Yep, just the response that I figured I'd get, unfortunately.
I'll pray for you.
But in the meantime, you seem to like it, so have your quote right back at you. It's not entirely Biblically accurate, but I think you'll get the meaning.
Posted on 11/17/2017 3:03:09 PM PST by ebb tide
As an outsider, I can’t help but wonder whether the pope and the USCCB were particularly provoked by Weinandy’s suggestion that Jesus had allowed this controversy in order “to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops.” Catholics will have to make up their own minds—but I’ll admit I have questions about the faith of Pope Francis, which seems, if not weak, at least different from that of the Catholic tradition.
Even before the release of Amoris Laetitia in March 2016, Francis had caused many to question his fidelity to that tradition. In 2014, the midterm report of the Extraordinary Synod on the Family recommended that pastors emphasize the “positive aspects” of cohabitation and civil remarriage after divorce. He said that Jesus’s multiplication of bread and fish was really a miracle of sharing, not of multiplying (2013); told a woman in an invalid marriage that she could take Holy Communion (2014); claimed that lost souls do not go to hell (2015); and said that Jesus had begged his parents for forgiveness (2015). In 2016, he said that God had been “unjust with his son,” announced his prayer intention to build a society “that places the human person at the center,” and declared that inequality is “the greatest evil that exists.” In 2017, he joked that “inside the Holy Trinity they’re all arguing behind closed doors, but on the outside they give the picture of unity.” Jesus Christ, he said, “made himself the devil.” “No war is just,” he pronounced. At the end of history, “everything will be saved. Everything.”
Weinandy and other Catholic critics have pointed to alarming statements and suggestions in Amoris Laetitia itself. The exhortation declares, “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” In December 2016, the Catholic philosophers John Finnis and Germain Grisez argued in their “Misuse of Amoris Laetitia” that though this statement reflects a trend among Catholic thinkers stemming from Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar, it contradicts the gospels’ clear statements and the Catholic tradition’s teaching that there is “unending punishment” in hell. Finnis and Grisez charge that, according to the logic of Amoris Laetitia, some of the faithful are too weak to keep God’s commandments, and can live in grace while committing ongoing and habitual sins “in grave matter.” Like (Episcopalian) Joseph Fletcher, who taught Situation Ethics in the 1960s, the exhortation suggests that there are exceptions to every moral rule and that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act.
I take no pleasure in Rome’s travails. For decades, orthodox Anglicans and other Protestants seeking to resist the apostasies of liberal Christianity have looked to Rome for moral and theological support. Most of us recognized that we were really fighting the sexual revolution, which had coopted and corrupted the Episcopal Church and its parent across the pond. First it was the sanctity of life and euthanasia. Then it was homosexual practice. Now it is gay marriage and transgender ideology. During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, we non-Catholics arguing moral theology could point to learned and compelling arguments coming out of Rome and say, in effect, “The oldest and largest part of the Body of Christ agrees with us, and it does so with remarkable sophistication.”
Those of us who continue to fight for orthodoxy, in dogmatic as well as moral theology, miss those days when there was a clear beacon shining from across the Tiber. For now, it seems, Rome itself has been infiltrated by the sexual revolution. The center is not holding.
Though we are dismayed, we must not despair. For the brave and principled stand made by Tom Weinandy reminds us that God raises up prophetic lights when dark days come to his Church.
Gerald McDermott holds the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School.
You sound like a muslim now.
***
Really? It’s called loving your neighbor, ebb. You know, from the Bible?
Tough love in this case; please read previous post.
I'll repeat - for those hard of hearing -- You won't, simply because you can't...
Thus far I've given you two Romam Catholic sources to refute Romam Catholic beliefs. That you don't like that is understandable.
Now put down the alcohol. You've had too much it seems.
Yeah and the muderous muslims also think they’re carring out the “Great Commission”.
I want nothing to do with either cult.
You never quoted me.
You have been making stuff up about be.
No, I don't remember any such post.
Care to give me link to it?
Yep, just the response that I figured I'd get, unfortunately.
I'll pray for you.
But in the meantime, you seem to like it, so have your quote right back at you. It's not entirely Biblically accurate, but I think you'll get the meaning.
Keep bringing up other websites, other "explanations", or any other "other".
The fact is this ----- You CANNOT go line by line in the Catholic Mass and **Prove** that it is not Biblically-based.
Because ---- You know that it is...
