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 ...
Actually, the saying you are quoting is “Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus.” There’s no mention of the word, “Catholic.” Even at the time the Council of Trent wrote that, there were churches other than Catholic which were not anathematized. Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian and other Oriental churches were recognized to have effective sacraments, and, although in schism, are part of the same Body of Christ.
Unlike these churches, the Protestant churches of “substantially defective,” meaning they are cut off (”defaced”) from the “substance” of the Church; they lack proper sacraments. Therefore no Protestant may be assured of his salvation, regardless of whether he has sincerely participated in his church’s worship. However, a succession of popes has reiterated that as distorted as their view of Christ may be, because Protestants in fact worship Christ, they potentially may be saved through extra-ordinary (as in, “beyond the normal”) means.
Clarification: At the time of the Nestorian schism, the Catholic Church understood certain Eastern churches to follow Nestorius in a doctrine thought to represent a denial of the trinity, and therefore did not recognize the efficacy of baptism. Later, Oriental churches recognized that such churches were not denying the trinity; the Catholic Church, at the time of the Council of Trent, was not, to my knowledge, aware of the status of the churches accused of Nestorianism.
>> It says the church does not read them as canonical <<
As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.
>> and the church themselves does not put them forward as a confirmation of the faith <<
He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine, but rather that they do not provide proof, in themselves, the Christian faith to the Jews, simply because the Jews do not recognize them as the Word of God.
>> My quotes are from the Symbol and the preface for Kings. What would something in the preface of Judith matter? <<
Nothing, if they were written by two different people capable of holding two different opinions. But since they were written by the same person as part of the same work, any interpretation must reconcile both portions.
As for the preface to the Book of Kings, Jerome quite plainly, in this instance, is describing the contents of the JEWISH canon, and even emphasizing that the various groups of Jews don’t even agree.
>> As for Baruch, many church fathers quote all sorts of works. It does not change that he called them noncanonical. <<
Jerome doesn’t just QUOTE the deuterocanonicals; he QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE. It does not change that he calls them non-canonical, since the canon he refers to is THAT OF THE JEWS.
“However, a succession of popes has reiterated that as distorted as their view of Christ may be, because Protestants in fact worship Christ, they potentially may be saved through extra-ordinary (as in, “beyond the normal”) means.”
Is that why both Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, were so ticked-off with Pope Benedict’s “Anglican Ordinariate”?
P.S. How far back does your “succession of popes” go? Does it go past 1957 A.D.?
“As Jerome himself indicated, he did not mean that they were not part of the Catholic Holy Scriptures, but rather that they were not part of the canon of the Jews.”
Except that the quotes you keep bringing are on a topic totally separated from the ones I supplied. They are from the Symbol and the preface to Kings. Not Daniel or Judith. And from the two sources of mine, there is no mention of Jews, or anything else. And the quotes themselves immediately say “the church does not” such and such. Not Jews.
You keep making this point, over and over again, but it seems to me you are talking to someone else.
“He did not state that they do not contain necessary doctrine,”
He says they are not canonical. And if not canonical, they do not contain necessary doctrine. For how does one get doctrine from a book, for example, that teaches magic?
Tobit 6:5-7, “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
Or that one can be forgiven of sins by giving alms?
Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.”
The scripture is clear, it is the blood of Christ which purges away all sin.
Or what doctrine can Judith hold, when it falsely claims that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians?
Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.”
Or what of Baruch, which incorrectly states that the Babylonian exile was for seven generations, and not 70 years as is correct?
Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
For good cause, therefore, does Jerome, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril of Jerusalem reject many, if not all, of these books as canon.
“any interpretation must reconcile both portions.”
No random interpretation can reconcile the clear words “The Church” and “not canon” in two separate quotes, speaking of the Church’s view, and not the Jewish view. Albeit, the Jewish view is worthwhile too, since the oracles of God were originally given to them, and for good reason they rejected these books. They were all written during the period wherein no Prophets had risen up. There was no one inspired who could have written them at all. And for that reason you have so much funky dogma and false teaching and historical facts.
You’re convoluting reality is quite tiresome.
” QUOTES them AND CALLS THEM HOLY SCRIPTURE.”
Jerome did not call Baruch scripture. He quoted from it, but he did not say “The Prophet Baruch, who doesn’t know that the Jews only spent 70 years in Babylon, and not 7 generations, said such and such.” It was simply a quote from Baruch, which Jerome never denied was useful for edification, but not part of the scripture.
