Was Jesus a heretic for teaching works salvation?

[mikeledes]

Hi Mike,
I really like you so please dont take this as being too hostile

Your doing the very same thing you accuse us of doing Cherry picking verses to fit your theology.
That is all I can say really . Im one of those people who knows what I believe but it is difficult for me to put it into writing–which is why I put forth articles from gotquestions.org. They do a great job tieing it all together in a way that is comprehendable.

My explanation would just be babble

Hey, there are no hard feelings! I take no offense because that is what I believe the Sola Fide OSAS crowd does. Take for example the explanation given for Hebrews 6. One explanation says it refers to unbelievers and the other one says it refers to genuine Christians! Why two contradictory explanations? To avoid the obvious! Genuine Christians can fall away. The article also failed to address all of the other verses in Hebrews that reaffirm what is stated in Hebrews 6.

Now let’s take a look at th verse I gave from Revelation. You cannot *take away *something if the person never had anything to begin with. You can’t have anything to begin with if it was not given. It cannot be given if the person is not a true believer. That is just logic and common sense.

Romans 11:19-22

**19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. **

You cannot grafted in (v. 19) if you do not have genuine faith. The only Gentiles that can stand by their faith (v.20) are Gentile Christians. Why does Paul tell Gentile Christians that they should not be conceited but fear (v.20)? Because if they do not continue in God’s kindness, they will be cut off. Well, if they never had genuine faith, then they can’t be grafted in. If they were never grafted in, they can’t be cut off. That’s just plain common sense. The problem with those who support OSAS is not only that they cherry pick verses, but they aslo create their own language. They have their own unique definition of words like “take away”, “continue”, “cut off”, etc.

The verses I presented are clear on salvation. You reap what you sow. You sow to the Spirit and you will reap eternal life (Galations 6). And sowing to the Spirit means doing good. It’s interesting, however, that no one has addressed these verses.

I hope you do not take offense at what I said because I like you too and see you as a sister in Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hey, there are no hard feelings! I take no offense because that is what I believe the Sola Fide OSAS crowd does. Take for example the explanation given for Hebrews 6. One explanation says it refers to unbelievers and the other one says it refers to genuine Christians! Why two contradictory explanations? To avoid the obvious! Genuine Christians can fall away. The article also failed to address all of the other verses in Hebrews that reaffirm what is stated in Hebrews 6.

Now let’s take a look at th verse I gave from Revelation. You cannot *take away *something if the person never had anything to begin with. You can’t have anything to begin with if it was not given. It cannot be given if the person is not a true believer. That is just logic and common sense.

Romans 11:19-22

19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

You cannot grafted in (v. 19) if you do not have genuine faith. The only Gentiles that can stand by their faith (v.20) are Gentile Christians. Why does Paul tell Gentile Christians that they should not be conceited but fear (v.20)? Because if they do not continue in God’s kindness, they will be cut off. Well, if they never had genuine faith, then they can’t be grafted in. If they were never grafted in, they can’t be cut off. That’s just plain common sense. The problem with those who support OSAS is not only that they cherry pick verses, but they aslo create their own language. They have their own unique definition of words like “take away”, “continue”, “cut off”, etc.

The verses I presented are clear on salvation. You reap what you sow. You sow to the Spirit and you will reap eternal life (Galations 6). And sowing to the Spirit means doing good. It’s interesting, however, that no one has addressed these verses.

I hope you do not take offense at what I said because I like you too and see you as a sister in Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

Thanks Mike and I do like to be challenged so I can go study this stuff on my own.

Dont ya love it when we get along

P.S. Could you say a little prayer for the homeless ministry I run. The guests will be arriving in my church on Sunday and I dont have enough volunteers. If you could pray that people find it in their hearts and schedules to sighn up.
Thank you.

 

[mikeledes]

Thanks Mike and I do like to be challenged so I can go study this stuff on my own.

Dont ya love it when we get along

P.S. Could you say a little prayer for the homeless ministry I run. The guests will be arriving in my church on Sunday and I dont have enough volunteers. If you could pray that people find it in their hearts and schedules to sighn up.
Thank you.

Definitely! May God bless you and your ministry!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Definitely! May God bless you and your ministry!

