What Is Better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis: “Both of Them Together”

Gloria TV ^ | Gloria TV

[ebb tide]

What Is Better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis: “Both of Them Together”

The Youth Pastoral Office of Magdeburg diocese, Germany, will organize an October 2020 “ecumenical pilgrimage” for young people to Rome.

The motto of the journey is “With Luther to the Pope”. A similar trip was already taken in 2016.

The pilgrimage is co-organized by the regional Protestant State church, although the Protestants repudiate pilgrimages.

On the trip's webpage Mit-Luther-zum-Papst.de, the tour operator, Hans Höffmann, remembers what Pope Francis said to the participants of the 2016 pilgrimage when asked by a youngster: "What is better, Catholic or Protestant? Francis answered in German: "Both of them together!”

Martin Luther attended school in Magdeburg as a boy. As a preacher, he led the city to defect from the Church. Magdeburg became the first major city to publish Luther’s writings.

[LibertyWoman]

You call the ugliness from posters an exchange? mmmmkay

[daniel1212]

You call the ugliness from posters an exchange? mmmmkay

Define and show the ugliness, and how others should react to promoters and defenders of an elitist one true church which even now do not consider our "ecclesial communities" worthy of the proper title "church," and in the past (and according to many TradCaths) excludes the likes of me as being part of the body of Christ. Which even a relative few Catholics are.

[Salvation]

Those aren’t rites — those are denominations.

Again for your information — all the rites of the Catholic Church are CATHOLIC!

[ealgeone]

While it is good to see your (bitter?) zeal, I’ll mostly stick to caucus threads—and this thread reminds me why.

I assure it is not "bitter" zeal, but an earnest zeal for Christ.

Paul called the Galatians foolish at on point. A lot of people have a hard time with that.

Often times that kind of passion for the Truth is misunderstood.

I wish you well.

[ealgeone]

You call the ugliness from posters an exchange? mmmmkay

There has been no ugliness on this forum.

However, from Roman Catholics referring to their own pope we have seen these quotes:

NKP_Vet: Has Bergoglio the heretic set a date yet for Luther’s canonization?

vette6387: The more appropriate question to ask this Feckless Turd in a White Suit, is how about melding Catholicism with Islam?

ebbtide: Is it because of Francis and his many heresies?

**********

Calling the pope a "feckless turd" or a heretic.....the later being an especially serious charge in Roman Catholicism, are the only examples of ungliness I have seen on this thread....and it is coming from Roman Catholics directed toward their own pope.

As you were unacquainted with Unam Sanctam, and that's understandable as many Roman Catholics don't know what their denomination truly teaches, you might be interested to know a lay Roman Catholic is not allowed to judge the First See (the pope).

I post this article from Canon Law Made Easy. It is written by a Roman Catholic canon lawyer who practices law and teaches in Rome.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2017/09/28/can-a-pope-commit-heresy-heresy-defined/

Several interesting articles are available on the website.

One of the more interesting ones that upsets a number of Francis haters is this one.

Can a Pope be Removed from Office. The short answer is no.

http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/01/31/pope-removed-from-office/

Canon 1404 "The First See is judged by no one." Based on that, "the short answer is that ther​e is no authority in the Church that can order or compel the Pope to resign.

Some Roman Catholics don't like to read what their own denomination teaches on these matters.

As I suggested earlier and have others....you are strongly encouraged to do additional research on Roman Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

Out of curiosity....do you wear the Scapular and/or Miraculous Medal>?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Those aren’t rites — those are denominations.

Thank you for your opinion Salvation, but I have to disagree.

As a Catholic, I was not aware you were able to interpret Scripture for yourself.

Is that something new you are allowed to do now?

Or are you basing your opinion on another source outside of Scripture?

If Christian churches share their core beliefs with each other - and they do - they are all Christian. Not denominations. Rites within the universal Christian Church.

I can understand why you might think something else from afar.

Again for your information — all the rites of the Catholic Church are CATHOLIC!

Sure they are. All the rites are part of the Catholic denomination. Why do you bring this up?

[vette6387]

“As I suggested earlier and have others....you are strongly encouraged to do additional research on Roman Catholicism.”

As a non-Catholic, I have an unfettered view of the Pope, not “colored” by the belief that The Catholic Church is “the only true church” as Catholics are taught to believe. Because Bergoglio is a mere man to me, I’m not bound to treat him as “special,” as you “have to do.”
I did not use the term I used lightly, but I feel that it fairly represents the behavior of Bergoglio. I see the Catholic Church as just one of many “Christian Religions” arrayed before me, some in my view better than others, but none elevated above the rest. I appreciate that you, as a believer, don’t have that luxury. The Catholic Church has had exceptional Popes in the past, but this one is a clinker, and unfortunately, you ( and the world) is stuck with him because as a “mere member” your voice is lost to a bunch of old men in a walled city in Italy.
And FWIW, as a teenager, I studied religions, and have as a consequence a fairly well informed idea of Catholicism.

[ealgeone]

My apologies for considering you were RC.

[ebb tide]

No where in the Bible is the word Trinity mentioned either....are you going to deny the Trinity?

So when will you step off of your "sola scriptura" soap box? Or is it you who denies the Holy Trinity since it's not in Scripture.

P.S. The Holy Trinity is in Scripture; apparently you don't know it. It's referenced several times.

[ealgeone]

So when will you step off of your "sola scriptura" soap box? Or is it you who denies the Holy Trinity since it's not in Scripture.

