Posted on 02/22/2018 8:33:27 PM PST by ebb tide
The Francis Effect meeting the German Heresiarchy leads to an explosive decision of cataclysmic consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
There are those here who think the Apostle Peter was the first “pope” despite his never having heard the terms “pope” or “catholic” and he would have been absolutely horrified at the prospect of being considered Pontifex Maximus of pagan Rome, lol.
There’s a long history of religionists making unverifiable claims. At least the word “baptist” is actually recorded in scripture, unlike “pope” or “catholic.” The age of a tenuous claim does not change the fact that it’s a tenuous claim. And, if novelty were a problem for Catholics, there’s a whole boatload of 19th century Mariology that should be jettisoned.
Wow.... sharing the body and blood of Christ with all is the goal of the church... what a shallow mind it is that will argue with this... Christ wasn’t even Catholic...
I am, and I see no problem with this.
Catholic just means universal, dummy.
I suspect you’re about to get blasted to the contrary and not by me, speaking of dummies. There is “catholic,” there is “Catholic” and never the twain shall meet, it appears.
It means universal. Capital C or lower C. I’m sure there is some twisted “biblical” explanation that no other Catholic has heard of, so I’m sure you’re right that I’ll hear from others.
Going into schism from the Eastern Orthodox a thousand years ago no doubt led to a defensive sense of ownership over the word.
And “pope” simply means father. St. Peter founded the Church, not John the Baptist.
My best friend thinks that!!
Of course, now the subject is totally off topic with the usual suspects showing up and “Catholics” proclaiming the Holy Eucharist should be open to all and sundry. Thank you, Pope Frankie! Of course, these same people hate his anti-Trump, pro-Muslim stance when it is all part and parcel of destroying western civilization.
Instead of the usual crowing and bickering, could we all address the topic of the thread? That is non-Catholics partaking of communion in the RCC. Are you for it or against it and tell us why.
Yes. And Yes.
Surely you jest.
Concerning Catholic Caucus designation: Not with this one, which centers on the question of Catholic/Protestant intercommunion -— but with other articles, perhaps you could omit the overt mention of Protestants by using /snip/ or “...” elisions.
I believe most Protestants wouldn't even want to receive Catholic Eucharist, because they acknowledge honestly that they don't believe in it. Receiving would be offensive to *their* beliefs.
The pope doesn’t think Catholicism is unique. What next? communion for muzzies?
BINGO!!! Notice, He DIDN’T say, “only those who I approve or who I deem worthy” do this in remembrance of me. He also didn’t stipulate that it should only be practiced while in the confines of a ‘formal Mass’.
Uhm, NO!!! Jesus founded the Church!
Well, yes, of course. I guess I should have stated that. But it was Peter who implemented it and died for it.
Not true. That makes each individual their own subjective moral lawgiver, and it is what Satan said to Eve in the famous Eden Proposal when he inspired the Original Paradigm Shift.
A malformed conscience does not trump the Word of God.
This is something I wish were more generally acknowledged, especially amongst the upper clergy.
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.