Posted on 03/28/2013 5:58:16 AM PDT by markomalley
Pope Francis has said in his Chrism Mass homily that self-help courses can turn Catholics into “Pelagians” who “minimise the power of grace”.
The Pope said at a Mass in St Peter’s Basilica attended by about 1,600 priests that “it is not in soul-searching or constant introspection that we encounter the Lord”.
He said: “Self-help courses can be useful in life, but to live by going from one course to another, from one method to another, leads us to become Pelagians and to minimise the power of grace, which comes alive and flourishes to the extent that we, in faith, go out and give ourselves and the Gospel to others.” The Pelagian heresy, popular in the fifth century, holds that people are capable of choosing good without the grace of God.
In his homily, Pope Francis urged priests to “go out” and to live “in the midst of their flock”. He said that, like the “anointed ones”, Isaiah, David and Christ, priests are anounted so that they, in turn, can anount the faithful.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
No, that's one thing I learned long ago not to do.
I already challenged you
Ooooooohhhhhh. You 'challenged' me. What makes you think I give a rip for your challenge or your personal interpretation of Scripture?
You can 'challenge' all you like. It matters not.
The real question here is whether you fancy your interpretations of Scripture or understanding of doctrine to be infallible and inerrant. One who rails against "Popery" would do well not to set himself up as an ersatz "pope".
Personal attack much?
It is the last resort of someone without facts on their side.
The cereal box in this context is insane (like the maker of the cartoon himself went insane?) with the joke being upon yourself this time around, for I wasn't following or quoting that [ahem] 'heretic' Luther...but you were.
Just about the time I think I'd seen everything, some one comes along and shoots themselves in the foot with a cereal box.
“What makes you think I give a rip for your challenge”
What makes you think I thought you gave a rip about my challenge and defending yourself with logical arguments? If I had thought that, I’d be nicer to you.
Just keep on making clown faces. Kinda got used to it with the half dozen from the other Romanists.
ROFL!!!
Luke 6:32-36.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
But let us go back to the story that in told in Genesis 3. The serpent tempts the women with this promise: “For God knoweth that in what day soever you shall eat thereof,your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was go to eat and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold; and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat and gave it to her husband who did eat. And they eyes of both of them were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, .....” And when God questioned them, and Adam blamed Eve and Ever the Serpent, he cursed them all, for the servant, and he told the servant that it would be the woman’s seed who would crush his head. To the woman he promises she shall suffer many things and be under her husband;s dominion. He in turn, shall lose his place in the garden, and return to dust. And Adam called the name of his wife, Eeve,because she was the mother of all the living.
Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.
Luther was not being a heretic when he spoke of Mary, much as Tertullian was no heretic till he also broke with the Church.
Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God's grace of salvation.
Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God's grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an "irresistible" compulsion.
Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.
Francis I is making waves.
I imagine Dr Phil will come out against him any day now. :>)
I love it: Grace instead of “emotional intelligence”
Preach it, Brother Francis!
go practice your “christianity” your own way, leave others alone..unless you consider your criticisms your form of evangelization."
The great majority of threads around here are begun by folks who wrongly claim Rome's superiority. The threads extol the virtues of a "pope", the number of "Tiber-swimmings", or some kooky sighting of Mary on a pancake. But, irrespective of what it believes about itself, the Roman Catholic Church does not teach biblical Christianity. It teaches a tradition-controlled "religion" akin to modern Judaism 2.0.
Whenever there are "priests" involved (sacerdotalism), papalism (chief priest), sacraments (sacrificing), indulgences, purgatory, genuflecting, absolution, etc. there is a return to law and religion. The RCC in many ways mimics the misunderstanding that the Jews held of the Mosaic Law in the first century AD and thus copies it with ceremony, ritual, tradition (Mishna & Midrashim). This overlay has led it away from the truths Paul explains in the very Book the RCC claims to have delivered to the world. Yet, another error it has made.
Those FReepers who understand the message of the Scriptures, do not wish to be "nasty". At least none that I am aware of. We wish to set the record straight pointing out the error of the Roman doctrines and attempting to offer the alternative of Jesus Christ, alone. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and that not of yourselves...
Now, several RCs do get nasty. Perhaps they are threatened. I don't know. But, we will continue to present the truth with the hope that if God has elected them and permits them to see the truth, they will escape the clutches of Rome and find freedom in Christ. But, that is His work not ours.
Nevertheless, just as Paul continued to present the Gospel in the face of the Judaizers, we will continue to present the Gospel in the face of the RCC.
This is how you challenge what I just took pains to go over in detail?
What is this? How does it relate? Provide basis instead of simple assertion. Semi divine... show us the way (of your thinking). Though we shall be with Him and reconciled, shall we not remain always as created beings? If being in His light & presence, and conformed more towards His image is "semi-divine", then ok. Otherwise...explain what it is you mean.
