Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Not those who actually care about their immortal souls. You might be surprised at the whispers down at the parish level.
And Lepanto and Malta!
Self defense is not Jihad. Christians may always defend themselves again Islam.
Self defense is not Jihad. Christians may always defend themselves again Islam.
No one disagrees with the right of self defense.
The disagreement is with what Pope Urban II promised those who fought and died in battle...remission of sins.
That is not a NT teaching and contradicts the NT.
It is one of the many reasons Roman Catholic "Tradition" is dismissed.
And again the Roman Catholic is the first to use profanity or get personal when the argument goes against them.
You continue to prove my point as do many of your fellow Roman Catholics.
God moved men through the HOLY SPIRIT to record His words.
As always, you're fighting an imaginary opponent. The above is not in dispute. However, Scripture is not the only thing the Holy Spirit inspired. The Holy Spirit inspired the Church before the New Testament appeared and continued to do so following its appearance.
Men did not pick and choose what to record. The Holy Spirit moved them, inspiring the words that were used. God made this decision. These are not the "books" of men. They are the words of God. They come from Him.
Again, nobody is arguing that Scripture is not inspired by God.
However, I'm getting the vibe that you think God commissioned the apostles for the sole purpose of producing a book which then superseded and took precedence over the men (And their successors) who produced it. Ergo, the apostles and evangelists were nothing more than robots or tools in the hands of the Holy Spirit for the purposes of the production of a book. Or that once the New Testament appeared, the Holy Spirit left the building and the Church became subordinate to a book. The silliness of such an argument should be evident.
They are inspired, infallible, authoritative and the direct revelation of truth.......
True.
.....that all other practices and teachings are judged by.
False.
How do you discern the moral rectitude of artificial contraception or in vitro fertilization or stem cell therapy using Scripture? I pointed out above and I'm happy to point out again that the early Church functioned perfectly well before the New Testament appeared and Paul's letters to the early Christian communities were not received as Scripture. They were the letters of an evangelist to his spiritual children much the same as a bishop writes to his church, today.
Jesus commissioned men not a book! One.....I repeat, just one of the works of those men and the men they themselves commissioned was the production of the New Testament. But the Church grew before, during and after it's appearance.
If I followed Luther I'd be worried about that.
All sins are indeed forgiven by baptism. But what of sins committed afterwards?
Incorrect. All of our sins are forgiven when we believe Jesus at His word.
13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
Colossians 2:13-14 NASB
“uh...YES! The Muslims were at VIENNA!!
We agree muslims were there.
We disagree that the crusaders saved Christianity.
Ealgeone and me and a list of many belong to the ONLY church that matters. We are in the Ekklesia, which membership is a work of / by the Holy Spirit and is the ‘corporate’ Body of Christ. There Re even some Catholics in this Body! How about you, have you been born again, born from above?
Ealgeone and me and a list of many belong to the ONLY church that matters. We are in the Ekklesia, which membership is a work of / by the Holy Spirit and is the ‘corporate’ Body of Christ. There Re even some Catholics in this Body! How about you, have you been born again, born from above?
LOL!! WHAT Church do you belong to....you are such a HYPOCRITE you will just answer “Christian”, but that;s not how it works, bud...there are SECTS of Christianity....but you don’t belong to ANY of them....too pure, I guess or too cheap to GIVE to a CHURCH.
Protestants won’t claim bergoglio His so called theology is way out there
omg...The Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH and you ALL know it, you just don’t like the RULES!!
The priest cannot know a person's heart so is in no position to be able to decide to retain a person's sins.
Besides, GOD promised this.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If God is faithful and just to forgive sins that are confessed, then what business does a priest have *retaining* anything?
Show us the command by Jesus to believers to go to a priest and confess their sins to another human being.
The Catholic interpretation of that passage about retaining sin PRESUPPOSES a command where none is given.
It's interpreted to imply that the command was given to believers to go to one of the disciples and confess their sins. No such command exists anywhere in Scripture.
oooops....
And just what are those traditions that Paul commanded us to adhere to?
How do you know that they came from Paul?
How do you know that they were passed down faithfully for almost 2,000 years with no changes?
Please provide documentation to back up your assertions.
Can you show us where the word *sacraments* is found in the Bible or where Jesus commanded *sacraments to be performed by priests?
Prove it.
But it appears you are an ardent follower of Luther's false preaching of salvation by "faith alone".
So the wording isn’t the way you think it should be so all that Scripture is meaningless?
No, you are wrong.
It says not by works.
That leaves one option.
By faith.
And the other epistles don’t say *works of the Law* but rather just *works*.
Besides, if the works of the God given Law are not enough to save, then no works fabricated by Catholicism, or added by men later are going to be any more effective.
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.