Cardinal Pell heretic (?)

[Thersites]

Here is a fuller transcript of what Pell said on the topic...

MICHAEL MATTY: Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist?

TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I think it is okay to tell a child the truth but I would prefer to encourage a child to make up her own mind and to think about the evidence and to believe things when there is evidence. What I think is not okay, what I think is deeply immoral, is to tell a child that when she dies if she's not good she's going to go to hell. That seems to me to be mental child abuse and an utter disgrace.

TONY JONES: Okay.

GEORGE PELL: I remember when I was in England we were preparing some young English boys, they were from very...

(AUDIENCE LAUGH)

GEORGE PELL: Preparing them for...

(AUDIENCE BOO)

TONY JONES: Come on.

GEORGE PELL: Thank you. Preparing them for the first communion and they were very patriotic young lads and one of them announced very breezily to me that he didn't believe in hell and I mean certainly the idea of any child being sent to hell, I agree that that is grotesque and that’s not the Christian God but, anyhow, I said to this kid - I said simply "Hitler. You think Hitler might be in hell? Started the Second World War, caused the death of 50 million or would you prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?" Anyhow the little kid was quite patriotic and he said, “Mm.” He realised hell was in with a chance if Hitler was going to go there.

TONY JONES: What about a system where he was obliterated and didn't exist anymore?

GEORGE PELL: Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I am concerned.

TONY JONES: So you actually - well, prefer the idea of hell as a place of punishment for - but for who? Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?

GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. The only people - well, one - I hope nobody is 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.

I'm guessing Pell has never read Ezekiel 18:23-29.

To reiterate, a mortal sin (i.e. something that will place you in Hell), according to Catholic teaching, requires a grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. When Cardinal Pell says that he doesn't think that God would send a child to Hell, he most likely means that a child is not capable of fully comprehending or fully assenting to a gravely immoral act.

I'm not suprised, given he is an Australian Caardinal! I wouldn't have a clue who the Cardinals are in the USA or elsewhere.

Here is his Wiki bio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

Given his public views on a lot of things, it was a bit of a worry that he was considered as a possible successor to Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

No, I was talking about Rob Bell. Raphael keeps bringing up his name as if it should mean something to me.

[apostoli]

To reiterate, a mortal sin (i.e. something that will place you in Hell), according to Catholic teaching, requires a grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. When Cardinal Pell says that he doesn't think that God would send a child to Hell, he most likely means that a child is not capable of fully comprehending or fully assenting to a gravely immoral act.

It was not that long ago that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Ratzinger determined that Limbo (simply, another layer of hell) should no longer be taught as a dogma ie: it is now left hanging in the air (upto the mercy of God) where the unbaptised children, imbeciles etc go after death. So basically from a RCC viewpoint that leaves heaven, purgatory & hell as the destination of the dead. Given in the RCC it is necessary to have received baptism (or a special graciousness of God) to reach heaven, that puts a wilful child under threat of either purgatory or hell. So in the idea of "threat" as Dawkins terms it, we haven't resolved the issue of a form of child abuse - the issue Pell avoided with his rhetoric.

Imo, you make a good point concerning a child (and I'll add anyone) must be "capable of fully comprehending or fully assenting to a gravely immoral act" to deserve hell, and I would add purgatory into the equation ie: if someone has not the mental capacity to know they have done wrong, how can they be punished for doing a wrong that they had no way of determining such and such was wrong. The equation doesn't add up, hence the RCC idea of restitution.

In respect to children, psychologist would argue, that on average, a child is capable of fully comprehending and fully assenting to a gravely immoral act from the age of 5yo, though I have heard of lawyers, using expert witness, arguing in the case of males, 25yo is the average age of full mental competency. Pell could have used such an argument to remove the emotionalism behind Dawkins attack, instead he reinforced Dawkins argument by agreeing with Dawkins emotive premise. In effect, imo & I am not alone within the RCC bloggers elsewhere, Pell inadvertantly (and some suggest intentionally) denies the idea of original sin (his comments on Adam & Eve enforce such a conclusion).