God Bless,
Michael

OH NO NOT INSENCE(SP?) IM ALLERGIC

Good thing I cant breathe through the computer LOL

Thank you and God Bless

 

[mikeledes]

OH NO NOT INSENCE(SP?) IM ALLERGIC

Good thing I cant breathe through the computer LOL

Thank you and God Bless

Sorry about that! It’s just one of those quirks that come with being Catholic.

I just want to emphasize that as Catholics, we believe in salvation by faith. However, it must be a faith that works, a faith that works through love. It must also be a faith that does not cease to work through love. A person with genuine faith cease to bear fruit:

2 Peter 1:5-9
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

Note verse 9. Peter does not say that if a person does not have these qualities he does not have genuine faith. Rather, he just says that the person “has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.” In order for a person to have his past sins cleansed, they must have genuine faith. And yet this genuine faith did not produce works? Why? Because good works are rooted in faith, but they are also an act of the will. A Christian can follow the impulses of the Holy Spirit and he can also resist it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[nerfherder]

Isn’t truth what it al comes down to?

When it comes to our salvation in Christ Jesus, either the Catholic Church has handed down and teaches that truth, or there is no truth and it pretty much doesn’t matter what we believe and do.

If it is the truth then accepting that truth and leading every soul to do the same is the single most important thing we can do.

Refusing to accept it does no good for the ones we love. In fact it may make us cupable for a greater sin.

By accepting and living the Way of Truth we can be used by God to lead others to that truth. Delay only leaves those we love in more danger. It does’t shield them from it.

Chuck

Although I cannot agree with all your assumptions, I do thank you for this thoughtful post.

(1) Some necessarily disagree that the Catholic church hands down the Only Truth, and that the only alternative is damnation.

(2) Yes, if we accept your premise that Christ (not the Catholic Church) is responsible for our salavation, then we must be motivated to lead others to salvation.

(3) There are many traps in all this doctrine into which one could fall all unawares. Your take on refusing to make the assumption that the CC has the only Truth, and thereby perhaps being twice culpable, is true in the eyes of the CC. This needs a lot more reflection.

(4) If I assume or know that my choice in matters of the spirit, soul, eternal life, will make no difference to others I love who are more than capable of making their own decisions, who are actively making their own decisions, and whose decisions I respect, then converting does not make a blind bit of difference to the future life of intimate others.

In effect, as I read doctrine, it makes it all the more difficult for them to get on with their lives, in theory. For what I choose, determines the outcome of their lives, in effect. That is to say, they know that I have chosen the One Truth, the unique, absolute, saving truth, direct from Christ through his Holy Roman Catholic Church as was. Even knowing that, if they are apostate and remain in their own beliefs, they are - according to the doctrine of the CC - damned. That is what doctrine says explicitly.

Not nice to think that so that I might be saved by CC, the others will burn in hell, at least in my own mind if not in theirs!

 

[nerfherder]

What’s so hard to understand about who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?

Jesus judges each of us on what we know. That means that yes people who have never even heard of him can go to Heaven–but it also means that they can go to Hell! Why? Because they’re judged on what they know. Of course if they’re trying to live the best they can knowing what they know they will go to Heaven.

You are probably referring to non-Christians like agnostics, pagans, Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists? If they do not know about the Christian God, but they live ‘decent’ lives according to their own beliefs, they may have eternal life? That probably includes an understanding of the necessity of good works. Reincarnation is a problem of course: many would wish to get off the wheel of everlasting re-incarnation, and that is the ultimate goal of many Buddhists and Hindus: just to get out of the reincarnation wheel to nirvana.

If anyone anywhere regardless of any knowledge (?) resists the Holy Spirit influencing them to do what is right they will go to Hell!

Whoopsie! I think I made the incorrect assumption above. You do not mean agnostics, pagans, Hindus, etc. You mean even if non-Christians do not know about the Holy Spirit because they focus on their own beliefs, they will go to hell? Or perhaps you mean that if they actually do know about the Holy Spirit and are defiant, they will go to hell. That is, if they are **ignorant **of HS they go to hell; or if they ***know ***about HS and are defiant, they go to hell?

Why? Because resistasnce of the Holy Spirit is Blashpemy of the Holy Spirit and Jesus said that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the next!

Just clarify if this applies to ***people who are ignorant ***of the HS because they have not had access to this knowledge; or if this applies only to ***those who know about HS of the Catholic Church ***and are defiant; or if it applies only to ***Christians and non-Christians who know ***about the HS and are defiant.

