Posted on 04/05/2005 10:01:52 PM PDT by Coleus
For the last quarter of a century, this non-Catholic has had a pope. Now that John Paul II is gone, I am even more of an orphan than the Christians in the Roman church. For they will surely have another pope, but that one may not be mine, since I haven't converted.
I am sure I am reflecting the views of many Protestants. Who else but John Paul II gave voice to my faith and my values in 130 countries? Who else posited personal holiness and theological clarity against postmodern self-deception and egotism? Who else preached the gospel as tirelessly as this man?
What other clergyman played any comparable role in bringing down communism, a godless system? What other world leader—spiritual or secular—understood so profoundly how hollow and bankrupt the Soviet empire was, so much so that this tireless writer never bothered to pen an encyclical against Marxism-Leninism because he knew it was moribund?
Has there been a more powerful defender of the sanctity of life than this Pole, in whose pontificate nearly 40 million unborn babies wound up in trashcans and furnaces in the United States alone? What more fitting insight than John Paul II's definition of our culture as a culture of death—an insight that is now clearly sinking in, to wit the declining abortion rates in the United States?
In Europe some time ago, a debate occurred in Protestant churches: Should John Paul II be considered the world's spokesman for all of Christianity? This was an absurd question. Of course he spoke for all believers. Who else had such global appeal and credibility, even to non-Christians and non-believers?
Of course, there was the inveterate Billy Graham. There were many faithful Orthodox and Protestant bishops, pastors and evangelists.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
You keep avoiding the part about the Word becoming flesh. From whom did he get the "flesh" part? Or do you believe Christ was merely God dressing up in a man's body, and not actually man himself?
But there is very little righteous judgment going on here. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ, some of us are forgetting that in a stiff necked attempt at playing pharisee.
Cheers,
CSG
Ratzinger has referred to the Word (Scripture) in ways which might support the position of your interlocutor, in R's discourses on Sacred Music.
Bump & Ping
No I believe that Jesus is God come as man in the flesh. Jesus was, and is, the living Word of God
OK, now I'm confused. We have the Pope calling Mary the "Coredemptrix" and we have at least one Catholic on this thread calling it a heresy.
Nevertheless, I'd believe that the Pope is authorized to speak on correct Catholic doctrine more than any mere Catholic who thinks that they can speak for the Magisterium.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
I don't think Ratzinger would assert that Scripture is the sole way that we have of knowing God. Which was what started this whole thing. Nor that Scripture is God. Scripture is an expression of the mind of God, but it is not God Himself. God can be present during Scripture study and reading and can enlighten us through His written Word.
But the Bible is not God.
SD
God has given us Scripture, but He has also sent teachers along and given us access to Him through the Sacraments, which communicate His very gift of Self to us.
Protestantism is just so limited and built on contradiction. Even reading the Scripture itself, it is clear Jesus intended to establish a Church, not publish a book."
I trust you are not one of those who considers "Protestantism" to be a "bizarre" [!] form of "book worship".
I certainly do not count myself amongst those who consider ROman Catholicism a bizarre from of either statue worship or worship of tbhe dead.
I would much prefer to discuss (and I think I would be correct here to suggest that it might be Pope John Paul II's wish for us to discuss) those things that unite us -- Protestant and Roman Catholic -- rather than those things that each of us might think that some consider to be "bizarre" about each other's religious beliefs or ritual practices or any other divisive thing.
If I am wrong about this, please do inform me, because I have no desire to enter into discussion with someone who chooses to suggest that my own beliefs are "bizarre".
I think I have shown great respect in this thread for the beliefs of Roman Catholics. I have tried not to demean or ridicule them. There are many of my Protestant brethern who seem to delight in doing that, and I want no part of that.
I will, however, state my own views, and ask questions in order to better understand Roman Catholicism -- and I will do so with respect and with what I hope is Christ-like graciousness.
I'm afraid I do not understand at all your comment concerning "Protestantism" (and I trust you understand that not all of us Protestants believe exactly the same thing. I'm a Presbyterian, and I differ somewhat in my beliefs from Lutherans and Episcopaleans and Baptists and Methodists). You say that Protestantism is "so limited" and "built on contradiction".
I'm not sure I understand what you think "limits" those of us who are not Roman Catholics. Perhaps it is our belief that the starting point for any knowledge of God is what God has revealed about himself, but I'm not sure about that. Perhaps you think that we limit ourselves by distrusting human logic not firmly grounded in what God has revealed to us through his scripture -- and through the life of Jesus Christ. I'm just not sure what you mean exactly.
And I am completely baffled as to your comment concerning Protestantism being built on a "contradiction". I have no clue what you mean.
I think you and I do agree that Jesus had no desire to publish a book. I'm not sure why you would even suggest such a notion. I hope you did not intend to demean my own notion of scripture.
We were earlier talking about Mary and her bodily assumption into heaven. I had said that it may well be that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. I have no way of knowing whether she was or was not assumed bodily into heaven, and I have never heard any authoritative statement that she was. (Please remember that I am not Roman Catholic, and not schooled in what your church says about this. I do know that Roman Catholics believe that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, but I am completely unclear as to the authority for this belief).