P.S. The Holy Trinity is in Scripture; apparently you don't know it. It's referenced several times.

You're the one arguing about terms not being in Scripture.

All I'm doing is using your "logic" to illustrate how uneducated your position is.

Perhaps you're better off in the caucus threads. No one to question you there....well, wait...yes there is. Seems you don't play well with others there either.

[sparklite2]

Question: “What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?”
https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html

Answer: ... The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him.

---

If you’re thinking this is “the dog at my homework,”
shame on you.

[ebb tide]

What are you babbling about?

There are plenty of miracles in Scripture that are impossible for any human being to fully understand.

Have you ever heard of a thing called “Faith”?

[ebb tide]

All I'm doing is using your "logic" to illustrate how uneducated your position is.

You've done no such thing. You just keep hopping on and off of your "sola scriptura" soapbox as it suits your fancy.

It's obvious.

[sparklite2]

Can you imagine what civilization would be like if phenomena not readily explainable were chalked up to “God did it” whenever they occurred? Thank goodness for lack of ‘faith.’

[ealgeone]

Dude....please. The open forums are not for you.

[ealgeone]

Have you ever heard of a thing called “Faith”?

LOL....have you? Considering what you're trusting in.

[ebb tide]

The open forums are not for you.

Another threat to my safety?

P.S. I posted this thread, Sherlock.

[ebb tide]

Thank goodness for lack of ‘faith.’

That's a very disturbing and strange thing to say. Are you a Christian?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Any Protestant (or other non-Catholic Christian) who is baptized (even as a Lutheran, Baptist or whatever), has received the Sacrament by which a person becomes a Member of the Body of Christ, and is therefore a Catholic in the Sacramental sense.

That's because this person, we're assuming, has not wittingly or willingly committed the sins of heresy, apostasy or schism. He isn't personally responsible for those sins which destroy unity with the Church.

This has all kinds of canonical implications which I can't address, since I am pretty comprehensively ignorant of canon law. I do know that most Protestants are technically eligible to receive the other Sacraments, (e.g. my baptized-Baptist husband, marrying me, received the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony).

In an extreme situation, Protestant in danger of death could receive he Sacrament of Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, probably all the prayers and sacraments for the Dying. You hear about this happening in situations of war, epidemic and natural disaster.

I don't know, but I suppose that popes in historic eras that faeatured a lot of actual, personal defection from the Faith, or large-scale, continent-wide schism, meant to address the situation at hand. A person who intentionally commits apostasy, heresy or schism is, by that act, intentionally separating himself from the Body of Christ.

If he didn't know and intend that, then --- well, you're not morally answerable for a choice when you didn't know what you were choosing. The practical maxim is, "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where he Church is not."

We have only exterior evidence to go on. But God is the Judge, and he judges the heart.

That's as well as I can figure it. If you want more, you'll just have to consult a canon lawyer.

---

---

On the topic of this bizarre papacy, I am not morally sure whether Jorge Bergoglio is the pope or not. It seems that upon his election, he was received as pope, unanimously, by all the active bishops and cardinals. Historically, to be considered an anti-pope, you had to be a member of a faction which disputes a conclave.

This is a surreal case, because in retrospect --- what a lot of us didn't realize at the time ---there were some pretty disputable things about the conclave.

1. The question of whether Pope Benedict XVI freely and totally abdicated. Was he acting freely, or was he under some kind of coercion or pervasive manipulation by somebody else? Was his abdication total, or does he see himself as having split the papacy into two roles, active and contemplative, in which he is still the "Silent Partner" in a double papacy? There's evidence on both sides, and Bxvi hasn't tied up all the loose ends, which is exceedingly strange.

2. The question of whether the March 2013 conclave was valid. The previous legislation ("Constituton") on papal succession said there is to be no politicking before, during or after the conclave, and if there is, the election is invalid and the people who engaged in politicking are excommunicated.

   There's emerging evidence hat the March 2013 conclave was strategized by the members of the so-called "Sankt Gallen Group" (or "Mafia"). Even without the rumors of the lying pervert Cardinal (now "Mister")("Uncle Ted") McCarrick lurking around the Termini handing out fat envelopes of euros, McCarrick himself has openly credited himself with "managing" the election, and there's a guy just begging for enhanced interrogation if I ever saw one.

   But I expect he'll die and take his secrets to the grave, and get perhaps a nice perch in the Molten Lava Spa from his true master.

   There's the question of whether Bergoglio has de facto separated himself from the true and Catholic Faith even before his election; which if he had, would invalidate the election since no heretic can exercise any office, elected or appointed, in the Catholic Church.

3. And there's the related question of whether acts of heresy subsequent to his election, invalidate the Bergoglio Papacy automatically, on the spot. By me, he is in "vehement suspicion of heresy," to use a time-honored phrase, for at least two official acts where he presented heretical deviations as acts of the authentic papal magisterium.

The long and short of it, is that we are in a state of bizzarro-world confusion because the main opponent of the real papal magisterium, happens to be the pope.

I don't think this has ever happened in quite this way before --- a putative pope attempting to use papal authority to systematically deconstruct Catholic doctrine --- and there doesn't seem to be a remedy except for a literal Act of God, e.g. a well-timed cerebral vascular or maybe myocardial "event".

I have always been told that anything you can legitimately hope for, you can legitimately pray for. Lord have mercy. Let us pray.