Posted on 12/02/2013 7:06:42 PM PST by marshmallow
Jes·u·it·i·cal
adjective
of or pertaining to Jesuits or Jesuitism.
( often lowercase ) practicing casuistry or equivocation;
using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.
Or as the say you can take the Jesuit out of the Jesuits but not the Jesuit out of the Jesuit.
On Saturday, Radio Vatican said Pope Francis had said,
“In the Gospel, Jesus does not become angry, but pretends to when the disciples do not understand him,”
The ancient Fathers would baulk at such a suggestion, I can't think of one who would be be comfortable with the idea that the Gospels did not reveal the plain meaning of what Jesus said and did, it is only the Jesuits of the 17th century who would begin to suggest otherwise.
There is no suggestion in the Gospels that Jesus feigns, or pretends anything. On the contrary he is the 'Truth'. He says, "Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no'". His Kingdom stands in contradistinction to that of the kingdom of the Father of Lies.
If Jesus really does 'pretend' to be angry but isn't really what else does he pretend? Is he really just 'acting' in other emotional responses, when he sighs, when he weeps, when he rails against the Pharisees. Is he really grinning broadly when he calls Simon Peter, 'Satan'?
I do not agree with Pope Francis on this, we do not need smiley or angry face marks to interpret the Gospels. Perhaps this says more about the Pope than it does about Jesus. Rather than Jesus pretending, is Pope Francis 'pretending'? After all if one believes the Son of God can and does 'pretend', why shouldn't the Pope? And if the Pope can 'pretend', why not the Church?
(Excerpt) Read more at marymagdalen.blogspot.com ...
Yet the conservative ones example such a bondage if mind that they cannot allow any credibility to anything that shows Rome in a bad light!
“Yet the conservative ones example such a bondage if mind that they cannot allow any credibility to anything that shows Rome in a bad light!”
I have heard many throw around the number of a billion catholics. I question what that even means, when half rarely set foot in a church, most don’t seem to follow the teachings, etc.
Those who cannot look objectively at their Church are not loving God with ALL their mind. They rely on Sola Ecclesia as the standard, which isn’t taught in Holy Writ.
Still God calls all Christians to witness to those who may be in darkness. Your witness hear is patient and thorough. It is up to God to open eyes and hearts. It is up to us to be faithful witnesses and love others.
We know what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says. Why don’t you ever post the doctrine of the Church? Just curious.
It make no difference what you think, I think, or Bo Peep thinks. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the blueprint to how Catholics are supposed to live their lives.
If they can’t abide by the teachings of the Church, I suggest a LIBERAL protestant church that could care less one way or the other. The social doctrines of the Catholic Church are not going to change no matter how hard liberals want them to. End of subject.
“What percent of RCCs are actually Christians? “
The 60% that voted for Mitt Romney DWARFS any protestant denomination in the country.
You should be concerned with all protestant black brothers and Jewish brothers that voted for Alibama, blacks by 95% and Jews by 70%. Concern yourself with protestants for a change.
You know those hypocritical protestants that fill all those churches every weekend that claim to be pro-life and pro-family and still vote for the most anti-Christian president in American history. Why not try to get them back on board instead of blasting the Catholic Church, who casts more votes for conservatives than any baptist, pentacostal, or whatever protestant denomination you want to mention.
Worry about your own for a change.
He either just doesn't seem to have a clue, or he is extremely clever in trying to hide his agenda and his lack of faith or knowledge of the truth of the one true God. Either way, it didn't happen overnight and should have been obvious to those who elected him before they did elect him.
Still, the pattern is amusing to me. He makes a goofy statement that is way off base, then he and his handlers rush to make light of it and/or excuse it or make excuses for it. Much like they did to Biden, whom I still find amusing. I look to soon see them keep this pope dude from speaking much. Oh wait, some of this thread already are asking that he not open his mouth! The more he opens his mouth, the more we will see inside him and his organization.
Let's just close them ALL down!
Christ died and rose again for YOU!
Take advantage of His gift of Salvation!!
Be assured that i am, and for American, and (among other things) thus provide even more alarming stats , but i do not promote Protestantism as one entity, and what you continue to refuse to see is that i am not promoting a particular church as the elite and only one true church, which RCs do according to your mythical view of her, and thus must engage in specious attempts at damage control .
As for Protestant black brothers and Jewish "brothers" who voted for Obama (and we have no reason to think black RCs did not do likewise), they rarely are, and unlike you, i can separate from a church in which even a significant percentage are known liberals.