Bottom line: is there a great chance of going to Hell if you’re not Catholic? Yes! That’s the truth! Many will refuse to hear it!

There is a good chance of anyone going to hell, if we go by the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are others who believe strongly that God is a God of Love, and that He will not willingly separate Hiimself from His children, unless there is an awesome reason for doing so. This is also a difficult understanding.

Just remember Jesus said “The road to eternal life is narrow and Few there are that find it”. Jesus didn’t say many–Jesus said few!

Remember that we do not choose God: He chooses us. Jesus also said: ‘In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, I would have told you. I am going to make a place ready for you.’ How can these be reconciled?

Which just backs up the fact that yes–there’s a great chance of going to Hell if you’re not Catholic because you have much less avenues and chances of receiving God’s grace! That doesn’t mean it is impossible–it does though mean that it is extremely more difficult than for one who is Catholic and it is Hard even for a Catholic so just think how hard it is if you’re not Catholic!

That is perhaps your personal opinion, reinforced by your life experience, and the teaching of CC. It does not follow from your previous statements however.

 

[down_under]

Sorry, I think some of us had our heads in our own arguments, and perhaps did not look up to see other’s questions. I am not sure I am the right person to answer - being between protestantism and Catholicism at the moment, but I can try to give a brief answer and then stand corrected.

I agree with you completely, as I wrote above, that for both Catholics and protestants, faith + works is required for salvation. It is continually emphasised that works are not enough: you have to have faith first (that is, No man cometh unto the Father but by me). Works without faith don’t count, for the most part. God works through us, and by our good works we are known as Christians who follow the example of our Lord in his compassion and mercy for others. Yes God chooses us as His children, but we must make a response not just of faith and love, but of undertaking for Him and in His name.

The issue of completing Christ’s suffering is a tough one, and I am not sure that I have got a good handle on it, but it is a fascinating concept. What Paul said, I think, for all of us, is that Christ still suffers as he sees us in sin or suffering. While he died for our salvation, and was resurrected as a guarantee of our salvation, he continues to suffer as he sees us suffer. [This is where I get into trouble because I don’t understand yet why he has to suffer further, why his suffering has to be ‘completed’. But that is what we understand.] Essentially I believe it means that we can rely on his continuing to carry our suffering for us. [Clarification someone please.]

You postulate that some people who believe in Christ dying for our salvation think that ‘you don’t have to do anything to get into heaven’. Well I think we all believe that we have to have faith first - that he is the Christ, the Messiah, who died for our sins, and recurrected as a guarantee of our salvation. I wrote a post above, quite a long one, that indicates from what I know from both the Catholic side and the protestant side, that mainline belief is that we are required as Christians not just to believe, to have faith, but also to follow Christ’s example throughout his mission, in caring for others, healing, teaching, loving, working with and for others to bring comfort. That means works + faith are emphasised by Catholics and protestants. Not all of them, but by far the largest majority. (I will not deal with the issue of predestination here - I have noted Weber’s insights above, and you can Google the rest.)

As you have said, we can think of ourselves, like him, as a light to the world - however small and feeble our light is, it is nevertheless shining for him as a sign of our belief.

I hope this helps. And I hope others will add their insights on completing Christ’s suffering which I have also asked about several times.

And CONGRATS on Jasslyn! :dancing:

First things first I am very proud of my baby so thank you.
I think in some sence you are right in that Christ’s sacrifice was eternal. That is it never ends, but that misses the point of the quote a little. Paul the very man who most protestants quote from to get sola fita said he had to do something. Not only did he have to do something, but he had to do something Christ had not done for him properly at the cross.
I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of christ.
It is difficult.

 

[nerfherder]

 

[down_under]

Although I cannot agree with all your assumptions, I do thank you for this thoughtful post.

(1) Some necessarily disagree that the Catholic church hands down the Only Truth, and that the only alternative is damnation.

(2) Yes, if we accept your premise that Christ (not the Catholic Church) is responsible for our salavation, then we must be motivated to lead others to salvation.

(3) There are many traps in all this doctrine into which one could fall all unawares. Your take on refusing to make the assumption that the CC has the only Truth, and thereby perhaps being twice culpable, is true in the eyes of the CC. This needs a lot more reflection.

