Pope Francis greets the faithful at the May 8 General Audience (Credit: CNA / Stephen Driscoll)
Posted on 09/07/2013 3:49:35 PM PDT by NYer
.- In his daily homily on Saturday, Pope Francis reflected on the question of authentic Christianity and rejected the practice of focusing more on devotions than on Christ himself.
Jesus is “the center” of faith, said the Pope. “A commandment is valid if it comes from Jesus: I do this because the Lord wants me to do this. But if I am a Christian without Christ, I do this and I don’t know why I have to do it,” he said to the congregation at the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta on September 7.
Like the Pharisees, he said, there are some people who “make so many commandments the center of their religiosity.”
Others who have a false sense of religiosity “only seek devotions” or “things that are a little uncommon, a little special, that go back to private revelations,” noted Pope Francis.
“If your devotions bring you to Christ, that works. But if you remain there, something’s wrong,” he explained.
“If Jesus is not at the center, there will be many other things,” so that people become “Christians without Christ.”
Remembering that Jesus is the center of faith “regenerates us, grounds us.”
Pope Francis further explained the mark of a true “Christian with Christ.”
“The rule is simple: only that which brings you to Jesus is valid, and only that is valid that comes from Jesus. Jesus is the center, the Lord, as He Himself says.”
Christians can avoid false religiosity by adoring Jesus as “the Lord, the only Lord.”
“If you aren’t able to adore Jesus, you’re missing something,” warned Pope Francis.
The sign of a true “Christian with Christ” is one who does “that which comes from Jesus” and that which leads to Jesus.
Such adoration bears true fruit in the life of a Christian, encouraged the Pope.
He said that Jesus also gives “the grace of loving Him so much, of following Him, of going along the path that He has shown us.”
A “Christian with Christ” has the courage to proclaim Jesus as Lord.
Pope Francis exhorted Catholics not to focus on false piety, but rather evangelize and “take the Gospel!”
If the RCC taught angels, then what is there to judge them for? Seems they would already KNOW everything you know. And do those things in order to KEEP from being judged.
THen you’re going to have to take it up with GOd. Because His Word says: “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN by the church the manifold wisdom of God.”
Let me know what He says..
For the life of me I can’t understand why people fall for the lies of the RCC like they do.
They're stupid. Well, on the Internet everyone's stupider than you!
Nah, I would never call someone stupid. If I thought they were stupid I would understand how they would believe the lies of the RCC. Most here I believe are intelligent but still fall for the deceit.
“I did mention that the King James Version was translated directly from the original didn’t I?”
What would it matter if you did?
“I also mentioned the fact that checking the original text is rather helpful. The Revised Standard Version was translated from the Codex Sinaiticus which is much later around the fourth century.”
The KJV OT was based on the a 16th century printed texts if you believe Scrivener in section II his 1884 book, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611. So, were those texts older than a text from the 4th century? Not likely. They even used the Septuagint and Latin Vulgates.
“I found it interesting that you compared the English versions for the Protestants but try to impugn the Protestants by claiming you read in the Latin. Once again. I find your duplicity a little troublesome.”
There was no duplicity. I used two Protestant versions - which have two different renderings to make a simple point. How can Protestants have different Bibles and yet none of them is supposedly interpreting the Bible as they translate it? Also, I said I read the Bible in Latin because I read the Bible in Latin. I impugned no one with that comment. Your comment is ridiculous.
“If the RCC taught angels, then what is there to judge them for?”
Two choirs of angels are mentioned in Ephesians 3:10. There are 7 others that we know - and that is not necessarily counting fallen angels.
“Seems they would already KNOW everything you know.”
It’s not about what I know. It’s about what God has the Church manifest to the angels.
“And do those things in order to KEEP from being judged.”
How would those already fallen angels reverse their own choice to be fallen? They can’t. They already made their choice.
Moist heat works wonders for mastitis.
Don’t ask......
Do these Protestant scholars agree with you?:
Amplified: [The purpose is] that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
Barclay: It was kept secret up till now in order that now the many-coloured wisdom of God should be made known through the Church to the rulers and powers in the heavenly places; (Westminster Press)
KJV: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
NET: The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms. (NET Bible)
NLT: The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: The purpose is that all the angelic powers should now see the complex wisdom of God’s plan being worked out through the Church, (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: in order that there might be made known now to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the intermediate agency of the Church the much-variegated wisdom of God, (Eerdmans)
Young’s Literal: that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly places, through the assembly, the manifold wisdom of God, http://www.preceptaustin.org/ephesians_310.htm
Revolting cat!, talk about "fervant bashers," even due to lack of apostrophes it seems. But such an offensive avoids dealing with the fact that it is RCs who are incessantly advertizing and promoting Rome as the elite one and only true church, and often attacking Prot. beliefs, but then complain when strongly opposed much.
There is plenty of criticism, debate and critique within the Catholic Church, thank you too much for your heartfelt concern.
That is not what we see confessed much here, but at least you do affirm that there is plenty of criticism, debate and critique within the Catholic Church, now that the Inquisition with its carnal means has ruin its course. To hear some RCs talk you would think they do not need to engage in varying degrees of interpretation of Rome, and what is infallible, and what allows some dissent, etc.
