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.

But; so does EVERY other ‘church’ on earth.

You are so right, some can be honestly mistaken, ( just saying that to give them the benefit of the doubt )

But mainly it is to give the Churches power and the ministers prestige.

Mathew 23
1 THEN Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. 6 And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,

7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. 8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren. 9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ. 11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do:

The above indicates that that they would tell you the truth but they would not do them selves what they would tell you to do.

Would Jesus give the ministers of today even that much credit? I doubt it very seriously because they also lie.

Mormonism and Islam.

HEY!!

"I Will Be a Second Mohammed"

In the heat of the Missouri 'Mormon War' of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,

"I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was "the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword". So shall it eventually be with us: "Joseph Smith or the Sword!" [1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking and troubling parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new spin. In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters, but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to 'correct' the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the 'Inspired Version' in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is 'correcting' it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural 'spin', both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. "I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book." [3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet's own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered 'infidels', pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed's followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Ali ibn Abi lib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." [4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230-231. Fawn Brodie's footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. â€œExcept where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57-59, 97-129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8-9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6-7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408-409.

The waferJesus, as well as the version of Christ which has Him basically making Mary

the Queen of Heaven of heaven, dispenser of all grace, lord of all the angels, etc. etc .

is indeed false, but theologically the Christ of the Apostle's Creed is sound.

The way it's written:

Galatians 4:4-5

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ⁵to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

The way Rome teaches it:

Galatians 4:4-5

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a....

Co-Redemptrix,
Ark of the Covenant,

Beloved daughter of the Father,
Cause of Our Joy,

Cause of our Salvation ,
Comfort of the Afflicted,
Destroyer of Heresy,
Ever-virgin ,
Favoured Daughter of the Father,
Gate of Heaven,
God-bearer,
Health of the Sick,
Help of Christians,
Holy Mary,
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of Virgins,
House of Gold,
Joy of the Just,
Majesty,
Mirror of Justice,
Morning Star,
Most Holy,
Mother Admirable,
Mother Inviolate,
Mother Most Amiable,
Mother Most Chaste,
Mother Most Pure,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of Divine Grace,
Mother of God,
Mother of Good Counsel,
Mother of Mercy,
Mother of Orphans,
Mother of Our Creator,
Mother of Our Redeemer,
Mother of Sorrows,
Mother of the Church,
Mother of the Poor,
Mother of the Word,

Mother of the Word Incarnate,
Mother Thrice Admirable,
Mother Undefiled,
Mystical Rose,
Nova Eva (the New Eve),
Our Lady of Compassion,
Our Lady of Confidence,
Our Lady of Victory,
Our Lady, Star of the Sea,
Our Mother of Perpetual Help,
Queen Assumed Into Heaven,
Queen Conceived Without Original Sin,
Queen of All Saints,
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Families,
Queen of Heaven,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Peace,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of the Most Holy Rosary,
Queen of Virgins,
Ravisher of Hearts,
Refuge of Sinners,
Seat of Wisdom,
She Who Shows the Way,
Singular Vessel of Devotion,
Spiritual Vessel,

Spouse of the Holy Spirit,

sovereign Mistress of the Angels,
Tabernacle of the Lord,

Temple of the Holy Spirit,
Temple of the Most Holy Trinity,
Throne of Wisdom,
Tower of David,
Tower of Ivory,
Treasure House of God's Graces,
Untier of Knots,
Vessel of Honor,
Virgin God-bearer,
Virgin Most Faithful,
Virgin Most Merciful,
Virgin Most Powerful,
Virgin Most Prudent,
Virgin Most Renowned,
Virgin Most Venerable

Virgin of virgins, born under the law, ⁵to HELP redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship; sooner or later; and not spend TOO much time in Purgatory.

If I understand us (always a good question,) our view is, first, NOT that everyone currently in the Church is saved. we are not an OSAS shoppe. ;-) So, though it's a mystery why or how, we imagine people jumping ship.

Second, we do not think we know who is NOT saved. I think it was John Vianney who said of a suicide that we cannot know that between the bridge and his drowning he was not graced with a perfect conversion or repentance ... which would obviate the need of sacraments.

But we hold that while we can't know the limits of God's company, anyone who is baptized with water, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and with the intention to baptize, is a member of the Church. And the "intention" could be as vague as, "I'm doing whatever those crazy Xtians think they're doing when they do this thing."

Then (pause for Trumpian sip of water) some members are not in very good standing. But they're still members. So people who speak of "returning" to the Church are imprecise. We'd say they never left, but they're clearing up and repairing their status, so to speak.

Then, we would say that the "fullness" of the Church is found among those in communion with the See of Rome. So, in classes for people already baptized who want to become Catholics we say that formally, "conversion" is the wrong word. It is used properly, we say, only for those to be baptized. The words I use are "coming into *full* communion."

"On the ground" Catholics vary in their emotional baggage on this. One friar, who is just a "rigorist" temperamentally, said he would not baptize a dying child whose parents intended to bring him up, say, Methodist if he recovered. Another friar, whose thinking and temperament are more like my own, agreed with my take which is that the standard is "Christian," not "in full communion," so if the parents wanted baptism, I'd do it ... in a heartbeat!

(And then, whether or not the child survived, I'd follow up later with the parents, all things being equal.)

In my view the rigorist friar doesn't really "get" what Ratzinger said in "Dominus Iesus" about the extent of the Church. In his view I'm just a lax and genial slob. (To which I say, "Yeah, pretty much.") But even Friar Rigorous would agree that Methodists are members of the Church, though not in full communion.

I know! For a good sense of the "flavor" of our thinking about the Church and the reach of God's saving grace ... go HERE and scroll down (a LONG WAY) to "The Solemn Intercessions." These express Catholic thought on the "reach" of the redemption wrought on the Cross.

Way more than you wanted to know, I'm sure. Have a great Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving and blessing, acts in which we all can be united!

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.