Posted on 04/30/2018 4:56:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
Francis Was Elected To Carry Out a Lutheran Reform
Monsignor Antonio Livi, a former dean and professor at the Lateran University in Rome, formerly incardinated in the Opus Dei, told Gloria.tv in an exclusive interview that Pope Francis was elected to carry out a – quote – “reform in the Lutheran sense”. According to Livi, in the new Lutheran church-to-come the pope, the bishops and the priests will not be anymore an expression of the sacred but of politics.
The Term “People” Is A Rhetorical Image
Monsignor Livi criticizes the term “people” which Pope Francis loves to apply to the Church. Livi points out that “people” is a mere rhetorical image. Quote, “The people is made up of a multitude of different persons, therefore nobody ever knows what ‘the people’ wants.” And, “There are those in the people who are full of faith like Padre Pio and those who have no faith at all.”
The Election of Francis Was Orchestrated
On the basis of many historical witnesses Monsignor Livi is -quote – “absolutely certain” that the election of Pope Francis was orchestrated. He also points out that it is absurd to claim that Francis is pope because the Holy Spirit wanted so. Quote, “The Holy Spirit inspires everybody so that they may do good, but not everybody who is inspired by the Holy Spirit, effectivly does good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at gloria.tv ...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Luther wanted to get the Catholic church back to its roots, just like the current people opposed to the current pope.
For his efforts, the Catholic church ex-communicated him.
Which is what I see coming down the road for all those who oppose Francis.
I guess that answers the question once for all that the Holy Spirit does NOT guide the college of cardinals in the selection of the new pope.
Why would ANYONE want to be in a church whose leadership is not guided and led by the Holy Spirit?
Well, if you feel free to define Protestantism, then we are free to define who is a Catholic or not.
Frank is a Catholic. Elected by Catholic officials to hold the highest position in the Catholic church.
He is yours, like it or not.
You have no choice about submitting to him per Unum Sanctum.
The Bible that you guys claim your church wrote tells us that much, right here.
Peter – rock
Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm
Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.
Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).
“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.
4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).
It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.
There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.
Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.
http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm
Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm
1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”
and
“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.
Church membership does not save anyone.
Jesus does.
Do you believe baptism is necessary for salvation?
Logical fallacy: begging the question.
As happy as I am to see you in Scripture, you have not demonstrated that ekklesia means Roman Catholic.
Just believing as Jesus said.
John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him,“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
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?”
Ping to 66
And neither does Rome as discussed too many times with all of the caveats.
The NT does not teach baptism is necessary either when viewed in context.
Nor will he. Plus when one considers the RCC didn't come into existence until the 3rd or 4th centuries and since then has morphed into even something different from that with new doctrines and requirements, the word church cannot mean Roman Catholic.
1577 ekklēsía(from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and 2564 /kaléō, "to call") – properly, people called out from the world and to God, the outcome being the Church (the mystical body of Christ) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls out from the world and into His eternal kingdom.
And this is why we have to teach the entirety of Scripture, not just the bits that confirm to what we already believe.
Even then there will be some differences, but the doctrine of salvation isn’t—or shouldn’t be—one of them.
Please stop trying to change the subject, and I’d appreciate you not being so personally abusive towards me, ealgeone, and metmom.
Either prove definitively that ekklesia means the current-day organization calling itself Roman Catholic, or admit you can’t. And then we can go from there.
Both metmom and eageone have said church membership is not necessary for salvation, nor is baptism.
Do you agree with them?
Yes or No?
Talk amongst yourselves.
The implied accusation is most definitely personal abuse; please stop it.
Come on ebb; this is your chance to evangelize. Stop trying to change the subject and answer the challenge I gave you first.
Prove that ekklesia means Roman Catholic.
After that, I’ll answer the question you pose to me; after all, my answer depends on whether you can prove your assertion that ekklesia in the New Testament means Roman Catholic.
I’m listening with an open mind.
For your information, the subject is, "The Election of Francis Was Orchestrated".
Guess who hijacked it?
Hint: They weren't Catholics.
First off, the day of rest that God took when He finished creation, was on the LAST day, which would be Saturday.
Also, if y'all are claiming that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday, and y'all call it the Sabbath, then you are at odds with Scripture, because Scripture tells us that Mary and the other woman went to the tomb the day after the Sabbath.
The other thing that seems to escape you, is that just because something is not necessary for salvation, does not mean that we don't do it.
I realize that in Catholic economy, that that is a foreign concept, doing something because you want to not because you are threatened with your eternal destiny over it, but that is the case.
We do it out of want to, not have to because if we don't we are going to hell.
We can do what's right and good without being forced to.
Apparently, Catholics are only used to doing things they are forced to do and have lost trhe motivation to do it on their own.
See post #73.
Do you have anything to say about Jorge Bergoglio’s election to the papacy?
If not, why are you on this thread?
Why are you instructing us to discuss it among ourselves?
Are you looking to start a fight between us? Or maybe HOPING to?
YOU are the one asking the question about church membership and baptism.
I already know what they think and we don’t need to *discuss it among ourselves.*
Ebb, you were the one who posted a whole bunch of verses that you thought proved that you had to be Roman Catholic to be saved.
I’m asking you to provide evidence to back up your claim, specifically that the Greek word ekklesia means Roman Catholic, and not everyone who believes in Christ.
If it’s so obvious, you should be able to do that, right?
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.