| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 09/27/2014 9:10:14 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Godwin’s Law |
Posted on 09/11/2014 11:19:06 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
Pope Francis has been a breath of fresh air for many Catholics seeking greater liberty and a growing concern for conservative Christians who take issue with his comments about homosexuality and other cultural issues.
But the pontiff's latest statement is sparking an uproar from believers around the world. Pope Francis sent a tweet Tuesday that absolutely violates the truth of Scripture:
"The Christian who does not feel that the Virgin Mary is his or her mother is an orphan," Pope Francis tweeted.
As of the time I wrote this column it had been retweeted about 4,000 times and many of the responses were in appropriately unkind. It's not appropriate to attack the pope for his beliefs. It's more appropriate to share the truth...
No “hobby horse” at all.
I didn’t recognize the version you quoted and so I asked.
That’s the sum of it.
Since you replied without an answer, I went and found it on BibleHub. It is not a version I own.
No worries.
Thanks.
“I said I was, I meant I was and I didn’t stutter.”
But you were wrong.
“The arrogance of your comments is stunning.”
I know it must look like that from your perspective, but I just don’t have the patience to sugar-coat it today.
We are told that if anyone teaches other than what the apostles taught we were to consider them accursed.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Please find for us an infallible source for the teaching of the assumption of Mary. If you can't find any other infallible source for what the apostles taught we will stay with Sola Scriptura as our base guide for truth.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Also be aware that mindreading on the Religion Forum is not allowed.
You can review the rules here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Just as the U. S. Constitution served as the major founding document for our country - spelling out which powers belonged to which branch, their limits, etc. - so the Bible, because it alone is the Word of Almighty God given to us, tells believers what we need to know in order to be saved and attain a holy and God-honoring life. Some Roman Catholics are so in love with and subservient to the Roman Catholic church hierarchy that they relinquish all calls to reason WITH God BY God, himself. Just like the "canned" prayers repeated by rote, their faith requires no real effort to study to show ourselves approved by God as workmen that do not need to be ashamed, rightly handling, and comprehending, the word of truth as God commanded us. God gave it to us for a reason. We don't give it up just because we have a leader. He must also be held to the standard.
I wonder what happened to all of those illiterate people who couldn't read the Word. What happened to them? Were they lost to eternal hellfire? Or maybe God, in His magnificient wisdom, knew that for the sake of humanity He should not rely solely upon the written word to bring forth His Divine Revelation but provided us with a Church. Imagine that. A living, breathing, teaching Church protected for all time from teaching error and not allowing evil to consume it. Now which seems more likely? That God provided a Church for all, or a book for only those who could read and write?
Putting your uncalled for sarcasm aside, the body of believers in Christ, His church, are supposed to be the foundation and upholder of the truth - they don't create the truth. Just as in Jesus' day, people heard the word and believed because the Holy Spirit opened their eyes and hearts. So, whether they heard God's word or read it themselves, it was STILL the truth of God's word and ALL believers are held to obey it. But, what happens when a church "leader" ceases to uphold the word of truth and invents his own truth? Are we "stuck" with him because he's the Pope? Did Roman Catholics have to submit to Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) or the other depraved leaders or did they retain the responsibility to "test the spirits to see if they are from God" and of which we have a duty to this day?
The Bible IS the constitution of Christianity. It remains our ultimate guide and anyone who teaches heresy is rebuked BY those who know the truth because they know the word of God. Those we call the Early Church Fathers knew that and that's how they battled error. God's word is plainly understood by those who diligently seek the truth, are surrendered to the leading of the Holy Spirit, prayerfully meditate on God's word and obey what it tells us. When church leaders fail to to their job, they can be removed and God holds them responsible. Believers are not trapped under a leader like those in cults.
Once again well said!
God did not “need” Mary. God called Mary and Mary answered. God does not need us. God calls us and it is up to us to answer.
Jesus said (Luke 3:8) “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say among yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say unto you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
Consider this. He could just as easily raise up a woman to bear a child. Only God is worthy of worship; Mary is not.
Mary served an important role but she is not equal to Jesus nor does she have divine powers.
Turn from your idolatry, repent and serve The Lord alone!
Additionally, God didn’t ask her permission. The angel told her how it was going to be. He never asked her.
Had Mary said “No” I don’t believe God would have forced the issue. God chose Mary because He knew she would agree.
“Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to thy word.”
...and “handmaid” wouldn’t mean “co-redemtrix,” rather it would be closer to “servant.” Right?
He gives us wise men to guide us, holy men to show us the way, Saint Joseph to be an example to fathers; the Blessed Virgin Mary to be an example to mothers; Saint Peter to teach us about courage, loyalty, and human failings; Saul of Tarsus to teach us that we can be wrong, and Saint Paul to teach us that even if we are wrong, God can put us right—et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
yada yada yada
Jesus said “Be Holy, for I Am Holy.”
He never said, “Be like Moses, Be like Noah, Be like Mary, Be like Peter...etc...”
Set aside your detestable practices; love and obey The Lord.
Mary is my sister in Christ, not my mother.
She was an obedient woman who answered when God called.
She is not divine.
She is not without sin.
Nothing in the Bible says she was a perpetual virgin.
Jesus had brothers. May was not required to stay a virgin.
Mary is just a human who was open to the leading of God.