You know those hypocritical protestants...Worry about your own for a change.
This is simply a vain tactic that serves to avoid the RCC being exposed, but that is the issue due to your defense of your mythical view of it.
You actually cannot treat Protestantism as one entity, and even Catholicism has significant distinctions and divisions within it, while a valid comparison would be based upon the basis of authority, btwn churches which formally or effectively hold the church as being the supreme authority, versus the Scriptures being supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literal Word of God.
And the way i "worry about my own" is to be part of a local church which holds the latter, and has its people by real conversion, with a pastor who condemns the liberal ethos in his strong preaching which would make (and has made) liberals squirm or upset. That is the kind of church i can recommend while preaching the Lord Jesus for salvation, not a church.
But as Rome is your supreme authority, and treats even public liberals as members in life and in dead (besides the issue of certain official doctrines), then that remains the problem for her members which promote it as the elite one true church.
I guess this means that Catholics are OK with a deceived Mormon leading the World's most powerful country.
(Well; it USED to be; anyway...)
It’s MY fault that we have Obama; again.
HA ha!
Beat ya to it!
Oops; that was NOT directed at you personally, NKP_Vet.
(You OTHER guys know who you are!)
It seems like we PROTESTants want their pope to be infallible; while the Catholics know that he won’t be.
hahahahaha...snort
Actually they may not have thought it necessary to respond as anyone with a modicum of sense understands that with true believers the tie that binds is with Christ alone. There is no tie to any other “Protestant” nor any organization.
“But as Rome is your supreme authority, and treats even public liberals as members in life and in dead (besides the issue of certain official doctrines), then that remains the problem for her members which promote it as the elite one true church”
Romney was voted for as the lessor of the two evils. THE EXACT SAME REASON protestants voted for him.
Once people realize that true believers are bound to Christ alone they would be released from the bondage of earthly organizations and it’s hold on their life.
I’m trying to figure out after 600 years what the PROTESTants are still protesting about. Some on these boards blast Catholics just for being a Catholic, and ignore the wrongdoing and shortcomings of any other faith, including Islam. There is more Catholic bashing on FR than there is Islam blasting. And they cut your head off.
The 60% that voted for Mitt Romney DWARFS any protestant denomination in the country.
I guess this means that Catholics are OK with a deceived Mormon leading the World’s most powerful country.
Same reason protestants voted for him. The lessor of two evils.
When someone begins posting thread after thread promoting Islam you can bet I will be front and center opposing with scripture. It will be the same with anyone else who posts threads promoting views contrary to the teaching of scripture.
Then you are ignorant of my posting history, as it is often from the horses own mouth that i expose Rome. Including her problems with consistency.
he Catechism of the Catholic Church is the blueprint to how Catholics are supposed to live their lives.
You mean the current one? And so this is an infallible document? It is this all you consider trustworthy? Does it even tell you what level of the magisterium each teaching falls under (bulls, encyclicals, etc.). For unless you know then you do not know which ones allow for some dissent.
And is it complete enough and plain enough as to not need interpretation? Do you adore with Muslims the one, merciful God? (841) Are there any Protestant saints? Can any former Catholics be saved without becoming Catholic? These and many more show varying RC interpretations even here.
Indeed it does need interpretation, and for which you look to the church by how it applies it. Thus while it states certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, (1463) and related canon law ambiguously forbids ecclesiastical funerals for manifest impenitent sinners, (1184) but Rome treats them as members in life and even in death (contrary to Scripture which at the least requires formal separation from such), then this manifests what Rome really believes. For again, as James says which RCs like to quote (as if it supports them), "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (Ja. 2:18)
And thus your church disobeys your interpretation, while there is much much more RCs can disagree on due to the lack of official teaching or lack of perspicuity by Rome, and in which RCs can engage in interpretation, while they lecture us not to engage in "private interpretation," erroneously interpreting 2Pt. 1:20 as forbidding such.
The social doctrines of the Catholic Church are not going to change no matter how hard liberals want them to. End of subject.
Not so, as they effectively have by how they are interpreted. Likewise authoritative teachings such as "that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," and that "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium," and thus "schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart `into everlasting fire," is later interpreted to allow that "All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism..are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church,” including that "many [of those outside Rome] who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal..are joined with us in the Holy Spirit."
Sola Ecclesia via the mighty magisterium is indeed not what is taught in Scripture, and in fact under the RC model the 1st c. souls were to follow those who sat in the seat of Moses!
It is up to us to be faithful witnesses and love others.
True. 2Tim. 2:25,26
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.