Pope Francis claims that a committed atheist was saved

With a pope like that, who needs Jesus?

 

A pope like that illustrates just how much we all need the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

The Papists haven't been too interested in biblical truth for a long, long time.

 

I agree with that assessment, but this fellow is in a class by himself. The expression usually applied in politics, 'loose cannon' is brought to mind when I read of his latest statements.

 

Francis appears to advocate a "many paths, one mountain" view. There are many religions, and even non-religions, but all of these lead to heaven.

I do not see how an honest Catholic could say that such a teaching is in line with historic Roman Catholicism. All it takes is a conparison of Trent and Vatican I with the theologically liberal Vatican II. As I see it, the most consistent Roman Catholics are the ultra-traditionalist sedevacantists.

To a Christian, Francis's claims should be alarming, even in spite of all of the other heresy and blasphemy in the Roman system. If a man, an atheist, is saved on the basis of his being "a good man" (whatever that means) then where does that leave Christ? What of the cross? Did Christ die in vain?

This is more akin even to Pelagianism than historic Roman Catholicism.

 

They've held for a while that Christ is not really needed. The thinking is that even a heathen's "good works" are done, somehow, in Christ.

 

I have extended family that is educated R.C.'s. Whenever I ask about Francis, they put their head in their hand and nod, side-to-side.....

 

Indeed, as I've often noted to myself - Romanists don't sweat that Bible stuff. Owen noted that nothing drove him farther from Rome than the treatment that the Bible receives in their hands...

 

Many don't.

 

Now that I think about it--with a pope like that, who needs Catholicism?

 

It's official: the pope has rendered Pascal's wager obsolete.

 

You feel so much for the young boy, having lost his dad at such a young age. The pope seems to speak so warmly and kindly, but there is nothing there but deception and false teaching. Desperately sad.

 

Maybe it's the best way, they'll say (there's certainly a lot of glitter), but, still, a kindly Hindu is just as likely to get to paradise.

You'd think there should be a bit more time in purgatory for unbelievers, but Mr. Bergoglio's words indicated no such thing.

Actually, that raises another question. Shouldn't that boy's father have been in purgatory? He must have been a very saintly atheist indeed if he skipped all those years of torment.

 

We know that faith without works is dead, but apparently works without faith is ok...

 

I worked with an older Irish Catholic man when I was young. He recounted his time as an altar boy in his youth, when the mass was in Latin. He told me one time the parish priest, in a point of liturgy, said "My father plays dominos better than your fa-aaa-ther."

How different is Francis, making up as he goes?

 

It may be that he believes in an instantaneous purgatory. As far as I know, the RCC has no settled dogma on the duration of purgatory.

 

Ever since the time of the "changes" within the Church of Rome, such as Latin no longer required for Mass, there has been official Catholic teaching that God would see in other religions sincere faith and commitment to what they knew, as grounds for God to save them. God would have known that if they had the Roman doctrine given to them would have no doubt responded and converted to Catholicism, so he applies saving grace towards them. So sincere Jews/Muslims/Hindus can be saved in the end, an the only group that basically never had a shot was former Catholics who willingly disavowed the Church of Rome and its teachings.
Current Pope seems to have expanded on that a bit.

 

This kind of thing should be expected from a blatant false teacher.

 

Apparently, one's eternal destiny is now a matter of a vote from the mob. Sigh.

 

Rome has bounced back and forth on its "infallible" pronouncements regarding those who are recipients of heaven, whatever "heaven" presently means within Romanism. The current pope is an embarassment to many conservatives and apologists within Romanism, so they wiggle, squirm, and sigh hoping for a better one down the road.

Again (my pet peeve) I refuse to call a Romanist "catholic" - they do not deserve to be called "catholics," since they are members of the most anti-catholic communion in the world. Again, I cite Owen...

John Owen (1616-1683): “With the Roman Catholics unity ever dwelt.” Never! The very name of Roman Catholic, appropriating Catholicism to Romanism, is destructive of all gospel unity. The Works of John Owen, Animadversions on a Treatise Entitled Fiat Lux, ed. William H. Goold, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Third printing, 1977), vol. XIV, p. 93.

 

Armchair quarter backing, but what would you tell the boy?

 

The truth about his father, but in tactful ways, and in the love of Christ.

 

They really should settle that doctrine, then. How is it that one can pray for one's relatives in purgatory while Mr. Bergoglio has told this boy to pray to his dad in heaven? It's a bit of a puzzle.

 

That video gave me heresy.

 

Democracy!

They tried this in Rome a couple thousand years ago. The mob said "crucify Him!"

 

Jerusalem, do you mean?

 

I was thinking Rome since Pilot was governor and a Roman, but it could go both ways I guess...