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.”
Shoo fly. No one is interested in playing your defective uncharitable game.
Heck, pop in on Catholic churches along the border with Mexico and you see the same thing.
I tried to do you a service, since it appears you are new on the Religion Forum.
Here is a link to the Religion Moderator's homepage:
On it you will find a very extensive and well-thought out list of guidelines and principles of this forum. I suggest it will help give context to your constant complaints of rudeness, etc.
Here is a brief summary, but there is more information there...
Unlabeled Religion Forum threads:
All other Religion Forum threads are “Open” by default.
Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.
It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.
Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
Guidelines concerning Hatred on the Religion Forum:
For example, a post or article that merely mentions Chick will be pulled.
Also do not compare another Freeper to a Nazi or a Westboro member or an Islamic Fundamentalist. That's flame baiting and a personal attack and may affect your posting privileges.
It is within the bounds of “open” Religion Forum town square style debate for a Freeper to express his hatred of a belief. But such posts are never allowed on RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
It is never within the bounds on the Religion Forum for a Freeper to express his hatred of people who hold a particular belief when any Freeper is part of the belief group.
For example:
It is ok to express hatred towards CatholicISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Catholics because some Freepers are Catholic.
It is ok to express hatred towards ProtestantISM on “open” Religion Forum threads. It is never ok to express hatred towards Protestants because some Freepers are Protestant.
It is ok to express hatred towards SatanISM and Satanists both because no Freeper is Satanist.
Whereas posters may argue vigorously for and against beliefs on “open” Religion Forum threads it is never tolerable to use ad hominems in religious debate because they invariably lead to flame wars when the subject is one’s deeply held religious beliefs.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal. "Mormons worship many gods" is not making it personal. "You worship many gods" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" or "Mormons kill non-Mormons" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" or "Mormons killed non-Mormons at Mountain Meadows" would not be pulled.
Statements formed as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
The words "prevarication" "dishonesty" "slander" "deceit" "calumny" and "subterfuge" are synonymous with "lie" because they entail intent.
Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" "inaccurate" "misstatement" do not attribute motive and are not "making it personal."
Other words push the envelope of motive but are not synonymous with "lie" for purposes of modding the RF. However, they can be "making it personal" if applied to another Freeper, personally, in such a way the discussion becomes "about" the individual Freeper instead of the issues. Those words include "misrepresentation" "detraction" "disinformation" "distortion" "hyperbole" and "doublespeak."
Another example, calling a group of Freepers "anti-Mormon" attributes motive to them as a group which is not technically "making it personal" - but saying that another Freeper, personally, is anti-Mormon instead of anti-MormonISM is an ad hominem. It is "making it personal."
Another example, a poster may say on an “open” RF thread that a particular belief, diety, religious authority, etc. is "Satanic." But he must not say "You are Satanic." That would be "making it personal." The Bible is always a legitimate source on the Religion Forum, so a poster might quote the Bible where Jesus called Peter "Satan." If a post serves no debate purpose (flame bait or 'making it personal' by devious means) - it would be pulled.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
However, if you were to say “I recall your saying something else on an earlier thread” and the poster challenged you “Oh yeah, where?” then you would be obligated to link to the previous thread and I would not pull it.
If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like “Here you say the sky is green. Why?” The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.
If however you are seeking to “impeach the witness” by showing he waffles back and forth THAT is “making it personal” and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
And if you are trying to embarrass another Freeper by recalling his inconvenient comments from prior threads, THAT is also "making it personal" and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
A poster may quote himself from a prior thread. And he may link to articles he has previously posted. That is not "making it personal" - he is merely reasserting his own views. He may link to articles posted by others or other posters' remarks which are not part of any dispute, e.g. "You hit the nail on the head when you said..."
If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a "caucus" of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection.
Things the Religion Moderator cannot or will not do:
I will not decree what is or is not truth. The poster who claims "Catholics worship Mary" may believe with his whole heart that is the absolute truth whereas another poster with his whole heart may believe that very statement is an abominable lie. Both sides should argue those beliefs on "open" Religion Forum threads but never resort to ad hominems.
I cannot and would not “settle” matters of dogma, doctrine, tradition or meanings of words.
