Posted on 03/19/2013 8:59:25 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
It has been suggested that it is a tragedy for Evangelicals to pray and fast regarding the new pope as called for by Rick Warren.
While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt.
After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.
What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with?
I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing.
Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.
Some might ask the question why should Protestants, especially those of the lowly Baptist variety, enunciate an opinion as to the selection of a new Pope or elaborate an explanation as to why those of that particular theological perspective find the power and authority that ecclesiastical institution has asserted for itself as extra-Biblical and questionably dangerous.
Catholics have every right to select whomever they desire as their head honcho.
However, because that institution has assumed for itself a role beyond administering its own internal affairs and undertaken efforts to exert an influence on the world beyond its ornately decorated walls, in a free society those not belonging to this religious tradition have just as much right to speak out regarding the direction as to how this powerful world body might influence the way in which individuals are able to live their own lives and practice their own beliefs.
For though the way in which the Roman Catholic Church gets the message across might be more subtle than the way in which some Protestants do so, relying more on ceremony and glitz rather than a blunt in your face letting you know what they feel and believe regarding the issue often in a gruff and tactless manner, the opposition of the leadership to Protestantism is just as ingrained.
For example, Pope Benedict repeatedly emphasized throughout his pontificate that Protestant churches especially were not real churches and at best could only be thought of as errant theological associations.
No big deal, many not practiced in the art of discernment and worldview implication might conclude.
After all, everyone from the Pope down to the raving village atheist thinks the spiritual path they are journeying down is superior to all others.
However, one may need to stop to reflect for a moment what is being said here.
To the Protestant, the ideal that those of this persuasion endeavor to strive for can be found in Romans 10:13: “For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
By this, it is believed that there is no mediator between God and man other than Christ Himself for those that believe Jesus as the only Begotten Son of God died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead so that those placing their faith solely in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.
However, official institutionalized Catholicism pretty much holds that their’s is the only game in town determining who it is that will be rewarded with the prize or gift of salvation.
This the organization does in part through its system of sacraments.
So what the Church is really saying when it denies communion to all but those on its own membership roles is not so much that we think it’s best if you participate in this solemn event with those that can better attest to the validity of your faith experience or worthiness of character but rather that you aren’t even a fellow Christian at all.
If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?
One would hope that no one in their right mind would find the violent acrimony of the past where individuals on either side of the divide were often deprived of property, opportunity, and even their very lives all in Christ’s name a worthy situation to return to.
However, neither are Christians obligated to go out of their way refusing to admit that profound religious differences still exist that are better off left in place for the sake of the entire world at least until Christ Himself returns to set hearts and minds straight and to sort out the mess we as fallen human beings have made of this world.
So true. They are not as bad as the Creation v Evolution threads of yore though. Now those were vicious rumbles!
...they sure were...usually it would take all of three posts to get the namecalling going, generally from the evo side, but not always...
This fundamentally fails to recognize God Himself. He isn't dead to His Body. He chooses who will specific spiritual gifts. Even a conclave of Bishops lacks the power to give something they do not possess.
If they choose to select a particular person to lead their denomination, they have that authority, but it is only a worldly authority and not Divinely instituted. Within that constraint, there is nothing wrong with the last Pope resigning.
It further manifests the RCC isn't a Divinely established institution, but simply another denomination of believers who have formed a worldly institution.
The Body of Christ still has many different members and as a whole they form His Bride.
You get all that from a Baptist observing the Catholic Pope is chosen by Catholics?
"Errant theological associations" is putting words in someone else's mouth. That's not a phrase the Pope used. The usual term is "ecclesial communities".
Meanwhile, Calvinist theologian John Gerstner calls the Pope's church a "synagogue of Satan". The official doctrinal statements of two American Lutheran groups call the Pope "Antichrist". There are many other examples. "Errant theological associations" seems pretty tame by comparison.
Its the first time I’ve noticed either of the secular/ protestant worlds want to get involved, in some way, in electing the Pope. Rick Warrens suggestion goes hand in hand with questions by an AP reporter to the State Department. The reporter compared the election of the Pope with Iran’s...
Not always. We went to a Russian Orthodox/Catholic wedding in an Orthodox Mass where the Catholics were invited to receive. But then we also attended a Greek Orthodox/Catholic wedding where it looked like the Groom (Catholic) received but none of the other Catholics present did. We actually wondered if the groom had converted but according to his mother, he hadn't.
Agreed. As the head of a billion plus Christian organization, a steadfastly pro-life, pro-traditional marriage pope solidifies and can mobilize a lot of people in that direction. And protestants with those values benefit from many like minded people supporting those goals. So it is fine for Protestants to pray for a leader who supports these values.