(4) If I assume or know that my choice in matters of the spirit, soul, eternal life, will make no difference to others I love who are more than capable of making their own decisions, who are actively making their own decisions, and whose decisions I respect, then converting does not make a blind bit of difference to the future life of intimate others.

In effect, as I read doctrine, it makes it all the more difficult for them to get on with their lives, in theory. For what I choose, determines the outcome of their lives, in effect. That is to say, they know that I have chosen the One Truth, the unique, absolute, saving truth, direct from Christ through his Holy Roman Catholic Church as was. Even knowing that, if they are apostate and remain in their own beliefs, they are - according to the doctrine of the CC - damned. That is what doctrine says explicitly.

Not nice to think that so that I might be saved by CC, the others will burn in hell, at least in my own mind if not in theirs!

I dont know how to break this to you nicely so I’ll just say it. That is the most upsurd propasition I have ever heard. The catholic church does not teach that every protestant is going to hell. It teaches that the only certainty of salvation is in the catholic church. You may be able to be saved outside the church, but that is up to gods mercy. It is not for anyone else to say. So to say that Catholics believe the rest are going to hell is obsurd. This is a direct misunderstanding of Church teaching. Besides that you mean to say even if you believed the CC was the one true church through which God saves men you would stay out of it for the sake of your comfort level. Simply because you would have an incounter with the concreat reality that people are going to hell and you need to start saving them and this would be a not nice thought. There is this book I want you to read it called the bible. You seem pretty knowledgeable in it. You seem to know it better than this statement implies you do. I mean no offence but the apostles left there comfort zone. I dont think Jesus has a comfort zone. But you think It would be alright for you to stay in your for the sake of nice thoughts. I’m sorry my friend I supose that is another thread, but is that really a christian idea.
–If someone is convinced that the CC is the one true church they are obglated to convert regardless of the pains involved. It is about the love of God. On top of that we are called to be a light to the world. You cant hide a city on a hill. you don’t llight a lamp and set it under a basket. We are called to take in grace to the point that they see christ in us regardless of personal suffering. Everything for the cross

Yours in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

In effect, as I read doctrine, it makes it all the more difficult for them to get on with their lives, in theory. For what I choose, determines the outcome of their lives, in effect. That is to say, they know that I have chosen the One Truth, the unique, absolute, saving truth, direct from Christ through his Holy Roman Catholic Church as was. Even knowing that, if they are apostate and remain in their own beliefs, they are - according to the doctrine of the CC - damned. That is what doctrine says explicitly.

No, a person cannot be “apostate” (fall away) unless one was connected in the first place. To remain in one’s own beliefs is not necessarily the result of rejecting a larger truth, although it can be.

 

[nerfherder]

#253

Quote:
Originally Posted by **nerfherder **

 

[mrs_abbott]

Since some protestants condemn the idea that we have to obey God to enter heaven, or that we have to intend to obey God if we repent just before we die, then is Jesus a heretic?
In other words, since the teaching of Jesus that we must obey Him to enter heaven is condemned as salvation by works, then does that make Jesus a heretic in their religion.

Jesus said, “if you wish to enter life, keep the commandments”

Notice that Jesus gives us a choice, in order to enter heaven we must keep the commandments.

And again.
Luke 10-27-28
27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=10&verse=27&end_verse=29&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-25383b")]" 28"You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. **“Do this and you will live.” **

Again, to live eternally we must keep the commandments.
Of course the Church also teaches that it is by grace we have received through faith, at baptism, that we even have a right to heaven. But, nevertheless, Jesus makes it clear, as does the Church, that we also must cooperate with this grace to enter heaven.

**Thus, is Jesus a heretic in their religion because He doesn’t agree with Martin Luther?

In fact is St. Paul heretical in their religion because he says we must “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”?
**
Or when these Protestants find verses that seem to support “faith alone”, by Jesus and St. Paul does that mean that Jesus and St. Paul are only heretical part time?
**
In their religion, do Jesus and St. Paul teach a false Gospel part of the time since they don’t always agree with Luther or Calvin?**

How do they rationalize these verses?

Just curious?

We are called to know, love and serve God. The commandments that Jesus gave us falls into knowing, loving and serving Him. It’s all a part of faith. Faith saves, not works.

