Skip to comments.New pope urges Church to return to its Gospel roots
Posted on 03/14/2013 7:51:02 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
click here to read article
>what he means by the gospel
Most likely it has relevance to the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and perhaps Francis.
At the exclusion of the other 62 Books of the Bible?
This Protestant thinks that Francis is the Real Deal. On day one he unflinchingly tees off against secularism and proclaims Christ crucified. But that more of our “faith leaders” would follow his example (are you taking notes, Rick Warren? Joel Osteen? Bueller...?) The Holy Spirit will use Pope Francis mightily.
I’m more familiar with the somewhat current Jesuits than the bloody historical ones. I went to a music conference once where the featured speaker was from the St. Louis Jesuits. I don’t imagine a Protestant could die from hearing cheezy 1980s guitar mass music.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that today’s Jesuits are not even close to wanting to try to go out there and harm Protestants. They are not jihadis. Be impressed by their intellect, but do not fear their wrath. They don’t have any.
RE: . I take you have thoughts of other meaning(s). If so you should share these.
I am simply asking a question out of interest, that’s all.
Francis talks about the cross, which is the sacrifice that Christ made for the sins of mankind.
Id really like to know if he believes that this sacrifice has been COMPLETED.
In other words, does Francis teach about Christs perfect sacrifice on Calvary? Does he teach that in the cross, Christ FINISHED His work of redemption for man and no additional sacrifice is needed?
Or does he teach the priest miraculously transforms the bread and wine in the mass into Christs real body, and that Jesus is then sacrificed anew?
Does he teach that when the priest utters the words of consecration, the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Does he teach that Christ is still being offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin today?
I am interested in listening to Francis expound on this, since he mentioned the cross.
And note: I originally addressed my response to a Non-Catholic Christian.
I see. You don’t understand what the Mass is.
RE: I see. You dont understand what the Mass is.
That is why I seek clarification. You will notice that all I have were questions...
Maybe you can help this non-Catholic christian out.
Can you explain this :
In checking out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), The Catholic Encyclopedia, and The Council of Trent, we find the following: The Eucharist is referred to in several ways.
As a sacrifice
“the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist,” (CCC, 1055) and “the Eucharist is also a sacrifice,” (CCC, 1365).
As a divine sacrifice
“For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (CCC, 1068).
“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3)
Some of my Catholics friends tell me that the Eucharist is not a re-sacrifice of Christ.
They want to make it clear that Christ was offered once for all and that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice but a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice.
Well, I certainly do not want to misrepresent Roman Catholic theology, but I must ask how it is possible for the Mass to NOT be a re-sacrifice of Christ when the Mass is called a divine sacrifice (CCC, 1068) that is done over and over again.
We are told that “the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice”; (CCC, 1367); that it is an unbloody offering that is proptiatory, (CCC, 1367); that it can make reparation of sins, (CCC, 1414); and is to be considered a true and proper sacrifice (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).
Based on the above, I cannot help but conclude that it is a sacrifice that occurs over and over again and since it is said to be a true and proper sacrifice that is propitiatory, then logically it must be a re-sacrifice of Christ. If it is not, then how can it be called a sacrifice of Christ?
Also, how could it be propitiatory if it is not a sacrifice of Christ since it is Christ’s offering on the cross that is itself propitiatory?
Hence, my questions...
And Mary says "God my Saviour."
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
And who needs a saviour but sinners.
So true, and a great point, the dang.
With this verse alone, the centuries of teaching that Mary was sinless from her birth and throughout her life is shown to be in error.
We must pity those that place their eternal destiny in the hands of sinners, and not the spotless Lamb of glory, the Lord Jesus Christ who repeated the Old Testament promise, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool” (Isaiah 1:18) when he proclaimed to the crowd, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
The pope is correct in saying that the gospel must be proclaimed, but the troubling truth of this verse in Galatians causes me to ponder which gospel he is speaking of . . .
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).
It is also a pity that a thread of this magnitude is being ignored. The topic has direct bearing upon the question of where Catholics will spend their eternity; and whether that decision is based on the “Thus saith the Lord” of God’s Word or the dictates of a fellow sinner, no matter how religious that man might be.
If I had one disappointment with FreeRepublic, it is that so many fine threads are quickly lost in the multitudes of other topics and buried in the pile.
Many, many factual errors, some actually quite ludicrous. Destroys the credibility of the effort. Falsus in uno, falsus in toto. Shoddy work.
BTW, before you retire tonight, do check under the bed. Jesuits could be lurking about, you know. BTW, no papist I!
I’d been praying that the next Pope would be a Christian first, and so far what he’s saying seems to bear this out. Christ and Him crucified — that’s the essential thing.
How nice you like him.
He has told off the Brits, claiming that the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina. It is a lie. Those islands lay 100s of miles from Argentina’s coastline and were a part of Great Britain when Argentina was still trying to get itself together as a nation.
Such a worldly issue for a pope and one who lies about the facts. Who’d a thunk!
Nice try. Now watch Know Your Enemy by the Apologetics Group. The truth will set you free. And don’t take the Mark.
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.