Whereas I diligently try to read all of your posts, I am not here 24/7 and cannot remember all of the slights and parties involved on every single sidebar much less when posters carry grudges between threads. So if you are wondering why I singled one guy out and not the other involved in a dispute, often it is because I either did not see a previous post or did not remember it as part of the sidebar.
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on the Religion Forum. If the other guy is being childish, be patient with him.
Abusive spammers contribute nothing other than their spam and they don’t last long on Free Republic.
When posting in a foreign language, unless the statement is very common, e.g. adios, always include the English translation of it.
When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.
When another Freeper asks you not to link to his hosting service, e.g. to use a public domain image hosted there, cooperate with his request. In such cases, you may wish to put a copy of the image on your own hosting service.
You noticed TOO?
This is mind-reading and against relgion forum rules FRamigo. It is also false.
No private interpretation, the Bible says.
Not once. Not ever. How can I understand, when there is no one to explain, the Bible says.
The passage you obliquely refer to is speaking about spreading the Gospel.
But where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
It is throughout the Bible, but I'm left wondering if you understand the meaning of "sola scriptura?" What does the Bible say is the pillar and ground of truth?
The church is supposed to uphold the Scripture as a pillar upholds a temple. It really failed there! Thankfully, God didn't send His Son to start a chuch, but to save the souls of men.
To whom does Christ give the authority to teach?
The answer in Scripture can be found in the list of gifts He to the church. HE gives the gift of pastor teacher to some members of the church.
Please think and answer.
No; you told us SOME of what you believe.
Your need to fit me into some kind of “catholic” box has been amusing to watch, I must admit.
YOU are the one carrying their water.
All this quacking leads a rational person to think a duck is in the area.
If you would like to refute that assertion, just show me where Purgatory is taught by Jesus. Then show me where The Word of God designates the mother of Jesus as able to give a pass from that imagined destiny of purging before entry to Heaven.
Catholicism cannot do that, since the entire edifice of institutional empowerment is fabricated from straw and stubble. If you give it a try, pay attention to the still small voice within trying to awaken your somnabulent mind to truth.
Cool story, bro.
Go bother someone else for a while.
Rome teaches that a sinless Christ MUST have been born by a Sinless Mother.
However; to be consistant; would not a Sinless Mother herself need to be born of a sinless woman - Jesus’ Gramma??
And Granny’s mom would need to be SINLESS as well...
You see the PROBLEM here?
Like turtles; the OTC needs a succession of sinless ladies all the way bay to the First Eve.
Whoops!
Using the term charity as a substitute for 'tolerance' doesn't remove the suicidal quality of rejecting God's Grace in favor of self-worth to earn something GOD ALONE (no Mariology here) can give in response to faith in Christ Jesus.
YOU and I will never be good enough of our own effort to have the Character of God. ONLY God czn impart HIS nature to you.
If no harm; then where's the good?
Why talk to a DEAD WOMAN to talk to Jesus FOR you?
Go to the SOURCE and bypass any other(s) in the Chain of Command.
1 Timothy 2:5-6
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people.
Interesting question.
It seems that a major part of the 'bible' was already in existence - what we now call the Old Testement.
And what's now in the New was FOUGHT over (by Catholics) as to which writings would be included or tossed.
To say that ONLY the Roman church would have collected and assembled the NT is, by definition, boastful and arrogant.
Much like the whine of the OT prophet who was convinced that ONLY he was left to carry on GOD's work.
He soon found out; from GOD; that there were a VAST number (7,000 I think) of His followers around that Jezebel was NOT trying to kill!
Oh?
Sorry; but I used Officially Accepted Catholic writings to produce that list.
Google ANY of them and they can be found quite easily.
|
Mary, Untier of Knots or Mary, Undoer of Knots is the name of both a Marian devotion and a Baroque painting (German: Wallfahrtsbild or Gnadenbild) which represents that devotion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Untier_of_Knots
 |
I typed to soon.
It IS yet one more OFFICIALLY recognized title!
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM11.HTM
Where will this stuff END??!!??
And YOU know this how??
It’s obvious.
GOD is testing the folks to see if they follow BAD leadership.
So far; not a single one has!!
—Poorly_Catechized_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
You do not have to live a perfect life but you cannot just remain in your sins either.
Who was that upthread that claimed you can't have it both ways??
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.