But this has very little to do with any of our own present or future status of divinity, semi- or otherwise with the Lord, and EVERYTHING to do with Mary's "semi-divinity" doesn't it? The trouble with that sort of thing, is all sorts of nonsense enters into the mix following, leading one right back to praying TO Mary imploring her own intercession and more. Which sort of thing is not spoken towards approvingly in either the OT or NT texts -- and in fact can be seen to be prohibited when such ideas or practice arise. How much does all this, said to be limited to "veneration" and praying towards someone or some thing in heaven other than the heavenly Father simply replace more basic direct, positive instruction such as Christ telling us to pray to the Father (Creator) in his name, many wonder. The answers and justifications for the practice continually convince myself and many others of the superfluity of the practice. One needn't keep staring at Mary in adoration, to be reminded of Christ's own humanity, though that is one of the many excuses or justifications offered defending the entirely biblically unsupported practice of going far beyond the recognition of her, to praying to her rather than to our Creator.
As to waxing poetical, By what right do your say this?
Where else did he get the information? Precise citation and documentation, please, if such ideas came to him from elsewhere. Or was it...his own private revelation? or just merely his own thoughts on the matter, which I have every "right" to consider this latter to be the case, even if others have been very carefully trained and instructed to never fully confront what it is they are being told to believe -- with investigation if pursued only rewarded for finding agreement and support of RCC doctrines, (whatever they are) and anything contrary put down in dozens of ways.
I also have the right to stand up and say that such as what you bring of Irenaeus, is seemingly being regarded as holy writ, even by you as you seek to establish further basis and justification of Marian doctrine. I JUST SHOWED in previous reply such to be true, even to how "tradition" is utilized to directly countermand or significantly alter that which is holy writ, and not tradition. What I see time and again, are cases of mistaken identity, taking many forms, with in the instance I provided, Eve being substituted for Adam as the one by which sin entered the world (according to rhetoric in far-flung corners of the RCC) when by scripture, it was not by "one woman" at all, but by "one man", Adam, that sin is said to have entered the world. Even the scripture itself had been altered by the RCC in Genesis 3:15 in support of Marionism, putting the serpents head not under "the seed of the woman's heel" spoken of as being a "him" (Christ?) but under her own heel more directly in the Douay versions, with the more modern approved versions having settled upon using the word "they" shall bruise the serpents head. Now THAT, is the RCC's own private interpretation of scripture going so far as to tamper with the very scripture itself, in support of it's own interpretation.
But that's the trouble with Marionism, it keeps taking different forms, and unless or until all the multitudinous errors both large and small (oh, and many of great subtlty!) perpetrated in the ever-vigorous effort to expand and/or retain prior expansions of Marionism is challenged, dragged out into the light and examined, the flaws inherent to the process will remain accepted, leading a great many away from the truth. We are interested in the real truths of the matter, aren't we?
And by what right do you say that Paul was doing more than using an image, for
WHAT sort of twisted question is THAT? "using more than one image"? The last part, which too are your own words, not mine: "Jesus as the one who repaired what Adam had torn", makes more sense in light of the scripture I brought. But if you must ask why, try reading Paul again. Perhaps it will sink in...he went over it, time and time again.
Romans 5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand about the above, but I have suspicions as to why, and keep encountering confirmation of some of the worst of those suspicions.
What I was establishing, was that it was by the sin of one man, Adam (not the sin of one woman, Eve) that the Hebrew writ (and Paul, himself a Hebrew well acquainted with the Law) tells us that is so, and that is by the obedience of one man, Christ, that God's grace is extended towards us. Obedience of Mary, or much anyone else (in this narrow context) is simply not touched upon. If we do look towards others obedience, we see time & again the recurrence of them hearing the word of God, and believing. Yet it necessary we believe in only one of them, with all others subordinate to the larger holy purpose;
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
Let us not confuse others whom come to us, even the Church itself, with being the One "whom He hath sent", for that too is an error of misidentification committed by many.
Adam now has the woman under his dominion, but with Mary it is no longer so, for “I know not man.” She is not under the curse.
The above sentences leaves one near speachless for it's audacity. She is not "under the curse",you say? ...which it can be assumed is the curse of being born under the curse of sin, which is common to all flesh (unto this day)...because...she was a virgin? That simply doesn't fly, from the same folks who BAPTIZE BABIES!!!
Mary by her own words of acceptance and gratitude, confessed Christ, even the son she would give birth to, as being her Savior. If it be true that she alone, of all humans who have ever lived, this one Daughter of Israel be born not under the curse of Adam, then why would she need a Savior? Why would she speak of "God my Savior"? But here we bump up against yet more hyper-Marionism, this idea now set in stone as it were, with it going far beyond revering her as fully human mother of the Incarnation of Christ...
But I see the cult (of Mary) hidden in plain sight right in the middle of the RCC, has done it's work well, inducing each under it's thrall to twist scripture fully away from origins of context (the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian construct) at each opportunity to elevate this one person [Mary] above all others, far beyond being merely spoken of and honored more than all other women.
