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!”
I accept your points and reject your posture. Catholic Church is none of your business, just as the 7-th Day Adventist theology is none of mine, but like the theology of Jim Jones and others I mentioned is closer to yours, and you and your brethren ought to debate it, and all those other 35,000 sectrs, in my opinion. It is all internal matter of you opponents of Rome, and your arguments with those Harold Campings, who are heroes on television and inside various tents and stadiums until their first big scandal. Then you deny they’re yours.
The Catholic Church, which I don’t promote, despite your insinuation, doesn’t need me, and doesn’t need you.
Fleas biting at a giant.
Finally, about the Communists, who for a century and a half have defined themselves by those they hated, the church (small ‘c’) of capitalism and imperialism, using as their bible Marx’s Das Capital as the holy scripture, with its historical myths, and yes, its prophesies of imminent doomsday and judgment day.
It begins early with the Roman group.
in·doc·tri·nate [in-dok-truh-neyt]
verb (used with object), in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
Synonyms 1. brainwash, propagandize.
That’s right!!!! I’m sorry if you have never learned by observing. It’s an interesting concept that many people take advantage of.
“NO they don’t. Do you even understand what you read?”
Oh, my gosh. Did you even look at the very website you went to first? Here is something from the page I linked to:
SECOND SENTENCE ON THE PAGE!!!!!!!!! “So, let’s examine if OLDER necessarily equates with BETTER, shall we?”
“The evidence shows that both codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) ... Yes, these two codices are older than other Greek manuscripts...”
OLDER. Then they throw in this caveat: “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.”
The Peshitta is NOT Hebrew. The Italic is NOT Hebrew. The Waldensian is NOT Hebrew.
PAY ATTENTION TO THE WEBSITES YOU CHOOSE TO USE and answer your own question: “Do you even understand what you read?”
“That’s right!!!! I’m sorry if you have never learned by observing. It’s an interesting concept that many people take advantage of.”
Learning by observing - means someone is modeling what is being learned. That’s a form of teaching. Maybe you do run a school - a government school.
You need to learn to read:
“Peshitta, Italic, and Waldensian” are said to “all versions which agree with the Textus Receptus,”.
They are NOT the Testus Receptus. You do know the difference between “agree with” and “are”, right?
The hole is all yours and you’re deep down in it.
This whole thing is full of fallacy...I'll just pick a couple so I don't waste all night on it...
Jesus definitely did not fulfill the hope of Israel as their Messiah...Israel rejected him...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
That clear enough for you???
Jesus never told anyone that he was the King...He didn't even have a kingdom to be a King in...
Joh_18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
But it will be...When his kingdom does show up, he will definitely be the King sitting on his Throne...
But with the intention of forming the christians into one body, in which “all members do not have the same function” (Rm 12:4), on the evening of his Resurrection, he sent especially the Apostles, in the same way he was sent by the Father (cf John 20:21); from here originates the doctrine of the “special mandate” of the hierarchy in the Church.
It's another false doctrine made up by your religion...Jesus was addressing the disciples not his 'special' apostles...And there were many disciples
Here's 70 more of those disciples whom Jesus sent out just as the Father sent Jesus...
Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Mat 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
This is a message to ALL the disciples, not just the apostles...
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
You only wish that's what the verse actually said???
2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
OF ME, not from me...Sorry, no oral tradition there... They may fool their pew sitters but they won't fool bible believers...
Your religion doesn't have a clue about the manifold wisdom of God...The only manifold wisdom your religion has is the manifold man made wisdom of human Philosophy...That's the first thing Catholic seminary students study (for 3 years) before they even pick up a bible...
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Of” is a preposition used differently in the KJV than in modern Bible translations.
Here is how the Protestant NASB has it:
2 Timothy 2:2
2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
Your sect is just a latter day, man-invented sect. Deal with it.
There are no priests in the church...Priests were for atonements...To present animal sacrifices to God...There is one High Priest that we all have access to who gave the only sacrifice mankind will ever need...He eliminated the old time priesthood...
There is no longer a need for priests...The sacrifice is done with...It doesn’t have to nor can it be re-presented...Except as a symbol and that certainly isn’t necessary...
It’s not a re-presentation anyway...A video or a stage play of the Crucifixion would be a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus...
They had access to them but they used nothing from those translations...
Where did you get the idea they are both Protestant bibles???
The RSV is from the Westcott Hort corruption which was created using the corrupt, Catholic African manuscripts...
Here is how the Protestant NASB has it:
Nope...NASB is another Catholic bible...Came from the same source, the Catholic African manuscripts...
παρά (para) does not mean from...It means of...ἀπό (apo) means from...Para is the word used for 'of' in 2Tim. 2:2...
You better read Scrivener before you come to that conclusion.
“Where did you get the idea they are both Protestant bibles???”
Because they are.
“The RSV is from the Westcott Hort corruption which was created using the corrupt, Catholic African manuscripts...”
Corrupt Protestant Bibles or not, they are still Protestant Bibles.
“Nope...NASB is another Catholic bible...Came from the same source, the Catholic African manuscripts...”
The NASB is a Protestant translation. Produced by Protestants, published by a Protestant press, for a Protestant readership.
The Lockman Foundationsays this about their beliefs:
“We believe that the entire Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God; the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”
Sola scriptura.
Yep, it’s Protestant.
Para when used with a genitive object means ‘from’. Greek prepositions are a bit different than those in English.
According to the scholars who translated Luther's works and probably going back to people who actually knew him personally and wrote about him, it's a fact that Luther never claimed to actually be visited by Satan nor have a real conversation with him. He was honest about the very real trials and pressures he felt were influenced by satan and the terrors he experienced as a child. He was fond of using "hyperbole" and this particular writing he used a pretend conversation with Lucifer not all that different than what C.S. Lewis did with his satire called The Screwtape Letters.
If you read that article I linked, you would see that Luther never said the devil "approved" of his doctrines. Quite the opposite, really, and there is no such writings found of Luther's extensive written works that even hints that the devil "approved" of the doctrine of justification by faith. He was also not advocating some "new" man-made concepts of church, the Gospel or the life of the Christian. Those who take the time (and it's a LOT of reading) will see that everything Luther put forth in his teachings were solidly based on Scripture as well as the ancient faith handed down from the Apostles.
As I said before, I am not a follower of Lutheranism, he is not anyone's "Pope" and there were even a few areas where I disagreed with him. What I don't like is when people try to use Luther as a battering ram to cream ALL "Protestants" or use a "Luther card" to try to silence anyone who is isn't a Roman Catholic concerning doctrines supported by the Reformers. When that happens, I try to set the record straight so others who may be reading the thread don't get a false idea in their heads and continue to spout it because they read it somewhere. That seems to happen a lot here - even with people that have been personally pinged with contrary information and, yet, they'll say it again the next chance they get as if they were none the wiser. I feel like that is dishonest and anyone who has to use what they know is a lie to bolster their opinion, has a faulty argument and needs to be singled out.
I also appreciate your usual respectful style on these RF threads. Maybe if we commit to developing a tougher hide and not letting offensive comments get to us personally nor prevent us from speaking what we know to be the truth - regardless if anyone receives it - it may help the atmosphere here improve. That can't be a bad thing, can it?
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.