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 ...
I think I am in complete agreement with you here. Apparently we are dealing with people who are very selective in what they wish to believe. There is no use arguing with them at this point. Just goes to show how far Catholics in this country STILL have to go.
Cheers,
CSG
good question. The RCC makes God a respecter of persons by valuing some prayers above others.
One Catholic on here even said that Jesus may listen to us more if our prayers are given by Mary instead of us!
What a denigrating view of God, as if somehow He cares what Mary thinks but not us.
Well, to be bluntly honest, yes he was their pope. They have chosen to make sound doctrine along with the bible, as the living Word of God a thing of scorn, so they get the shepherds they clamor for
If Mary had not assented to be God's maidservant, He would not have forced Himself on her.
He would have surely found another woman to be His mother. But since Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, a different woman would have been mother to a different Savior.
I don't know what you believe, but we believe that Jesus obtained His humanity from Mary. She was not just a surrogate womb, but an actual Mother. Jesus was related to her. He had her DNA, so to speak.
A different woman would have meant there would be a different Savior. No Mary, no Jesus.
And you guys wonder why we have to use so many words to explain!
SD
Cheers,
CSG
Nope, just pointing out that not everything the Pope says is intended to be a dogma. Many don't get this fundamental point.
Also, in your opinion, is the Pope "incorrect" for calling Mary the "Co-Redemptrix" (which another Catholic poster has called a "heresy")?
That depends on what is meant by the term, doesn't it? The other poster thought it heresy, I believe, because he lacked an understanding of what the term means. He responded as I first did, and as other Christians tend to do. On its surface, it sounds horrible. Which is why I don't see it being proclaimed anytime soon as an official teaching.
I think if you are deep in Catholic thought, the term can be correctly understood. I think the Pope is on a different level.
And, if yes, what makes you better qualified to speak on the matter than the Pope?
I am here. I tend to be reasonable. I have my moments, but most Catholics here would say I generally do a pretty good job on these things.
Were the Pope here (and I mean on FR) I would defer to any correction he might suggest to my writing.
SD
Like she's his mother or something.
SD
Well, then, you certainly have NO reason to think of her as the Queen of Heaven.
Just another woman having a rather extraordinary Child...
Luke 8:20, 21
Please excuse me for saying this, Dave, but it rather seems to me that you are coming perilously close to what could be called "Church Worship".
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Bible is not God, and I would most assuredly agree.
But you seem to suggest that God "needs" the Church (or perhaps the Church plus Scriture) to explain Himself.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but you seem to suggest that my own belief that says that if I cannot find a fact clearly stated in Scripture then it must mean that it has no relevance for my salvation is flawed.
But I think I here you saying that your belief that refusing to submit to the beliefs of your own church puts me in peril of my own salvation. And I think you would argue, therefore, that what the Roman Catholic church teaches is more important thaty what scripture itself instructs.
YOu may, indeed, be quite correct.
For me, it is a question of authority. God has spoken to us through his Son (the true cornerstone of Protestantism -- at least my "flavor" of Prostestantism, and, I think, the true cornerstone of Roman Catholicism -- if I'm wrong about that, please correct me) and through the Scriptures -- both Old Testament and New.
On whose authority is it that my own salvation and redemption are in peril unless I submit to the teachings and authority of the Roman Catholic Church? How can you demonstrate that authority to me? And why is that authority any more or any less reliable than the authority of the Scriptures?
of course he cares what his mother thinks..
God COULD do anything, but usually works in patterns we understand--IOW, logically consistent. There are exceptions, of course.
We do know that Mary was born to extremely elderly parents; that she was of the House of David, and that she was a virgin at the moment of conception.
It's interesting that you used the phrase "cleansed her womb"--of what? If she were to be a vessel for God's son, why not a *perfectly* clean one--which had neither Original Sin, nor any actual sins? Is that not more logical? Certainly, it is do-able, with God.
R specifically used the term "Word" in reference to Xt., and then used the metaphor that Musica Sacra is the 'enfleshment' of the Word.
It's certainly a technical usage of the terms, and restrictive. And R did NOT say that the Bible was God, of course.
Are you suggesting that the measure of authority is the number of members who subscribe to its doctrines?
I am getting off this thread...
"dear Lord. please bless everyone on this thread today and help us all with our journey through life. Help us to worship you in the way you intended us to and open our hearts to the truth. Lord you are our king and we will follow you no matter where you take us.
In the name of the father, son, and holy spirit... Amen.
God bless you all.
Thank you todd, and you too
I think you're pushing the comment beyond its ability to carry weight.
Obviously, God knows immdediately and fully EXACTLY what we think, so it's specious to conclude that 'God was reading Time magazine when Mary entered the parlor and presented a request...'
May God Richly Bless You, too, Todd.
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.