CathInfo.com

I was thinking of including an application of a particular item in this
post, below, but I couldn't remember where I found it.  Later today,
I found it (It's from an article linked here by BfromA in answer to
Ekim's question), so I'll stick it on at the end of this:

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: poche

How about when Pope Francis says that Jesus cannot be found outside the Catholic Church?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/jesus-not-found-outside-the-church-pope-preaches/

Well, in typical modernist fashion he doesn't actually say "Catholic."  Just "Church."  Of course a Catholic will assume that he's talking about the Catholic Church (after all, he's pope, right?  Right?!).  Of course, a protestant or an Orthodox schismatic will take their own interpretation away from it, which will also be perfectly acceptable to their false religion.  If you look through the comments, "Deacon" James Pearce properly expresses what Bergoglio really means:

"Since the Catholic Church is the bride of Christ, since she teaches the truth, is guided by the Holy Spirit, yes, there is no salvation outside of the Church. If you have faith in Christ, you are or want to be part of the Church and achieve salvation."

That's heresy, by the way.

You're saying this is heresy:

"Since the Catholic Church is the bride of Christ, since she teaches the truth, is guided by the Holy Spirit, yes, there is no salvation outside of the Church."

Since you didn't underline that sentence, I'll presume you don't
have any problem with it.  All it does is provide a context for the
next sentence, which follows:

"If you have faith in Christ, you are or want to be part of the Church and achieve salvation."

So that would leave us with this sentence being the "heresy" to
which you refer, correct?  

This seems to say that, the CAUSE or the EFFECT of your faith in
Christ must be one of two things, but perhaps both:

1)  You are part of the Church (inside by act), and/or
2)  You want to be part of the Church (inside by potency), and,
3)  thereby achieve salvation (the effect of being inside by act).

That is to say, when you say, "If A, then B," either A could be the
cause, or B could be the cause.

For example, "If it is raining, the ground is wet."  But it is not
necessarily impossible for the inverse to be true, "If the ground is
wet, it is raining."  However, it's easy to see that the ground being
wet is not necessarily only caused by rain, even while it is
reasonable to expect that when it rains, the ground will become
wet.  But in any case, the ground being wet cannot EVER be the
CAUSE of the rain!  

The given sentence is not so simple as rain and wet ground,
however.  It has a double element, namely your being inside the
Church, and your DESIRE to be inside the Church.

Furthermore, adding to the confusion is the lack of certainty as to
which is the cause and which is the effect:  your faith in Christ
or your being inside the Church, whether by act or by potency.

So, my question to you, Mithrandylan, is: are you saying that
it is the ambiguity that is "heretical," or something else?

The item I wanted to include is from the "Oath of Fidelity" quoted in
The Recusant, #6 (It's from an article linked here by BfromA in
answer to Ekim's question):

The paragraph with which the oath concludes, quoted in our last issue (Recusant 6), is clearly the worst part and reads as follows:

         “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and
       intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or
       the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their
       authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim
       these teachings by a definitive act.”

To drive the point home, anyone who takes this Oath of Fidelity would
seem to be promising to adhere with religious submission of will and
intellect to such things as that above, specifically the teaching,

"Since the Catholic Church is the bride of Christ, since she teaches
the truth, is guided by the Holy Spirit, yes, there is no salvation outside
of the Church. If you have faith in Christ, you are or want to be part of
the Church and achieve salvation."

..because certainly, this Deacon's interpretation is not a "definitive act"
by which the Pope or College of Bishops "intended to proclaim" the
teaching ostensibly given by the Pope (according to the Deacon!)..

..because here is a "Deacon of the Church" giving his interpretation of
what the Pope meant when he had said something similar, so who among
the Faithful should then ignore it, and who among the Faithful would be
accused of error if they were to believe it "with religious submission of
will and intellect, according to the above quoted final paragraph of the
so-called Oath of Fidelity?  


This Oath of Fidelity was written in 1989, but this was not the first
attempt at replacing the Oath Against Modernism that had been
abandoned about 1967.  Under Pope Paul VI there was another such
thing, as I recall, it was called the Promise of Fidelity or something like
that and was listed in a category called "Vatican Statements."  But I
cannot find it now.  That one was used by progressives to take the
place of the Oath Against Modernism of Pope St. Pius X.

Pope Francis meant that you can't find Jeus outside of the Catholic Church. If a non Catholic does happen to find Him, somehow the Catholic Church is involved. I am reminded of a certain convert who was a Pentecostal. She was big on seeking inspiration from the Holy Spirit. One day the Holy Spirit spoke to her and asked her, "Wouldn't you like to recieve the Body Of Jesus in Holy Communion?" That was how she became a Catholic and the rest is history.