is the Catholic Church officially now Apostate?

[Thomas Helwys]

The Bible was written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics and kept exclusively by Catholics for 1,500 years. It is a Catholic book. If they didn’t love it they could have destroyed it because it was exclusively in their possession. And no, they are not innovators. The Catholic view of scripture has existed since the first century and continues down to the present day. Your view, however, was concocted less than 500 years ago by men who perceived their own minds as greater than the wisdom of the ages, men who rejected the deposit of faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. Think about it, do you want to accept a view of scripture that someone devised 1500 years after it was written or do you want a view of scripture that was held by the men who actually penned it?

Oh, please what a bunch of inaccurate, non-scholarly, unbiblical, and unhistorical tripe.

Tell me, which of these Romanist innovations can you find scriptural support for? Popes, infallible popes, "ever-virgins", immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, "Holy Fathers", transsubstatntiation. etc.? I'll help you: absolutely none!

My view? You apparently do not know what "my view" is. My view was not concocted 500 years ago. My view is based on actual facts: scholarly, theological, historical, scriptural, instead of Romanist fables invented by a hierarchy to justify its existence. The Roman church is built on a house of cards.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

This is one time, I stand with you, rare as it may be. I cannot believe some of these posts. The Catholics had/have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. All 66 had been put pen to paper by the Holy Spirit, inspiring the men who wrote them, centuries before the apostate clowns decided to start a club to help with the local kingdoms of Europe and call it a church.

Canons were held throughout the centuries to form the Bible, but we owe the Catholics nothing for that. They decided to add a few books that did not go in the Bible. God and God alone is reponsible for revealing His plan and Himself to man. No doubt we would have done fine if the first pope, long after Peter died, had never put on his beenie hat.

The idea that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Catholic hierarchy and dead theologeans anything is as about as insane as it gets. I am really sorry to inform everyone, but a Pharisee handing off the sacred scrolls to a Pope is not how God's Word was preserved.

The fact that most don't understand and that Rome wrongfully appropriates solely unto itself, is that the term "catholic" originally simply meant universal, as pertaining to all the churches everywhere. It had nothing to do with an institutional hierarchy. That's why I refuse to call the Roman church the "Catholic Church". It is inaccurate. I will say the "Roman Catholic Church", but every denomination and local church that is orthodox is a "catholic" church. Further, institutional hierarchical "Catholic" churches also includes the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Churches, including the Polish national Catholic Church of America, a group that split off from Rome many years ago. Thus, the Roman appropriation of the word "Catholic" to apply only to them is inaccurate and a usurpation. It is especially incorrect when they apply it that way to the early churches and to the formation and recognition of the canon.

There is so much subterfuge involved in the Romanist defense of their institution that I would say one would almost have to be intellectually dishonest or willfully in denial of scholarly and historical facts to accept such bull as being true.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

SN you need to read more history and when you do you will come to realize that Peter, Luke, John, Paul, Jude and Barnabas were among the first Catholics. The church referenced by Jesus in Matthew 16 and 18 is the Catholic Church. Once you get that through your head you will have less difficulty realizing that the Catholic Church is authentic and Protestants are the interlopers. You're a smart guy, so I know you're up to the task. :thumbs:

This would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful. This is a completely false and dare I say deliberately inaccurate use of the word "catholic" in its original meaning.

When Romanists do this type of thing, I have no hesitancy calling it cultic.

And to show you that I'm not biased or just Roman Catholic bashing and that I am objective, I would put Baptist Landmarkism is that same category, with one essential difference: They never persecuted, tormented, or murdered others in the name of Jesus.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible was written by Catholics, compiled by Catholics ...

Using that logic - then John the Baptist was a Baptist and existed before any Catholics, and was not called "Satan" in Matt 16 when Christ was speaking to Peter - making the Baptist church the one true Church of the Bible because Peter is never called "Peter the Catholic".

Are you sure this is the logic you want to use here?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Using that logic - then John the Baptist was a Baptist and existed before any Catholics, and was not called "Satan" in Matt 16 when Christ was speaking to Peter - making the Baptist church the one true Church of the Bible because Peter is never called "Peter the Catholic".

