Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB: "Those claiming to be...traditional, faithful, orthodox...

Toronto Catholic Witness ^ | 10/30/15

[markomalley]

Fr. Thomas Rosica CSB, the English language "media attache" on the Synod of the Family for the Holy See Press Office, comments on the need for a new language, and the difference between "correct" and "incorrect" language in an interview of himself and Cardinal Gracias of Bombay on Fr. Rosica's own, Salt and Light TV.

Unfortunately, Rosica at no time offers us any examples of what he means. However, he does state that: "Those claiming to be, you know, traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics, throw out words, and they have no idea what those words mean. The power of words..."

One thing I do agree with Fr. Rosica about the Synod and its orientations: "it is far more important to ask honest real questions, than it is to come up with facile answers."

(video at link)

The full interview of Fr. Rosica and Cardinal Oswald Gracias may be watched here.

[markomalley]

Full headline: Fr. Thomas Rosica, CSB: "Those claiming to be...traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics throw out words and they have no idea what those words mean"

[madprof98]

This guy is the Vatican’s own Josh Earnest.

[WayneS]

Let me guess: He is here to tell us what those words mean...

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

More evidence that The Catholic Church is just a cult

[SkyPilot]

God gave us the Scriptures. They are easily understandable. In most cases a child could understand the concepts and words God has given. Unlike the Koran, the Bible is eminently readable and clear.

We don't need the Vatican to "interpret" God's Word for us. Since we have God's Word, we also don't need "synods" to re-interpret God's Word.

Why this is so hard for many people to understand and grasp completely mystifies me.

[Biggirl]

....But it does not hurt to invoke the Holy Spirit.

[maryz]

God gave us the Scriptures. They are easily understandable. In most cases a child could understand the concepts and words God has given.

LOL! Sure, that's why everyone agrees on what they mean!

[markomalley]

We don't need ((somebody else)) to "interpret" God's Word for us.…

I replaced the word "Vatican" with ((somebody else)) to make a point

If your general theory was true, that "somebody else" was needed to interpret God's Word for us, then why in the world are there so many Protestant denominations...the vast majority of which claim that they use Scripture as their only guide? All of whom claim they are correct?

Secondly, how do you measure your statement against God's Word? Specifically, 2 Pet 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Seems to me like if you have your interpretation (because you don't need anybody else to interpret it for you) and I have my own interpretation (because I don't need anybody else to interpret it for me) then there is the distinct possibility that we could end up with multiple private interpretations. (Look at John 6 as an example)

Or is it that We don't need the Vatican to "interpret" God's Word for us, but somebody else interpreting it for you is perfectly OK?

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

Absolutely and the main message (in simplest terms) is that Jesus Died on the Cross for Our Sins

John 3:16

People need to personally thank Jesus for dying on the cross for their sins, turning from their sins, and asking Jesus into their life

The Bible is clear what sin is, Homosexuality and abortion for example are crystal clear, they are unacceptable and no Christian would/could support either.

Shaking canisters, wearing funny hats etc or even attending Church will not save you.

Anything short of asking Jesus into our lives, thanking Him for dying on the cross for our sins, turning from our sins etc is all in vain

[Salvation]

Are you bashing the Catholic Church again?

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

I worry about anybody that does not believe this....

Absolutely and the main message (in simplest terms) is that Jesus Died on the Cross for Our Sins

John 3:16

People need to personally thank Jesus for dying on the cross for their sins, turning from their sins, and asking Jesus into their life

The Bible is clear what sin is, Homosexuality and abortion for example are crystal clear, they are unacceptable and no Christian would/could support either.

Shaking canisters, wearing funny hats etc or even attending Church will not save you.

Anything short of asking Jesus into our lives, thanking Him for dying on the cross for our sins, turning from our sins etc is all in vain

[piusv]

Any chance there is a transcript somewhere? I refuse to waste 30 minutes of my life listening to this modernist.

[Chauncey Uppercrust]

I am a equal opportunity basher, I bash the All Black Church, the liberal Protestant Church and any church that supports “liberal Christianity” the term is a oxymoron

Yes The Catholic Church is part of that and they are leading people down the wrong path

[SkyPilot]

If your general theory was true, that "somebody else" was needed to interpret God's Word for us, then why in the world are there so many Protestant denominations...the vast majority of which claim that they use Scripture as their only guide? All of whom claim they are correct?

I thank you up front for the questions and for the opportunity to respond.

The first vantage point is that God's Word is inerrant. The Bible speaks towards its own inerrant (Psalm 12:5, Proverbs 30: 5-6, and many others).

God never tells us that any human institution is flawless, but only He and His Word are flawless.

