Posted on 05/25/2025 4:05:48 AM PDT by JosephJames
Pimping your blog??
the appointment of a nun as Secretary of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life,
in line with the appointment of a Prefectess by Bergoglio;
the repeated references to the heretical documents of his predecessor and to Vatican II;
the declarations on ecumenism and synodality,
and finally the acceptance of climate fraud;
all place Robert Francis Prevost in evident and disturbing continuity with his predecessor,
and it will certainly not be the stole and mozzetta that will change reality.
You say that the epistles clearly describe a church structure with priests, bishops, etc. Those epistles also say those are to be the husband of one wife, etc., so your own reference undercuts your point regarding celebate leadership of the Catholic Church, right?
I don’t exclude the Catholic Church from Christendom like many here do, but your argument falls on its face.
Papal infallibility is claimed for ex cathedra matters, only. There have been few examples of this. He is fallible in absolutely every other way according to Catholic doctrine. Understand what you are criticizing before criticizing it.
Every Roman is their own pope today - picking and choosing like a smorgasbord what they will believe or not.
The irony is that Catholics never think through what they believe.
Yet, they claim that God was able to do for Mary that very thing, preserve her free from sin.
Yet, if Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to not inherit sin and be sinless, then how did Mary be born sinless from sinful parents?
That means that Mary's parents needed to likewise be sinless for Mary to not inherit sin from them and be born sinless.
And what about Mary's parents? Well, then THEIR parents likewise would need to have been sinless to not pass down sin, and so it goes.
So essentially Catholics believe that God could not (or would not) do for Jesus what they claim He did for Mary.
Which again, points to the fact that this is all about elevating Mary.
And yet Jesus had this to say.....
Matthew 11:11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Except Rome has added books to the OT canon as defined by Jesus.
In the old testament books we have clear structure in Deuteronomy.
Which in essence is what Rome has rebuilt.
In the New testament we have a clear structure of priests, bishops, etc in the Epistles.
Except no papacy, no college of cardinals, none of the positions Rome claims today.
And what pope they think is or was the last true pope.
Or which church council was the last true form of Catholicism.
Vatican 2?
Vatican 1?
The Council at Trent?
Which of the 21 Catholic church councils is the TRUE form of Catholicism?
Who knows?
Then of course, there's the Orthodox who claim THEY are the original form of Catholicism and yet other Catholic church officials have condemned to hell as schismatics.
I cannot argue with a point of view that is beyond knowledge, and even idiots are free to make declarative statements that are beyond both belief and/or proof.
You have proven yourself to be beyond reason.
It’s actually the best religion and truest. One holy apostolic Catholic Church. I feel bad for the fakey other religions like those megachurches that need to bribe people to go with rock bands and Starbucks. And don’t get me started on the ridiculous born again wackadoodles.
HMMMmmm...
My bishops move the same but reach their destination in only ONE move.
Heck; Joseph Smith may have been right when he claimed to have done more to hold the church together than...
To stay on topic, there are only two things that I have heard of Leo having done and both are a much greater improvement on Francis.
Vatican 1
Non Roman Catholics condemned as heretics
Vatican 2
Non Roman Catholics who have been properly baptized are separated brethren.
Quite incorrect as usual. Jesus used the Septuagint which had the books that you removed. The first KJV had the books that were later removed
Read 1 Timothy in the entire context not as a verse excerpted. The verse lists qualifications for a bishop’s character (blameless, vigilant, etc.), not a strict requirement to be married. Celibacy is not excluded; the text simply assumes that many candidates might be married and sets a standard for their marital fidelity. In the early Christian era, polygamy was practiced in some cultures, and remarriage after widowhood or divorce was common. The phrase ensures that a bishop, if married, is faithful to one wife, rejecting polygamy or serial remarriage.
You can refer to St. Paul’s other epistles like 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 7:32-35, where Paul advocates for celibacy as a state that allows undivided devotion to God. Jesus also speaks positively of those who choose celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom (Matthew 19:12).
“husband of one wife” (Greek: mias gynaikos aner, literally “a one-woman man”) emphasizes fidelity, not a mandate for marriage. The same phrase is used for deacons (1 Timothy 3:12) and elders (Titus 1:6), suggesting a consistent standard against polygamy or remarriage, not a requirement to marry.
the text does not say a bishop must be married, only that if married, he must be faithful to one wife.
The Catholic canon reflects the broader Jewish Septuagint (LXX), widely used in Jesus’ time, which included these books.
The Septuagint, compiled by 200 BC, included the Deuterocanonical books and was the primary Scripture for Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians. When the NT quotes the OT, it often follows the Septuagint’s wording (e.g., Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23).
Early Christian writers (e.g., Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian) and councils (e.g., Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) consistently included the Deuterocanonical books in their OT canon. These councils formalized what was already widely accepted, not “added” books.
You align with the Jewish Tanakh, finalized after Jesus’ time by non-Christian Jews. This canon excluded the Deuterocanonical books, possibly to differentiate Jewish from Christian Scriptures. However, this post-Christian Jewish canon does not bind Christians, who rely on apostolic tradition.
The Deuterocanonical books are not “additions” but part of the Christian heritage from the start. Their removal reflects a 16th-century innovation, not a return to Jesus’ supposed canon.
Actually, I am quite correct IF one understands the Hebrew canon He was referencing.
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.