| 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...
Whoever said those were two separate things? sola scriptura is an entirely artifical construct. Conclusion selective hermeneutics with the "rejection of Rome" as its thesis.
Exactly my point. What's the difference between an atheist using the language of atheism when discussing sky fairies and invisible friends and the protestant who adopts the language of paganism when confronted with the Truth of Catholicism? The answer: not much. It all stems from the same place. The inherent secular nature of protestantism and atheism. A rejection of the mystical and the miraculous.
Your blind hatred is only overshadowed by your ignorance.
It's not hatred. It's sadness. Sadness to know that this is the world I have to endure because of protestantism: rampant immorality stemming from self-appointed popes with their theological relativism which has now translated into the moral sphere. Sadness for those who know the Truth of the Catholic faith but reject it because of their internal conflict over maintaining their "autonomy". The inevitable, "who are you to tell me [insert whatever you want here]." The lack of spiritual maturity so evident. Protestantism is the refuge for petulant children.
Naw... We just know the REAL thing when we see it.
Congratulations. Then you have successfully transcended faith. I commend you. Did you use a rationalist or empiricist approach?
Nope. I just followed what the Spirit said to me, and got up out of my wheelchair and started walking.
...”embrace your Blessed Mother”....
You really haven’t a clue how very offensive that statement is to a Biblical Christian. ....the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible, but a dangerous distortion that has led multitudes into idolatry and a false salvation hope.
The real Mary is the Christian’s sister, not his mother.....
Jesus was not called Mary’s “only-born” but instead Mary’s “firstborn,”.....Jesus was the real Mary’s “firstborn” who taught all “to come directly to Himself” for their soul’s salvation...... Never throughout the Gospels did Jesus ever make any sinner go through Mary to come to Him. Never!
Furthermore, none of the Lord’s Apostles, including Peter, ever taught: “Through Mary to Jesus.”
Then you of all people I imagine, who has personally experienced the miraculous should be quite hesitatnt to deny that possibility to others. I suppose I won't be hearing any of this, "hocus pocus" talk coming from you?
Or will we get the, "Jesus for me, but not for thee" standard fare?
I have no doubt healing is meant for everyone.
I suppose I won't be hearing any of this, "hocus pocus" talk coming from you?
Depends upon what you call 'hocus-pocus (at it's root, a magi's term, so no)'. As for all the chanting, and incense and jangly-bits, and whatnot... incantations and such, I surely don't see the need for all that.
Or will we get the, "Jesus for me, but not for thee" standard fare?
Nowwaitaminnit... Wasn't it you that made the claim that Protestants 'reject the mystical and the miraculous'? That their basis is merely secular? Wouldn't that be you doing the "Jesus for me, but not for thee" schtick?
It's "offensive" because a "biblical Christian" A.K.A. a protestant adopts the view that Christ is exclusive to them. It's not Christ that is offended, but your "personal relationship" that is threatened. And so, like the jealous spouse the protestant reacts in kind. Christ honors His Mother. Protestants should do likewise.
As an aside, I will never concede that I am not a biblical Christian. The bible is not the exclusive province of the protestant even though on the surface it's an effective polemic for it ostensibly puts the Catholic on the defensive of having to argue that they are biblical Christians.
It's the theological equivalent of, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's not unexpected, however. In the grand scheme of things, however, Catholics are playing chess while protestants are playing checkers or pleasuring themselves mentally with their supposed wit.
the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible, but a dangerous distortion that has led multitudes into idolatry and a false salvation hope.
False dichotomy which stems from the notion that sola scriptura is the sole rule of faith. If it isn't explict within Scripture then it is not so. The bifurcation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. A rather recent and novel invention. Protestants leave out half the story. Convenient for establishing new "doctrines."
Yet here we are - experiencing the Spirit, having never uttered a prayer to any saint... having never experienced the 'true eucharist', having never confessed to a 'priest', having *none* of your 'sacred tradition' (me more than most)... Makes one wonder at the efficacy of all that stuff, when a personal relationship with the Father through Messiah seems to do the trick just fine.
Seems that Mary, the mother of our Savior is as polarizing as Palin on FR threads. All are welcome to follow their own hearts. I personally embrace the Mother of God and ask her to pray for me and my loved ones
Bookmark. ;)
Question is...how comfortable are you in belittling the mother of Jesus...the mother of your savior? Looks like a bit too comfortable.
