I don’t comprehend the FRoman response to this matter. So far, every Catholic I have challenged on this issue has defended their Universalism, albeit a universalism with conditions. That is, ‘serving goodness and truth,’ being an “Atheistic Good Samaritan,” not “rejecting Jesus Christ,” but having excuse when they do due to “bad examples of Catholics,” or a lack of proper knowledge or possessing of a prejudice “through no fault of their own.”
In my opinion, this is the biggest heresy the Catholics can offer, and all those who hold to it have thoroughly put themselves out of Christianity. Since this appears to be the mainstream view, which the Pope in no way contradicted, I can’t consider Roman Catholicism to have anything to do with Christianity anymore, seeing as how it denies salvation through Christ and encourages men to remain in their sin.
The FRomans seem to want things both ways. That is, that they don’t teach it. But they do teach it, but they defend themselves on the basis of a nuance that is still as blasphemous and wholly Pelagian as it was before. I think that the FRomans would have been okay with this comments if they had not been highlighted in a paper. If tucked away, they enjoy these subversive comments well enough.
Traditional Catholic teaching does NOT teach this. How anyone can defend this man is beyond me. I am so sick and tired of this. I wish the Catholics that do would just stop. This man is preaching heresy. Plain and simple. What Vatican II really teaches is coming to the forefront now. I am beginning to see the sedevacantist’s point of view.
Hold on tight. This is going to be a rough ride folks......