Posted on 03/15/2013 8:17:53 PM PDT by PanzerKardinal
Thirdly, professing. We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. When we are not walking, we stop moving. When we are not building on the stones, what happens? The same thing that happens to children on the beach when they build sandcastles: everything is swept away, there is no solidity. When we do not profess Jesus Christ, the saying of Léon Bloy comes to mind: "Anyone who does not pray to the Lord prays to the devil." When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness.
[...]
This Gospel continues with a situation of a particular kind. The same Peter who professed Jesus Christ, now says to him: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. I will follow you, but let us not speak of the Cross. That has nothing to do with it. I will follow you on other terms, but without the Cross. When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord.
My wish is that all of us, after these days of grace, will have the courage, yes, the courage, to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Lord’s Cross; to build the Church on the Lord’s blood which was poured out on the Cross; and to profess the one glory: Christ crucified. And in this way, the Church will go forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at vatican.va ...
What hostilities existed between Catholics and Jews just prior to the Second Vatican Council?
Did I say “just prior”?
You want evidence. Here's a photo of him kneeling and bowing his head to receive the blessing of Protestant ministers along with Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa.
Do you consider this an attempt to convert those ministers by either Cantalamessa or the future pope to the Catholic Church?
By the way, I know the Ten Commandments and I recommend you practice them more diligently rather than castigate others. I made no charge, as you stated; I merely stated my thoughts.
Thank-you for making my point. So what was so special about that Council that Pope Francis had to mention it as a turning point in the relationship with Jews?
You say I made a charge against you. Read more carefully: if you put subject and verb together, you'll see I did not. I as consciously making an effort not to.
This conversation hinges too much on extrapolation. If I have committed an offense, I ask pardon. Now I'm going off to a different thread. So, see you later, ebb tide.
I see no way around concluding that anyone who relies on their own personal judgment to interpret Scripture for their self .... is placing them self above the Scripture
I don't see this as self-worship but as a matter of usurpation of authority. I see it as claiming for self the authority we as Catholics ascribe to the papacy and magisterium. That's not the same thing as self-worship from my perspective.
they are worshiping their Self as The Word, not Jesus Christ who is the Word.
When I was Protestant I did not see it this way. Nor do I now although I respect your right to your own views. My situation was worse than you describe. I worshiped a god of my own creation not myself. I adhered to the scripture passages and bits of theology that suited me. I don't think that's self-worship but idolatry because I had a god of my own making.
There are elements of the Truth outside the Catholic Church, no doubt, and pursuing those portions of the Truth rather than deciding what I wanted to believe and interpreting Scripture to suit my preferences is what led me to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself founded after being Lutheran most of my life.
I didn't know you were a convert too. My situation sounds similar but I'm guessing I was a lot more stubborn than you :) I agree with you that Catholicism is scriptural. And I love how it ties the OT and New together so well.
It's nice to be ecumenical, but those who obstinately deny the Truth by denying the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and who constantly lie about what the One True Church teaches aren't overlooking something, they're deliberately denying His Word, deliberately telling lies, and deliberately slandering His Church.
There's a difference between deliberately lying about Catholic teaching and sincerely believing something different than Catholic teaching. It's broad characterizations that I object to.
People who who the Holy Spirit is working on do not resist the Truth when it's explained to them.
I did.
They pray, open their heart, and at the very least admit that they can see why there is as much reason to accept what the Catholic Church teaches as to accept what they belive contradicts it.
Getting to this stage can be long and difficult. It was for me anyway. I don't presume to know how the Holy Spirit is working in someone else's life. Nor am I bold enough to claim I know how he should be.
They don't lie and slander pretending that lies and slanders are part of spreading His Word.
Here I agree with you that these aren't works of the Holy Spirit. Once someone has been given an accurate description of Catholic teaching and continues to misrepresent it in comments, this is another matter, yes. Scripture tells us that we will be held accountable for our words. And that accountability will be to God, not me. Likewise, I am accountable if I slander them, am I not?
Making nice with those who lie about and slander the Catholic Church is ... refusing confront those who are under a powerful delusion.
Does confrontation of falsehood necessarily have to be done uncharitably?
Their very manner, in fact, slanders all of Christianity and ignoring such folks only leads others to believe there is no answer to the lies and slander ....