Are you sure this is the logic you want to use here?

in Christ,

Bob

Good points, and, to be fair and to show that I am objective about this, I prefer to adhere to historical accuracy: I also oppose the Baptist form of successionism called Landmarkism, as it is also a fable.

It's amazing to me that people often can't be truthful and objective when it comes to religion, especially if it concerns their own brand and related presuppositions. The RCC is built on a bogus foundation, the extent of which is much broader than most because of the multitude of fables and falsehoods which comprise that foundation. Its claim to be the one true church is patently false.

 

[Zenas]

This is simply not true! Jesus does not refer to "Peter" in verse 17 but to "Simon Bar Jona." It is this change from how he is first introduced in verse 17 that is significant, and the fact that the change occurs in a church building text.

Ask yourself an obvious question! Where did Peter get the idea in his own church building context to describe church members as "stones" and Christ as the "Petra" - 1 Tim. 2:5,8????

You are not looking at the English Grammar except through rose colored glasses. Peter is given the keys as characteristic of such a building "stone" and Christ makes this clear by attributing the power of the keys to the PLURAL "you" in Matthew 18:18 already identied as "the church" not Peter in Matthew 18:17.

Can't get it clearer or plainer!

Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church (assembly).” Now, if Christ were going to use the petros as a building material to be built upon the petra, He would have said something about it. But he said nothing of the kind. Rather He went on to talk about the keys. The fact is that you can’t use “petra” in connection with Peter because it is a feminine noun. That is why He used “petros.” In English, it would perhaps best be translated, “You are a rock and upon this rock I will build my assembly.”

Now I know I need to tread lightly here because I am not a Greek scholar as I believe you are. However, Matthew 16 is contextually different than 1 Peter 2. Indeed, Peter doesn’t even use petra or petros to denote his stones. Instead he uses lithoi. If Peter meant to describe the same thing Jesus was talking about, it would seem that he would have used the same word.

Surely you’re not serious about the keys in v.19 being characteristic of a building stone? “The keys” is a throwback to Isaiah 22:22 where God presents the keys of the kingdom to his servant Eliakim. “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder. When he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open.” Peter and the apostles would have understood this presentation of the keys as being the symbol of authority. And this authority was given to Peter alone. The reference to binding and loosing in Matthew 18 is indeed a gift to all the apostles and ultimately to the Church. They all had this authority but their authority was subordinate to that of Peter.

So yes, you’re right, it can’t get clearer of plainer. So why don’t you get it?

 

[Zenas]

Well, I do not know about smarts. I had a "C" average through most of high school due to laziness. It was not until college until I finally figured out that the effort was well worth getting "As" and "Bs". Back to the op, I was unaware that the Catholic Church existed during the time that Peter, Luke, John, Paul, Jude and Barnabas walked the earth. As far as church history goes, I do have a good grasp of it, but since it is not my occupation, certainly not as well as some on this board. However, I do have sense enough to know that one, the Catholic Church was centuries away, and two, if these individuals were members of said church, they would not have tolerated the doctrine that is practiced by the RCC.

We have had I do not know how many threads describing the gap in vivid detail between Catholic rhetoric and Scripture. For example, I doubt Paul would have prayed to Mary.

I see you're not in complete agreement yet, so let’s look at it this way. Most churches can identify their human founder. Lutherans, for example, go back to Martin Luther. Church of Christ/Christian Church/Disciples of Christ come from Alexander Campbell. There is no record of Baptists before Thomas Helwys. And we could give many other examples. History, however, does not identify any founder of the Catholic Church or any date from which it springs. Some say it was Constantine, but we know that Constantine made it legal to be a Christian. We see no church that Constantine started. We see no schism anywhere from which the Catholic Church may have emerged.

We do, however, see very Catholic doctrines being expressed by the likes of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr late in the First Century and early in the Second Century. There is simply no reason to believe that the Catholic Church originated anywhere but at Pentecost.

I would agree that Paul would not have prayed to the Virgin Mary because she would have been alive during most, perhaps all, of Paul’s life. We don’t know where Mary came to the end of her life but there is strong evidence it was in Ephesus after she moved there with John late in his life and hers.

 

[Zenas]

Oh, please what a bunch of inaccurate, non-scholarly, unbiblical, and unhistorical tripe.

