Posted on 01/17/2017 11:21:52 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Too long to read it all, but as a non-catholic, it was like trying to read about the political soap opera going on in the engineering department at Boeing after getting a new VP.
But the title is awesome!
Not sure whether the Muzzies or the Pope is the greatest enemy of the Catholic Church.
Actually, most protestants give very little thought to the inner workings of the roman catholic church. Despite the imaginary socratic exchange, mostly we hear in the news of a big chunk of the church battling against the words of the pope and think to ourselves, “hmmm, I thought they had to accept what he said”, then we go on with what we were doing.
I think the RCC would be happier if it stopped thinking about we protestants much. This whole article would be better aimed at educating fellow catholics why its ok to oppose francis, or why he isn’t infallible, or whatever.
And yes, all protestants see Benny Hinn just the way Catholicism holds the pope. Moronic logic. Utterly moronic.
The RCC FAQ is but another, and thinly disguised, weapon against Protestantism in Rome’s long war against them.
The author seems to be dismissive at best and flippant at worst concerning Trent. First, if it weren’t for the Reformation in general and Luther in particular, Trent would never have been called, and the corruption in the church that led to the Reformation would not have been cleansed. Second, the Council of Trent led to the greatest expansion of world-wide evangelism the church had seen to date, and while part of that was on the backs of the European explorers who “discovered” the Western Hemisphere and sea routes to south and east Asia, it was also a reaction to the explosion of Protestant missionary work.
In short, Trent established the one most powerful human-based motivation available, in the service of presenting the gospel to the whole world: competition. Xavier got to India, China, and Japan, and the Benedictines got to the Philippines, in large part because they wanted to spread the Catholic version of the gospel before the Lutheran or Calvinist versions of the gospel got there, which is a Philippians 1 situation: whatever the motivation, the gospel was preached, and in that we should rejoice.
Yeah, I get a feeling this is a bit like a liberal setting up an imaginary argument with a conservative, but as we read the conservative arguments, they are a caricature of what a conservative would really ask.
My wife was raised Catholic and her whole family is still catholic. Some of them still go to mass every day. They are an interesting group, spiritually. We disagree with them on a couple of key points but, hey, I disagree with most protestants on a key point (I believe the lost are annihilated and do not suffer for eternity).
So I care about this pope thing as much as I care about shakeups in any other church that is not the one I go to: Not really my business.
Islam. Popes come and go, but Islam will destroy the church if it is not either uprooted, or Christ does not return first.
Well, at least I learned that we Protestants have a pope and that his name is Benny Hinn. Did not know that.
ditto including the part about the wife being raised catholic. I think the whole Pope blow-up is interesting but I take no pleasure in their misfortune.
Contrary to all of the critical comments above, I thought it was very informative, and explained the situation very well.
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.”—2 Cor. 11:3
Zmirak makes some surprising blunders.
There have been far more than two, or eight, examples of “infallibility”! Zmirak meant examples of papal infallibility exercised alone.
And the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
If the damned are annihilated, then they don’t KNOW when their suffering stops—which is exactly like suffering for eternity.
I seem to remember somebody saying that scandals would come, but woe to him by whom they would come.
Funny that such a Q & A would include this. How many Catholics actually believe any of these to be literally true? I'd say less than 5%.
If the damned are annihilated, then they don’t KNOW when their suffering stops—which is exactly like suffering for eternity.
I was put under for surgery about six years ago. It wasn’t like sleeping. It was like time travel. They were preparing me for surgery and slipping on the mask. I took a breath. I took a second breath and was waking up in the recovery room 90 minutes later. I think of it as that, sans the wake up.
Care to share what these are? We've asked before but to no avail.
And how do we do this? We compare Hinn's teaching/actions to the Word and find him falling short.
The Word is the only standard that doesn't change.
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.