I don't worry too much if someone slanders me. It's Christ who lives in me. He can fight his battles :) IMHO speaking the truth to someone in courteous fashion isn't ignoring them. I don't know about you, but when someone insults me, they've pretty much lost the argument as far as I'm concerned. I'm not inclined to view their comment as reflective of the Spirit if there's not much fruit of the Spirit in it. Some may be called to harsh confrontation. I'm not. You must do as the Spirit bids you.
People who lie about the Catholic Church are confronted with the facts, that's not treating them poorly.
Did I say that speaking the truth is poor treatment? I consider false accusations and unnecessarily harshness as poor treatment.
I'd be treating them very poorly indeed if I left them to stew in their own lies and funky delusional wastes.
Is it up to you where people stew, or do they choose this for themselves? You can speak the truth but you can't control what another does with it, can you? The only part IMHO that you get to control is whether you attract or repel.
I'm sorry, but I don't see it the way you do.
No need to apologize. Your style and my style are different. My point was that the catechism calls us to see our separated brethren as Christians. And I don't buy your self-worship perspective although I respect your right to your own views. My own experience probably biases my view. Had you accused me of self-worship you'd have been off the mark. Had you accused me of idolatry you'd have been correct but ineffective in attracting me toward Catholicism.
Look at CCC 1753 & 1754 then tell me that a desire to be ecumenical is a reasonable response to lies
I don't see anything there that requires me to be harsh or unnecessarily accusatory.
I feel sure Jesus Christ expects to likewise be confrontational when someone is deliberately slandering His Bride.
I'll leave what Jesus does up to him. I'm more concerned that he doesn't find me deliberately slandering any of his children. Peace be with you.
Does that include anyone that prays to dead “saints” and Mary?
—— Does that include anyone that prays to dead “saints” and Mary? -——
I thought people in heaven were fully alive. Silly me.
OTOH, your religion, where the saints are dead, isn’t very appealing.
—— dedicated to the worship of Mary ——
I’m sorry, but that’s funny.
You might want to put a little more elbow grease into your apologetics efforts.
http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-47-to-mary
His very first act as "pope" was to go to slip out of the Vatican, drive across Rome to the Basilica of St. Mary Major, the largest basilica in the world DEDICATED TO Mary, the so-called "Mother of God". He then proceeded to pray in front of an ancient ICON, called the Salus Populi Romani, or the Protectress of the Roman People (preposterously held by Roman Catholic tradition to have been painted by St. Luke himself). He also brought flowers and laid them beneath the idolic ICON IN HONOR OF MARY!
So, the very first act of this new "pontificate" was to pray before the idol of the Virgin Mary which he chose to do of his own free will! So much for being an "advocate for the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
I didn't say or do these things. According to Roman Catholic "church" sources this is the very FIRST official act "pope" Francis did as "pope".
I am not "bearing false witness", all I did was REPEAT what the RC "church" SAID that HE DID (they even have pictures to prove it! Don't believe me? Then read it and see for your self and weep because your new "pope" is no friend of Christ, he is an idol worshiper, just like those before him:
http://themoynihanletters.com/from-the-desk-of/letter-47-to-mary
—— No saints are not dead. As a matter of fact, according to the bible, saints are the body of Christ, i.e. all believers. Here and in heaven. Not just individuals canonized by the pagan RCC ——
Good to see that you agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You are mistaken. In actuality, Cardinal Bergoglio knelt down to receive the blessing of Fr. Cantalamessa. The Protestants decided to join in. What was the Cardinal supposed to do at that point? Make a scene in front of a large audience? Or take the risk that uncharitable folk in the future would distort what actually happened?
Good catch. Thanks. I’ve seen this kind of thing before: tendentious misinterpretation of photos. I will have to remember to ping you when I notice other possible examples.
Your point of view in learning the “language” of other faith communities seems wise, patient, respectful. Thank you. I really appreciate that. I hope I always offer you the same.
Imitating Christ can't be too harsh when confronting those who slander both Christ and the Bride of Christ.
have a nice day.
I also believe that nonCatholics are capable of grasping the difference between praying to an image and praying to God in the presence of an image that invokes memories of significant events in Christian history. We had flowers in front of my dad's picture at his funeral in his protestant church. None of the nonCatholics present seemed to consider that idol worship. Not even if the pastor held that picture in his hands while praying. So again, this concept isn't foreign to nonCatholics.
So yeah, I stand by my statement that comments such as those you made are false witness. But you answer to God, not me, so I wish you peace as I leave this thread.
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.