit
- Francis and the Gospel of Man
Francis’ Naturalism is so glaring that even an atheist philosopher has criticized the papal pretender for not being concerned with the salvation of souls. And today’s remarks to little Emanuele prove it. Not that we needed that confirmation, but it doesn’t hurt to have it.
That Jorge Bergoglio should promote the idea that “good atheists” go to Heaven does not come as a surprise to those who have kept an eye on Francis from the beginning. We recall that on May 22, 2013, Francis hinted at the idea of salvation for atheists who “do good”:
- Francis on “Good” Atheists, the Redemption, and Good Works (Novus Ordo Watch)
- Francis Do-Right (Christ or Chaos)
Whatever may have still been ambiguous then, is very clear and certain now. Francis believes that an atheist who has his children baptized is “good” and therefore worthy to be admitted to Heaven, where no one defiled by sin can enter (see Apoc 21:27). Supernatural Faith? Nice but not necessary. Supernatural contrition for sins? Not that important. Purgatory? That’s only for rebellious traditionalists. The grace of final perseverance? Totally pre-Vatican II!
No, Bergoglio has a better idea: The atheist can now save himself. Who needs a Redeemer when there is nothing to be redeemed from! Such as original and actual sin, for example. It doesn’t matter. You can now be an atheist, and as long as you ensure your children receive baptism, you are good to go. Just do good. Like Pepsi. Don’t worry about the rest. God is even proud of you!
But Francis had better be careful, because logic knows no mercy: If there is no need for a Redeemer, then there definitely isn’t need for a “Pope”! And those who applaud Francis have already figured that out, which is why church attendance under Francis is not increasing but falling to new lows. The Novus Ordo apologists may not have figured that out yet, but the people have. If Francis’ religion is true, then there is no point in practicing it.
By the way, Francis cranked out another howler today while speaking to the children, but we can only touch upon it briefly:
Francis answered to a little girl, “We are all children of God, all, even the unbaptized ones, yes, even those who believe in other religions, or those who have idols. Those of the mafia are also children of God but prefer to behave like children of the devil”. We are all “children of God, God created and loves us all and placed in each of our hearts the consciousness of distinguishing good from evil. With baptism the Holy Spirit entered and strengthened your belonging to God.
(Agasso, “A child cries”; bold print removed.)
This ties right in to Francis’ Naturalism and Pelagianism. We are all God’s creatures, but we are not all children of God. We become children of God through baptism, through Faith, through supernatural grace:
For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. (Gal 3:26-27)
Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel: Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called: That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they, that are the children of the promise, are accounted for the seed. (Rom 9:6-8)
And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins, wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: in which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)…. (Eph 2:1-5)
By nature we are children of wrath, children of unbelief, children of the flesh. That is due to original sin, and it is the reason why we needed a Redeemer. Only God’s grace, which was merited for us by the Redeemer, can remove the stains of sin and restore supernatural life to our souls. But apart from the virtue of Faith, such sanctifying grace cannot exist in the soul (see Heb 11:6), and hence atheists cannot be saved. Neither is it right to say that everyone is a child of God, except perhaps in some very limited, natural sense, a sense which has no bearing on salvation whatsoever and would therefore be misleading to use, at least without clear explanation.
Incidentally, it is a defined dogma of the Church that the existence of God can be proved by reason alone and therefore can be known apart from divine revelation: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema” (Vatican I, Dei Filius, Ch. 2, Canon 1; Denz. 1806). It is for this reason that Sacred Scripture calls a fool the man who denies God’s existence: “The fool said in his heart: There is no God” (Ps 52:1).
Yet, denial of the ability to prove the existence of God by reason alone is one of the most popular heresies of our day, especially in Vatican City:
There will be those now who object to our stern approach here, who will argue that Francis was merely trying to console a boy overwhelmed with grief, and that it would be cruel and heartless to say to the little fellow anything other than what Francis told him: that surely his unbelieving father is in Heaven.
To this objection we must certainly respond.
Let’s be clear about one thing: The grief of little Emanuele is heartbreaking, of course. That’s beyond question. And while one may be able to disagree on how best to console the boy, it is absolutely certain that one cannot tell him what Francis told him. One cannot do so because it is heresy; it is a mortal sin against God; it denies the Faith and scandalizes the little boy.
Certainly, Emanuele experienced human consolation for the moment, just as did the grieving Filipino girl whom Francis hugged in Jan. 2015 but whom he likewise scandalized, in her case by claiming that “there is no answer” to the question why God allows children to suffer:
The world will be pleased with Francis’ action with regard to Emanuele. God, however, is indignant.
Francis has once again publicly denied the Faith, he has called God a liar, he has stabbed Jesus Christ in the back and made His Redemption irrelevant, he has sneered at the necessity of grace, and he has trampled upon countless Catholic martyrs. In addition, he has planted heresy in the soul of this young fellow, who will now believe, perhaps for the rest of his life, that Faith and grace are not necessary for salvation because “the Pope himself told me” that even atheists can be good in the sight of God. What could he possibly conclude from that, other than that it doesn’t matter you believe — if anything — as long as you’re a “good” person and don’t mean harm to anyone? What if the boy himself acts on that idea at some point, especially when temptation comes?
In this way, Francis has scandalized the boy in the true sense of the word “scandal”, which is defined in moral theology as follows: “Scandal in its theological sense is any word or action which has at least the appearance of evil and is the occasion of sin to another” (Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, vol. 1 [5th ed., 1925], p. 129). Francis’ response to the child is scandalous because it is evil (heretical and morally wrong) and because it occasions the sin of heresy in Emanuele and whatever may follow from that false belief and all the ideas that are connected with it.
Who knows how many souls will be lost now because of this single scandalous and heretical remark made by the Argentinian pretend-Pope. God forbid, but even Emanuele himself might be lost because of it! Conservative Protestants will be outraged and will see all their fears that Catholics believe in salvation by works confirmed. They will denounce Francis for heresy, and they will be right to do so.
Oh, the frightful consequences of acknowledging a public heretic as the Pope of the Catholic Church!
Image source: youtube.com (hayabusa chojiro; screenshot)
License: Fair use