Oops, how did a discussion on the apocrypha from another thread get responded to in this one? I just replied to my ping. Wrong thread altogether.
“Protestant churches yesterday reacted with dismay to a new declaration approved by Pope Benedict XVI insisting they were mere “ecclesial communities” and their ministers effectively phonies with no right to give communion.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/11/catholicism.religion
Oh, so you’re a sedevacantist, are you? Even Lefebvre signed on to Vatican II, so, yes, it’s interpretation of the Council of Trent is authoritative.
Kasper disliked the Anglican Ordinariate because the Anglicans disliked it, and he was trying to negotiate with them as a whole. What relevance that has to our debate utterly escapes me.
“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.
It’s a good thing that we are saved by grace, and not through any dead sacrament from the Romans, who think salvation can be bought with a gesture, a properly timed bow, a chant to a dead Christian, and, finally, with their very own stomachs.
I assure you, there is no hope for Catholics who believe that such things really do save them. It is the will of God, unmoved by man, which brings a person to Christ.
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Rom 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: (9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
“The Baptism of Desire is the means, for instance, of the salvation of St. Dismas, the good thief on the cross with Jesus.”
LOL, you make the Thief on the cross a saint? What did the scripture say of him?
Luk 23:39-43 And one of the MALEFACTORS which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. (40) But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? (41) And we indeed justly; for we receive the DUE REWARD of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. (42) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (43) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
And how can one desire Roman sacraments that had yet didn’t even exist for him to even know about? He was saved not by a desire for baptism or sacraments, but by faith that Christ is LORD, a truth revealed to him not by flesh and blood (man), but by our Father in heaven who draws His elect.
Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
One wonders, then, what desire saved Cornelius and his family, who were baptized by the Holy Spirit, and thus justified in every way by God, before water baptism which he received afterwards?
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It is the work of God which saves, and not by the works of the man.
The Commentary on the Book of Kings IS THE SAME WORK as the Commentary on the Book of Baruch.
As for the Symbol of Rufinus, I’ll admit I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The only references I can find anywhere to any writing of St. Jerome called the Symbol of Rufinus are two Protestant polemicists who cite only exactly what you cited, with no further context, except they refer to a “Ruffinus.” They apparently refer to the same source, since they both have that misspelling (and are both so wholly unfamiliar with Latin as to believe that “Ruffinus” is a plausible Latin name.), and both refer to a page numbering certainly alien to any original work of Jerome’s.
Jerome wrote four letters to three different people named Rufinus; I can find nothing refering to any of these letters as “The Symbol of Rufinus,” and no content in them matching your assertions. I can find 30 Google matches to “Symbol of Rufinus,” but none appear to be related in any way to any work of St. Jerome’s. Most refer to an early version of the Creed. I’m thinking you really ought to check primary sources.
>> It’s a good thing that we are saved by grace, and not through any dead sacrament from the Romans, who think salvation can be bought with a gesture, a properly timed bow, a chant to a dead Christian, and, finally, with their very own stomachs. <<
Can anyone be so unfamiliar with the sacrament of confession? It is no gesture, bow or chant. It is a declaration of a contrite heart, and a statement of the desire to convert (which means to “turn away from”) sin, and has no effect if it is not sincere. You will most definitely find in the bible an insistence that sinners must have a contrite heart and must confess their sins. The bible also says that the Christian communities must not admit amongst themselves one who persists in grace sin. That is the priest’s role in the sacrament: God forgives sin, but the priest re-admits the contrite. For minor sins, it is not necessary, only spiritually beneficial, that confession involve a priest. For grave sins, a priest must hear the confession. But insincerely confessing only to gain readmittance only heaps more sin upon one’s soul; insincere confessions are ineffective, so they in no way resemble the empty rituals of the pagans.
“Can anyone be so unfamiliar with the sacrament of confession?”
You are wonderfully good at missing the point to focus on some irrelevant matter. I didn’t mention the sacrament of confession. Though, there is no such thing in the Bible, if you wish to speak of it. At least, so far as confessing to a Priest is involved. I was refuting the very basis of Romanist means of salvation, which they argue is an act of man, won through formulas, rituals, and eating wafers.
Respond to that, and my evidences for it. Don’t waste my time with irrelevant commentary about Roman traditions.
“The Commentary on the Book of Kings IS THE SAME WORK as the Commentary on the Book of Baruch.”
