"Catholics Will Have to Decide Whether They Guard the Faith Over Papolatry"

Gloria TV ^ | July 17, 2017 | Gloria TV

[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.”

[Luircin]

I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church founded by Jesus himself.

Doncha just LOVE your Pope??!!

***

Back ‘em into a corner and the answer is always the same. “WE WUZ FOUNDED BY JEEEEEZUS!”

It seems that this is the assurance of salvation for Catholics, whereas Christians have the words of Christ himself and the Apostles that Jesus sent instead of some vague ‘founding’ that ends up contradicting what Jesus and the Apostles actually said and taught.

Kind of sad when one has to base one’s assurance of salvation on a statement that implies that Jesus is a liar or an idiot.

*shotsfired.jpg*

[Luircin]

Yeah right. An invisible, disorganized, chaotic and scattered “church” led by men (all be they different men or women whatever the case may be) is somehow preferable? No thanks. I’ll stick with the Fathers, Doctors and Saints of the visible One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Catholic Church founded by Jesus himself.

***

Indeed.

Too bad that your church teaches blatant contradictions to the very words of Jesus. Not a very good track record when your own Catechism contradicts the plain words of Scripture, let me tell you. Not to mention the corruption running rampant through all of the Vatican.

I’ll stick with Jesus and the Apostles themselves instead of some organization that claims to be founded by Jesus and then throws the core of Jesus’ teaching out the window.

I’ll stick with Jesus and the Apostles teaching salvation by grace through faith instead of an organization that claims that you’re not allowed to get remarried if your wife leaves you and you’ll be going to Hell if you do... and then is perfectly fine with drug-fueled sodomy parties.

I think that there’s a saying about glass houses and throwing stones...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

.

[Petrosius]

It appears every objection you tried to bring forward has been explained clearly.

Perhaps in your mind but I only see crass rationalizations that empty Scripture of its plain meaning in order to protect the preconceived notion of faith alone. Now unless you claim some sort of infallibility that you deny to the universal church, then you should preface your interpretations on the meaning of Scripture with "It is my opinion, but I could be wrong." And if you truly believe in "Scripture alone," what warrant do you have to demand that I give up my opinions about Scripture and accept yours?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Perhaps in your mind but I only see crass rationalizations that empty Scripture of its plain meaning in order to protect the preconceived notion of faith alone.

I do not believe you can mind-read what I think FRiend.

Now unless you claim some sort of infallibility that you deny to the universal church, then you should preface your interpretations on the meaning of Scripture with "It is my opinion, but I could be wrong."

I'm not infallible. Nor is Rome nor any other group.

I appreciate your suggestion, but God uses specific words, a specific organizational structure in every book of Scripture and the Greek language. There are times we cannot say with 100% certainty what is meant, but we can do several important things:

1. We can say with certainty what is not possible based on specific language.
2. We can say with certainty what the remaining legitimate possibilities are.
3. We can say with certainty what other passages say clearly about the same topic.
4. We can say what the best interpretation is for a passage.

Those of us who are teachers recognize all 4 of these principles.

And if you truly believe in "Scripture alone," what warrant do you have to demand that I give up my opinions about Scripture and accept yours?

I don't believe in what you describe as "Scripture alone." I believe God's Scripture is the only authority that is unchangeable on this earth and not subject to human error or the accretion of pagan teachings.

I'm fine with you having an opinion of Scripture. I encourage you to "study to show yourself approved, a workman accurately handling the Word of truth."

As an observation, I've yet to meet a FRoman Catholic who can rightly handle the Word of Truth. Not one in all these years. Not even the one who claims to be a priest. I'd love it if all could. It takes work. I tried to encourage one to do this and she said she didn't have time because "she had a life."

[MHGinTN]

I wonder if the teaching of Paul, especially to the Thessalonians, could help Catholics to see that their supposed sin of presumption is merely a man-made dogma, since Paul was seeking to reinforce their assurance of salvation? ... Nah, not complicated enough for twisting.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I wonder if the teaching of Paul, especially to the Thessalonians, could help Catholics to see that their supposed sin of presumption is merely a man-made dogma, since Paul was seeking to reinforce their assurance of salvation? ... Nah, not complicated enough for twisting.

Aren't you presuming the problem is a lack of facts, instead of a denial of same??

[Petrosius]

I believe God's Scripture is the only authority that is unchangeable on this earth and not subject to human error or the accretion of pagan teachings.

I would kindly suggest that you do not confuse God's Scripture with your private opinions on what it means.

As an observation, I've yet to meet a FRoman Catholic who can rightly handle the Word of Truth.