I don’t even believe she intercedes in prayer for people today.
I don’t believe she has appeared to men.
I don’t believe any miracles attributed to her.
Mary is just a human. God blessed her, yes. But she is still a human.
and just to add, I am not an orphan. I have God as my Father.
Why is that so hard to understand? Maybe it is because they do not want to understand. They had rather believe lies than find the truth for themselves.
Now what hobby horse are you off on?
Why so defensive? Do you fear that a simple answer to a straight forward question will anger your goddess?
Thanks for telling the truth.
You do, in your next sentence.
Have you been sniffing the incense? Open a window and get some air!
She posted
“A person can be saved without being baptized, but nobody ever said that baptism is *false*.
“The teaching that baptism is required is a false teaching, however.”
She isn't saying “baptism is false.” She's saying baptism is not a requirement for salvation nor can one be saved by baptism alone.
If an atheist came to a catholic church, claimed to convert, went through the catechism and rituals but did not believe...would they be saved?
Same here. I bought Bible software and read multiple translations side by side with a concordance and a commentary.
I now own a “parallel Bible” with four translations.
To be honest, when I first read the Bible I was a bit angry about all the false teaching I received from Catholicism.
That's not the first time I've heard that.
To continue the analogy the Constitution is only half of the story. There is no Constitution without the Declaration of Independence. As Americans, we do not bifurcate both documents but understand them together, in harmony with what we describe as the American project.
I suppose for a protestant that isn't necessarily an issue if they consider America to be nothing more than the sum total of its parts. But I don't think they subscribe to that. Enlightenment thought is strewn not only throughout American philosophy but protestant theology to such an extent that one can't help but link the two.
Which is why its difficult to understand how a protestant can apply the same thought process to America and totally disregard the same when applied to understanding the Deposit of the Faith and its two components: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Protestants do not reject either the Declaration or the Constitution as authoritative.
This same issue applies to their hermeneutics. A protestant does not consider Sacred Scripture in harmony with Sacred Tradition, or with itself for that matter. But rather cherry picks that which they deem desirable. You'll get no argument from me that it is God's word alone. But the Word is more than the text. The Word is everything. Which includes not only what was written, but what was done. The protestant should ask themselves, "was the crucifixion an actual event and all of the implications it entails because it was written? Would the Redemption of mankind be in effect if it hasn't been recorded in scripture?"
Unfortunately, we've seen too many instances in modern (and not so modern) times of Sacred Scripture being used to support all manner of unholy acts that it cannot be used in and of itself to authoritatively determine that which is holy and moral. Of course the protestant would say, "But it's right there in [book], [chapter], and [verse]. However, when the Protestants eschewed Sacred Tradition and the Church to make such determinations they no longer have any ground on which to stand.
YOPIOS is an apt phrase precisely because it encapsulates everything that is wrong with individual interpretation without an authoritative body. The protestants are good about, "taking one or two others along" but then they stop when Sacred Scripture commands them to, "take it to the Church." The protestant opts for the democratic rule that verse implies and then just stops when determining that to be insufficient. Further complicating the issue is the protestant notion of autonomy from authority. The protestant can't comply with the full implications of that verse because to do so would be to destroy their entire theology. Therefore protestants do their fellow man an injustice by selectively adhering to that in Scripture which confirms only their preconceived notion.
Some Roman Catholics are so in love with and subservient to the Roman Catholic church hierarchy that they relinquish all calls to reason WITH God BY God, himself. Just like the "canned" prayers repeated by rote, their faith requires no real effort to study to show ourselves approved by God as workmen that do not need to be ashamed, rightly handling, and comprehending, the word of truth as God commanded us. God gave it to us for a reason. We don't give it up just because we have a leader. He must also be held to the standard.
We love the Church because it is a sign of God's love and mercy. Holy Mother Church will lead us to all Truth as was promised in Sacred Scripture. We know that God did not abandon us to our own devices. The Church is the epitome of reason. Despite the objections of protestants it was The Church which authoritatively defined the Canon of Scripture upon which they rely. And I would certainly beg to differ on the characterization of the Catholic faith as requiring no real effort. Work out your salvation in fear and trembling. I don't see too many protestants doing that with the ease with which they proclaim OSAS.
Your following statements demonstrate the ignorance of the protestant position. You proclaim that we have a responsibility of testing our Church leaders for adherence to the Truth and in the same breath you use the depravity of previous church leaders as an example. As if the impeccability of an individual is the guarantor of Truth. It is not. Our guarantor is the Holy Spirit. Too many times here on the RF Catholics have explained with great patience how the Pope cannot err in teaching of the Faith and of Morals. But protestants skim over that. Which is why a Catholic cannot help but think that it is the default protestant position of testing the veracity of a Church leader's claim based on their moral character. In effect placing their faith in men all the while exclaiming that we are the ones who do so.
The two previous Popes and the current one have both made statements that I do not agree with. Whether it be in political or economic matters. I'm under no obligation to give assent to their views. Faith and Morals is what I give my assent to. And just as the Declaration of Independence states we should not rebel for, "light and transient causes" neither should be uproot ourselves from the Truth of Catholic Church because of a lack of personal impeccability on the part of our leaders or their secular viewpoints. And that's the true Faith. It is quite the opposite with the protestant contingent.
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.