CathInfo.com

Quote from: poche

Yes, but Jesus is not found outside the Catholic Church

Of course, but Francis didn't say that.  And I doubt he believes it.  This is the man that knelt to receive a blessing from protestant ministers at an ecuмenical gathering.  The man who went for a nice PR move and participated in the celebration of Hanukkah.  Need I go on?

Good point. If Jesus isn't found outside the Church, why did he receive a "blessing" from a heretic who, presumably, would be offering his "blessing" in the name of Jesus? He obviously believes heretics have the power to impart a true blessing. BTW, whenever I hear any NO priest use "Church," I always assume he's using the VII sense of it, i.e., "People of God." Modernists are very good and practiced at using traditional-sounding words and phrases while actually meaning something completely different. Thus, you have "Lord's Supper" to describe the NOM.

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?