I was not aware Islam had the “Great Commission.” But as Roman Catholicism claims to worship and adore the same God as the Muslim perhaps you may know more about this.
Again....put down the alcohol. A Romam Catholic priest has described what happens in the Mass. I compared it to Hebrews. The Mass is in contradiction of Hebrews. Perhaps you might want to take this up with a priest to see if O’Brien is wrong.
I am genuinely curious -- why will you not answer my original premise/question? You keep changing the topic with quotes of "priests" and "Catholic-Organizations" ---- but *****N-O-T***** the Catholic Church.
If you are so right --- simply respond with how Catholics are not worshiping the Word of God in the Order of the Mass? Should be pretty easy - unless you know that we are right.
Burden of proof is upon you --- C'Mon - if this is so cut-and-dry, then just say it ----- I dare you-----
BTW -- Show me in the Book of Hebrews where the Catholic Mass is in Direct Contradiction of Scripture...
Answer the premise...Wait —— You won’t
Hang around a few hours and daniel1212 will probably post his research showing how small a percent of the Bible is read or taught in a year of mass attendance. And that is the claim here. Much of the mass is repeated every time at the expense of exposing Romans to the rest of scripture.
Thanks for the ping. Actually the statement you responded to here was not on how much of the Bible is read in the Mass, but on how much of the Mass is based on Scripture, which are two different issues. One may argue that their wedding was wholly based on Scripture, but that does not mean they hear a lot of it.
And that the Mass is based on Scripture is a matter of interpretation, as is the claim that the rituals of Mormonism all are, but which does not make them Biblical. While good things from Scripture are read in the Mass (I speak as a former lector), yet the Mass, being the uniquely priestly Eucharistic sacrifice not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church (and which is the only inspired record of how it understood the gospels), then the Mass as whole is not Biblical.
However, the statement on much of the Mass is based on Scripture was in response to your statement, "Considering how little of the Bible Roman Catholics hear at Mass..." which WrightWings (whom I never recall seeing in the RF in my 12 years here) labeled "Completely false," but which research shows is not, at the least for the typical Catholic.
Summary: It has been established that historically Rome did not overall encourage Bible literacy among the laity as time went on, and can be said to have hindered and even discouraged it. And until recently very little of the Bible was read in Mass. Catholic sources report, “At mid-century study of Bible texts was not an integral part of the primary or secondary school curriculum. At best, the Bible was conveyed through summaries of the texts.” (The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG16) Even by 1951 just 22.4% of the gospels and 16.5% of all the NT was read on Sundays and major feast days, and just 0.39% of the Old Testament (aside from the Psalms) being read at Vigils and major feast days (readings from the Old Testament were not used on Sundays). (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm)
While that amount has increased since Vatican Two, contrary to some Catholics who claim that they hear most of the entire Bible at Mass, attendees still hear only a small percentage of the whole Bible (at best less than 35% even for daily Mass-going RCs) and most of what is heard is redundant), and thus typical Mass-going Catholics will hardly obtain much of a functional knowledge of Scripture. For the average Catholic does not even go to Mass weekly, which would be needed to get just 12.7% of the Bible during the reading cycle, let alone faithfully attend Mass daily ( few can, and according to a Catholic source, fewer than 1 percent of Catholics attend daily Mass: www.lifezette.com/faithzette/going-daily-mass-changed-life/)), which would be required in order to hear 27.5% of the entire Bible, excluding Psalms, a few verses of which are read during the liturgy (calculation is of 4179 out of 33001 verses for Sunday Masses, and 9067 out of 33001 for Sunday and weekday masses based on stats from the aforementioned lectionary page.). I also found a Catholic poster (Todd Easton: https://forums.catholic.com/t/reading-the-entire-bible-in-3-years-at-mass/37504/9 who calculated that if one faithfully one goes to Sunday and daily mass then these RCs only hear 30% of the entire Catholic bible, and faithful Sunday-only Mass attendees only hear 14% of the same. Of course, liberal Protestants most likely hear even less, and like Catholics, but in contrast to evangelicals overall, they testify to engaging in little personal Bible reading.
From http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Supplementary , by the grace of God.
I think you might be referring to "I have better things to do with 20 minutes, like praying a rosary" rather than reading Luther.
I 100% DARE any Non-Catholic, to respond to me that the Catholic Mass is not based on the Bible -- because they **KNOW** that it is.