 

[nerfherder]

No, a person cannot be “apostate” (fall away) unless one was connected in the first place. To remain in one’s own beliefs is not necessarily the result of rejecting a larger truth, although it can be.

It may be semantics. I could have used a better word than ‘apostate’, but it can be used (as I used it) to suggest that 'converts to a new religion can also be considered apostates from a previous belief '. This would be taking the sense of apostacy from the point of view of CC - people are apostate if they are seen to have rejected the teaching of the first church.

I suppose in that sense all Christians who are not Catholic Christians could be considered apostate by CC. I have not seen that stated explicitly, but assume it is possible - and that it has probably been stated explicitly somewhere.

 

[guanophore]

It may be semantics. I could have used a better word than ‘apostate’, but it can be used (as I used it) to suggest that 'converts to a new religion can also be considered apostates from a previous belief '. This would be taking the sense of apostacy from the point of view of CC - people are apostate if they are seen to have rejected the teaching of the first church.

I suppose in that sense all Christians who are not Catholic Christians could be considered apostate by CC. I have not seen that stated explicitly, but assume it is possible - and that it has probably been stated explicitly somewhere.

No, not at all. Apostacy and Heresy are terms that can only be applied to member that have then fallen away or willfully chosen to turn their back. The vast majority of today’s protestants
have no clue what the term really means, or the spiritual heritage from which it flows. Such persons cannot possibly be described properly with these terms.

It could also be argued that a person cannot “do good” without grace.

 

[Bishopite]

Thank you: your posts are pleasingly persuasive, and you have taken a deal of trouble to give thoughtul and helpful answers to difficult questions.

You are quite welcome. I apologize I’ve sounded rude, it is my concupiscience taking control.

Example: Scripture is divinely inspired, and is interpreted, with divine inspiration (of the Holy Spirit), by the Magisterium as to its original intention.

At different times in 2000 years CE, it has been necessary to understand scripture within the contemporary context. I have given the example elsewhere of the two papal Encyclicals (Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII, 1893; and Divino afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII, 1943) which had differeing but not conflicting intentions for review of scripture. Now we have (although we do not refer to it much on the Forum) The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, 1993, Vatican Biblical Commission, Cardinal Ratzinger ed. With regard to the current focus on Liberation Theology, the report states:

The interpretation of a text is always dependent on the mindset and concerns of its readers. Readers give privileged attention to certain aspects and, without even being aware of it, neglect others. Thus it is inevitable that some exegetes bring to their work points of view that are new and responsive to contemporary currents of thought which have not up till now been taken sufficiently into consideration. It is important that they do so with critical discernment…Liberation theology is not content with an objectifying interpretation which concentrates on what the text said in its original context. It seeks a reading drawn from the situation of people as it is lived here and now…The reality of the present time should not be ignored but, on the contrary, met head on, with a view to shedding upon it light of the Word. From this light will come authentic Christian praxis, leading to the transformation of society through works of justice and love. Within the vision of faith, Scripture is transformed into a dynamic impulse for full liberation…Liberation theology [is valuable because is encourages] a fresh reading of the Bible which seeks to make of the Word of God the light and the nourishment of the People of God in the midst of its struggles and hopes. In these ways it underlines the capacity of the inspired text to speak to the world of today (pp 63-65).

In other words, the original intention of the text does not change, but certain aspects are highlighted within each new context, thus keeping scripture’s influence continually fresh and living.

Note here too, that the document refers also to the transformation of society through works of justice and love. This probably puts paid to the idea of an ‘heretical Jesus’ which should not have been posited anyway, being impossible.

What the Church is saying is that Liberation theology is nowhere found in the original deposit of faith or the idea was never part of Jesus’ teaching nor the Apostles, not taught in the early church (which is Tradition) and therefore can’t be a valid theological concept. It is a created theology based on the mediate situation of the suffering of a particular society and to take arms radically against a government simply to over take it because some are suffering is not Christian; most especially since Jesus said in Mt 24: 9-14
“Then they will hand you over to persecution, and they will kill you. You will be hated by all nations because of my name. And then many will be led into sin; they will betray and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and deceive many;
and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come.” Suffering is part of our uniting with Christ, Col 1:24.