Tell me, which of these Romanist innovations can you find scriptural support for? Popes, infallible popes, "ever-virgins", immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, "Holy Fathers", transsubstatntiation. etc.? I'll help you: absolutely none!

My view? You apparently do not know what "my view" is. My view was not concocted 500 years ago. My view is based on actual facts: scholarly, theological, historical, scriptural, instead of Romanist fables invented by a hierarchy to justify its existence. The Roman church is built on a house of cards.

And where in this diatribe have you rebutted what I said with anything but your rather uninformed opinion? I don’t even see where you have relied on scripture, except to erroneously conclude that it does not support certain doctrines of the Catholic Church. Of course I would submit that it doesn’t have to be in the Bible to be a theological truth. Nevertheless, I will give you these (which I know in advance you will reject but here they are anyway):

Popes: There is no such office. The Bishop of Rome, as successor to Peter who was the first Bishop of Rome, holds the keys first given to Peter by Jesus. Matthew 16:17-19.

Infallible popes: What other kind is there? Jesus told His disciples assembled in the upper room, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:26. Jesus also told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Matthew 16:18.

Ever-virgins: I will assume you are talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I have provided a rather lengthy explanation of this at least twice on other threads, but here it is again, at least the part that gives this dogma scriptural support.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by language such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

4. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

Immaculate conception: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Luke 1:28. If one of full of grace there is no room for any trace of sin.

Assumption of Mary: “ And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Revelation 12:1.

Holy fathers: I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I guess it is the Bishop of Rome (pope). There is no more theological significence in that title than to call someone “Reverend” or “Pastor.”

Transubstantiation: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16. Paul tells us we eat the body and blood of Christ. So does Jesus in all four gospels. We know it is bread and wine when it is placed on the altar. We know it is body and blood when we consume it. Somewhere in the process it has to change. Ergo, transubstantiation.

I think I do know what your view is and I even know there are scholarly (misplaced but still scholarly) sources to reflect it but you have given us nothing. And yes I stand on the fact that these ideas of yours concerning scripture were concocted less than 500 years ago.
:jesus:

 

[Zenas]

This would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful. This is a completely false and dare I say deliberately inaccurate use of the word "catholic" in its original meaning.

When Romanists do this type of thing, I have no hesitancy calling it cultic.

And to show you that I'm not biased or just Roman Catholic bashing and that I am objective, I would put Baptist Landmarkism is that same category, with one essential difference: They never persecuted, tormented, or murdered others in the name of Jesus.

Harmful? How? The earliest use the word “catholic” in connection with Christ’s church was by Ignatius of Antioch in approximately 107 A.D. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius may not have been the first to use the term but he is the first to leave a record of it. Ignatius no doubt meant “universal” when he said “catholic.” However, the name caught on and that is what the Christians have called themselves for the last 2,000 years.

The main difference between the Catholic position and the Landmark position is that there are tens of thousands of church historians who adhere to the Catholic position because there are copious documents to prove it is factual. The Landmarkers have nothing but their imagination and they have been soundly rejected by everyone but themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

Harmful? How? The earliest use the word “catholic” in connection with Christ’s church was by Ignatius of Antioch in approximately 107 A.D. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius may not have been the first to use the term but he is the first to leave a record of it. Ignatius no doubt meant “universal” when he said “catholic.” However, the name caught on

Well there you have it - we have "John the Baptist" as a term used by the Apostles themselves - and we have the "Church universal" as used in the 2nd century by Ignatius of Antioch.

Looks like - using your rule above - Baptists win that one and the Apostle's document trumps Ignatius by all accounts.

Which makes me wonder why you would use that argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Back to the OP.
Here is the original article:

Pope Francis Promises Redemption for Do Gooders?


Monday, May 27, 2013 (4:15 am)

By Joseph DeCaro, Worthy News Correspondent


VATICAN CITY (Worthy News)– As part of his homily Wednesday, Pope Francis said that the Blood of Christ promised redemption for everyone engaged in doing good works, including atheists, according to Vatican Radio.


"The Lord has redeemed all of us … with the Blood of Christ. All of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!"

According to the Pocket Catholic Dictionary, redemption is the salvation of all humanity through Christ who bought back (redeemed) captive humanity from sin, paying the ransom by His suffering and death on the Cross.


