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.”
#372 says NOTING about a rosary; so I have to assume you do NOT pray it; Right?
“So; you do NOT believe the promises that Rome’s Mary has made to MILLIONS of Catholics”
Missed this one somehow.
It’s uncharitable to put words into someone else’s mouth. I’ve told you what I believe. I’ve not told you what I do not believe in. Your need to fit me into some kind of “catholic” box has been amusing to watch, I must admit.
Have a blessed day.
This is a new one!!
Mary’s mom must’ve really been a special vessel to have borne such perfection, and so on and thus and so until Eve who was a sinner. Oops.
“#372 says NOTING about a rosary; so I have to assume you do NOT pray it; Right?”
I have been known to pray the Rosary with the rest of the parish before Mass in the parishes that did so. I see zero harm in revering the Mother of Our Lord & asking her to pray for me to her Son now & then. I consider it a blessing & not a requirement.
You say they “claim” there would be no Bible were it not for the Catholic Church. Why would you use the word “claim” as if there some doubt as to where the Bible came from?
That difference is between the two of us and has nothing to do with you. Posterior exterior.
You can’t really have it more than one way.
Many people over the course of 3 or 4 councils, and many other supporting people, played a role in dealing with some problems which existed in the Catholic Church. The vast majority were not excommunicated or killed in some ghastly way.
And it’s not like the Protestants never did anything wrong; these types of actions were not rare in those days and were used by the government as well as (to a lesser extent) both Protestants and Catholic officials.
The first result for “Didache altered” is quite long. Can you give me some idea of where the relevant part is?
Perhaps it is because we cannot get a straight answer on whether faith must be accompanied by good works.
***
Right. Riiiight.
I gave you a straight answer. It’s not my fault that it doesn’t fit in with Romanist works-salvation.
http://bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php
Read that. Then feel free to argue against that instead of the strawman that the Romanists just LOVE to prop up. Just a warning, though. It may be a little more difficult after that than dispensing condescending comments.
That would be a good one to add to your list.
If you are using this as evidence, and are unaware of its history, I suggest you do read it.
• started as a Jewish baptismal document
• altered to be Christian much later.
• earliest partial manuscript in existence is from the 400s
Etc.
Best
The Bible has numerous records of visions throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Or do you just cherry-pick the bible, like Luther did?
P.S. Luther, like Obama bin Laden, had "visions", but not divine visions.
So the state of the church is an example of the Holy Spirit protecting it?
Then why did He let this pope or any bad pope, get elected in the first place?
Doesn’t He guide the college of cardinals in the selection of the pope?
Looks like the Devil dodged the ink and Luther lost.
What you said!
Because you also need faith: faith and works. Good works alone are useless. I do not know why this is so hard to understand. Catholics do not believe in works alone.
You're saying we have to live a perfect life with no sin based on your interpretation. That's an impossibility.
That is why our Lord gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins. You do not have to live a perfect life but you cannot just remain in your sins either.
Paul does not exempt those who have faith from the immoral, impure or greedy who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
These words were addressed to believers who were saved to tell them the seriousness of living a holy life.
Not just to tell them the seriousness of living a holy life but to warn them that they will not inherit the kingdom of God if they return to their former unrighteousness.
Paul had already said that all believers have an inheritance in Christ (Ephesians 1:3–14).
Paul also warned them in Ephesians that: "no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." (Ephesians 5:5) Faith without a conversion of life is useless. Or as James proclaims: "faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17)
To claim a truly saved person cannot and will not practice these vices or would lose salvation overlook the fact that some genuine believers - sadly - live carnal lives (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1–4).
If a person falls back into a carnal life without latter repentance then, as Paul states, he will not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul gives no exemption for those who have faith.
Seems like Luther was repeating what he'd learned from Roman Catholics.
But I doubt you'll read it.
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.