It is irrelevant, since Baruch uncanons itself. But, I still say you are confused over what books we are even talking about, and what preface to what. I’m not sure why we’re talking about it in this thread now, either.
Oops, after going through my history, I guess this was the thread where Apocrypha came up. I’m having multiple debates with multiple people on the same subject, and confused myself.
Papal Mass (semi-vanity)
Letter #50: Hummes (Vatican releases Booklet for Pope Francis' Installation)
Is Pope Francis a Liturgical Liberal?
Pope Francis Warns Against "Demonic Worldliness"
A look at Pope Francis' schedule for next few months
Is Pope Francis a fraud? (That didn't take long)
Faith Of Our Fathers (Prayers in Song for Pope Francis) [Catholic Caucus]
Fatima Shrine recalls Pope Francis' sponsorship of the Pilgrim Image of the Virgin of Fatima
A great story of Jorge Bergoglio and a poor widow who wanted her children baptized
Former SSPX seminarian constant companion of Pope Francis
Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "Letter On the Year of Faith" (Crossing Threshold of Faith)
Pope Francis takes over Vatican's top secret dossiers (Fr. Georg tasked with guiding Bergoglio)
THE FULL PAPAL MASS AT SANTA ANNA'S PARISH THIS MORNING (laity kneel to receive)
Liberals will soon turn on Pope Francis
Letter #49: Black Shoes (Curia Officials Reappointed ... But ... only temporarily!)
Opening Wartime Archives? (Pope Francis will open Pope Pius XII - Shoah - WWII-era archives)
Pope Francis Speaks of God’s Mercy at First Sunday Angelus
Weigel thinks Pope Francis embodies Church's future
Oh, we are in deep, deep trouble
Pope explains name, urges 'church for the poor'
Pope Francis' first moves hint at break with past
A Pope of Contradictions
Evangelist Luis Palau: New Pope Francis a Friend of Evangelicals
A Pope for All Christians
Consolation for Boston Catholics? (Pope immediately bans Cardinal Law from St. Mary Major)
Quotes from Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, on 7 Moral Issues
Pope to journalists: 'I love you so much and I thank you for everything'
Letter #48: Old Age (Papal Apartments opened, Pope visits local hospital)
Jesuit doorman surprised by Pope's phone call
Pope Francis on mass media and name
Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople to Attend Papal Installation Mass
Pope Francis in Motion
Who is Pope Francis? A compilation from many news reports.
"Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil." Homily of the Holy Father Pope Francis
Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi will represent the United States at Pope Francis’ Inaugural Mass
Beijing Cautions New Pope on Meddling in China
For the First Time Since the Great Schism, Ecumenical Patriarch to Attend Pope's Inaugural Mass
Ann Barnhardt on Pope Francis
New Pope snubs Cardinal Law
Pope Francis seen as humble man who can unite, rebuild Church
Pope Francis – the real deal – has Audience with Cardinals
Pope Francis—The Journey Begins
Report: Pope Francis bans disgraced Cardinal Law from his church
Pope tells cardinals: discover new ways to evangelize
Does this pope sound like a liberal to YOU?
Pope Francis could renew Catholicism in Americas, says Knights' chief
Letter #47: To Mary (Pope Francis prays at (tomb of Pope St. Pius V) [Catholic Caucus]
Pope To cardinals: Don't Give In To Devil's "Bitterness" And "Pessimism"
Pope Pays His Hotel Bill
Newly elected Pope knows Ukrainian Catholic Church, its Liturgy & Spirituality (Ecumenical)
'Go and Repair My House'
Why Did Pope Francis Go to St Mary Major?
Argentine priest kidnapped in Dirty War reconciled w/ Pope Francis (Don't blame Pope for Pinochet)
Weigel: "Bergoglio is an Old-School Jesuit, Formed by Classic Ignatian Spirituality..."
Vatican Responds to Accusations About Cardinal Bergoglio and the "Dirty War"
Pope Francis Knows What Must Be Done
Pope Francis tied up in Argentina's 'dirty war' debate
Pope Francis and the Traditional Liturgy
Links of Pope Francis to military dictatorship
Cardinal Bergoglio wrote to Fr. Gruner about Fatima [Catholic Caucus]
Why Pope Francis May Be a Catholic Nightmare [barf alert]
Pope Francis I: It’s All In the Name
Vatican official: Gay marriage a “revolutionary project” for “complete destruction of the family”
Pope Francis, and Blessed Aloysius and Blessed Agnellus: how the saints chose Bergoglio for pope
The Future Pope Francis: Additional Interviews and Writings
Pope Francis – What’s in a Name?