Basically, to the informed ear, Pell appears to advocate a form of universalism where everybody ultimately gets saved, even Hitler & Stalin (Pell's points of reference not mine). Now there are a couple of scriptures from which one can argue such an idea, but there is a torrent of scriptures that argue against such a utopia, which, imu, is the main reason absolute universalism has always been viewed as anathema in the RCC.

[theblueprint_Ni]

If believers and unbelievers alike would read their Bibles they would know that the question isn't at all confusing.

Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but the one who obeys not the son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him

We make it confusing because we're uncomfortable with the God of the Bible.

Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing.

And if someone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

It's sometimes more about not wanting to subject ourselves to scorn and ridicule because we agree with what the Bible teaches. You'll naturally adjust the meaning to make it more palatable if you don't like what it has to say. It really isn't that hard to understand.

[apostoli]

If believers and unbelievers alike would read their Bibles they would know that the question isn't at all confusing.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but the one who obeys not the son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

We make it confusing because we're uncomfortable with the God of the Bible.

Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing.

Rev. 20:15: And if someone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Scripture (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:4-6,14-15) tells us there are three classes of people. In Revelation we find those who were obedient to Christ are not subject to judgement and automatically receive life in a first resurrection. Then a thousand years later there is the second resurrection in which we are told about two classes, each of whom are "judged every man according to their works", thus those found in the book of life who are granted life and those not in the book of life who are thrown into the Lake of Fire. In Daniel we also encounter three classes, the doomed class in Daniel simply isn't resurrected.

The question/s that arise in human thought is one of equity, and we find this concept in Western Law (particularly in the Westminster system), thus in sentencing, or for that matter culpability, the idea of adjustment for diminished responsibility (for instance in Oz a child under 10yo can't be held legally responsible for his actions, including premeditated murder). In the OT we can deduce that this is not God's way, for instance every man, woman, teenager, child & infant in Sodom & Gormorah suffered the same fate, same thing happened to those who lived in Noah's day. Imo, the confusion you speak of sets in when we begin to confuse God's concept of justice with the humanist concept of equity - from this we end up with contemplating moral justice versus social justice, and more confusion sets in.

Ezekiel 18 is well worth contemplating, to paraphrase, God says "you say, 'The way of the LORD is not just.'...Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?". God makes this statement in the context that a man who lived unrighteously but turns to righteousness, "None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live". Conversely, a man who lived righteously but turns to unrighteousness, none of his righteousness will be remembered and he will die.

It's sometimes more about not wanting to subject ourselves to scorn and ridicule because we agree with what the Bible teaches. You'll naturally adjust the meaning to make it more palatable if you don't like what it has to say. It really isn't that hard to understand.

I agree scripture isn't "that hard to understand", but there are implications that people just prefer to ignore...

[apostoli]

I think Sparticus was saying he had never heard of Rob Bell before. How do his views differ from those of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, or some other Eastern fathers on apocastastasis? If you want to plough through the patristic tradition on this question, see the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar.

I'm more familiar with the RCC concept of restitution. That is: as Christ being the redeeming kinsman, freeing us from the slavery of sin by substituting himself (compensation) we in thanksgiving undergo voluntary restitution = basically a rebuilding of ourselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit so that we can be acceptable to the Father - I think of it as the bride (ie: the bride of Christ) voluntarily cleansing herself and making herself acceptable to her spouse, and therefore her spouses father.

[apostoli]

No, I was talking about Rob Bell. Raphael keeps bringing up his name as if it should mean something to me.

Sorry, I thought you meant Pell...

