Posted on 12/06/2016 7:00:25 PM PST by NKP_Vet
What Bible version do you read? Mine says:
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Whenever you make good works "integral" to saving faith, you are saying that your works are what saves you. But God's word says:
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (Tius 3:4-6)
Again, genuine saving faith WILL be evidenced in the believer's life by his outward deeds, his walk in holiness because he is called by God, born again and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. We are NOT saved by our works but by God's grace. Grace means undeserved mercy, unmerited favor. If you add works to the mix, you are fallen from grace, you make the cross of Christ of no accord and Christ is dead in vain. It's either grace OR works, not both.
I don’t buy the theory that the College of Cardinals was playing a game of “good cop/bad cop”—Bergoglio as a temporary Bad Cop, elected to make future run-of-the-mill modernist Popes look good.
I think there was and is a large faction of homosexual, Marxist, Satanist (some of them) Cardinals, who hate the Church and want to change it. They don’t want to put it out of business because it’s the vehicle they have used to ride to power and wealth. And, of course, there are plenty of bishops and priests like them. The homosexual, Marxist Cardinals elected one of their own to the Papacy, that’s all.
Fail at remembering much? Go back and reread what I said on that other thread. It had nothing to do with defending my beliefs - which I will continue to do as will, I'm sure, you, too.
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; .....but he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
Honorius can not be regarded as even a "private heretic". Therefore, we can not use Honorius as an example when we are discussing public heretics such as Francis. I know many traditionalists like to use Honorius' situation as analogous, but the fact is it is apples and oranges.
Not even a private heretic? Still a member of the Catholic Church.
Public heretic? Not a member of the Catholic Church.
Whether you buy there was intention or not, I still predict that is what will happen. When the less flaming Modernist takes the Seat, most will go back to thinking we have a Catholic pope again and everything will be honky dory. Phew!
About what is likely to happen, I agree with you. At this point, some drab semi-Modernist has a better chance than another flaming Marxist or a Trad.
Thanks for the mention about Hilary White, I was unfamiliar with her articles, but have been enjoying reading them.
Thank you very much for your reasoned response. I do understand that Catholic topic threads are often warzones and your response was well met. Thank you again
FWIW, I do classify Francis as an antipope along the lines of Gregory VI, Benedict X, Clement III, Theoderic, Sylvester IV, etc.
Are you arguing he is not a heretic or not an ‘antipope’? I would argue regardless of status he is both.
BTW, what side of Joan of Arc are you on?
You must not be familiar with my posting.....I believe that Francis is both a public heretic/not Catholic, and therefore can not possibly be the visible head of the Catholic Church because someone outside the Church can not lead it nor hold an office in it.
Sede Vacante.
“...regardless of status he is both...”
Thank you - this is the exact the point I was trying to make - Francis is a heretic and therefore a de facto anti pope- his official “status” is a separate issue that will be hashed out in history. The error he is teaching in AL is for now, a separate matter from his office of Pope that he still holds as placeholder, error or no, and therefore the papacy itself is not vacant, errors and all are included with him at present. This might change of course ....
My post #73 was written only to point out that Honorius I was Pope and was recognized to have taught error; the office does not magically cause a Pope to automatically be error free. Pope Honorius I’s error was confirmed at a Council after the fact, and I suspect that is the scenario that will play out here regarding Francis.
Blessed Advent greetings!
Honorius is not the same situation as Francis at all. You should read more about it.
“..not in the same situation...”
No doubt you are correct, however: both taught error while Pope - that is my only point. Other than that, I am sure their situations differ greatly and I will try to read more on 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.