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 saw it already, and besides, it's not much different than what many Protestants have written, and explained.
So your point is? You don't have one that I can see. Not one strong enough to save yourself from past error of opposing sola fide.
Do I have to explain EACH TIME any of the five sola are mentioned, that none of those are "alone" (save perhaps for 'Christ, alone' being as He is the all-in-all)?
Notice too (at the link) the rest of the list of theologians who subscribed to sola fide???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You had said;
WHAT Protestant denials???????????????????
I've had about enough Romanist confusion over these SIMPLEST of issues. Years of this has taken a toll. Perhaps now you may better see that portions of your anti-Protestant bigotry has been ill-founded (for years!)???
Just stop with beating, and burning the straw man -- where each sola is isolated not only one from another, but from all other inputs ---from scripture-- from reason itself, and from Christian traditions also. That 'everything in isolation and shallowness' way is not what is widely taught and understood among Protestants.
It's more like modern day Catholics, like Ratzinger and others, --- when they do get it right (or close enough) can't ever make it there without keeping one eye on Protestant exegesis. But even then-- they (Romanists) cannot agree with it unless THEY get to re-word things, if just a little here, and there so they can claim ownership, in effort to maintain their claims of ascendancy over everyone.
WEll, DUH!!!
How many years has it taken for that to sink in???? Geez louise, you people blow me away!
Like those pesky Protestants run around saying love can be done away with, or something? Ha!
One more time ---- the five solas were never ever (any of them) truly "alone". They all worked together. Always did.
If you would avoid apparent duplicity, you should have said I am against the condemnation of any believer in Jesus Christ, except those modern day Pharisees who post on these open forum threads.
Of course, you can falsely charge a believer with making a false statement without being a modern day Pharisee, but when they document your error then they are such.
Fallacy of false knowledge. If you knew anything about me, which you don’t, you’d know that I’m many things but a being a liberal isn’t one of them.
Speaking of logical fallacies, I was not referring to you as a political or social liberal, nor would i even say your wish that pot be legal everywhere necessarily makes you one (and i feel compassion for your condition), but as is obvious, i was saying that you were responding " like a liberal."
Ah, do tell. Please elaborate at length what a “typical Catholic defender” is. I enjoy reading a good stereotypical comedy. :)
It means in part just what I said, and which has been quite apparent in the years I have been active on the RF, and which others will also testify you. However, I have never encountered you on the RF, despite being very active here by the grace of God (16,000+ replies, almost all on RF open treads).
I am glad that your recognize that the “works” that Paul was speaking of are those of the Torah and not those of the moral law. I am afraid that there are some Protestants who would disagree with you. But I ask, how does what Pope Benedict says differ from what Catholics have been saying all along, i.e. that faith must be accompanied with charity?
You strain at 'This is my body', ignoring what JESUS told these same seekers after signs just a few verses earlier.
You completely ignore or twist to destruction the very first council of Ekklesia Fathers when you insist you ingest the blood of Christ at your blasphemous Mass.
You presume your Org (rhymes with Borg) has inherited the authority given to JUST THE TWELVE, all of whom are long dead from the body.
You lift words spoken to the Jews BEFORE the Cross of our salvation, making them seem to reveal duplicity in God's message to us. Then expect those seeking God to follow your false teachers and Magicsteeringthem and Pope to obtain, eventually, what God Promises is an immediate event when someone believes in Him Whom God has sent for their salvation.
In John 6 JESUS tells you that the work of God is to believe on Him Whom God sent. But you don't take Him at His Word and whittle away at the simple Gospel of Grace adding all manner of works which can only be approved through your false Christianity ORG.
And finally you spittle out a seeming contracdiction to the Gospel of Grace, asserting we must be keepers of the Law of Moses to eventually obtain salvation!
You are serving the spirit of antichrist with institutionalized vigor which would make the Pharisees of Jesus Day jealous of your ORG controls. Rhymes with Borg, and is pretty close to a facsimile of same!
