Posted on 03/18/2013 9:17:42 AM PDT by marshmallow
First Latin American pope offers opportunity to 'rethink differences' and 'join hands in mission.'
Argentina's evangelical leaders were just as surprised as anyone when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, former archbishop of Buenos Aires, was revealed Wednesday as the new Pope Francis. But they were not surprised when his first words broke from papal tradition.
In a move that Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano called "unprecedented and shocking," before Francis offered the world the traditional papal blessing, he asked those watching to first pray for him.
Such a request is one of Bergoglio's trademarks, said Juan Pablo Bongarrá, president of the Argentine Bible Society.
"Whenever you talk to him, the conversation ends with a request: 'Pastor, pray for me," said Bongarrá. He recalls when Bergoglio once attended a weekly worship meeting organized by Buenos Aires's charismatic pastors. "He mounted the platform and called for pastors to pray for him," said Bongarrá. "He knelt in front of nearly 6,000 people, and [Protestant leaders] laid hands and prayed."
Prayer came up frequently as several of Argentina's leading evangelicals, known for their unity efforts in Buenos Aires, described their thoughts on the new pope.
"His election has been an answer to our prayers," said Norberto Saracco, rector of Buenos Aires's FIET seminary and co-leader of the capital city's Council of Pastors. "Bergoglio is a man of God. He is passionate for the unity of the Church—but not just at the institutional level. His priority is unity at the level of the people."
Relations between evangelicals and Catholics are much better in Argentina than in other Latin American nations, said Saracco. Bergoglio has played a central role in Argentina's CRECES (Renewal Communion of Catholics and Evangelicals in the Holy Spirit) movement over the past 10 years, and has strongly supported the Bible society. "He has very good and.....
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
A sign that this new Pope will help to bring about greater unity among Christians.
PRAYERS!!!!
“Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7).
If you define "unity" as captitulation by those who do not understand the Gospel, then perhaps you are correct. For those who see the thousand-mile-wide chasm between Rome and the Scriptures, the "unity" will occur only when Rome recants its enormous volume of errant doctrines. We stand waiting with open arms.
Amen.
“He (Pope Francis) called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate [creating by the Catholic Church to accommodate alienated Anglicans] was quite unnecessary and that the church needs us as Anglicans.”
Here’s another example showing this Pope may have little intention of converting people to Catholicism.
What errors?
Maybe it is a sign that Chrisians are getting away from fighting each other for a change and are embracing more of what is in common, say for example of having a common Christian baptism.
A larger discussion of the errors is taking place here...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2997236/posts
“...common Christian baptism” means something far different to the Catholic than it does to the Bible oriented believer. Please read Paul’s letter to the believing Jews (commonly called Hebrews) to notice how much significance he placed on the real meaning of things such as this.
If conservatives play their cards right, they could leverage the new pope to bring in Latino Catholics. This is an opportunity of a lifetime.
“We stand waiting with open arms.”
While you stand there waiting, other Protestants and Catholics are opening their hearts and finding we are all brothers in Christ. Changes in the Anglecan church, evangellicals in Argentina, and reproachment with our Eastern orthodox friends - and Rome is flexable and in effect saying, “it’s ok if your path is a little different if it leads you to Christ.” Pretty historic stuff given the last 496 years. At least your arms are open, if less so for your heart. We pray for you.
Really? Here is Boniface VIII... "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctum 1302AD.
Sounds a little more serious than you have claimed. And, Boniface is a major contributor to Catholic Law, my FRiend.
But, if you wish to head this direction, into the light of Jesus alone, then swim the Tiber the other direction and leave the Roman traditions, rituals, ceremonies and errant doctrines and we stand ready to welcome you...if Jesus permits. We are praying for you folks.
If the issues covered just this lifetime, your idea might have value.
I think it does. Divest ourselves from the RINOS and reach out to Catholic Latinos.
Funny thing is, all those illegals the Rats want to give amnesty to, a good chunk of them would go with Pope Francis.
Unintended consequences.
The Catholic belief is that all salvation comes through the Catholic church. This may include graces obtained by Protestants and others through the working of the Catholic church, despite their separation from the Catholic church.
The valid reception of the sacraments, including sincere and penitential reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation (”confession”) preceding the Sacrament of the Eucharist (”communion”) is the ordinary means by which a soul may know it is in the state of grace. Orthodox churches likely possess valid sacraments, despite the state of schism, so that their communicants are saved through those sacraments; Protestant churches do not possess valid sacraments. Nonetheless, a Protestant may be saved through a sacrament of desire. That is, though the Protestant offering of bread and wine is not transubstantiated into the body of Christ, the person who genuinely and sincerely desires to receive the body of Christ has hope of doing so. (The Baptism of Desire is the means, for instance, of the salvation of St. Dismas, the good thief on the cross with Jesus.)
Some people detect a contradiction between the Council of Trent, which anathematizes all Protestants, and the Second Vatican Council, which hopes for their salvation through the extraordinary means mentioned above. There is, however, no contradiction. As used in the Council of Trent, “Protestant” referred to people who had been baptized, catechized (educated), and raised as Catholics and yet rejected the Catholic faith to take cause with those who sought the abolition of the Catholic church. Today, “Protestants” may include those who were raised by parents seeking God, have become “invinceably ignorant” by the reception of false doctrines, and who honor their mother and father by persisting in the Christian faith as they know it.
My point was that embracing "pope" Francis has ramifications beyond this lifetime. Thus, it is not an "opportunity of a lifetime" to make nicey. Rather, it would be an (incorrect) opportunity to encourage Francis' errant doctrines. This has eternal consequences. It is no longer the case that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The Bible-believing “separated brethren” offer this alternative...read the Book the organization claims to have provided and find out what the Apostles thought about the way things really are. The nonsense peddled by Rome is not there.
John, “The one who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself.” “He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”
John is sadly(?) absent the information Rome claims is necessary to find salvation. I think I’ll stick with John.
Don’t pretend that Catholics ignore John.
Many anti-Christians believe that there was a historical person named Jesus, but what is that they believe about him? Did you not notice John wrote such things as, “Yea, verily I tell you this: unless you eat of my body and drink of my flesh, you shall not have life within you?” Or, “He who believes in me will do the things the Father has commanded him?”
Do you believe that the Epistle of St. James is the bible or not? Because St. James wrote, “Even demons believe that God is One, and they shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” And so he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Luther had no come-back for that, and so he proclaimed that the Epistle of James was evil, and was not Christian. He also was forced to deny the authenticity of Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse of St. John (”Revelation”). Only by tradition did it remain in the Protestant canon, for the Calvinists had no reply to it, either.
Luther had no love of James, but he did not call it evil.
As for Hebrews, he said that it was not written by Paul. In other words he tended to agree with the scholars of his time. Because of that, his commentary on Hebrews hints that Luther was very cautious in saying to much about it.
I will be honest in that I don't know much about 2 and 3rd John, other than he tended to view their authorship the same way many of his period did. I will look into it if I get a chance.
Revelation is an interesting on for you to bring up. Most churches (and that includes the Catholic and Orthodox) don't do much with Revelation. It isn't in the lexinairy that much, and you don't see much commentary on it. Luther also didn't write much on it, because he viewed it as a book that many will take flights of fancy with and run all sorts of directions that make no sense (Left Behind).
A very similar view that many Catholic scholars took of the Apocalypse of St. John.
Don’t whitewash Martin Luther. He hated the seven books he removed from the New Testament as un-Christian forgeries which led souls to Satan.
Not sure where you get the notion that Catholics don’t read Revelation much. They don’t read it like futurism, but they do read it as explaining the mass and the persecution of the Church.
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.