Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Me too bro. That's a ton of eyes, but God is capable. 😄😀🙃
Actually, they tell us we to submit to the pope and church, rather than ascertaining the validity of what is taught by the Scriptures, since that can result in division.
But then most RCs pick and choose what to obey from among what their church issues, according to their judgment of whether it is valid or not in the light of what they judge certain past church teaching means. Which can also result in division, but which is only sanctioned if done by Catholic censors of evangelicals.
Good for you!
"I've Been Everywhere"
When along came a semi with a high an' canvas-covered load.
"If you're goin' to Winnemucca, Mack, with me you can ride."
And so I climbed into the cab and then I settled down inside.
He asked me if I'd seen a road with so much dust and sand.
And I said, "Listen, I've traveled every road in this here land!"
[Chorus:]
I've been everywhere, man.
I've been everywhere, man.
Crossed the desert's bare, man.
I've breathed the mountain air, man.
Of travel I've had my share, man.
I've been everywhere.
I've been to:
Reno, Chicago, Fargo, Minnesota,
Buffalo, Toronto, Winslow, Sarasota,
Wichita, Tulsa, Ottawa, Oklahoma,
Tampa, Panama, Mattawa, La Paloma,
Bangor, Baltimore, Salvador, Amarillo,
Tocapillo, Baranquilla, and Perdilla, I'm a killer.
[Chorus]
I've been to:
Boston, Charleston, Dayton, Louisiana,
Washington, Houston, Kingston, Texarkana,
Monterey, Faraday, Santa Fe, Tallapoosa,
Glen Rock, Black Rock, Little Rock, Oskaloosa,
Tennessee to Tennesse Chicopee, Spirit Lake,
Grand Lake, Devils Lake, Crater Lake, for Pete's sake.
[Chorus]
I've been to:
Louisville, Nashville, Knoxville, Ombabika,
Schefferville, Jacksonville, Waterville, Costa Rica,
Pittsfield, Springfield, Bakersfield, Shreveport,
Hackensack, Cadillac, Fond du Lac, Davenport,
Idaho, Jellico, Argentina, Diamantina,
Pasadena, Catalina, see what I mean-a.
[Chorus]
I've been to:
Pittsburgh, Parkersburg, Gravelbourg, Colorado,
Ellensburg, Rexburg, Vicksburg, Eldorado,
Larimore, Atmore, Haverstraw, Chatanika,
Chaska, Nebraska, Alaska, Opelika,
Baraboo, Waterloo, Kalamazoo, Kansas City,
Sioux City, Cedar City, Dodge City, what a pity.
[Chorus]
(I've been everywhere)
Since you know that I am an ex Catholic, let me take a stab at this, from my memory, as a Catholic. This is just from my memory, so hang with me. The Catholics might say something like, the thief on the cross was catholic by desire, or something like that.
Maybe we can all say we are "Catholic by desire," without having to join the OTC, (RCC)
See you in the clouds bro. I hope, that when "religious people" see millions of people suddenly disappear, they will get wised up, and come to faith in Christ. It may result in them getting their heads chopped off, but at least they can avoid the lake of fire. 🔥
This thread is turning into a tl;dr for me at the moment, and I really don’t want to insert myself into an argument, especially when I’ll probably end up disagreeing with both sides in one way or another, heh...
One thing I do note is that when I argue with Protestants, it’s about the meaning of Scripture, and tradition only comes into play as, potentially, supporting evidence, especially in regards to what the earliest churches believed.
When I argue with Catholics, it tends to revolve around why their tradition supersedes the plain words of the Bible.
When they’re not just calling me a heretic, that is.
There are reasonable Catholics on this board it seems, but I don’t tend to argue with them!
A lot of quotations from the Bible but nowhere within them does it say “by faith alone.” Nice try, though.
No, you are wrong.
It says not by works.
That leaves one option.
By faith.
***
Unless you’re trying to claim that we’re justified by our hair color or something like that?
Are you some kind of pigmentist?
Luther taught “faith alone,” Paul did not!
***
I’ve read the original Greek.
Paul sets up the sentence structure to place ‘faith’ and ‘works’ in a strong dichotomy. You might say ‘faith NOT works’ with the word ‘not’ in 48 point font.
“Faith alone” is therefore an accurate translation, unless you’re going to claim that salvation comes by something other than works or faith.
But it appears you are an ardent follower of Luther’s false preaching of salvation by “faith alone”.
***
Oh yeah, how DARE Luther actually read the Bible and actually believe what Paul actually wrote.
I have yet to see you respond to the long swaths of Scripture on this thread in support of justification by faith. It’s not just one verse that Catholics whine that Luther changed, even though the original Greek has the exact meaning of ‘faith alone.’
It’s suffused through the entire New Testament, and even the Old Testament.
And yet, it seems you have yet to respond to the Scriptural passages posted on this thread.
I wonder why not.
It teaches that baptism removes sin and saves the individual. So the infant that is baptized at 1 month old, is considered saved even though that infant has no capacity to understand the gospel and exercise saving faith.
***
Not to defend Papist nonsense, so don’t lump me in with them, but I would argue that I child CAN exercise saving faith, even at the youngest age.
After all, faith is nothing more than receiving the gift that the Lord provides. And even newborns seem to understand the concept of receiving something. There’s a reason that Jesus refers to salvation as being becoming like little children, and I would argue that it’s because little children live only through what is given to them.
That plus the fact that faith is a gift from the Lord, not a work that we ourselves do. I believe that means that faith can be given even to infants who may not cognitively understand it, but still experience it.
Are papal writings valid? I don’t know what you mean by valid. Depending on the nature of the document, we must assent to varying degrees.
The Protestant Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church, so “reformatiion” is not the right word. It doesn’t mean that there was nothing bad happening in the Church. I am not knowledgeable about the issue of indulgences at that time, but that seems to have been the one thing Luther brought up which was in need of re-considering.
Luther called the Church to get back to what he thought of as its roots, but reading the ECFs and the Didache (which I think was not found until the 1800s, long after Luther’s time) shows that Luther was mistaken.
I think the Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of protecting the Church from erroneous Popes.
The issue of communion for the divorced and remarried is tricky and technical; I know of a line of reasoning which would allow it, bit that is not what the Pope has put forth, nor has he adequately explained himself on this issue. I am not sure what wil come of this.
I think it is hard to say if this pope is a bad pope. On what basis would you suggest that he is?
And yes, like all the rest of us, popes are sinners, too. We have survived bad popes, we’ll survive this one, good or bad.
Yes...and as noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia online the translation cannot be defended.
Roman Catholicism has built the Immaculate Conception on a bad translation.
The Didache is incorrect in that it advances positions in contradiction of the NT. The ECFs...well, they're all over the place on the issues near and dear to Roman Catholicism.
Which one is right when they contradict themselves?
Then SHOW the lurkers.
You are surely judgmental!
So I guess the COUNTER Reformation just happened by MAGIC er sumpin'; Right??
And now it should be clear to any who continue in reading The Word of God just how easily the 'religious' populations will be duped by the coming anti-Christ. Joseph Smith claimed visions of God, also. It doesn't make that false christianity any more authentic, either..
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.