Posted on 07/17/2017 8:08:32 AM PDT by ebb tide
“Francis is more interested in leftwing politics than in Catholic theology”, George Neumayr, contributing editor of The American Spectator, states talking to Tom Woods on July 14th on tomwoods.com. Woods describes Francis as a result of John Paul II who - as he puts it - appointed "absolutely terrible people" as bishops: "Catholics have suffered under Bergoglios for decades now”.
Neumayr agrees that a lot of the liberal bishops were appointed by John Paul II and Benedict XVI. He sees Francis as the “culmination of a century” of liberalism and modernism in the Church.
For him it is "highly unlikely" that Francis, who in his theology is “more a Protestant than a Catholic” will convert to Catholicism. Instead, the realistic scenario is that Francis will produce division and chaos, "Catholics will have to decide whether they guard the faith over papolatry.”
And: “The Cardinals have to declare that Francis is a bad pope who must be resisted.”
Inspiration of actions of men is different than God's inspired words, recorded for ever.
However, I'm getting the vibe that you think
You would be better off not mind-reading, because your statement is incorrect.
However, I'm getting the vibe that you think God commissioned the apostles for the sole purpose of producing a book which then superseded and took precedence over the men (And their successors) who produced it. Ergo, the apostles and evangelists were nothing more than robots or tools in the hands of the Holy Spirit for the purposes of the production of a book.Or that once the New Testament appeared, the Holy Spirit left the building and the Church became subordinate to a book. The silliness of such an argument should be evident.
This is the logical fallacy of Straw Man. Not what I said, believe or have ever argued.
How do you discern the moral rectitude of artificial contraception or in vitro fertilization or stem cell therapy using Scripture?
You are overlooking that Scripture teaches God gave us the gift of Teachers. Teachers use God's Word to proclaim truth. I pointed out above and I'm happy to point out again that the early Church functioned perfectly well before the New Testament appeared and Paul's letters to the early Christian communities were not received as Scripture. They were the letters of an evangelist to his spiritual children much the same as a bishop writes to his church, today.
I am happy to point out in turn that the early church had the foundation of the church, Apostles, to teach in person and in addition to some NT writings, they have 2/3 of Scripture in existence.
Jesus commissioned men not a book!
No one argued that Jesus commissioned a book. God inspired men to write what He chose. He began this before Christ ever came to earth. He has always used men to accomplish His purposes.
It is the only unchangeable source of truth directly from God and is the standard by which to judge all teachers and leaders.
Scripture is "inadequate", only when it is separated from the Church which guards its true meaning. It is subordinate to the Church which produced it. Hence, the early Church grew and prospered before the New Testament appeared. Paul did not need a New Testament to evangelize the Galatians. The Church did not "come along later and fill it in". First came the Church, then came Scripture.
If things were left out that we needed to know, then it would not be possible for Paul to say that it was profitable and could make the man of God COMPLETE.
It makes the man of God "complete", only when its authentic meaning is understood. When it is separated from the Church which produced it, things are "left out", since the authentic meaning is lost. False understandings of Scripture do not make a man "complete". Quite the contrary. Can you say "Prosperity Gospel"?
Furthermore, there is a critical difference between saying...the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for learning and instruction and making your learning complete" and saying only the Encyclopedia Brittanica is profitable for learning and instruction and making your learning complete". For example, in Paul's letter to Timothy, before he talks of Scripture, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".
Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.
Half your membership believes in all those things... Are they protestant too? If so, will you begin to claim you only have 500 million members???
If you do not have faith you cannot be saved. Who said otherwise?
I don't believe it's half, but it's a lot... and yes they are protestants.
“I don’t believe it’s half, but it’s a lot... and yes they are protestants.”
Wow, Brazil has 130 million people who claim to be Catholic.
60% don’t attend Mass even once per month.
“They are also more likely to accept premarital sex, cohabitation before marriage, homosexuality and abortion.”
(from Wiki on Catholicism in Brazil)
There go another 78 million Catholics off the membership roll.
You can say that until the cows some home, but he's the pope of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The guy is YOURS.
YOUR church elected him as pope.
You can't go foisting him off on someone else just because you disagree with him.
It's going to take official action by YOUR church to depose him.
Until that happens, he's YOUR pope and it doesn't matter much what you think about it.
Regarding Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel ( Proto-evangelium ), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman : "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" ( Genesis 3:15 ). The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056
Roman Catholicism has built a whole false teaching on the supposed sinlessness of Mary on a bad translation which the CE even admits cannot be defended.
Guess Jerome wasn't as good a translator as you think.
Sure it is. I provided the proof texts.
Please provide us with those words Paul told to Timothy.
All your proof texts prove is that we are saved by faith, not by faith alone. BIG DIFFERENCE!
You don't count the OT as Scripture?
Only until the Roman Catholic wants to boast of their numbers.
Then they're all forgiven and counted as Roman Catholics much as Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, etc.
If it's not faith in Christ, and only Christ, that saves...what does?
....”FWIW, I don’t belong to a church”....
Well that is worth a lot ....it indicates you’re standing “in” Christ for your Salvation. Whereas going to any particular church as a member will never guarantee ones Salvation...it cannot........Like works we ‘go’ to church ‘to worship the Lord as a body of believers together’...which He asks us to do.
I try to remember that Jesus’s ministry brought division wherever He went .... It was separating those who wanted to pursue the truth from those who did not and wanted to keep the error that their religious leaders were teaching them.... Separation becomes THE Issue in the end just as it was in the beginning.....but it is a hard thing that we have to accept the fact that God’s truth divides when we so want it to unite us as believers.
And I'm happy top tell you that even Peter says different. HE recognized Paul's writings as Scripture at the time he wrote 2 Peter, while he was still alive.
2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Please provide us with the words in Scripture that we are only to believe what is written in Scripture and not also the Church.
I believe the OP took on the protestants in the first couple of posts trying to make your pope our problem. But thanks for playing This poster daily posts flame bait threads
Sure I can. He's left the Catholic Church, just like the person I'm posting to now.
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.