LOL ... If you mean that a man, apart from enabling grace given through the Holy Spirit, is capable of choosing to be saved, then that's the definition of the heresy of semi-Pelagianism, infallibly condemned by Rome 1400 years ago.
You hate what you do not even begin to understand. It's sad.
Okay, I didn’t get into the minutiae of Rome’s position, but I assure you the Arminian idea of free will isn’t too far afield from that of the papist. It’s certainly closer to that of Rome than Reformational Protestantism.
I refer you to Canon Four of the Council of Trent:
“If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.”
You hate what you do not even begin to understand. It's sad.
How classic.
Presume what you think the poster meant and then label him and condemn his as some sort of heretic or another and accuse him of *hate*.
And presume that disagreement by default means *hate*.
Can't Catholics do better than that? What about addressing what he said instead of attacking him based on assumptions?
*you hate*
Mind reading much?