 

[nerfherder]

No, not at all. Apostacy and Heresy are terms that can only be applied to member that have then fallen away or willfully chosen to turn their back. The vast majority of today’s protestants
have no clue what the term really means, or the spiritual heritage from which it flows. Such persons cannot possibly be described properly with these terms.

It could also be argued that a person cannot “do good” without grace.

Choosing to turn one’s back: that is why it is better for the ignorant Hindu - who will get to heaven - than the well-educated South African who has chosen otherwise than CC - who will go to hell. No?

The idea that a person cannot ‘do good’ without grace is one that we have lived by. Grace is all, combined with courage, compassion, caritas and patience. Where from there?

 

[nerfherder]

***QUOTE FROM BISHOPITE # 271 ***

You are quite welcome. I apologize I’ve sounded rude, it is my concupiscience taking control.

Concupiscience is a good word! I have not seen it for years:

‘The real difference between protestant and Catholic visions of original sin is the role of concupiscience - the inclination towards evil. Prior to the Reformation, concupiscience was not held to be sinful in itself though certainly a product of sin - mankind’s corporate sin, Original Sin, to be precise. Nor was concupiscience’s dominion over the indivual considered total. Rather it was considered inevitable and ever present and the arena of all spiritual warfare. The Reformers then added that concupiscience is not only of sin but is properly a contracted sin in all men. In other words, Protestants believe that each man is guilty of sin because of his inclination towards sin - that wayward desires, regardless of how fleeting they may be and how they are responded to, are proper moral faults in each man. And in all things, in all times, man is always inclined to sin - and thus is sinning.’

rmfo-blogs.com/ac/archives/2005/11/

More later

Love from Carol

 

[nerfherder]

What the Church is saying is that Liberation theology is nowhere found in the original deposit of faith or the idea was never part of Jesus’ teaching nor the Apostles, not taught in the early church (which is Tradition) and therefore can’t be a valid theological concept. It is a created theology based on the mediate situation of the suffering of a particular society and to take arms radically against a government simply to over take it because some are suffering is not Christian; most especially since Jesus said in Mt 24: 9-14

What the Church (Ratzinger - Vatican Biblical Commission, 1993) is saying is this:

The theology of liberation is a complex phenomenon, which ought not to be oversimplified. It began to establish itself as a theological movement in the early 1970s. Over and beyond the economic, social and political circumstances of Latin America, its starting point is to be found in two great evens in the recent life of the Church: the Second Vatican Council, with its declared intention of aggiornamento and of orienting the pastoral work of the Church towards the needs of the contemporary world, and the Second General Conference of the Episcopate of Latin America held at Medellin in 1968, which applied the teachings of the Council to the needs of Latin America. The movement has since spread also to other parts of the world (Africa, Asia, the black population of the United States)…

Starting from its own socio-cultural and political point of view, it practises a reading of the Bible which is oriented to the needs of the people, who seek in the Scriptures nourishment for their faith and their life.

Liberation theology is not content with an objectifying interpretation which concentrate on what the text said in its original context. It seeks a reading drawn from the situation of people as it is lived here and now. *…

Under the pressure of enormous social problems, there has understandably been more emphasis on an earthly eschatology. Sometimes this has been to the detriment of the more transcendent dimensions of scriptural aschatology…For its further development and fruitfulness within the Church, a decisive factor will be the clarification of its hermeneutical presuppositions, it methods, and its coherence with the faith and the Tradition of the Church as a whole (pp 64-66).*

Make of it what you will: it certainly recognises the influence of what is called a ‘theology’ on reading of the scriptures and interpretation of good works etc. (I am learning that the Vatican staff are wizards at verbal contortions, so that their propositions can be understood in a variety of ways.)

 

[down_under]

nerfherder:
I suppose in that sense all Christians who are not Catholic Christians could be considered apostate by CC. I have not seen that stated explicitly, but assume it is possible - and that it has probably been stated explicitly somewhere.

Apostatacy is a big word. It means you knew full well what you had in the CC then walked away. If someone never had it all they are not apostate. If someone walked away because we failed to teach them. Which is all to common, this is our failing and not thiers. They never really knew the faith. A person who knows the faith and then chooses the faith and then walks away that is apostacy.

However I agree with the way you used it in not a strick a sence of the word but rather to imply leaving the one. However when CC talks apostacy it is not small matter and cannot be done by accendent or by ignorant or semi ignorant people.