Putting that aside...can you agree with Paul that it was by one man that sin entered the world? Or must the error of attributing the crime to Eve continue, so as to be theological counterpoint to Mary's own salvic "powers" so widely attributed to her from within the RCC?
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE." 2 Tim. 4:2.
We are not called to aggravate. We are called to preach the gospel of the grace of God. If that offends someone, then so be it. The Cross should convict people of their spiritual condition, not aggravate them.
2 Cor.5:14-21 is our commission to the lost. God is offering His reconciliation to fallen man through the finished work of Christ on our behalf. We are to proclaim it in Christ's stead. If it is rejected once it is heard, that person can never stand before God and declare that he never heard the gospel of God's grace.
"...and having done all, to STAND." Ephesians 6:13.
The point is not that I myself considered Luther a heretic, but that as he is accused of having his own private interpretation (which is the subject matter of the cereal box cartoon), such was being employed towards myself for offering some counterpoint to Luther's own "ponderings", which though he be otherwise labeled a heretic by Roman Catholics --- we are supposed to take to heart as gospel truth, or accept as some refutation of what I've been saying here...
If you can't see that, or must insist that Luther and others be possibly correct upon occassion (but not always) it also follows that I could be quite correct in that which I myself am espousing, but which is dismissed without or before examination.
otherwise, the rude cartoon is just so much more fingers in the ears, la-la-lah, I can't hear you type of comment, or else some form of dismissal based upon personality, rather than the subject matter and ideas under discussion, for you yourself have made the distinction that Luther was in your own eyes, correct in part.
It is as if it not be dared to consider what such as myself may be talking about, but at the same moment I myself must accept what this person (Luther), otherwise labeled to be heretical by Roman Catholics, is saying at one juncture, while also at the very same instant be myself subjected to some form of rebuttal for allegedly doing as he is said to have done.
There is far too much mixed-message special pleadings which must be incorporated by the presenter of the presentation, to have the same sets of logic sought to apply towards myself, not apply in similar measurement to even their own argument of dismissal towards myself, all of which makes the presentation of the cereal box cartoon specious, for it relies upon the very sort of special pleading you bring, to not have it simply blow up in the face of the presenter, and yourself also, since you decided to chime in concerning it.
Ping to 171
No paintings or photographs in your house? Kids shouldn't be allowed to draw or colour what they see or is in their hearts? No sculptures? How about National Geographic? Are they breaking God's law?
When the people complained and murmured about the bread which came down from heaven, God sent them a severe punishment: "...In punishment the LORD sent among the people saraph serpents, which bit the people so that many of them died. Then the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned in complaining against the LORD and you. Pray the LORD to take the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people, and the LORD said to Moses, "Make a saraph and mount it on a pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it, he will recover." Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze serpent, he recovered." (Numbers 21:6-9, NAB)
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting." (St. John 3:14-15, DRB)
Are only serpents exempt from this command?
Semipelagianism is the belief that man, by following the example of Christ, can do good works that will somehow earn him, or entitle him, to God's grace of salvation.
Calvinism is the belief that man cannot do good even with the help of God's grace - that grace consists of God forcibly making the elect to perform actions acceptable to Him by an "irresistible" compulsion.
Orthodox Christianity holds that man is deeply flawed by his very nature due to original sin and that he can accomplish no good thing unless God gives him the grace to do so. It likewise holds that grace is a free gift of love and that God asks man to cooperate with His grace - not because He needs man to do so, but because it pleases Him. In other words, we should be slaves (in Calvinist fashion) but He makes us sons by adoption.
I don’t think Catholics are seriously thinking about the consequences of Galatians, Chapter 2, for their entire religion. The twelve, who were commanded by Jesus Christ, to take the Kingdom Gospel to “all the world”, beginning at Jerusalem did something entirely anti-Catholic when Paul went up to Jerusalem and met with them. Once Paul, by revelation, communicated unto them THAT GOSPEL which he preached among the Gentiles (v.2), and they understood that the gospel of the uncircumcision was COMMITTED unto Paul (v. 7), they LOOSED themselves from their command to go into ALL THE WORLD. They gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and agreed that Paul would go to the Gentiles and they would go to the Jews (v.9). THAT IS EPIC. By this one act, there cannot POSSIBLY be apostolic succession that Rome claims. But Rome doesn’t THINK or read the Scriptures and what God plainly states. Because their whole religious system would collapse if they admitted what Galatians plainly states. That Peter, by divine revelation knew that Paul was to go to the Gentiles with his gospel of grace, and Peter and the 11 were to preach their kingdom gospel to the Jews only. Their whole system depends on a succession that does not exist, and has never existed.
Izzy what is the address that I can send the Tim Staples CD to?
We do have Hippolytus, Eusebius and Irenaeus writing a little differently. And, we have the evidence of the traditions of the various Christian settlement, such as the ones in India who trace back to (doubting) Thomas and Bartholomew. There weren't any Jews in India at the time.
All three sources put Peter and Paul in Rome.
Check out http://www.ichthus.info/, which is not a Catholic site. You might be interested in the content.
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.