I've never heard of Rob Bell either so I look him up in wiki. Apparently, "In 2011 Time magazine named Bell one of the 100 most influential people in the world" (?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bell

Wiki later continues In his most recent book, Love Wins, Bell states that "It's been clearly communicated to many that [hell as conscious, eternal torment] is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation (UR), and though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states of the UR view, "Whatever objections a person may have of [the UR view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it." At the time of the book's publication, some prominent reformed church figures like Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. said Bell's book was "theologically disastrous" for not rejecting the UR view. Bell denies that he is a universalist. He does not embrace any particular view but argues that he wants to leave room for uncertainty. Love Wins presents his "case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude." Some evangelicals see this "uncertainty" as incompatible with scripture, while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about some traditional interpretations of scripture. "

[theblueprint_Ni]

Scripture (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:4-6,14-15) tells us there are three classes of people. In Revelation we find those who were obedient to Christ are not subject to judgement and automatically receive life in a first resurrection. Then a thousand years later there is the second resurrection in which we are told about two classes, each of whom are "judged every man according to their works", thus those found in the book of life who are granted life and those not in the book of life who are thrown into the Lake of Fire. In Daniel we also encounter three classes, the doomed class in Daniel simply isn't resurrected.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make. Do you mean that there is a group who will be saved according to their works? You'll have to elaborate further because this paragraph by itself isn't very sound because it implies that salvation by faith is unique to NT saints.

Everyone, including believers from every age will be judged according to their works.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

The only difference is that believers will judged for their degree of reward (1 Cor. 3:13-15), whereas unbelievers will be judged for their degree of punishment (Rev.20:11-15, which you referenced).

The premillenialist view (which I hold) is that the pre-mil saints will be judged at the start of the thousand years (first resurrection of the saints), and the post-mil saints afterward, but they aren't considered saints by some different standard (as opposed to salvation by faith) nor are they judged (for reward) apart from works. The Great White Throne Judgement (Rev.20) is very significant because it directly precedes the consummation of all things, and all the living and the dead who remain yet unjudged will appear before this throne (pre-mil saints also, apparently to assist in judgment [1 Cor. 6:3]). Heaven and earth completely vanish away before God and his courtroom (v.11). Following this judgement a completely new heaven and earth are fashioned for Christ and all the redeemed to dwell for all eternity (Rev. 21).

I'm not sure where you get the idea of the "doomed class" in Daniel (quote?) not receiving their resurrected bodies. Revelation 20:11-15 details for us how the dead are collected from every corner of the universe, ranging even into the sea and the abode of the departed. The fact that the dead are reaped from every realm and placed in the divine courtroom that erased and replaced the created universe testifies to the all encompassing nature of this event. No one is left out. Everyone is resurrected at some point or another, but some never needed to be because they never died (the beast and false prophet in Rev. 19:20, possibly the Korah rebellion in Num. 16, and Enoch and Elijah [if they aren't the witnesses of Rev. 11])

But again, I'm responding to what I think your statements above look to mean.

The question/s that arise in human thought is one of equity, and we find this concept in Western Law (particularly in the Westminster system), thus in sentencing, or for that matter culpability, the idea of adjustment for diminished responsibility (for instance in Oz a child under 10yo can't be held legally responsible for his actions, including premeditated murder). In the OT we can deduce that this is not God's way, for instance every man, woman, teenager, child & infant in Sodom & Gormorah suffered the same fate, same thing happened to those who lived in Noah's day. Imo, the confusion you speak of sets in when we begin to confuse God's concept of justice with the humanist concept of equity - from this we end up with contemplating moral justice versus social justice, and more confusion sets in.

I think we agree here...

Ezekiel 18 is well worth contemplating, to paraphrase, God says "you say, 'The way of the LORD is not just.'...Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?". God makes this statement in the context that a man who lived unrighteously but turns to righteousness, "None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live". Conversely, a man who lived righteously but turns to unrighteousness, none of his righteousness will be remembered and he will die.

I agree scripture isn't "that hard to understand", but there are implications that people just prefer to ignore...

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear about what those implications are and what you mean by them.