And I am even less clear as to why such a belief is important. Is my redemption -- my salvation -- less secure because I have no opinion one way or the other concerning Mary's bodily assumption? Do those people who refuse to believe in Mary's bodily assumption risk eternal damnation? If so, why?
I do believe that Mary was elected by God, and that she responded to God's call, to be the mother of Jesus. I believe that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. I believe that she was very special to God -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And my mind is open and willing to be convinced about both the fact of Mary's bodily assumption into Heaven and its relevance for my own salvation, redemption, and sanctification.
well, I think, like the Samaritans, who meant well, they know not what they worship
The Pope is also free to reflect on things in his own manner without necessarily defining new dogmas for the Church. He can even be wrong (gasp!) in his utterances he does not intend to be binding dogma for the Church for all time.
In this case, I don't think there is much error here except for the inability for some to come to grips with the way Catholics think, beyond bigoted caricature.
SD
wasn't it compiled by the Roman Catholic chruch?
no
I am a Protestant, and you have asked me to intercede for you.
I am quite glad to do that, and I am honored that you have asked me -- a person who does not believe certain things that you do -- to intercede on your behalf.
I will say a prayer for you tonight, and I expect God to hear my prayer, which I will pray in Jesus' name.
Now the questions -- Is my prayer on your behalf more likely, less, likely, or just as likely to be heard by God the Father than a prayer on your behalf made my Mary in response to a request (or, if you prefer, a prayer) to Mary to intercede for you, a sinner? Why?
Oh, I agree. The funny thing is that, in presuming to speak for the Magisterium, some here have committed open blasphemy against the Lord Jesus. The last one that caught my eye was the "No Mary = No Jesus" comment.
I seriously doubt that it is official Roman dogma.
Of course, in as much as I really don't think that very many Catholics truly know what is official doctrine, I also think that very few Protestants know their own doctrine either. So, we get these silly comments from Protestants that the Pope was their "Pope" too.
I was having coffee Friday night at the local book store and actually heard a "Protestant" defend the idea that Jesus in his incarnation was not "good." This Arminian even has a book that he has written and was quite proud of it. For the sake of the guilty, I'll refrain from revealing his name.
In the service of the Lord,
Christian.
she was a chosen vessel of God, and certainly God had the power to conceive within her a sinless, divine child without her by implication being sinless.
He may have cleansed her womb or something; I don't know.
If you mean "written", the answer is no
I mean Compiled... The catholic church had the writtings and decided what ones would go into the bible. Inspired by God ofcourse.
Not in general, though if you read on you'll see I have found someone who can not (or refuses to) distinguish the Bible from God.
I certainly don't mean to generalize on that subject.
You say that Protestantism is "so limited" and "built on contradiction".
It is limited in that it limits to the written Bible (and at that a subset of our Bible, another topic) God's Revelation of Himself. It denies He intended to provide a teaching institution to shepherd us to salvation. And, in extreme forms, it denies that God communicates at all with us through any other form.
(I know this sounds extreme, but I know of people who insist that they pray to God for answers and only expect to find them in Scripture. There could be no signs, no signals, no direct communication, no mysticism. God's has said His Word, and that is it.)
It is built on contradiction because it holds as dogmatic that all dogmas must arise from a clear passage of Scripture, and yet can provide no passage to back up this assertion.
I think you and I do agree that Jesus had no desire to publish a book. I'm not sure why you would even suggest such a notion. I hope you did not intend to demean my own notion of scripture.
I don't mean to deman Scripture. I also don't wish to place it out of context either. It would seem from those who ascribe to Sola Scriptura beliefs that the purpose of Jesus comng here and gathering followers was so that the Bible could be written and canonized. After that, there is no need for any teaching structure, no authority to help understand.
It is as if the Holy Spirit guided the men who wrote the New Testament, and who selected the books to be included in it and that was the end. Since then, it is up to each individual to read and learn on his own.
I would counter that Jesus wanted to start a Church to teach and to shepherd and that he invested it with His Authority and there is no indication He meant this to be a temporary thing until His Book was completed.
And I am even less clear as to why such a belief is important. Is my redemption -- my salvation -- less secure because I have no opinion one way or the other concerning Mary's bodily assumption? Do those people who refuse to believe in Mary's bodily assumption risk eternal damnation? If so, why?
Those who knowingly refuse to submit to the teachings and authority of the Church are in serious danger of damnation. There has been increased attention given to the common views we hold and how culpable people truly are to not recognizing the Church for what She is: necessary. But the bottom line is we believe She teaches the Truth and that all who seek Truth should find refuge within.
SD
Ok, so, in your opinion, I should ignore what the Pope has said on a subject and accept what Catholics on this forum have said. Is this correct?
Also, in your opinion, is the Pope "incorrect" for calling Mary the "Co-Redemptrix" (which another Catholic poster has called a "heresy")? And, if yes, what makes you better qualified to speak on the matter than the Pope?
And, finally, seeing that there are conflicting Catholic accounts, which Catholics should I believe? And, shouldn't I believe the Pope over any of you?
Thanks,
Christian.
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.