Posted on 04/09/2008 12:58:30 PM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
"Mother" Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu of Albanian parents in what is now Yugoslavia/Bosnia on August 27, 1910. She died of a heart attack on September 5, 1997. The diminutive nun arrived in India on January 6, 1929, where she started assisting the needy and eventually established the now-global "Missionaries of Charity" organization. ... Yet, "Mother" Teresa, and those who worked with her, never tried to convert to Christ the dying people for whom they cared. Instead, "Mother" Teresa declared: "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, by Desmond Doig, p. 156).
No one would deny that "Mother" Teresa did a marvelous piece of wonderful humanitarian work among the poor and neglected of the world, but what gospel did she preach to them? She definitely did not lead them to the one, true, eternal salvation through the finished sacrifice of Calvary. ... She said that her purpose was to bring her patients closer to the "God" in whom they already believe; so that a Hindu becomes a better Hindu, a Buddhist a better Buddhist, etc.1 (Vatican II says those of all religions are somehow saved through the Church.) She told how to witness for Jesus: In an interview with a nun who worked with "Mother" Teresa , dying Hindus were instructed to pray to their own Hindu gods!
(Excerpt) Read more at rapidnet.com ...
And this is happening within the “evangelical” church also: look at the budding universalism of such “leaders” as Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt. Jude is right: false teachers have crept in amongst us.
This may explain the spiritual despair she felt.
Another ex-nun story, located nowhere else on the web except the one source page and then a few others that link back to it. What a suprise.
More sneering hatred.
Quelle surprise.
Note to self:
RCC watchdogs continue to make assumptions, heavy use of adjectives and pejorative declarations about people. Appear to not be able to even hold the thought that something, somewhere in the RCC collective is amiss. Sad.
ROFL - And your repeated used of "RCC watchdogs"?
In the SAME SENTENCE. LOLOL
How is “RCC watchdogs” pejorative? Being a watchdog is a honorable role. It’s merely descriptive, not derogatory - unless you’re a cat person.
I’ll listen to Rick Miesel when I see him picking maggots off people left for dead in the streets instead of beating on a nun who lived in poverty and squalor most of her adult life in order to love those most rejected in society.
Oh, you mean like how you refer to “Calvinist watchdogs”, or maybe “Protestant watchdogs”?
So you see works as superior to Truth? And you only read or listen to people whose works rival those of an ascetic nun? That must restrict your reading and audio library to a very narrow niche. That, too, is sad.
I would not take offense, except that I do not call myself a Calvinist nor espouse Calvinism. “Reformed watchdog” - I would embrace that.
Open question: Why are nuns called “Mother”, when they are single and childless?
I’m not offended. I’m amused.
A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.
- John Calvin
Open question:
Why would you care?
Note to self:
Catholic-haters seem to have very feeble vocabularies.
Great. By Calvin’s standards, we’re doing fine.
He wouldn’t like the Mary statue I just bought for my backyard, though.
Inquiring minds want to know. If there’s a sound basis for this practice, why not simply reveal it?
Traditions of Men
I’m honestly glad you’re not offended. ‘Tis good to clear the air on issues that may not be intuitively obvious.
What’s to “reveal”? You’re looking for a mystery where there is none.
If there’s no mystery, why are single, childless, religious women called “Mother”? It appears to be self contradictory.
Is the statement “mean spirited” because you don’t agree with the author? What “several falsities” are contained in that one sentence?
Matthew 7:6
“Traditions of Men”
~Or one of several Armageddon Space Alien-Demon Cults.
SPACEZOMBIES!
That one was good one.
I think Bruce Willis played the type-cast yodeling preacher.
Do you WANT a mystery?
I recently saw a documentary about a catholic woman who convereted to Islam. She basically had the same universalist philosophy. Its problably why she felt comfortable converting to Islam. This highlights why the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is so important. Adding works causes pride and causes cofusion as to how men are saved.
Perhaps you can share with us all of your eternal goodness compared to Mother Teresa?
Those who find fault with the type of UNCONDITIONAL love with people like Mother Teresa had are the ones that possess NO love themselves.
Perhaps you should reflect on that,Dear Friend.
I wish you peace of mind!
“”Adding works causes pride and causes cofusion as to how men are saved.””
Dear Brother, this is the type of attitude that permeates a society like cancer and causes people to ignore all the poor and dying people and do nothing in order to convince themselves by calling in unnecessary good works...
Listen to the words of Blessed St. Rose of Lima ..
“When we serve the poor and the sick, we serve Jesus. We must not fail to help our neighbors, because in them we serve Jesus”
Blessed Mother Teresa did just that!
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
Do you think the Lord spoke of canines in that verse, or do you recognize the word “dogs” as a common metaphor used in Scripture to describe reprobates?
Ain’t NOBODY a child of God ‘est he be born again. See Heb 12:6 - 8 & Romans 8:10 - 17 & 20 - 21. But see Romans 9:6 - 8 for perhaps the most clear declaration on this point:
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Those who children of the flesh (not born again) are NOT the children of God. How much more clear could THAT be?
I want a clear answer - it’s apparent you don’t have one or don’t care to give one. You, then, are a mystery.
By declaring that she had no interest in proclaiming Christ to those dieing people, but wanted to help them be the nest Hindu, etc. possible - her “good works” are called by scripture “dung”.
No man knows the heavenly rewards that may await him. He can earn them by good works that glorify God, but not by “good works” that merely appease men.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that you already know the answer and just want me to say something you can rebut.
That would be a limb of your own imagination. I can assume an answer, but have never asked it before nor do I recall having seen it anywhere. I can assume it and predict my response, but that is presumptive and I do not care to be so callous.
Nuns are called "sister". Leaders of female religious communities are called "mother".
There are other kinds of childhood beside the merely biological. I suggest you read the Bible, starting perhaps with the Epistle of Paul to Philemon.
Thank you for answering what your fellow RC has refused. I have read the entire Bible (not the RCC version) more than once and am aware of “spiritual children”. Why do you presume non-RCs such as myself have NOT read the Bible?
If she'd converted to fundamentalism, you'd be hailing her as a heroine ... "wonderful testimony" and all of that.
It wouldn't matter whether she was a universalist or not, as long as she had turned her back on Rome.
Because you ask questions like the one you just asked.
Nuns are not discussed in Scripture. Why would one expect to find an answer to extra-Biblical doctrine in the Bible?
LOL. I knew this was coming.
Really? What do you suppose a "eunuch for the kingdom of heaven" would be in a female context?
1 Tm 5:5 reads, "Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day." What do you suppose happened to those widows -- the ones who "continued in supplications and prayers night and day" -- through the course of history?
Suppose maybe they started living in community, along with unmarried women consecrated to the Lord (cf 1 Cor 7)?
Why would one expect to find an answer to extra-Biblical doctrine in the Bible?
Everything Catholics do is in the Bible, if you understand how to read it. Maybe if you quit starting with the assumption that Catholicism is contrary to Scripture, you might start to see it there.
But I thought you said you understood the concept of spiritual childhood, and now you're calling it "extra-Biblical doctrine". Leave Paul in the Bible, if you don't mind. We like him there.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
“He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’
“And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’
“Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Are you saying that these good works are what determined whether they were goats or sheep?
Do you know what the will of the Father is?
What do you think Jesus meant by those words?
They seem pretty clear to me, but I've heard Protestant commentators try to explain them away as not applying to Christians. Somehow I think that "defense" is not going to go too far on the Last Day.
Seems to me that's a case of nullifying the Word of God for the sake of their traditions.
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.