There is NOT a *****S-I-N-G-L-E***** line uttered in the Catholic Mass that is not bases on the Bible.
It might help if you read back through the chain of the thread to understand what responses go with what comments. This one in particular was in response to Ebb Tide - the orginator of this thread. He stated:
Nope. I’m saying Jorge Bergoglio is not a Catholic and the Catholic Church will always prevail against the gates of Hell, despite the likes of him.
To which I then asked:
And about that "we have an UNBROKEN line of succession" part? Tell me, does that line allow for intermittent breaks???
Ebb Tide then referred to this vacancy of the Papal throne (though Francis remains seated there to the chagrin of a few Sedevacantists on this forum) as an "Interregnum" and I asked about the quite LONG period of time all while several validly elected Popes reigned but no Pope was accepted by them (Sedevacanists) as being valid after Pius XII. All of this you would have known if you followed the conversation. Do you agree with Ebb Tide?
As for "men's follies" and "evils-of-man" accounts, my questions are valid and need to be addressed especially by the one who posted this thread insisting Pope Francis is a "Liberal Protestant". It is hardly attacking Catholics when a Catholic posts a thread, or threads, that criticize non-Catholics expecting to stir up discussion, or dissension as the case usually is with certain people. Your mistake is to take personally the comments opposed to your religion's doctrines or in defense of what Protestants/Evangelicals believe on certain subjects. Your ire might be better spent on your fellow Catholic who continues to post anti-Protestant threads rather than the "bees" his striking the beehive has provoked.
Yes, I know. For your edification, and others who have asked you numerous times, you HAVE a seated Pope (Francis) validly elected by the College of Cardinals yet you reject him as Pope. Sedevacanists - of which you have refused to confirm or deny is your bent - reject ALL the Popes after Pius XII who died in 1958. Sixty years seems like quite a long time to be an interregnum especially since there have been six now who have worn the white zucchetto and sit on the Papal throne.
Yes, I know.
It was purposeful. See how he liked half-truths and selective memory and point out how angry he got when I told them to him. Then ask why he does that to me and everyone else.
As you can see later on the thread, I don’t think he got the point.
I think you might be referring to “I have better things to do with 20 minutes, like praying a rosary” rather than reading Luther.
***
As you can see, Daniel caught my intentional bad memory and denial. See how angry you got when I said that kind of stuff about you, especially when only half of it was true?
So why do you repeatedly call people heretics, and why do you repeatedly deny the bad behavior that there’s proof of?
You hate it when I do it to you, so why do you do it to other people?
And don’t try to claim you never did; I can very clearly see the heretic name-calling on this thread.
Why keep treating others the way you don’t want to be treated? According to Catholic doctrine (and Scripture), you’re putting your salvation in serious danger by doing so.
As I said, despite how I enjoy keyboard jousting, I care about your salvation, ebb. And that means I’m going to point this out.
If I can interrupt yourself posting to yourself, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3605783/posts?page=213#213
Dan pointed out how two differing things were being discussed at the same time (wires were being crossed, so to speak).
Can you see what daniel1212 was talking about? If you could (although you could then disagree with points dan makes, expressing that, or else keeping that to yourself for some other time-- your choice) it would help straighten out what more exactly you were in disagreement with in regard to yet another person's comments.
Two issues; one -- how much Scripture is covered within what's referred to as "mass".
The other is whether or not that same "mass" is biblical, or not.
As I understand it, that latter can be evaluated as towards extent, or degree, and as dan mentioned, that is subject to interpretation. Additionally as I understand it (and I do understand it, better than many, if not most) it's not as if it's "all -- or nothing" choice.
Fair enough?
For the time being though, I'd prefer to not enter into debate on all-or-nothing terms, nor desire (for the moment) to go into "how much" and how much "not", if you don't mind.
Whichever way that goes, please do not mistake any reticence on my own part for inability. Lack of supplying refutation that you seek, challenging others supply that to yourself upon demand does not equal ...because they know I am right... as you put it.
There are specialized rules for this part of FR. The "religion" forum is something of it's own special case. The rules were designed in interest of avoiding flame-wars while allowing differences of viewpoint and opinion still be discussed.
Telling the forum here "because they know you are right" is wholesale mind-reading and verges on attributing motives (if not getting there more fully).
Please, don't say things like that. The "because" clause is simply not true, and not true in more ways than one.
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.