Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

Charisma News ^ | 12/3/14 | Mark Andrews

[caww]

I suppose next we’ll be discussing what bowing is or not....crazy!

[BlueDragon]

Incidentally, we don't pray "to" pictures to intercede. That would be silly silly: art objects don't intercede.

Really?

That is not the only image or icon which is widely regarded to have "powers" -- and if not powers intrinsic to the object itself, then the object be as *special portal* to the entity or heavenly being which the image is understood to represent.

You said -- what is forbidden is idols, with the "veneration" of them (and what they represent) being often so nearly indistinguishable from worship, that even many (Roman) Catholics cannot honestly say of their fellows that idolatry of sorts is not taking place, even though they themselves may well be stopping short of that.

For those whom do stop short --- if they were ever in the neighborhood of the statuary which represents Waldo, Wycliffe, Calvin & Luther, give then a looking over -- and than Thank God for those men's efforts to bring sanity, and restraint away from excesses which human beings are prone towards...like praying to the Virgin of Guadalupe image (for example -- for do any doubt that they would oppose such things?).

Those men are due thanks to God for their having once lived among us, for they all had their own positive effects, in their own times, even if none of them be themselves also without their own limitations, and flaws also -- which must be seen for they are, not for what the RCC found embarrassing to it's own practices and manner of speaking/describing the things of God.

[caww]

Good post...I also think of Mordici who refused to bow....and Daniel. The scriptures are so clear about what God expects of us regarding worship and who we bow and pray to.

[Springfield Reformer]

Hmmm.. a bit of a typo in that sentence of mine, should read:

“So we see that dressing up a violation of God’s commands as something being done “to the Lord,” does not sanctify it.”

[BlueDragon]

Don't you have a pope to bitch about?

That would have been hilarious (ok -- I did lol on seeing that) but I don't think the one whom you addressed that inquiry to is all that much among the 'usual suspects' for that particular kind of crankiness.

I mean, why pick on Bergoglio when it's (apparently youtube kid) so much easier to cull someone out of the herd around here, and "be right" over some narrowly considered wording?

That activity opens up opportunity to then express negative opinions about the individual being communicated with, which then can quite handily be made to stretch (one size fits most all?) to those dreaded and pesky (don't forget pesky!) "Protestants", whoever those people are...

[metmom]

Yes, I understand you have holy tradition. Catholics also believe in Theophanies (manifestations of God) in the Old Testament.

Once again, you're wrong.

Belief in theophanies is not based on tradition but Scriptural evidence.

Good try but a fail.

For example, the cloud and the burning bush. The scriptures say they were angels.

Scripture says no such thing.

[CynicalBear]

>>I suppose next we’ll be discussing what bowing is or not....crazy!<<

Count on it. And they really aren't bowing to the statue they are bowing to what it represents. God didn't say "don't bow down unless it represents something else".

[metmom]

Does it bother you to have someone in your alliance who teaches that abortion is not murder, that there is no soul created until the baby takes a breath outside the mother's womb. Therefore there is no scriptural prohibition against abortion.

Does it bother you that so many of your fellow Catholics support abortion and homosexual marriage?

That works both ways. Catholics cannot hurl that charge without it blowing up in their faces.....

[metmom]

Everyone else that cites Scripture in their posts doesn't seem to have a problem with including the reference. I just think it's being courteous, but that's me.

It's not just you.

[metmom]

No, you cherry pick. You might quote entire chapters, but you ignore other chapters that contradict what you post.

Quoting whole chapters is not *cherry picking*.

Taking a verse out of context IS.

[metmom]

Whoops guess someone got the last judgement scenerio wrong.

No, it's not wrong.

Jesus isn't talking about saints in the church age where salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

He's talking about the end times.

But anyone familiar with Scripture would know that.

[Syncro]

Yes, I was having much too much fun, and “hijacking” the thread as it were.

Though a lot of my replies were tangential to the topic of the thread, it was a good way to see if the superglue holding some people in bondage to ritual, tradition and Mary could be unloosened with the “solvent” of the Holy Spirit. And my wit...or wit by 1/2 as the case may be.

Some don’t take correction so well, I welcome it if warranted.

[metmom]

That sounds like the same kind of weak argument used when Catholics are confronted with the *call no man Fathter* verse.

[metmom]

"Do whatever He tells you."

Was only directed to the servants at the wedding in Cana.

There isn't a shred of evidence that that command was ever intended for anyone else.

[metmom]

Simple conversation is NOT praying as the kind directed towards Mary is.

Besides, Mary is no longer on this earth. She can’t be communicated with as one would communicate with me.

And we are forbidden to try to communicate with those whose physical bodies have died.

[CynicalBear]

Ask one of those Catholics to smash that statue of Mary they have into pieces and throw it in the trash and see what reaction you get.

