Pope Francis has grabbed headlines with his off-the-cuff homilies, crowd-pleasing one-liners and lengthy interviews during which he has pontificated on everything from the church's "obsession" with rules to how he won't judge gays. But his chattiness has gotten him into some trouble, and the Vatican has gone into damage-control mode to clarify, correct or put his comments into context. Here's a look at some of Francis' more eyebrow-raising comments, and the efforts by the Vatican's spin doctors to address them....
Quote "According to church teaching, the Catholic Church holds the "fullness of the means of salvation" â€” a message that has long been taken to mean that only Catholics can find salvation. But in his homily, Francis said: "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone!""
This must be based upon the Catholic hope that two wrongs make a right.
For example idolatry may be acceptable if a Roman Catholic actually does worship God, albeit by mistake.
And blasphemy is acceptable because God does not listen to Roman Catholics.
"At a certain point I was filled with a great light...", said the Pope while he was pondering his appointment.
Right after, he accepted the position, taking the light as his sign. Hmmm...that devil sure is a tricky one.
About the accusation below, I've seen similar posts here and there recently and I have to agree that it's not cool to throw things like that out without any details to follow. I'd like to hear some precise details, like quotes on what has been said that makes anyone think the Pastor is a friend to Roman doctrines, etc., and let him respond. The main reason I'm even saying anything is because lone accusations that are not backed up with facts can do a lot of damage...even without proof, and can travel fast. People, without using their heads, will tell others not to listen to Pastor Hammack, in this case, or whoever, because they "heard" this or they "heard" that, based solely upon a single sentence they read somewhere at some point in time, and that's not fair to anyone.
How is Trevor Hammack deceived? If you are making accusations, at least be brave enough to share you e-mail address/name. By posting comments like the one you did anonymously says a lot about your character. Al least be willing to engage him in an intelligent conversation! It would be only fair, don't you think?
I can just envisage the secret meetings going on to find out how to secrete him out of his position, with damage limitation a priority. He's making hay while the sun shines, but the dark clouds are looming.
Many, many years ago, when I was a member of the UMC, and when I was in California, they had a meeting of a Jewish rabbi, one of the ministers of the Methodist church, and a Catholic priest. The problem is I just listed them in the order of intelligence and knowledge. The Romish priest was an ignoramus, but since he could carry out the black arts, i.e., The Sacraments..., I would suppose the Romish laity wouldn't care if he knew anything about, e.g., Christianity?
Franny, just happens to be more educated and intelligent, than most priests, bishops, or Popes, The Pope and the Papacy, but even a cursory review of his comments, shows that he hasn't said anything counter to false Romish doctrine. He just puts it out in a way, so that he doesn't get bored and give the spin doctors of the Vatican something to do.