Pope Francis met Secretly with Kim Davis, Offered his Support and Prayers

You may get the better of me on some points. I seldom concede that to others here. I will usually defer to some few of my fellow Catholics whom I regard as more scholarly or more informed than I. I also tend to be a bit wordy.

Neither you or your fellow Catholics have successfully defended the errors of Rome in the light of Scripture, but must resort to sophistry and ad hominid attacks.

I also tend to be a bit wordy.

Likewise, with substance, despite my arthritic fingers.

First, I am a Roman Catholic since my baptism as an infant.

I also was "baptized" RC as an infant by my uncle Frank, a priest. But go find one record of infants being baptized in Scripture, including by sprinkling. Considering the critical weight Catholicism places on this, surely the Holy Spirit would provide at least one clear example of infants being baptized, or a command to do so.

But instead the Spirit clearly teaches that repentance and wholehearted faith is required for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) which infants are incapable of doing, nor it is needed since one is not accountable for simply having a sinful nature, which does not enter heaven.

In addition, out of the many accounts of baptism the closest you can get is simply a few brief statements of whole households being baptized. Which Caths must insist had to include infants, yet where more details are provided in baptism accounts then it testifies to the subjects of baptism being able to hear and respond.

I do regard the Eastern Orthodox as part of the Church although they have been in schism for about 1,000 years now since the days of Michael Celarius at Constantinople. Our differences, as I understand it, are verrry few.

Rather, they are many and include substantial conflicts, and the hope of full reconciliation without serious compromise is a fantasy . Thus you have those from both sides warning of the dangers of communion with each other.

Then there was the degeneracy in preaching and theology, each liberal priest acting as his own pope....I tend to deny the title of Catholic to what amount to public heretics posing as Catholic....The late Ted Kennedy likewise.

Then since the pope even courteously treated Teddy K as a member in good standing, then it seems you also are acting as your own pope.

The Te+aching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church is a gold mine of wisdom and Faith.

And heresy, and what constitutes magisterial teaching is subject dispute and interpretation, and contradiction .

My Church has taught since at least Trent that Indians in, say Nebraska, in the tenth century before there were missionaries or Bibles or sacraments available to them were not created by God to inevitably go to hell for not being baptized by water.

It just teaches both that all it considers "heretics" shall end up in the lake of fire, and that such are separated brethren. In the past this could mean being separated by the sword of men. Unlike unchanging Scripture under the New Covenant, obedience to the pope can mean different things in different centuries.

Believing that, I would be astounded to find only Catholics in heaven, if I am fortunate enough to find myself in heaven. I cannot imagine that.

Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner, with nothing to merit eternal life but only meriting Hell, + trust Him to save you on His account, by His sinless shed blood, which faith decision is showed by being baptized under water and following Him according to Scripture as being supreme, which premise the NT church began under, contra Catholicism.

That is Francisology, but Christians also held to a shared morality with the Jews of the 1st c., yet those who preach a false gospel are accused, which Rome does and is, though some within of simply faith know God, and if I care about souls and Truth then i must seek their salvation and contend for the Truth, for the glory of God, and by His grace.

I may be suffering a senior moment but I am failing to grasp the meaning of the last sentence of the first paragraph of your post. Please explain.

I was responding to your priority goal of standing "shoulder to shoulder fighting the good fight against our actual common enemies for the wide cornucopia of beliefs that we DO share." We can oppose sodomite marriage as do Mormons, but not as forsaking contending for the Truth of Scripture which divides us, and warns of unholy alliances. Roosevelt was even wrong in helping the Russians fight Germany. Short term gain, long term loss. Give them humanitarian aid and enough help for self-defense but not as an advancing army. Linking up with the devil's disciples to fight Hell's angels with you does not work for good.

Vatican II was a pastoral council and not a doctrinal council... I am not required to believe much of what the documents say

Once more it seems you are playing pope.

You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)

Hold your response for now because I will want to respond to whatever you post to me and that will make it hard for me to finish this response.... Friday will be rather free

I will wait until late Friday.

Don't bother waiting until Friday. Given the tone of the post to which I am responding, I cannot imagine productive discussion and so I won't be paying attention. I am and will continue to be a Roman Catholic. Sorry about you. Your Uncle Frank may have baptized you, but he obviously neglected his duty to follow up.

I had decided to set aside, in this instance, my ordinary rule of not getting involved in discussing Catholic vs. Reformation issues. Obviously, I misjudged you. I will now return to my normal mode of being Roman Catholic, praising my brothers and sisters in Christ when their posts or actions merit praise and ignoring cheap shots at Catholicism, based as they must be on the individual Protestant's personal interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Since you have no pope and no Teaching Magisterium, it becomes each person his or her own pope. That is it for me on this discussion which I entered in good faith only to see it degenerate into the same old, same old.

This is a CONSERVATIVE website. I refuse to contribute to the divisions in the ranks caused by endless pretentious counterproductive proselytizing on both sides. Whether you think so or not, conservatives, ALL conservatives whether Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Jewish, Hindu, non-violent Moslem and even the non-religious, have many tasks facing us after 6 1/2 years of Obozo. We have many common enemies whether you agree or not.

I am simply not interested in what you imagine Scripture means. I would recommend to you certain passages in John but that would only invite further discussion between thee and me and that door is now closed. The fault is mine for misjudging you.

Don't bother waiting until Friday. Given the tone of the post to which I am responding,

I am simply not interested in what you imagine Scripture means.

Really? You responded to my I am simply not interested in what you imagine Scripture means. ">previous lengthy post (in response to yours) of reproof with "That is an awesome post. You have obviously thought deeply on the subjects you have raised." And proceeded to respond at length, and asked me to wait till after Friday, which i did. But when faced with more reproof suddenly you are no longer interested?

You mean you want to boast about being a Catholic (who will never be lost), which is an elitist church, but cannot tolerate careful examination and reproof?

Your Uncle Frank may have baptized you, but he obviously neglected his duty to follow up.

Which is also wrong.

I will now return to my normal mode of being Roman Catholic,

It is best to keep out of the kitchen if you can not endure seeing serious error of Rome challenged and reproved.

and ignoring cheap shots at Catholicism,

That is itself a cheap shot in lieu of an argument.

Since you have no pope and no Teaching Magisterium, it becomes each person his or her own pope.

Wrong, as that would be claiming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured infallibility, while you have a pope and Teaching Magisterium yet RCs engage in variant interpretations of it.

This is a CONSERVATIVE website. I refuse to contribute to the divisions in the ranks caused by endless pretentious counterproductive proselytizing on both sides

Spare us the lofty attitude. You are a member of a divisive church, as it claims to alone be the one true one, and historically damned all others do dissent from it, whilke she still considers Prot churches as unworthy to properly be called "churches." And thus multitudes of your own vocal brethren here do not share your big tent ecumenism.

. I would recommend to you certain passages in John but that would only invite further discussion between thee and me and that door is now closed. The fault is mine for misjudging you.

Rather, i think that is a cop out, and likely the result of some RC PM advising you to avoid debate, seeing as it has resulted in the errors of elitist Rome being exposed even more. Truth is life and warrants contention, though in person i I would likely also come across as gracious, which a forum of bare words makes hard. But may the God of grace and Truth grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.