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.”
It is fair to say that Henry VIII, the Calvinists, and the Anabaptists were intent upon splitting from the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther, however, desired to reform the church; otherwise he would not have written theses for the purpose of attempting to bring the church more in line with the truth as found in Scripture. It was only when the Roman church chose not to reform, and declared Luther to be anathema, that Luther had to choose between the Roman church and the Word, and he chose the Word.
AMEN!!!!
Are you prepared to say it's Roman Catholic dogma that if you die in battle for the RCC your sins are forgiven?
How is showing that your statement is wrong *unrelated*?
You have to learn to not feed trolls, even one that takes every opportunity to bash Catholics.
No...I think ebb's doing a fine enough job with all of his postings against the pope.
We are all the same family and our foe, really, is those who do not believe in God and hold Jesus to be His son, no?
We non-Catholics have been told we're not part of the same family.
You're taking a different approach.
Snarking at Catholics. / so tedious, really.
All I'm doing is repeating what Roman Catholic writers have written.
So, Popes prior to Vatican I weren't infallible when speaking ex cathedra, but Popes speaking ex cathedra post-Vatican I, are.
Such amazing faith in bureaucratic fiat.
It isn’t complicated for those with an honest desire to know, anyway. Heavens, there’s been reams written lately about papal authority, where it extends and where it doesn’t. In what circumstances we can criticize the Bishop of Rome and in what circumstances we must obey.
Not that we’ve solved the issue entirely, but when people get on and bloviate without showing even a modicum of awareness of the factors involved, it gets a tad annoying.
Ximinez: Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms!
The Spanish Inquisition has made its choice.
Posting what Roman Catholics have written is bashing Roman Catholics....you can’t make it up.
You’re so out of your flipping league it’s disturbing.
The dogma was *defined* at Vatican I. Meaning, a concrete definition was written for something that had always been believed, assumed, and acted upon.
Who the flip doesn’t know that the Papacy considered itself infallible during the Middle Ages hundreds of years before Vatican I?? Are you telling me that your historical knowledge is THAT impoverished? What do you think got your Protty ancestors all in a tizzy for Pete’s sake?
Bring me up to your "flipping league," I bid you please kind superior person of very elaborately complex yet oddly immoral in practice religion.
The doctrine of papal infallibility was not new and had been used by Pope Pius in defining as dogma, in 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus.[5] However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time.[5] Richard McBrien divides the bishops attending Vatican I into three groups. The first group, which McBrien calls the "active infallibilists", was led by Henry Edward Manning and Ignatius von Senestréy. According to McBrien, the majority of the bishops were not so much interested in a formal definition of papal infallibility as they were in strengthening papal authority and, because of this, were willing to accept the agenda of the infallibilists. A minority, some 10 percent of the bishops, McBrien says, opposed the proposed definition of papal infallibility on both ecclesiastical and pragmatic grounds, because, in their opinion, it departed from the ecclesiastical structure of the early Christian church.[6] From a pragmatic perspective, they feared that defining papal infallibility would alienate some Catholics, create new difficulties for union with non-Catholics, and provoke interference by governments in church affairs.[1] Those who held this view included most of the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, nearly half of the Americans, one third of the French, most of the Chaldaeans and Melkites, and a few Armenians.[1] Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council#Papal_infallibility
If it wasn’t for the efforts of Popes like Urban II in calling for Crusades against Islamic forces, Christianity would be hiding in catacombs. Don’t you think that sacrificing your life in defense of Christianity shows a total commitment to Christ? How can you equate that to Jihad that seeks the destruction of Christianity?
If it wasn’t for the efforts of Popes like Urban II in calling for Crusades against Islamic forces, Christianity would be hiding in catacombs. Don’t you think that sacrificing your life in defense of Christianity shows a total commitment to Christ? How can you equate that to Jihad that seeks the destruction of Christianity?
He was citing Urban's Crusade as an example of Papal novelty. There was almost nothing novel about it. We had a tradition of just war that went all the way back to Augustine. Didn't Caleb of Axum invade Yemen to liberate fellow Christians in the 520s? And indulgences for the forgiveness of venial sins were granted way before then for the commission of any pious act. This was already well established, which ealgeone would know if he had the slightest knowledge of the history of indulgences.
Utter failure to even demonstrate his own point. Historical assumptions totally invalid. Hence, unrelated.
Regulator: It is important to keep in mind, in case you didn’t know, that whenever the Church “defines” a teaching it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t always held or taught. The “new” definition is to bring about clarity and oftentimes it happens because others have challenged the teaching. It does not mean that it suddenly became teaching. I think this is something that non-Catholics misunderstand.
“Christianity is not a relationship with a Pope...nor any other man outside of Christ Jesus....
‘Religious systems’ are based on human merit....where you hope if you stay on the path or in the way you’ll come out good in the end when you finally reach the door of judgement or assessment. That is not Christianity.”
..........
++1
With all due respect to Catholics, they seem to be content with letting somebody else interpret Jesus’ New Testament teachings for them, just like misguided, low-information US citizens seem to be content with letting the “experts” (wolves in sheeps clothing) tell them what the Constitution means.
But this has clearly led to MAJOR problems with respect to correctly understanding the good news of Jesus and the Constitution.
In fact, Galations 1:6-9, particularly verses 8-9, shows that Paul the apostle condemned anybody who taught a different gospel then the apostles did under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
With all due respect to the papacy, Pope Francis seems to be trying to turn the Church into a social networking medium to compete with Facebook.
Jihad, my ass, eagleone....you are an anti-Catholic....period. Get on a thread about your own religion.......what is your SECT of Christian? And don't say "Christian" and be a coward...fess up to what you are.
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.