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).”
I forgive you for the disparagement.
Be honest here, TS, wasn't there a bit of a persecution complex behind your OWN disparagement that started this? Snarky comment sowing usually reaps a crop of the same. JFYI
Thank you for posting these quotes from Pope Benedict XVI. He is such an erudite writer yet his words can be understood by the common man. I also appreciate your quotation from 1 Corinthians 13. This passage has become very meaningful to me in the past year as it has helped me get through a painful family situation. Faith without love is nothing. Works without love gain nothing. As Paul wrote in closing out the chapter, “so faith, hope, and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
If you are referring to John 6, then our Lord's response was that he would give them the true bread from heaven which is his flesh which they must eat. When the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying "How can they man give us his flesh to eat?", he emphasized the reality of this:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him." (John 6:53-56)It really cannot get more blunt than this. Those of his disciples who could not accept this returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Will you too reject what our Lord said and no longer accompany him?
You completely ignore or twist to destruction the very first council of Ekklesia Fathers when you insist you ingest the blood of Christ at your blasphemous Mass.
The decision of the Council of Jerusalem concerned the blood from pagan sacrifices. Our Lord said what he did in John 6 and at the Last Supper. We take him at his word. Will not you?
In John 6 JESUS tells you that the work of God is to believe on Him Whom God sent.
To believe in him is to believe all that he taught us, not just that he died for us. He taught us that we must keep love God and our neighbors, and that we must keep the commandments. There was no exception in this just because someone has faith.
And finally you spittle out a seeming contracdiction to the Gospel of Grace, asserting we must be keepers of the Law of Moses to eventually obtain salvation!
Do you even bother to read what I have written. I have argued for just the opposite, that works that Paul contrasted to faith were those of the Law of Moses. I have mentioned that the whole point of Romans was to proclaim that this was no longer binding. This being opposed to the Protestant idea that in Romans he was arguing against any works.
May God bless you and bring peace to your family.
"Do this in remembrance of Me", cannot be construed to do this to have salvation as claimed by Roman Catholicism.
To believe in him is to believe all that he taught us, not just that he died for us. He taught us that we must keep love God and our neighbors, and that we must keep the commandments. There was no exception in this just because someone has faith.
I agree we are to love God and our neighbors and obey His commandments.
No one is saying you just wake up one day and say I believe and bear no fruit. That is not a NT position.
However, we know we cannot keep all of the commandments...and this would be the entire Law...not just the 10 Commandments.
This is why God made a provision for us through the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross. He is the one time sacrifice for our sins...all of them.
You probably mean the practice of what is called "auricular" (to the ear) confession, because NO ONE would deny that Scripture clearly teaches confession itself. Just the "private" confession as it is practiced today by going privately to a priest is what changed, contrary to the dogmatic - but false - assertion of Trent:
Can I presume that you do not agree with what Catholicism has claimed WRT private confession being "always observed from the beginning"?
How elitist of you! Contrary to you, I believe that a person can see the truth of the gospel, be obedient to the word of God AND be eternally saved by the grace of God through faith and NOT have to be a Roman Catholic. But even Catholics can be saved as long as they believe the truth of the gospel.
Do you see anything in that declaration regarding eating Jesus's flesh or drinking His blood? Why do you suppose Jesus did not put the later saying there, when answering a direct question? ... Read the text following and see what these unbelievers shot back demanding from Him. THAT is a huge hint your religion ignores and instead swallows the contradiction so it can empower your works based religion!
But I was referring to what Jesus said to His disciples when He broke the bread and passed the cup of WINE the night before He sacrificed His body and blood for your redemption. You might want to read what He said just after that remembrance was instituted, regarding going to prepare a place for us bringing us to the Father's House. But of course you have been taught to reject the notion of Rapture of the Body of Christ and believe Jesus was not saying what He was saying, about an event your religion cannot fathom.