Pope Francis Warns Church Could Become 'Compassionate NGO'
Jesuits Surprised that First of Their Brethren is Elected Pope
World Jewish Congress head praises Pope Francis (Jewish-Catholic ties "best in 2,000 years")
How Summorum Pontificum was blocked and trampled on in Buenos Aires
Slaves of the Immac. Heart of Mary Profess Our Filial Submission to Pope Francis (Catholic Caucus)
Gay Advocacy Groups Rush to Demonize Pope Francis
Traditionalists and Pope Francis: Can We Take a Deep Breath and Please Calm Down?
What I would have said at the Consistory: An interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Pope Francis Offers His Second Blessing to Pregnant Mom, Unborn Baby
Cdl. Bergoglio's Lenten Letter, 2013
UPDATE: Rorate Caeli’s diatribe against Pope Francis [Catholic Caucus]
Pope Francis: A Disappointment for Catholics Who Don't Like Being Catholic
Updates on Pope Francis’ first day as Pope – Great moments! (truly humble man)
New Pope Slips Out Of Vatican For morning Prayer Visit
Our First American Pope
Pope Francis I clear on denying Communion to those who facilitate in abortion
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Profession: Servant of the Servants of God
EDITORIAL:Pope Francis I bridges conservative and progressive currents
New Pope Francis called homosexual ‘marriage’ a ‘machination of the Father of Lies’
Pope Francis Is First Catholic Pontiff From The Americas; He Is Known As A Humble Intellectual
New Pope lived simple life in Argentina
"Lowly, And Yet Chosen," Enter Pope Francis (some phenomenal firsts with this election)
10 Facts about Pope Francis
Vatican Web Site Updated
Full Text of Pope Francis’ Opening Address to Catholic Faithful
9 things you should know about Pope Francis
Pope Francis I promises to be strong pro-life world leader
New Pope celebrated Hanukkah as well as Christmas
New Pope- enemy of Catholic tradition
As Cardinal, Pope Francis condemned abortion even in rape cases
Profile: New pope, Jesuit Bergoglio, was runner-up in 2005 conclave
Jorge Mario Bergoglio elected pope, takes Francis as name
Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio: a Profile
HABEMUS PAPAM!!! (Live Thread)
In North America, evangelicals often deal with Roman Catholics who have been raised in a Protestant culture and, quite frankly, act better and believe better things than Roman Catholics in traditionally Catholic areas. It's hard to find someplace in the modern world where traditional Roman Catholic culture has more influence than Latin America — Poland and Ireland are the only places I can think of at the moment — and traditional Roman Catholic culture very often displays the same sorts of things against which the Reformation fought.
Regardless, the new Pope deserves time to make his views known. A conservative Pope can be expected to be faithful to the magisterium of his church, and while that's a very good thing on pro-life and culture war issues, the Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II created real problems for Protestants who might want to have close ties with Roman Catholicism.
To be more specific, the Catholic Church not only believes, but declares, that outside the Catholic Church there in no salvation.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus... Not so much “outside” as “without.” Even the Council of Trent recognized the existence of a baptism of desire.
Correct. But nobody who is aware of the Catholic religion and EECNS, yet refuses to convert, is covered by that tiny umbrella of “desire”.
Not exactly as tiny as you might think.
The Council of Trent anathematized all Protestants, but that’s easily taken out of context.
At the time of the Council of Trent, all Protestants lived in traditionally Catholic lands, and had been raised up as Catholics, instructed in the Catholic faith. To become a Protestant was to literally wage war against the Catholic Church: Calvin prohibited the Catholic mass and Luther proclaimed that real Christians should rather be conquered by Islam than remain under the Vatican. (Yes, he changed his mind about that.)
Contrarily, by the 2nd Vatican Council, Protestants were mostly raised as Protestants, by Protestant fathers and mothers, taught Protestant theology and taught layers upon layers upon layers of counter-Catholic doctrine, interpretation, and even vocabulary. How much easier it is for someone to deeply desire Christ but yet be held back from the Catholic church, than from the days when assassins of children were celebrated as Protestant heroes!
Rom 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Key phrase, not of him that WILLETH, or even he who runneth, but God who sheweth mercy.
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Repentance itself is a gift from God.
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.