BREAKING: Pope takes major step toward formal heresy

https://harvestingthefruit.com/breaking-pope-takes-major-step-toward-formal-heresy/ ^

[piusv]

"I feel like saying something that may sound controversial or even heretical. But there is someone who knows that despite our differences we are one. It is he who is persecuting us. It is he that is persecuting Christians today; he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom, knows that Christians are disciples of Christ. That we are one, that we are brothers! He doesn't care if they are Evangelicals, Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics or Apostolic. He doesn't care! They are Christians."

[Elsie]

This sounds terrifically exclusive and severe, except it applies only to those who KNOW that the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded, and who NEVERTHELESS refuse to become Catholic.

Sigh...

...do you not mean BELIEVE here?

[Elsie]

Please do go to the linked citations from the Catechism.

Ok; if I read these opinions will I become a believer in Rome?

What things in the CCC say something DIFFERENT than these you'd have me look at?

[Elsie]

Sorry for the misunderstanding I posted to you as a courtesy ping so you could see the (in)actions of other non-Catholics

Courtesy pings are good!

Heck; even plain ol' courtesy without a ping is ok; too!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Read; you’ll see.

[Elsie]

“Sorry for the misunderstanding I posted to you as a courtesy ping so you could see the (in)actions of other non-Catholics”

Heck; I have to post Bashem_upside_the_head posts just to try to get any Catholic to react to the (in)actions of other Catholics; but it seems to do no good.

[Elsie]

Thank you for proving me correct by dodging the question (AGAIN)!

Your logic teacher called.

He wants to know how LACK of evidence manages to PROVE anything you've said here.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Belief is the only kind of knowledge we have as human beings. We do not have direct knowledge, as God does. We only have what we reasonably acknowledge to be partial and fallible, e.g. what we perceive, interpreted by what sense we can make of it.

So, if you like, you can say "believe."

[verga]

Hey if believing that is what helps the prots get through the dark scary night don’t let the truth keep you from the fantasy.

[ebb tide]

You asked for scriptural references; here they are:

In Matthew 24:13 we are told that those who persevere to the end will be saved – a clear refutation of the notion of eternal assurance. Romans 11:22 speaks on a similar theme. In Philippians 2:12 we are told to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” - not only does this refute the idea that works are of no avail, but also shows – when read in the context of the whole passage – that the idea of eternal assurance is foolish.

I Corinthians contains two particular passages – 9:27 and 10:11-12 which speak very clearly on this subject. In fact, I Corinthians 10:11-12 refutes eternal assurance explicitly – saying that those who think they are secure may fail! II Timothy 2:11-13 says that we must “hold out to the end” in order to be saved.

There are also passages which speak specifically about those who have received Christ and have then fallen away. Galatians 5:4, Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-27 refer to people who are Christians (and, therefore, saved) but then commit sins and, while remaining Christians, are not likely to inherit Heaven.

Additionally, if we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” which he explained is required because “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:12-15).

The illogic of eternal assurance

Eternal assurance is an illogical position for the same reason that sola fides is illogical – it denies free will and the very existence of sin. If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin? It in fact means that sin does not exist – there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that will offend God. This means we cannot choose God, and hence do not have free will. If there is no sin and we have no ability to choose sin or God, what need do we have for a savior? Eternal assurance in fact denies the very purpose for Christ’s incarnation.

The sin of presumption

The sin of presumption is the name given to the belief in eternal assurance; it is presuming on God’s mercy. It is not just a theologically incorrect position to hold, but is also one which is a sin because it makes one proud and think that one has no need of God’s further assistance. The person thinks they are already permanently “saved” and so they do not need God, the Church or anything else.

[StormPrepper]

This handy-dandy chuckliferous 2-minute video by the notorious John Zmirak, over at the Bad Catholic's Bingo Hall, explains why.

Pretty funny. :)

I think the defining moment will be which side of homo marriage that Rome finally lands. Especially as the pressure mounts and mounts.

Ireland was the test bed. There were Catholic priests that voted for gay marriage in Ireland. I think Rome is waiting to see how the dust settles. If there's no real fallout, this Pope will embrace it.

I mean the gay vote in Ireland was no secret. The Pope could have made a very visible trip and publicly denounce homo marriage but he didn't. That wasn't an over site.

And that's unfortunate.

[Elsie]

<>That guilt by association is exactly what the non-Catholics do on these threads on a daily basis.

Really???

Are you not the guy who has posted... 507, 516, 553, 556, 615???

[Elsie]

“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy, I don't know.”

Oh come ON!

You Catholics on FR do this all the time; spout stuff that may or may not be true!

[Elsie]

“And it comes to my mind to say something that may be foolish or perhaps a heresy, I don't know.”

Perhaps he's working on his Living Prophet® street cred!!

---

 

"I Don't Know..."

 

 

 

 

 In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.

In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (See also D&C 130:22)

The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

The bothersome reply

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.

An earlier and similar interview

The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"

He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

President Hinckley's response

President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.

"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.

Does the Church still teach this?

I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.

However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."

Summary and conclusion

I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.

It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

---

---

There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

[Elsie]

HWSNBN seems to be gone now...

[Elsie]

She makes it abundantly clear that we are correct saying the prots have always been fighting a strawman.

 

Well then!

This sure settles it for me!

 

 

[Elsie]

Thank you for also confirming hypocrisy.

What would you Catholics do without us Prots confirming stuff for you guys by making it clear?

[Elsie]

Okay another one that refuses to take a stand.

[Elsie]

Actually I think a better definition is not being willing to take a stand one way or the other and gong off on tangents.

verga; you are a winner!

[Elsie]

There you will find the answer to your question.

Acts 6:9-10   (KJV)

⁹ Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

¹⁰ And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

[Elsie]

Presumption is a sin.

Mary is alive in heaven and shuttles Catholic urgent prayers straight to Jesus.