BTW way, Catholic, these were not disciples, they were seekers after signs and wonders rather than eternal life, Spiritual birth. They followed Him around to watch the show. He sent them on their way by giving them a conundrum. Do you know why they coulod not accept His saying to them? ... Because even these lost souls seeking after signs knew that GOD commanded to not srink the blood or eat human flesh. Apparently, the one who turned away were smarter than the average lost Catholic. And yet they chose to be lost, because had they stuck around a minute or two more, JESUS told His Disciples that the flesh profiteth nothing, that the Words were spirit and life. Your religion rejects that Truth by twisting it to mean something it does not say.
You asserted, "Our Lord said what he did in John 6 and at the Last Supper." And again you chose to take what JESUS taught as a REMEMBRANCE in such literal speak that the behavior defies the Command of GOD against drinking the actual blood. You make (or actually the author of Catholiciism, satan the twister) GOD out to be duplicitous! Shame on you! JESUS identified the contents of the cup as fruit of the vine to be used in the REMEMBRANCE ceremony until HE returns for them. He even said HE would not drink of that fruit of the vine until He would do so with them in the KINGDOM.
Taking scripture out of the context of the passages is the only way a Christianity look-alike (like Mormonism too) can dupe the people. But many do not remain duped by false religion. Some at FR? Not so much.
You spittle as if you comprehend but you in fact are clueless. You offered, "and that we must keep the commandments." No, poor soul, Jesus said keep HIS commandments. Do you know the two which Jesus issued before ascending? We cannot keep the Law of Moses, YET. But we can Love The Lord our God and our neighbor like we love our own selves! If you could keep the Law of Moses the cross would be an aside. I am absolutely certain you do not keep all the Law of Moses. CERTAIN!
And finally, with your last paragraph you contradict your own assertion in just two paragraphs earlier! Magic Thinking allows a duplicitous rendering, but it is clearly confusion that is spread.
John to John 3 and read the whole chapter. Put yourself in the place of Nicodemus, and listen to Jesus as if He is speaking directly to you. May the Lord have mercy upon us all!
Only you're NOT staying with the plain meaning of Scripture when you pull a snippet out of its context and audience. That's what Catholicism does numerous times throughout the catechism to deny what is actually being taught by the Holy Spirit. They do so, obviously, to force it to comply with a preconceived notion that a man's works merit salvation while his faith takes a back seat - completely contrary to God's word.
"In remembrance of Me" means more than just recollecting but making it present so that we can participate in it. This is how the Jews celebrate the old Passover and this is how we celebrate the new.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16)We also must keep in mind John 6:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)Could our Lord have been any more insistent that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood? At the Last Supper he shows us how the command can be accomplished, that we eat his flesh and drink his blood.
Thank you. We are in the process of healing.
“is it not a participation”
Greek word is “fellowship”
The Lord’s Supper is a shared fellowship of believers, done in rememberance of Him until He comes again.
To believe in Jesus is to believe in what he teaches us. And he taught us the we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and that Eucharist is his body and blood. It is really quite simple.
Do you see anything in that declaration regarding eating Jesus's flesh or drinking His blood?
That come latter:
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” (John 6:53-58)BTW way, Catholic, these were not disciples, they were seekers after signs and wonders rather than eternal life, Spiritual birth.
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it? … As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.(John 6:60, 66)No, poor soul, Jesus said keep HIS commandments.
Actually, he said both:
If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. (Matt. 19:17)But you do agree, then, that he commanded us to keep his commandments. Faith alone is not enough.
We cannot keep the Law of Moses.
I have repeatedly said that we are not under the Law of Moses. Where have I said otherwise?
Riiight...there are plenty of verses that say grace DOES save through faith. If you wish to be saved without grace, then you have to merit, work, deserve it and then you would never be saved! Without GRACE no one will be saved.
But if you reject the gospel, then:
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.