Again, only your opinion. I will stick with the teachings of God's church and the writings of the saints. I pray that God will enlighten you to see the truth and become obedient to his Word. Peace.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Again, only your opinion.”

It is a fact, observed over 15 years of interaction. As a seminary graduate, I see what is put forth on this forum.

” I will stick with the teachings of God’s church and the writings of the saints.”

And that really is the issue with Catholic practice. There is a large idea that is false, but worse, prevents the pursuit of truth. Instead, there is the attempt to justify what must be believed. To do otherwise is to admit the Roman church is not infallible.

[MHGinTN]

Actually AMPU, it is far more than avoiding admission of non-infallibility. The blasphemies laced throughout the Catholic religion mock God. For instance, the fabrication of a purgatory insults the Blood of Christ as not sufficient so a purging must be done BEFORE entering Heaven. To support this lie, a passage clearly describing the Bema Rewards Seat of CHRIST IN HEAVEN is perverted to support this great lie of purgatory.

We could point to the false assurances of the scapular, the huge false trail of Mariology,, and the Mass, with similar blaspheming of God's Word to support these 'other religion' dogma. But those trapped in that other religion are so convinced that they are being the most Christian that showing clear reproofs is useless to too many. We can only pray these discussions and exposures of the false nature of Catholicism will be used by GOD's Spirit to bring some to truth.

[boatbums]

I bet you keyboard theologians have a secret handshake & a decoder ring in your enrollment packet when you join that “Tear Down Catholics” club, eh?

Ah, another 4P, I see (poor, pathetic, persecuted papist). Maybe OPEN Religion Forum threads are not for you?

[boatbums]

But what if our hand is CAUGTH in the cookie jar? We just happen to be sinning at the instant of our DEATH and do not get a CHANCE to confess and repent?

I think cookie snatching is only counted as a "venial" sin, so you may only get some extra time in that pretend place called Purgatory until your cookie swiping ways are behind you. ;o)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“But those trapped in that other religion are so convinced that they are being the most Christian that showing clear reproofs is useless to too many. We can only pray these discussions and exposures of the false nature of Catholicism will be used by GOD’s Spirit to bring some to truth.”

+1

Correct on both counts. We wish only the blessings of salvation and eternal life for them.

It is their’s, but requires setting aside their own righteousness and works to accept His alone. And this would mean giving up idols.

This is too big a price for the majority.

From the earliest record, men prefer idols to the Living God.

In the end they get neither, unless they turn from false works and idols to Christ alone.

[Luircin]

Correct on both counts. We wish only the blessings of salvation and eternal life for them.

***

You said it.

A somewhat divergent thought here.

I used to empathize with the Catholics on the threads where they were bemoaning the leftism of the Pope. I looked askance for a moment when they started trying to say that he wasn’t REALLY the Pope.

Then the meme started that Pope Francis was REALLY A PROTESTANT, GASP.

What is this? It’s like, among a certain crowd, all non-Catholic Christians are really the devil, and everything HAS to be THEIR fault, no matter how much they have to twist in order to make it that way.

[boatbums]

Amen! And, when you think about it, isn’t that the kind of attitude that God wants us to have? I really don’t think it is possible to truly love someone you fear. God desires that we love and serve Him because we want to and can’t help but do it because of what He means to us. He didn’t make us robots, either. We love Him because He first loved us.

[boatbums]

There is nowhere in the entire Bible that says anyone is saved by grace.

What happened? Did your Roodian Bible redact all the verses that say that?

[boatbums]

You were wrong. Only Mortal Sins need to be forgiven in Confession since Venial Sins do not separate us from God. I would suggest you study Catholic teaching before you criticize it.

Heh, then those priests and nuns lied to me about what I needed to confess in confession.

A little background on that:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that private confession first came on the scene in the seventh century:
“Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this ‘order of penitents’ (which concerned only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the ‘private’ practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1447).

So, private confession was introduced a full seven centuries after Christ and His apostles. Ironically the Roman Church curses us if we dare assert the plain historical fact that secret confession to a priest was not observed from the beginning:

“If anyone denies that the sacramental confession was instituted, and is necessary for salvation, by divine Law; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human invention, anathema sit” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 6).

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a23.htm

[boatbums]

Amen!

[boatbums]

[boatbums]

Again, only your opinion. I will stick with the teachings of God's church and the writings of the saints. I pray that God will enlighten you to see the truth and become obedient to his Word. Peace.

Can I presume that according to you, "seeing the truth" and "becoming obedient to his word" means one must become a Roman Catholic and do all the things required of "faithful" Catholics? Is this what you are praying for?