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.”
I am Catholic and I don’t go through Mary. Too many Protestants believe that. I ask God to forgive my sins directly but go to confession occasionally to discuss grave sins. There is a lot of misunderstanding out there.
ealgeone:
The Pope was only following the true OT canon of the early undivided Catholic Church, 2 Maccabees, which is in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canon. It is not in the Protestant canon, but that is the minority canon.
People commit sins after baptism and confirmation (Catholic doctrine) or after making the call of the altar, or however you all call it, in protestant doctrine. So the statement you quote should be understood in the Catholic context of what it actually means. These were men, who were of the faith, who had strayed in their adult lives, so fighting a just war to defend Christendom was seen as a sign of repentance.
Playing victim never reveals truth......
Yes, Luther started out trying to reform the Church, but did not end up there. He stuck with his interpretation of Scripture, and thus created a split rather than reform.
Better the conversation centers around ‘who’ in the church family is central to Christianity itself....and that’s already been decided ...the Centrality of Jesus Christ himself. ....when any faith looses ‘the Centrality of Jesus Christ and the Gospel message itself centered on Him they have abandoned/shipwrecked their first love to something and or someone else.
Follow the thread.
I’m not playing a victim, just said to not feed the trolls!!
You’re saying each and every Crusader was a believer? Every one?
Amen (from a Protestant)
I didn’t see any trolls here...
Amen. Second it.
Christians, regardleas of the church has got to stop fighting each other. We have ENOUGH enemies that hate us to be still fighting each other.
That is the biggest misunderstanding coming from the Protestant side.
C:You should pay closer attention to what Jesus said on the topic.
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
No mention of priests or Catholicism here.
Then what's the point of *Sacred Tradition*?
If you ask God for some sims why not all? Is He somehow insufficient or unable to forgive
Sacred Tradition does not contradict the Bible but amplifies it. The selection of the books to be included in the Bible is itself a part of this Tradition. Tradition and the reception of the revelation of the Bible are both part of our Lord’s promise to send his Holy Spirit and to be with us until the end of the ages. Jesus did not write a book but established a teaching church from which we received the Gospel and Sacred Scripture.
Protestants also operate with their own unacknowledged traditions when they pass on their manmade novelties of the Reformers. Unlike those of the Catholics, however, theirs actually contradict the very Bible that they “claim” as their only source of authority. Thus they empty such Biblical statements such as “this is my Body”, “whose sins you forgive are forgiven them”, “not all those who cry out ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my heavenly Father,” “faith without works is dead,” ect. of their plain and easily understood meaning.
Please show where the NT writers said Mary was sinless.
. Please show where Jesus said we had to go to a priest for confession.
Please show where the NT said to build idols of Mary and pray to her.
. We can start with those for now.
Actually, in theology, views are decided upon because they answer the most questions and create the fewest problems. At least that's how it should work.
In Romanism, it has not worked that way historically all the time. Often, positions were taken to support later accretions of paganism - backfilling them into Scripture.
Admittedly, there were many times heresy created the need to define what was believed as true.
Please show where the NT writers said Mary was sinless.
You're starting from false premises.
The first false premise is that the NT writers were mindful that the Church would have to convince several generations of skeptics who would not arrive on the scene until a millenium and a half later.
The second false premise is that the writers of the NT took pains to include absolutely every last detail about Christian dogma, liturgy, prayer and worship in the NT.
The third false premise is that the only source of Christian teaching is a book.
Jesus did not commission a book. He commissioned men....real, live human beings! Some of those men whom he commissioned subsequently recorded some of the events in Jesus' life, together with some of his teachings. Likewise, these men commissioned other men who evangelized in various parts of what is now the Middle East, Europe and Asia. Some of their writings to the fledgling Christian communities were likewise preserved in a book.
However, it should be noted that these men had lives apart from any book. Their evangelization did not depend on the New Testament because it didn't exist. For instance, when Paul and Barnabas got into a dispute in Antioch over circumcision, they could not say......"OK....what does it say in the New Testament" (as you just did). Instead, they returned to Jerusalem to consult with "the apostles and priests" as we're told. That's how the Church functioned and how disputes were resolved. No book.....no Bible reading.....just the elders of the Church.
This is the model of the Church which has come down to us to this day. The Bible does not give us the Church. That's bass ackwards.
Likewise, the Christians at Corinth and Ephesus did not receive Paul's letters as readings from the Bible. They received them as letters from the man who had evangelized them.
So in response to your question about where the Bible mentions the Rosary; it doesn't (although the events in the Rosary are described in the Bible).
But so what? It's an issue only for those who embrace the false premises I've listed above.
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.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Or did God lie when He inspired Paul to write that Scripture was able to make the man of God COMPLETE?
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.