. So why don’t you go and challenge your cousins in heresy. Like those that would rather see their child die than to give her an aspirin pill.l
Why don't RC stop using FR as a papal promotion publisher? And actually, such aberrant souls as you mention are often your cousins in heresy, as like Rome, they effectively operate out of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme assuredly faithful authority, with the only interpretation that has any authority being theirs.
And they reject the need to establish truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation and do not welcome corporate examination thereby, and instead they deny that they as individuals could be wrong. And which sola singularis the pope is the epitome of, for he claims he cannot be wrong if he speaks according to a certain scope and subject-based formula, and who can depose him, or have authority without his consent?
Moreover, fundamental evangelicalism has overall historically manifested a common front for basic core truths and against such cults, as well as against the additions of Rome. And even in the latter day apostasy of the church its offspring is far more conservative than Catholics , which counts and treats as members the most liberal of them. Thus both liberals and Rome counts conservative evangelicalism as their enemy. .
So, majority vote is enough for the Holy Spirit?
It would be reasonable to conclude that if the magisterium were truly being guided by the Holy Spirit, there would be unanimity. But they're not.
So how is one to be sure that the majority vote is the one which is Holy Spirit guided? Maybe it's the minority vote which really has the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Goes to show that you can't trust the system.
“For the life of me I can’t understand why people fall for the lies of the RCC like they do.”
Lies? Gee, so Protestants fall for Catholic “lies”?
Seeing Protestants at FR talk about lying is hilarious after what happened here just recently.
Amplified: [The purpose is] that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere. (Amplified Bible - Lockman)
Barclay: It was kept secret up till now in order that now the many-coloured wisdom of God should be made known through the Church to the rulers and powers in the heavenly places; (Westminster Press)
KJV: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
NET: The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms. (NET Bible)
NLT: The purpose of this enlightenment is that through the church the multifaceted wisdom of God should now be disclosed to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly realms. (NLT - Tyndale House)
Phillips: The purpose is that all the angelic powers should now see the complex wisdom of God’s plan being worked out through the Church, (Phillips: Touchstone)
Wuest: in order that there might be made known now to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the intermediate agency of the Church the much-variegated wisdom of God, (Eerdmans)
Young’s Literal: that there might be made known now to the principalities and the authorities in the heavenly places, through the assembly, the manifold wisdom of God, http://www.preceptaustin.org/ephesians_310.htm
Nope. It was translated using the Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the Minority Texts (like Vatican and Sinai) favored by the Roman Catholic Church. [http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/]
“So, majority vote is enough for the Holy Spirit?”
If it were, then Arianism probably would have won in the 4th century.
“It would be reasonable to conclude that if the magisterium were truly being guided by the Holy Spirit, there would be unanimity. But they’re not.”
That would be “there isn’t” not “they’re not”, but when and where it counts there is unanimity.
“So how is one to be sure that the majority vote is the one which is Holy Spirit guided?”
I have no idea where you’re getting this “majority vote” thing from.
“Maybe it’s the minority vote which really has the leading of the Holy Spirit.”
Maybe you just have no idea of what you’re talking about.
“Goes to show that you can’t trust the system.”
It isn’t a system. It’s the Holy Spirit. He moves in ways mysterious does He not?
Hmmm.
The Latin Vulgate is a translation from the Greek.
Current English Bibles, including the KJV, are translations from the Greek.
But the Latin is better because it’s translated from the Greek than the English versions also translated from the Greek.
Sure.
Makes perfect sense......
(And I shouldn’t have to add the /s but considering the neighborhood, I do think that I need to.)
“Nope. It was translated using the Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence.”
You’re relying on a KJVOnly website for your info?
Okay, look here: http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/older_better.html/
They admit that the Codex Sinaiticus is older than the texts used for the KJV. The excuses they make after that amount to nothing.
LOL I never could understand how the Holy Spirit worked with part of the group dissenting. If they are guided by the Holy Spirit then all would be in sync. The Holy Spirit doesn’t work through majority vote.
Dude, we have been saying all along that it was what God did by extending the salvation message to the Gentiles/church that amazed the angels and showed them the amazing grace and working of God. Not one of those says the “church” taught the angels. They are saying the angels learned because of what God did with the church. BIG difference. You’re digging your hole deeper here.
“Dude, we have been saying all along that it was what God did by extending the salvation message to the Gentiles/church that amazed the angels and showed them the amazing grace and working of God. Not one of those says the “church” taught the angels. They are saying the angels learned because of what God did with the church. BIG difference. You’re digging your hole deeper here.”
Really? So the angels “learned because of what God did with the church” (as you put it) but no one was teaching them? Learning was going on, but no teaching was going on? I sure hope you don’t run a school.
NO they don’t. Do you even understand what you read? Here’s the paragraph from the site you sent me to.
It is interesting to note that these two manuscripts are NOT older than the earliest versions of the Bible (the Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian), all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible. These anient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus; so the "older is better" argument should not be used.<
Seems you’re still digging that hole and you really need to stop.
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.