I read the Scriptures daily. How rude of you to assume that I don’t. The Bible is not exclusive to Protestants. It always boils down to this in every debate. It’s a difference of interpretation. I will continue to read and study the Bible. I will continue to read the lives of the saints. I could never leave the body and blood of Christ, the fullness of faith.
I know better than to get involved in these debates. It’s always the same nonsense. It is mind boggling to be accused of ignoring Christ because I also love Mary. Mary magnifies The Lord. It’s like loving my children. I won’t love the first six any less if a seventh comes along. It makes me sad to see so many false limitations put on faith.
You should at the very least thank Catholics for the very scripture you love to quote from.
Bookmark. Great post....
I agree. Can we come to a further understanding that healing isn't just physical but spiritual? And if we agree on that, can we go one step further and agree that Christ as our Savior who wants all of us to be with Him instituted means for us to attain that oneness with him (which also provides spiritual healing) in ways we could describe as miraculous? In other words, the sacraments such as the Eucharist and Confession?
Depends upon what you call 'hocus-pocus (at it's root, a magi's term, so no)'. As for all the chanting, and incense and jangly-bits, and whatnot... incantations and such, I surely don't see the need for all that.
To be more specific, I'm referring to this pagan babylonian goddess nonsense and the "hocus pocus" attitude towards the Eucharist. Where a protestant can chant the "magical" words of, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and they are saved, a miracle, but deny the same to the Eucharist and castigate it as some sort of medieval chant. Not to mention all of the other instances in which the protestants confuses correlation for causation and like some conspiracy theorist starts connecting dots, "Well the Catholic Church does this, and because so-and-so did this back in the day, there's some connection and its all interconnected." It's the "Who killed JFK" game, only done on a grand historical scale.
I understand you may not see the need, but are you aware that is just an expression of your own personal preference and has little bearing on what is true? Assuming that was the case, that we are all graduates of the J.S. Mill school of utilitarianism, that utility is the determiner of truth, then we can can eliminate rock concert and stadium worship and all manner of protestant expression of their faith as extraneous. No more WWJD bracelets, no more t-shirts with witty sayings adoped from secular advertising campaigns?
Or, we can say, since Christ has both a divine and a human nature understands the necessity of engaging humanity not only on a spiritual level but a physical one as well? And to join the two with Christ the sacraments where instituted? After all, we're not angels. We're not pure spirit. But try telling that to the iconoclastic protestant who is attempting to forsake their humanity for a pure spiritual existence and in their arrogance boasts that they're better than everyone else because of their transcendence. Maybe I need those stained glass windows. Maybe I need that rosary and that gregorian chant. Who is a protestant to deny those to me? If that makes me a weak Christian then so be it. That's why the argument is made that protestantism is inherently gnostic. A perfect faith for a perfect people. Very Nietzschean.
Nowwaitaminnit... Wasn't it you that made the claim that Protestants 'reject the mystical and the miraculous'? That their basis is merely secular? Wouldn't that be you doing the "Jesus for me, but not for thee" schtick?
Yes it was and yes they do. I just find it ironic that they'll accept the miraculous on their behalf but then turn around and act like uber-rationalists when it comes to the miracles of the Catholic Church and I don't think anyone can deny that is a characteristic they share with today's modern atheists. But that isn't to say they can't find Christ in their way, however imperfectly.
God was born unto Mary to become Man....humble birth, suffering, humility...humility, humility....Jesus had great love and respect regarding his mother and urged us to do the same...this even if He were not God would fulfill duty to God under the Commandments given to Moses. I see nothing in Jesus word that relegate his mother as only a vessel for birth...I see many references, even to his death that praise her and ask others to embrace her. A loving God would do this for this extraordinary woman, a woman who served Him without question. You would have us believe she was of no significance in Our Lord’s eyes than you or me? Experience is everything in my small life... My spiritual experience with the holy Mother of Jesus Christ in prayer, along with generations of my family has been phenomenally rewarding.
Absolutely, and more so.
And if we agree on that, can we go one step further and agree that Christ as our Savior who wants all of us to be with Him instituted means for us to attain that oneness with him (which also provides spiritual healing) in ways we could describe as miraculous?
Absolutely Sommore!
In other words, the sacraments such as the Eucharist and Confession?
Well, I don't have those, yet here I stand. What I do have is what Yeshua promised - The indwelling Spirit. That seems to be more than enough.
To be more specific, I'm referring to this pagan babylonian goddess nonsense and the "hocus pocus" attitude towards the Eucharist.