The Catholic church has assigned the role of perfect flawlessness and authority for itself, which is clearly at odds with God's Word. For centuries, the Vatican has falsely interpreted Matthew 16: 17-19 to claim some sort of infallible linage through Peter (Petros - masculine form of strong like a rock), but Jesus added that on this rock (Petra) He would build His church (referring to Himself as the Messiah).

Here is another point that no Catholic has ever been able to explain to me with any logical consistency or intellectual honesty. If Peter were divine lineage of Christ, and was infallible, then why and how was Paul able to rebuke him for being in error?

Galatians 2: 11 - 16

11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. 12 Before some men who had been sent by James arrived there, Peter had been eating with the Gentile believers. But after these men arrived, he drew back and would not eat with the Gentiles, because he was afraid of those who were in favor of circumcising them. 13 The other Jewish believers also started acting like cowards along with Peter; and even Barnabas was swept along by their cowardly action. 14 When I saw that they were not walking a straight path in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, You are a Jew, yet you have been living like a Gentile, not like a Jew. How, then, can you try to force Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 Indeed, we are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, as they are called. 16 Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires. We, too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be put right with God through our faith in Christ, and not by doing what the Law requires. For no one is put right with God by doing what the Law requires. I belong to a Protestant denomination church, but that denomination is never above the Word of God. If I was a member of a denomination or church that became heretical, I would leave it - pure and simple, and find one that was grounded in God's Word.

A Statement of Faith of a church must have the essential elements of essential and unchanging Christian doctrine found in the Bible.

It must preach one God in three persons, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). It must believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man, and that the virgin birth is true, that He did on the cross for our sin, and only His blood redeems us, that he rose from the dead, and is at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and that He is coming again in Judgement (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:1-11; Luke 1:36-38; 1 peter 3:18; Hebrews 2:9; Romans 5:9; Acts 2:23-24; Hebrews 8:1; Matthew 26:64; 1 John 2:1-2; Romans 8:34). It must say that salvation only comes through belief and faith in Jesus, and anyone who repents and accepts His gift of salvation will be like being born again, will recieve a new nature through the Holy Spirit, and become a child of God (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:3; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:4-7).

Most evangelical denominations all preach and believe these core points. But churches, pastors, and boards of elders are sinners - and as Paul warned us severely, many wander from the true faith.

That is why John gave us this warning (1 John 4:1):

Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world.

Presbyterians USA accept homosexuality. Well, sorry, but I am not joining them.

There are denominations that disagree on certain points, but it does not make them heretical disagreements. For example, many disagree on the timing of the Rapture during the Tribulation period. Disagreement on this point is not heresy.

But if a group or church denies the divinity of Christ, the Resurrection, or the virgin birth - then they are heretical and the true Christian will run from such people.

As a child of God, I not only have that freedom in Christ and His Word, I have that right and am commanded to do so!

As a Catholic, you cannot claim the same right. You have to stick with Pope Francis and the Vatican. You have no other choice.

But what if the Pope or Vatican do something clearly against God's Word? What if the pope makes heretical statements?

And he has!

Francis has said we cannot repent and accept Jesus personally and that it is Dangerous to do so, which is clear violation of Romans 10:9 and Revelation 3:20).

Francis has said that Jesus is not a Spirit (and therefore not fully God), and is only a man, which is also clearly against Scripture.

Secondly, how do you measure your statement against God's Word? Specifically, 2 Pet 1:20

Let's read these versus:

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Peter is saying that prophets (true prophets) and prophecy have their origin in God, not human beings. How does that prove that we are not to follow the Scriptures and God's plan of Salvation? You are clearly misapplying something that God or the Scriptures never say. God never said (in this verse or any other) that He did not intend for anyone to read the Scriptures, because they are human beings! This was a verse that confirmed the divine origin of prophecy. It does not prohibit us from reading God's Word, or from coming to an understanding of Jesus and being saved. Ironically, what you are implying is itself heretical to the Bible!

Lastly, we see in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 that Jesus Himself is talking to the seven churches. Most Biblical scholars agree that these churches represent epochs and ages of the church, including modern day churches.

Christ gives strong rebukes to some of them. Not only does this confirm to us that no human church is infallible (including the Catholic one), but it also tells us that Christ knows the difference between those who were more faithful than others.

Which one would you wish to belong to if Christ was addressing you? The Philadelphia church, or the Laodicea church?

Myself, I would prefer to be in the form group if Christ was speaking to me, and I pray that I will be.

[markomalley]

Thank you for the very thoughtful response. It is truly appreciated.