[metmom]

The formal but deceptive lock-step uniformity of Protestant anti-Catholics must be maintained after all.

Yeah, I guess pronouncing anathemas against anyone who disagrees with Catholicism isn't considered lock step, uniformity.

The Catholic church threatens anyone who disagrees with them with hell. For those Catholics who disagree with RC teaching, they are considered to have self-ex-communicated. Why? Because they didn't follow Catholic teaching lockstep.

And they think Prots are lock step? What a joke.....

[metmom]

Where are the candles?

Where are the prayers to them?

Where are the pictures of people bowing down before them?

[metmom]

Okay, let’s test your theory. Ask Elsie if there are any souls in Heaven right now. Or are all of the dead believers in Christ “asleep” until the resurrection.

I’m betting no Protestant will ask - especially any Protestant who actually disagrees with Elsie.

Why would we ask. We're not the ones who want to know.

The lock-step anti-Catholicism among FR Protestants must be maintained after all.

Whatever happened to the *every man his own pope* and *30,000 different interpretations of Scripture* memes?

Did you find that they were not effective after all?

[Mrs. Don-o]

" I will ask again -- was that not yourself which testified on these pages previously of having received baptism of the Spirit in a Pentecostal Church?"

No. I never received baptism of the Spirit in a Pentecostal church. I do have dear Pentecostal friends (Church of God in Christ), whose church I never attended. Through generous befriending and dialogue they helped me recover faith in Christ, Whom I had--- through my sinful fault --- abandoned in my late teens-early 20's.

"While you had also shared that you were raised in the Roman Catholic Church...but for a time had not attended, etc?"

Yes.

"And then here you say --- "the Church"?"

Yes. And I mean "the Catholic" Church in both senses: as in "all the Baptized" (because Baptism is entrance into the Catholic Church --- for you as well as for me, BlueDragon) as well as "in communion with Peter and his succssors".

(This kind of discussion often suffers from the failure to make distinctions between the different, though mostly concentric and mostly coherent --- multiple senses of the word "Church." I will try to keep these senses explicit, without becoming totally exasperating, I hope.)

"Since when was the Roman Catholic church ever exclusively "the" church? It most certainly was not in the earliest beginnings."

In the early beginnings, before Peter came to the city of Rome, there was no "See of Rome," of course. But there was Peter. And if you were in communion with Peter and the other Apostles, you were a member of the Catholic Church (the church cata holos, the whole Church) whereas if you were with someone not in communion with Peter (e.g. Simon Magus) you were not a member of the Catholic Church.

"Ah, but then in later centuries took up the trappings of Empire of Rome as that disintegrated and dissolved, blending that with "Church"."

The "trappings" do not make up the Church. There were, in the earliest centuries, FIVE patriarchal sees --- Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome --- and none of them except Rome had precisely Roman trappings (Constantinople being a special case, since Constantinople was "Roman" for 1,000 years beyond the existence of the Western Empire). But the other local Churches --- even as far away as Mosul (Iraq) or Xi'an (western China)--- which were not culturally or politically Roman at all --- were still Catholic if they had not broken communion with Peter.

"The idea itself the the Roman Catholic Church (which Catholic insist should be called only The Catholic Church).."

Thank you. That's much to be preferred..

"...is indeed The Church, either in entirety, or as central authority is a Romish fantasy (and always has been!)..."

...corroborated by certain, uh, trifles of historic documentary and physical evidence...

"...possibly reinforced here and there by mistaking correlation (of Spirit) for causation (themselves!).."

That's too complicated for me to even make out, not knowing who are the exact "themselves" of whom you speak. For a really good and reliable "himself", however, I would recommend Irenaeus of Lyon. OK, carry on...

"-- when the cause is God's own grace & mercy -- which can be found in full abundance far outside the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism."

I certainly agree that God's grace and mercy fall outside of any confines whatsoever. Although these people, too, are ordered (that is, being oriented toward) the Church, themselves, even if they are ever so far from a visible, institutional affiliation.

"One need not accept popery in order to enjoy communion, through Christ, with God."

This is true. I hope you are using the word "popery" with a wry sense of irony --- as my best popish friends do. Otherwise, be prepared to be called one of the --- brace yourself--- "separated brethren"! :o)

" BUT -- that concept is among many that Roman Catholics (including popes) have long asserted is a requirement, even one which Christ Himself would require of all human beings (if one listens closely enough to Romanists)."

Ditto the word "Romanists" --- you separated brethren, you!

BTW, I'm about out of time here for the nonce. Concerning your statement about people being saved outside of the Catholic Church, let me refer you to an authoritative statement of what the Catholic Church says about that:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 819

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..."

Please read it with plenty of context (paragraphs before and after, at least) so you'll get the bigger picture and not fall into some misunderstanding.

You're certainly Catholic.

Tagline :o)