Ahh, Well, I hate to disappoint you, but I am more 'there' than anyone you are likely to meet. 'He who cannot even be named here' has nothing on me.
Where a protestant can chant the "magical" words of, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" and they are saved, a miracle, but deny the same to the Eucharist and castigate it as some sort of medieval chant.
Well, that's pretty much where I am...
Not to mention all of the other instances in which the protestants confuses correlation for causation and like some conspiracy theorist starts connecting dots, "Well the Catholic Church does this, and because so-and-so did this back in the day, there's some connection and its all interconnected." It's the "Who killed JFK" game, only done on a grand historical scale.
Yeah, I am one of those... All the way back to Nimrod... Historically, it is easy to see... So I probably remain as virulently against what you believe as anybody...
I understand you may not see the need, but are you aware that is just an expression of your own personal preference and has little bearing on what is true?
Yes, I can see that. Can you?
Assuming that was the case, that we are all graduates of the J.S. Mill school of utilitarianism, that utility is the determiner of truth, then we can can eliminate rock concert and stadium worship and all manner of protestant expression of their faith as extraneous. No more WWJD bracelets, no more t-shirts with witty sayings adoped from secular advertising campaigns?
OK.
Or, we can say, since Christ has both a divine and a human nature understands the necessity of engaging humanity not only on a spiritual level but a physical one as well?
Sure, we can say that.
And to join the two with Christ the sacraments where instituted?
Nah - I think that to be a function of the Spirit.
[...] try telling that to the iconoclastic protestant who is attempting to forsake their humanity for a pure spiritual existence and in their arrogance boasts that they're better than everyone else because of their transcendence.
That's hardly the case. And again, I am probably the poster child for 'iconoclast'.
Maybe I need those stained glass windows. Maybe I need that rosary and that gregorian chant. Who is a protestant to deny those to me? If that makes me a weak Christian then so be it.
I have no problem with that - It is your insistence that I must necessarily have that too, or my faith is made somehow 'imperfect'.
That's why the argument is made that protestantism is inherently gnostic. A perfect faith for a perfect people. Very Nietzschean.
I'll take that on = I am quite versed in gnosticism,and I would say you have that backwards. I see much of gnosticism in the Roman church.
Yes it was and yes they do. I just find it ironic that they'll accept the miraculous on their behalf but then turn around and act like uber-rationalists when it comes to the miracles of the Catholic Church and I don't think anyone can deny that is a characteristic they share with today's modern atheists.
Miracles, to be believed, require evidence, else what use are they? To claim such that no one can see is an abuse of the term.
But that isn't to say they can't find Christ in their way, however imperfectly.
Well, it seems to be working for us, so again, I ponder what all the rest of it is for.
“the Mary of Catholicism is not the Mary of the Bible”
Oh, but she is. The real problem is a drive-by, shallow interpretation/penetration of the Scriptures she is mentioned in.
The angel Gabriel says to her, “Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with you (Luke 1:28).” An angel hails a human being! But she’s just like us? Too often the angels who have hailed me have been fallen angels. The early Church took the words “full of Grace” to mean Mary was sinless by a special gift of God. Can any of us say we’re “full of Grace” and have no need to increase in Grace?
What comes out of Elizabeth’s mouth immediately after we are told she is “filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:41).”
“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by The Lord would be fulfilled (Luke 1:42-45).”
When I read the words of Gabriel and Elizabeth, I have no problem saying a Hail Mary:
“Hail, full of Grace! The Lord is with you. ... Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. ... mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:28 - 42,43).
And then from Luke 1:46-56, Mary speaks her Canticle in which she says “all generations will call me blessed (1:48).”
“And Mary kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart. ... his mother kept all these things in her heart (Luke 2:19, 51).” Why is the prayer life of Mary given two verses? Is there something profound about “her heart”, her meditation and contemplation? Yes! I’ve had it said to me that devotion to Mary’s Immaculate Heart is idolatrous. When I ask if the two mentions of “her heart” in Luke 2 are idolatrous, I get crickets.
At Mary’s words “They have no wine (John 2:3), Jesus starts His public ministry with a miracle He didn’t seem to be planning to do.
Mary’s singular role is in Scripture. The problem is too often those Scriptures are not fully understood, studied, interpreted or deeply penetrated. If Elizabeth filled with the Holy Spirit comes forth with profound praise for Mary, I think I’ll hold onto my devotion to, NOT WORSHIP OF, but devotion to Mary, the Mother of God.
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.