But for many Christians, although Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for all, it's only efficient for those who actually accept it: until that acceptance, it's just an offer, not a guarantee.


Francis, however, emphasized the duty of doing good because it unites all humanity.
"We all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good … is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part … do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter. We need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.

"'But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."


The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that goods works can be a means of sanctification (2427) and that any work united to Christ can be redemptive (2460) by rewarding the effort spent in co-operating with grace in order to be delivered from sin.


But even if doing good unites us all (somewhere), according to St. Paul, we're still saved by grace through faith apart from doing good works, lest anyone should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

http://www.worthynews.com/12306-pope-francis-promises-redemption-for-do-gooders

It seems that if Francis contradicts his own Catechism.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And where in this diatribe have you rebutted what I said with anything but your rather uninformed opinion? I don’t even see where you have relied on scripture, except to erroneously conclude that it does not support certain doctrines of the Catholic Church. Of course I would submit that it doesn’t have to be in the Bible to be a theological truth. Nevertheless, I will give you these (which I know in advance you will reject but here they are anyway):

Popes: There is no such office. The Bishop of Rome, as successor to Peter who was the first Bishop of Rome, holds the keys first given to Peter by Jesus. Matthew 16:17-19.

Infallible popes: What other kind is there? Jesus told His disciples assembled in the upper room, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:26. Jesus also told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Matthew 16:18.

Ever-virgins: I will assume you are talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I have provided a rather lengthy explanation of this at least twice on other threads, but here it is again, at least the part that gives this dogma scriptural support.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by language such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

4. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

Immaculate conception: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Luke 1:28. If one of full of grace there is no room for any trace of sin.

Assumption of Mary: “ And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Revelation 12:1.

Holy fathers: I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I guess it is the Bishop of Rome (pope). There is no more theological significence in that title than to call someone “Reverend” or “Pastor.”

Transubstantiation: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16. Paul tells us we eat the body and blood of Christ. So does Jesus in all four gospels. We know it is bread and wine when it is placed on the altar. We know it is body and blood when we consume it. Somewhere in the process it has to change. Ergo, transubstantiation.

I think I do know what your view is and I even know there are scholarly (misplaced but still scholarly) sources to reflect it but you have given us nothing. And yes I stand on the fact that these ideas of yours concerning scripture were concocted less than 500 years ago.
:jesus:

All the points you attempted vainly to make I have rebutted elsewhere, so no need to do it here. All of this is pure fable without one iota of scriptural, historical, or scholarly support.

You can falsely charge me with uninformed opinion, but I don't deal in opinion, only facts and objective truth. This has been my life's work, for four decades. I hate to keep bringing it up, but I have the credentials to back up what I say, so I am not uninformed. But you are obviously brainwashed to be able to swallow RC tripe as if it were scripturally, historically, and scholarly verifiable. That's a mark of cults.

If you want to be "Catholic" with a capital 'C', you should have joined the most ancient Catholic church and the one that did not follow the Roman innovations: The Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Harmful? How? The earliest use the word “catholic” in connection with Christ’s church was by Ignatius of Antioch in approximately 107 A.D. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius may not have been the first to use the term but he is the first to leave a record of it. Ignatius no doubt meant “universal” when he said “catholic.” However, the name caught on and that is what the Christians have called themselves for the last 2,000 years.

The main difference between the Catholic position and the Landmark position is that there are tens of thousands of church historians who adhere to the Catholic position because there are copious documents to prove it is factual. The Landmarkers have nothing but their imagination and they have been soundly rejected by everyone but themselves.

The only way that anyone can conclude that the the catholic church of the beginning of the second century is the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries is to willfully ignore the facts and drink the kool-aid of RC propaganda.

 

[Zenas]

All the points you attempted vainly to make I have rebutted elsewhere, so no need to do it here. All of this is pure fable without one iota of scriptural, historical, or scholarly support.

You can falsely charge me with uninformed opinion, but I don't deal in opinion, only facts and objective truth. This has been my life's work, for four decades. I hate to keep bringing it up, but I have the credentials to back up what I say, so I am not uninformed. But you are obviously brainwashed to be able to swallow RC tripe as if it were scripturally, historically, and scholarly verifiable. That's a mark of cults.

