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.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I tell my RCIA students to get the Ignatius Study Bible, which has great notes and is Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) and/or the translation now used in the Lectionary, the book of reading selections we use litugically, which is the New American Bible, Revised Edtion (NABRE)--- both of which are unabridged 73-book Bibles.

There's lots, lots more. For scholarly/poetic in some ways I like the Knox Bible, or even the Jerusalem Bible. (One of the translators was J.R.R. Tolkien!)

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the standard for English-speaking Catholics until about the end of the 19th century, but since then the usual answer to "Which Bible is the best?" is "The one you’ll read."

---

I wrote a more detailed explanation for I think ealgeone a while back, but the #%$## search engines have been jiggered against conservative sites. I used to be able to google, say

site=www.freerepublic.com "Mrs Don-o" NABRE

which used to bring up the exact desired spot within the first results. It now produces results that don't even have the keywords in them. Grrr. You can no longer use search-engines to actually search conservative sites.

Unless you know a new, improved way to do it?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Paul says:

"For you may have countless instructors in Christ, but you don't have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

" (1 Cor. 4:15, Christian Standard Bible)

[Mrs. Don-o]

God's Word gave God's Church authority thus:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

For emphasis, Matthew puts those words of Jesus into his gospel twice: Matt. 19:18 AND Matt. 18:18

Just going out on a limb here, but I am guessing you might say your church has no such authority to bind or loose; and I'm guessing I might agree with you.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

MDO,

I’ve discussed that passage with you in the past, demonstrating that it does not mean what you claim.

So you would be wrong on this.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

By the way, the passage is about the millennial kingdom and not about any church...

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm off to the races here, see you late this afternoon (maybe).

But though I ain't no canonist, thanks be to God, I know that an infallible dogma has to be intended, not locally or temporarily, but to be binding always, for all.

Plus, it can't flatly contradict what was already (previously) taught as binding, because then you would run afoul not of Church Law but of Natural Law, in fact the principle of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. In which case, I don't know if you'd lose our soul, but you would definitely lose your mind.

A papal pronouncement that one absolutely must be a visible ecclesiastical subject of the See of Rome to be saved, would contradict the canonized saints who lived before there even was a See of Rome. The deacon/martyr St. Stephen, for instance, and the bishop/martyrs James of Jerusalem and Ignatius of Antioch. And many more.

My other guess is that what these popes were legitimately asserting would be the necessity of being within the union of the Church, and the grave sin of intentionally breaking that unity. Anyone who has not personally and willfully cut himself off from the Church, is not guilty of that sin; and anybody who has been baptized, is already "en famille."

That would be an interpretation harmonious with all the Catechisms, from VII to VI to Trent to Nicaea and Athanasius and back to the Didache, I think.

BTW thanks for that Ratzinger Fan Club quote. Admirable for brevity and wit.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That’s your interpretation, and welcome to it: but since your notion is not supported by the text (beinst Jesus was talking to St. Peter and the Apostles with him), your interpretation is not dispositive.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“That’s your interpretation, and welcome to it: but since your notion is not supported by the text (beinst Jesus was talking to St. Peter and the Apostles with him), your interpretation is not dispositive.”

No, it is what the passage and the context says.

Of course He is speaking to the Apostles. He is speaking about their role in the millennial kingdom.

No interpretation needed, unless you want it to mean something else...

But of course that doesn’t change the passage.

[Buckeye McFrog]

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

Believe it or not Luther did the Church a favor. Our #1 problem for many centuries has been arrogant, corrupt, self-absorbed leadership that feels it really does not have to listen to lay people. If others had been willing to deliver a swift kick in the head to them over all that time perhaps things would be different today.

[NKP_Vet]

“Our #1 problem for many centuries has been arrogant, corrupt, self-absorbed leadership that feels it really does not have to listen to lay people”

You mean the thousands of shyster “pastors” like Joel Osteen,
Jimmy Swaggart and their ilk who’ve gotten filthy rich off lay people sending them their social security checks and life savings so they’ll be sure to get to Heaven?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your interpretation is not obligated by the text. If it were, I trust you would have pointed it out in bold.

On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:

"If he refuses to listen even to the Church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17)

and

(James of Jerusalem) "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God." --- and in the same context --- "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things...(Acts 15:28)

[Mom MD]

Jesus Christ is the pillar and foundation of Truth and not the Church. If you are speaking of the universal church it is built on Christ and that is where it it derives it’s truth. If you are talking about the Roman sect very little of the truth remains in it. That is one of the problems with the catholic church. it keeps trying to build on anything but Christ. (Peter, Mary, and according to your tagline even the church itself are described as what the catholic church is built on. There is only one cornerstone and foundation worthy of building on and that is Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

MDO, In short, your lack of biblical training in the areas of hermeneutics and language hinders you.

Your interpretation is not obligated by the text. If it were, I trust you would have pointed it out in bold.

It is. But as a Roman you use the "see and say method," not understanding context, nor the scope of Scripture. But without training and time in the Word, how could you??

On the other hand, the authority of the Church to settle disputed questions (to bind and loose)--- NOW --- is supported by the text:

Entirely different role. Again, you are using a see and say method, and have this bad result.

Words, apart from language, context and hermeneutics have differing meanings.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You mean the thousands of shyster “pastors” like Joel Osteen,

No, the godly men, who toil away for pennies, teaching the Word and serving people.

[ealgeone]

And yet, Paul never referred to himself as "Father Paul".

Context, Mrs D.....context.

If I can impart nothing else to the Roman Catholic in these conversations, aside from faith in Christ and only Christ, is that context is your key to properly understanding the Bible.

[ealgeone]

Again...context is your key to understanding those verses.

The Council of Jerusalem is particularly troublesome for Rome as they relied upon Scripture for their ruling. They did not introduce anything new.

Of course, we have about sliced and diced the injunction against blood almost every way possible, yet Rome continues to insist otherwise.

The council also doesn't support Peter as being the pope as he was not in charge of the council.

[NKP_Vet]

“No, the godly men, who toil away for pennies, teaching the Word and serving people.”

Thanks for sticking up for 98% of the world’s Catholic priests.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Thanks for sticking up for 98% of the world’s Catholic priests.

Nah. At least 35% are flat out GAY. The real number is probably 45%.

So your math is a fail FRiend.

Heck, there are a large number of GAYS in the Vatican. They are known and protected.

You jumped from a religion of shysters on TV to a religion of gay child abusers...

Bad call.

[Mom MD]

at least the ones that don’t molest little boys. And the one that don’t live like kings in the US and Vatican. I think your 98% is a bit high

[ealgeone]

Thanks for sticking up for 98% of the world’s Catholic priests.

Estimates are way higher than the 2% you're suggesting. But thanks for playing.