I don't really like the title. Who, really, is going to stop Protestants from having an opinion on the new pope? The thought police???
The question should be phrased: "When should Catholics care about Protestant opinions regarding the new pope?"
“The Miracle Of The Bells”. Kinda schmaltzy. But I like it.
he won't...there are Anglican priests coming back into the Catholic church and they, of course, being married will be fully accepted into Catholicism...
correct
wrong again!!! The Catholic Church existed for one thousand six hundred years before there was a "denomination" to recon with...
Any Christian is able to observe this when in fellowship with God. He might be a popular figure amongst those electing him, but this simply manifests he doesn’t have any Divine Authority other than that of any other believer and their unique spiritual gifts given by God.
Ahhh, the contradiction of Core. There's no heresy like an old heresy, eh?
And people say non-Catholics have no sense of Tradition.
Well the proof is right here where someone clearly states the same heresy Core stated which proves non-Catholics love the old, traditional, clearly described as a heresy, tried, time tested, clearly condemned heresies. Now, that's Tradition with a capital T.
It isn’t heretical that God provides a human spirit to His believers.
Why substitute God’s action with religious worldly institutional intervention?
Even Matthias wasn’t properly established as an Apostle by the same methods of the recent Conclave.
How would you prevent it?
People have opinions. It is the way we are made.
Take it up with God if you don't like it but I am pretty sure He took down the suggestion box on this issue quite a while ago.
It is heresy to follow Core and assert that there is no need for a priesthood.
It is heresy to deny words directly from the mouth of Christ Himself.
It is heresy to deny that Christ Himself founded a visible Church to be a light on a hill, not something invisible and therefore much worse than a candle under a bushel basket.
have a nice day
Nobody is denying our Lord Christ Jesus.
Scripture is used to communicate the Word of God, which is then used by God the Holy Spirit to sanctify the believer.
Jesus Christ never authorized the Apocrypha, nor were they given in the Hebrew Canon, nor were they considered a part of the Canon by earlier Catholic Councils. They were not written by Prophets, so they are not the Word of God. If one were to be consistent, then a countercharge could be leveled that anybody adding the Apochypha to Scripture is heretical.
As believers through faith in Christ we all are part of His Royal Priesthood. It is heretical to imply believers are not part of that Royal Family.
Well then, “this is my body” means what it says because it is a straight forward statement of fact by Christ Himself.
Christ wasn't being figurative when He was describing what He was doing as He did it, it's that simple. So what's this about not denying Jesus Christ? Does that mean someone who doesn't deny Him is free to essentially call Him a liar by trying to find a different meaning for whatever Jesus Christ says that they don't like? How can someone completely ignore, deny, or try to alter the meaning of what Jesus Christ Himself said, things that refute Once Saved Always Saved, that refute Scripture Alone, and that refute Faith Alone, but say they don't deny Him? Approve the Apocrypha? The Scripture Alone crowd bear the burden of showing where Christ or the Apostles ever even implied there were portions of Scripture in use that were not the inspired Word of God. There are three possibilities. One, that there's a list of what should be in the canon that the Holy Spirit did not protect and did not have passed along (which would make Jesus Christ a liar), there were books included in the Scriptures in common use that were not inspired but Scripture isn't important enough for Christ to point that out, or, Scripture Alone is a joke and a very poor joke at that.
Without the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded to establish the canon based on what the Apostles passed down orally there wouldn't be the Bible as we know it. There would be tens of thousands of Bibles just like there are tens of thousands of denominations. Scripture Alone dissolves into Self Alone in very, very, short order. Usually as soon as there's something someone wants the Scripture to condone like infanticide by abortafacient contraceptive or premarital chastity not being any big deal.
So, if one were consistent, if they insist on throwing out the Apocrypha because the Jews did after Jerusalem was destroyed, they'd throw out the New Testament that the Jews don't accept as well. Either the Jews retained authority over the Scripture or they didn't. If they did, there goes the New Testament, and if they didn't there isn't even a shadow of an reason to throw out the Apocrypha that Christ never criticized but did quote. Lack of consistency is actually one of the many huge beams in the eyes of the Self Alone folks, not in the eye of the Catholic Church.
As believers through faith, Christians accept what Scripture says when it says to obey your prelates. They accept what Scripture says about each one having a role and no one being the entire body. They accept the hierarchy of authority clearly created by the Apostles in the New Testament and they accept that just like Moses had a chair, Peter had a chair and like the chair of Moses, that authority is passed down through future generations. They accept that they are not the head of the body free to determine all things with no direction from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded to provide His sheep with shepherds and instruction. That's faith in Christ and His Word. Anything else is part of the strong delusion of SELF ALONE because it imitates Eve, not Christ.
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.