A couple of points:

Here is another point that no Catholic has ever been able to explain to me with any logical consistency or intellectual honesty. If Peter were divine lineage of Christ, and was infallible, then why and how was Paul able to rebuke him for being in error?

First, I'm not certain what you mean by Peter being of the "divine lineage" of Christ. Could you please clarify what you mean?

Secondly, I'm certain that when you discuss infallibility that you are excluding the authorship of the books of the New Testament. These men wrote infallible words by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (only true modernists would claim otherwise). I don't think any of us believe that any created being is capable of impeccibility (that is, being incapable of error at all). So what, exactly, do you mean by infallibility?

[usconservative]

Anything short of asking Jesus into our lives, thanking Him for dying on the cross for our sins, turning from our sins etc is all in vain

Spot on.

[SkyPilot]

First, I'm not certain what you mean by Peter being of the "divine lineage" of Christ. Could you please clarify what you mean?

Certainly, the apostle Peter never claimed "divine lineage" - but the Vatican certainly does. The "Vicar of Christ" (or Vicarius Christi) literally means Substitute for Christ. The Vatican has been falsely claiming unique and divine authority for centuries that is a false interpretation of the words of Jesus. This was and is a human power grab of the authority of God.

As a Catholic, you must have known this answer before you asked me to clarify. I am not sure why you asked this question. Moreover, in my CCD and Catholic education, the supposed papal "unbroken link" of popes was a common lesson, as it was with my wife's Jesuit university education.

So what, exactly, do you mean by infallibility?

Let me ask you - who claims infallibility?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

You never addressed what I had to say in regard to the heresy of Francis. Here is a list containing some troubling things he has said or done.

http://thewildvoice.org/pope-francis-chronology-perspective/

What are Catholics to do when the very head of the church, the "Vicar of Christ" on earth - is clearly against the Word of God?

As a former Catholic (until my 30s), I can attest to this: until I asked Christ to come into my heart and submitted myself to Him, I never knew Him. Today, I have a real and incredible relationship with Christ that is the most profound thing I have ever experienced.

[markomalley]

Certainly, the apostle Peter never claimed "divine lineage" - but the Vatican certainly does. The "Vicar of Christ" (or Vicarius Christi) literally means Substitute for Christ.

Actually, Vicar of Christ means "representative of Christ." The relationship is, in essence, the same as a "prime minister" to a king. I'm sorry if your CCD training and your wife's Jesuit college education taught you this falsely.

As a Catholic, you must have known this answer before you asked me to clarify.

Actually, I didn't know that you were implying that the pope claimed that he was a substitute for Christ. I was actually thinking that you were going to claim that Catholics believed that somehow he was divine. But I wanted you to clarify rather than making some sort of accusation.

Let me ask you - who claims infallibility?

Please try to answer the question that was actually asked. What do you mean by infallibility? I am particularly concerned that there may be a disconnect based upon a faulty definition.

As a former Catholic (until my 30s)…

As a former Catholic, you should be able to condemn the Church based upon the Church's own doctrine, provided your former status is based upon an actual doctrinal difference rather than receiving faulty education in that doctrine.

Proving Catholic doctrine false based upon what actual doctrine states will be far more effective for you rather than proving it based upon what you were taught or upon what some other "former" Catholic says. For example, if you say something along the lines of:

"The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is divinely descended from Christ. The 24th Session of the Council of Trent declares this when it says, _ (insert text here) _. This goes directly counter to Scripture and the early teachings of the Church. For example, _ (scriptural citations) _ says this and this. Even the early teachings of the Church fathers says this: _ (insert Church Fathers citation) _. Obviously the Catholic Church is completely off the rails here. You should come back to a church that actually teaches what Christ taught rather than this modern paganism"

…you will probably have better luck than using the tactic of making a false accusation and then disproving that false accusation.

The reason being is if I know that your premise is false then I can utterly disregard your conclusion based upon that false premise. Certainly, you may be able to lead captive silly women laden with sins away from the Church (cf 2 Tim 3:6), but that is a testament more toward the poor state of catechesis within the Church rather than actual faults with Church doctrine.

BTW, you can cite whatever you'd like in regards to Pope Francis...but may I suggest that you actually look at trying to look for real references rather than citing a site that promotes the "visions" of a person named "Maria Divine Mercy"? Sort of hard to take such a thing seriously. You won't have any problems finding questionable quotes from him...you may as well use a legitimate source to do so.

[SkyPilot]

"I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people."

Ephesians 1:18

[SkyPilot]

People need to personally thank Jesus for dying on the cross for their sins, turning from their sins, and asking Jesus into their life...Anything short of asking Jesus into our lives, thanking Him for dying on the cross for our sins, turning from our sins etc is all in vain

Amen.