If you want to be "Catholic" with a capital 'C', you should have joined the most ancient Catholic church and the one that did not follow the Roman innovations: The Eastern Orthodox Church.

Strange. You keep talking about your academic credentials but you neither say what they are and where you got them, nor do you write anything on here that would suggest you actually have them. Go ahead, TH, show us your stuff. If you don't want to say where you went to school, give us a reason to believe you actually went somewhere. By the way, a fable is a genre of fiction in which animals or other non human characters take on human characteristics and the story is played out through them. I don't remember doing that in any of my posts.

 

[Zenas]

The only way that anyone can conclude that the the catholic church of the beginning of the second century is the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries is to willfully ignore the facts and drink the kool-aid of RC propaganda.

TH, you did it again. I begin to read your post and think, "Yes, he's going to give us some information to support what he thinks about this topic!" And then I realize I will be disappointed again by your vacuous statements.

 

[Walter]

Back to the OP.
Here is the original article:

http://www.worthynews.com/12306-pope-francis-promises-redemption-for-do-gooders

It seems that if Francis contradicts his own Catechism.

Not at all. You need to re-read this thread.

What the pope said in his message for Catholics (as well as for nearly all Christians, as far as I can tell) is a very traditional and not controversial point: Jesus died on the Cross to redeem us all from sin. The Pope went on to say that if atheists and unbelievers will simply follow the natural law that is written on their hearts, and “do good” rather than evil (and even Richard Dawkins claims he does good because it’s the result of “secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion”), then Catholics can “engage them there.” In other words, the Pope is encouraging a “culture of engagement,” a celebration of common ground, rather than a heretical form of salvation by good works. He said all are redeemed, not all are saved. That is all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not at all. You need to re-read this thread.

What the pope said in his message for Catholics (as well as for nearly all Christians, as far as I can tell) is a very traditional and not controversial point: Jesus died on the Cross to redeem us all from sin. The Pope went on to say that if atheists and unbelievers will simply follow the natural law that is written on their hearts, and “do good” rather than evil (and even Richard Dawkins claims he does good because it’s the result of “secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion”), then Catholics can “engage them there.” In other words, the Pope is encouraging a “culture of engagement,” a celebration of common ground, rather than a heretical form of salvation by good works. He said all are redeemed, not all are saved. That is all.

redemption IS salvation in the bible!

catholic teaching here the pope is emphasising is that God overlooks ignornace of Athiests/other faith followers, for IF they do not now what the RCC teaches, and "co operates" with grace extended to all by God, He will save even them by His grace...
RCC holds that ONLY ex catholics who turned from the church, and those like me who reject what Rome teaches will be lost and damned!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Walter is correct: the Catholic Church has always taught that everyone is redeemed by the Blood of Christ (which is akin to saying that "Christ died for all", with which only a hardcore Calvinist would disagree); it has also always taught that there is a difference between redemption and salvation: all are redeemed, not all are saved. Where +++Francis seems to have additionally muddied the waters is impliedly referencing Karl Rahner's (another Jesuit!) 'anonymous Christian' concept.

If he died for everyone...then it stands to reason that everyone is saved.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Walter]

redemption IS salvation in the bible!

catholic teaching here the pope is emphasising is that God overlooks ignornace of Athiests/other faith followers, for IF they do not now what the RCC teaches, and "co operates" with grace extended to all by God, He will save even them by His grace...
RCC holds that ONLY ex catholics who turned from the church, and those like me who reject what Rome teaches will be lost and damned!

You are absolutely wrong about what the Church teaches (no surprise, you are generally clueless about what the Catholic Church actually teaches) and that is not what he said at all.

Read what he actually said, not what the liberal media thinks he said:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...e=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link

 

[Yeshua1]

You are absolutely wrong about what the Church teaches (no surprise, you are generally clueless about what the Catholic Church actually teaches) and that is not what he said at all.

Read what he actually said, not what the liberal media thinks he said:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...e=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link

the RCC teaches that God will save thru His Grace those in other faith who are sincere, working with God as they know Him to be, and who ahve not known RCC theology!

Francis seems to be expanding that to include athiests now also!