[apostoli]

I'm not exactly sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make. Do you mean that there is a group who will be saved according to their works? You'll have to elaborate further because this paragraph by itself isn't very sound because it implies that salvation by faith is unique to NT saints.

Everyone, including believers from every age will be judged according to their works.

2 Corinthians 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

The only difference is that believers will judged for their degree of reward (1 Cor. 3:13-15), whereas unbelievers will be judged for their degree of punishment (Rev.20:11-15, which you referenced).

The premillenialist view (which I hold) is that the pre-mil saints will be judged at the start of the thousand years (first resurrection of the saints), and the post-mil saints afterward, but they aren't considered saints by some different standard (as opposed to salvation by faith) nor are they judged (for reward) apart from works. The Great White Throne Judgement (Rev.20) is very significant because it directly precedes the consummation of all things, and all the living and the dead who remain yet unjudged will appear before this throne (pre-mil saints also, apparently to assist in judgment [1 Cor. 6:3]). Heaven and earth completely vanish away before God and his courtroom (v.11). Following this judgement a completely new heaven and earth are fashioned for Christ and all the redeemed to dwell for all eternity (Rev. 21).

I'm not sure where you get the idea of the "doomed class" in Daniel (quote?) not receiving their resurrected bodies. Revelation 20:11-15 details for us how the dead are collected from every corner of the universe, ranging even into the sea and the abode of the departed. The fact that the dead are reaped from every realm and placed in the divine courtroom that erased and replaced the created universe testifies to the all encompassing nature of this event. No one is left out. Everyone is resurrected at some point or another, but some never needed to be because they never died (the beast and false prophet in Rev. 19:20, possibly the Korah rebellion in Num. 16, and Enoch and Elijah [if they aren't the witnesses of Rev. 11])

But again, I'm responding to what I think your statements above look to mean.

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear about what those implications are and what you mean by them.

We are heading way off topic of this thread, so tomorrow I will raise a new thread to directly answer your inquiries, wherein we might discuss Daniel 12:2, Rev 20 & especially 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:52 etc

[apostoli]

theblueprint_Ni,

We are heading way off topic of this thread, so tomorrow I will raise a new thread to directly answer your inquiries, wherein we might discuss Daniel 12:2, Rev 20 & especially 1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15:52 etc

I created a new thread titled "the question of people in hell" in which I attempt to answer your comments in post #22...here is a link...
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...10#post3391010

[RBerman]

Bell and Pell should be roommates. Both of them are a mess. What Dawkins needed to hear is, "God is holy, and your sin justly affronts him and places you in eternal peril. God became a man to take your sin and God's wrath over it. Trust and follow him." Christians should never be ashamed of saying forthrightly what the Bible says.

[Thersites]

Bell and Pell should be roommates. Both of them are a mess. What Dawkins needed to hear is, "God is holy, and your sin justly affronts him and places you in eternal peril. God became a man to take your sin and God's wrath over it. Trust and follow him." Christians should never be ashamed of saying forthrightly what the Bible says.

Y'all have yet to address the question of whether such atheism as Dawkins and his followers espouse fulfills the criteria of mortal sin.

[apostoli]

Y'all have yet to address the question of whether such atheism as Dawkins and his followers espouse fulfills the criteria of mortal sin.

Well if we follow Cardinal Pell's reasoning, apparently not...

MATTHEW THOMPSON: I am an atheist. What do you think will happen when I die and how do you know?

TONY JONES: George Pell, we’ll start with you? You ought to be an authority on this, I imagine?

GEORGE PELL: 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 will 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 his back turn their back on him through evil acts.

TONY JONES: So atheism is not an evil act?

GEORGE PELL: No, not - well, no, in most cases it’s not.

[A little earlier a different issue was raised and in my understanding of Pell's response, belief in God is beneficial but optional..]

NAOMI ROSETH: At Easter Australia's religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political integrity, social and moral fortitude, all obviously positive and worthwhile values. My question is: in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace loving socially responsible person?

TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins, let's start with you?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, obviously the answer to that question is yes. I mean that could hardly be otherwise. It is true that Christianity has adopted many of the best values of humanity but they don't belong to Christianity or any other religion. I think it would be very sad if it were true that you really did need religion in order to be good because if you think about it what that would mean would be either that you get your morals and your values from the Bible or the Quran or some other holy book or that you are good only because you're frightened of God, because you don't want to go to hell or you do want to go to heaven. Now, as for getting your morals from the Bible, I very sincerely hope nobody does get their morals from the Bible. It’s true that you can find the occasional good verse and the Sermon on the Mount would be one example, but it’s lost amid the awful things that are dotted throughout the Old Testament and actually throughout the New Testament as well because the idea - the fundamental idea of New Testament Christianity, which is that Jesus is the son of God who is redeeming humanity from original sin, the idea that we are born in sin and the only way we can be redeemed from sin is through the death of Jesus, I mean that’s a horrible idea. It’s a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our since sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.

TONY JONES: Okay, let's go to George Pell on that.

GEORGE PELL: Well, there’s quite a few things that might be said. First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance and it’s interesting to look at Pagan Rome before there was Christian influence. Forty per cent was slaves. Men and women fought one another to the death in, you know, the Circus Maximus or the Colosseum. Women had no rights whatsoever. Infanticide was practiced regularly. The noble families didn't want baby girls. Christianity changed that. Not perhaps by itself but largely. And the Christian story we're Christians, we're New Testament people. There was an evolution in the Old Testament. There are some awful things there. It developed. The notion of God was purified as it went through the Old Testament.

TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you just to bring you to point of the question, which was really about whether atheists can lead a good life and be good people and socially responsible and so on.

GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely.

TONY JONES: You accept that?

GEORGE PELL: Yeah, absolutely. I think it helps to believe in God because - there’s a Polish poet, Milosh, who says that the opium of the people today is the belief that they won't be judged by God when they die, those who have committed great crimes, done awful things are going to get away with it and that the people who have suffered unjustly, had terrible lives, that’s it.

[ZackMartin]

I think to understand what George Pell was saying, you have to understand the concept of "Anonymous Christian", which has been endorsed by the RCC since Vatican II, including by the current pope. (see Wikipedia). It is possible according to contemporary Catholic teaching for a non-Christian to be saved as an "anonymous Christian" and thus go to heaven (after a bit of a detour through Purgatory). The Catholic Church though, is careful not to pass judgement upon whether anyone actually is or is not an "Anonymous Christian" - that is known only to God. To quote the Catholic catechism "Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation."

Does this apply to atheists, as opposed to just followers of non-Christian religions? Pell seems to me to be suggesting it does. I guess, he would argue, that even though they know of Christianity, they don't really know it; and that an atheist might still "seek God with a sincere heart", maybe through some openness to the possibility of God's existence, to the good things that God's represents, or maybe even seeking God without actually realising that what others call "God" is what one is seeking. Maybe I'm interpreting him wrong, but anyway, I don't think the concept that an atheist could be saved as an anonymous Christian would be viewed as unorthodox by today's RCC.

[Thersites]

Well if we follow Cardinal Pell's reasoning, apparently not...

And what about you? Can you make the argument that the modern atheist is engaging in mortal sin? If not, we can forget about Cardinal Pell's opinions- your beef here is with the Catholic understanding of mortal sin, not Cdl. Pell's.

[RBerman]

Y'all have yet to address the question of whether such atheism as Dawkins and his followers espouse fulfills the criteria of mortal sin.

I reject the category of "mortal sin." All men deserve Hell. The ground of our justification is the person and work of Christ, which we lay hold of by personal, conscious faith. An atheist is one who does not have faith. If he dies without faith, then he pays for his own sins in Hell, forever. Scripture knows nothing of post-death conversions, or "anonymous Christians." The very idea is just another evidence of how far the RCC has fallen.