Could Pope Francis Be a Secret Protestant?

[ealgeone]

What more evidence do we need, to prove that Francis is a secret liberal Protestant, who unexpectedly found himself holding the position of the papacy?

Is this your attempt at reasoning??

[redleghunter]

So sorry, you keep him.

[Blue Collar Christian]

He is no Protestant, he’s a communist, atheist.
The Roman Catholic Church will survive through this one as it has other devilish popes and through more to come.

[ebb tide]

Could Pope Francis be a secret protestant?

It's not a secret; it's public knowledge.

Bergoglio has winked at protestant spouses of Catholics sacrilegiously receiving Holy Communion.

[Steelfish]

That understanding is too simplistic.

One of the most famous comments about the actions of the Spirit in a conclave came from the person who is now the Pope Emeritus. In 1997, when asked on Bavarian television whether or not the Spirit chooses the pope, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger answered:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

The renowned German theologian got to the heart of the matter: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!”

[Salvation]

NO!!!!!

[Rashputin]

He sure sounds like the Methodist and Episcofruits around here and advocates the same "Pastoral" consideration of things which is pretty much the Protestant excuse for having changed nearly everything they teach at least once in the past century use to explain away those changes.

So, yeah, he's a Protestant.

Folks who are part of groups that have all grown out of the Protestant revolt may not like it any more than we Catholics having this dolt as Pope, but the facts are the facts.

[TIElniff]

Is the Pope a secret Protestant? Test him on the five points of Calvinism, popularly known as TULIP Calvinism.

T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance of the Saints

For a detailed explanation of these doctrines, a good summary can be found at calvinistcorner.com

[Campion]

NOT the JELLO SALAD with the little MARSHMALLOWS !!!!

[metmom]

Well, then, the claim that God protects the church from error falls flat as, if the Holy Spirit is not involved in selecting your pope, then He is not involved in protecting your church from error.

Because I don’t see any other means of protecting the church from error if the Holy Spirit is not involved in it.

[Syncro]

The Catholic Church is actually the first wave of Protestantism.

They protested against the Othordox Church because they wanted to follow the Bible closely with out all the “traditions” like having a “pope” and putting Mary on a pedestal as equal with Jesus and God.

So they left a more “one true church” to preserve all their false traditions instead of preaching being one with Jesus.

[Steelfish]

Wrong. The Holy Spirit is the same that guided Peter and the apostles and the early Church. If the Holy Spirit erred in guiding the Church then you need to toss your Bible out because it was the Catholic Church over 300 years that gleaned thousands of fragments over a course of 100-200 years sorted out what is God’s Word and what is not.

The Holy Spirit acts when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is on matters of faith and doctrine. Mere statements and pronouncements do not have this infallibility.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

What incentive is there for a Catholic to remain obedient to the church’s teachings, if the greatest heretic receives more honor than the greatest saints?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have implicitly answered your own question: The teachings of the Church and the machinations of the current Pope are mutually exclusive. He has not said or done anything that must be accepted as integral to the Catholic Faith. In other words, unless he speaks ex cathedra concerning a matter of faith or morals, he’s NOT speaking infallibly and therefore may be speaking fallibly.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

The dude wouldn’t even make a decent Northeast Episcopalian.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LOL. Now that is funny, and I suspect it’s also true!

[metmom]

Oh, nonsense.

The Catholic church did not give us God’s Word.

It existed and continues to exist outside of Catholicism.

It stands alone as the Holy Spirit inspired word of God whether the Catholic church approves of it or not.

If the Holy Spirit only acts at the popes behest when the pope speaks ex cathedra, then there is no mechanism to prevent the church from falling into error as Catholics claim.

And if the Holy Spirit is not involved in guiding the Catholic church on a day to day basis, then why the heck would anyone want to put their trust in it ever?

And if the Holy spirit only acts when the pope speaks ex cathedra, then there is no basis for claiming that the churches election of what should go in the Bible is valid either as it would not have been guided by the Holy Spirit, too.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Somebody needs to put the mal occhio on this one fast.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ha ha. Funny. Is “mal occhio” accurately spelled, and is it an accurate translation of the “evil eye”?

[metmom]

Lots of disparity between the Roman rite and the EO and they tell us it’s one, true church and their beliefs have never changed over 2,000 years.

So which one IS the OTC?

They both claim to be and claim the other is in schism.

All it amounts to then is, *We’re the OTC and the other guy is in schism because we said so.*

[Old Yeller]

He doesn’t know the Bible. Sounds like every Catholic I know.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Protestants are far more Christian than this pope ever has been.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That could very well be true. But I believe it’s also true that neither you nor anyone else can know that it’s true. As I’m sure you are aware, many Christians throughout history have appeared to be otherwise. If that were not true, humans would be equal to the angels.

[Steelfish]

Of course, God’s word existed before it was written down. But it was the Catholic Church (even Luther admits to this unassailable fact) that it was the early Church fathers that sorted out thousands of fragmentary writings, cross checked with sacred oral and liturgical traditions, and decided what constitutes God’s word and what is not.

This was authoritatively confirmed in the Synod of Rome in 382 AD. The various books in the Bible did not fall from the skies and self-assemble themselves. It was through the authority of the Church that several texts were deemed inauthentic. The is what scholars, theologians, writers, saints, and converts, have all confirmed. The rest is just a bunch of nonsensical collage of beliefs that are now subsumed under the capacious term we call “Protestantism.”