Posted on 10/05/2013 6:21:52 AM PDT by marshmallow
Russell Moore says the pope’s latest interview in an Italian newspaper “is more than just confusing. It’s a theological wreck.”
The head of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission says Pope Francis is soft on sin.
Russell Moore, president of the moral-concerns agency for the nation’s second-largest faith group behind Catholicism, criticized the pope’s comments published in la Repubblica, the largest Italian daily general-interest newspaper.
Responding to a question about whether there is a “single vision” of good and, if so, who decides, the pontiff replied: “Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is good."
“Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them,” the pope continued. “That would be enough to make the world a better place."
Francis said the church’s mission is not to proselytize but “to identify the material and immaterial needs of the people and try to meet them as we can.”
"Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense,” he said. “We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us…. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the good.”
In an Oct. 1 posting on the ELRC website, Moore said Pope Francis makes the mistake of “severing the love of God from the holiness of God.”
“From Augustine’s Confessions to ‘Well, everyone has his own ideas about good and bad’ is a mighty long path,” Moore said. “If Pope Francis wishes to reclaim the primacy of the gospel, he must simultaneously speak with kindness to........
(Excerpt) Read more at abpnews.com ...
The new Pope is a nut. The previous two popes were consistently conservative and pro-life and pro-marriage.
counting down until apologists claim Pope Francis is “misquoted”: 10, 9, 8....
I respectfully disagree that he is "a nut." Why would those cardinals elect a man who's a nut? I also don't think that he is soft on sin...soft on sinners, but not on sin.
Actually, I think he has a point. So there.
You are kidding right. They have picked a variety of molesters, murderers, thieves and degenerates throughout Catholic church history. I would not trust a conclave of repressed homosexuals to elect a dog catcher, let alone a leader of the largest denomination of the Christian church .
You can’t talk mean to your parishioners. They might leave the church or quit religion altogether. Seems like that’s the world we live in.
A one panel comic appeared in The New Yorker after Vatican II, showing two great doors of the Vatican, and two unhappy looking cardinals watching a devil walk through the doors carrying a sheaf of papers.
One cardinal saying to the other: "Personally, I think this ecumenism has gone too far."
You will find yourself anathema for defending His Holiness. I happen to agree with you too! So double there. :o)
ALL of “Organized Religion” is “soft” on SIN!
And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”
This is not about whom he’s eating with. This is what he is teaching. The whole purpose of the Petrine office is to uphold the doctrine of the faith.
Christ had hard words for the actions of the Pharisees but he also told people to observe what they taught because they occupied the seat of Moses.
He is not consistent or coherent. One day he says something liberal and is lavishly praised by liberals. Then he says something conservative in a failed attempt to make up for it. He engages in lengthy interviews and wanders all over the place.
He is a nut in a political or theological sense, if not neurologically. He actually called evangelizing “solemn nonsense”! Who knows what he will say next?
You know the Catholic Church is in trouble when a Baptist call out is on the money.
What concerns me are the phrases “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. . .”
Are “good” and “evil” what WE conceive them to be?
And, this one, “The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the good.”
But, I thought the “good” was whatever WE conceive it to be, right?
Look, I’ll be upfront - I’m a Baptist, but I certainly do not hate Catholics or this Pope. I appreciate that the Catholic church has preserved many of the Greek/Hebrew texts of the Scriptures. I respect their pro-life position and how they have never wavered from it. But, in this day and age of moral and religious relativism and pluralism, I think sending out “fuzzy” statements only contributes not only to confusion, but to a false sense of security with God for the unbeliever.
A non-Christian hearing those statements would probably think the Pope is saying, “hey, whatever you think is right is right, whatever YOU think is wrong is wrong - God will accept that”.
Now, maybe that’s NOT what the Pope means, but it sure sounds like that is what he is saying.
I don’t condemn anyone, that’s God’s prerogative, but we are to “test” the spirits, test and discern, and yes, judge right and wrong according to God’s standards, not ours.
I was raised baptist. This guy shouldn’t be casting stones, but sadly they’re really good at that.
“Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them,”
Classic moral relativism, unless “he” is capitalized referring to God. The last two popes spoke against this nonsense.
More and more, this guy seems to be fulfilling the prophecy of the last pope. I know this is sad commentary coming from a Catholic convert.
Probably so HE doesn't become a back-sliding Baptist...
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.