Posted on 08/03/2013 2:47:42 PM PDT by ebb tide
Something unexpected and extraordinary is happening in the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is rescuing the faith from those who hunker down in gilded cathedrals and wield doctrine like a sword. The edifice of fortress Catholicism – in which progressive Catholics, gay Catholics, Catholic women and others who love the church but often feel marginalized by the hierarchy – is starting to crumble.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
you wrote:
“Typical of somebody with nothing to say. You claim a superiority based on a typographical error.”
No, I merely pointed out the obvious. Was I wrong in my conclusion about a government school?
“You also claim not to worship Mary.”
Actually, there too, I simply stated a fact. I made no claim. The fact is I do, have not, and will not, worship Mary.
“Both of those statements are based on faith in RC’s catechism teachings.”
No. The first comment is based on you. Again, was I wrong? Do tell. The second comment is based upon personal experience. The fact that the catechism backs up the second comment is actually irrelevant here.
“You also revert to atypical claims of following Christ,”
Revert? Atypical? Are you sure you know what “atypical” means? It wouldn’t make sense to use both words on the same subject. Revert means to go back to something. Atypical means something is not typical, not expected. How can someone “go back” to what is “not expected”?
“yet you pray to Mary, do you not? Veneration is worship!”
No, veneration is not worship. As any dictionary will tell you veneration is “to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion.”
“Paul’s letter to the Corinthians continues: 1 Cor :16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me.”
“Not quite the way you represent it!”
Actually it is EXACTLY the way I represented it. St. Paul was telling the Christians of Corinth to follow him as a role model.
“But, again, that is atypical...”
Again, I don’t think you know what the word “atypical” means. You just claimed I misrepresented a verse and that that is not typical for me. I agree it isn’t typical - in fact I have never misrepresented a verse - but it is hilarious that you undercut your own attempts are argument by using words you apparently don’t understand. Sciolism is a sad thing. Look it up if you don’t know what that is.
“LOL, check your catechism. You may question, but not disagree. And the Church decides WHAT you may question, and WHAT the answers to your questions are.
My catechism doesn’t say anything about permitting the ordaining of homos; nor does it say anything about respecting the teachings and values of Islam.
Whose catechism are you reading? Rembert Weakland’s? Or is it Bernadin’s “Seamless Garment” catechism?
Don’t address me. Address the USCCB which employed him.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thank you.
They're excited because they think Pope Francis is the 'nice guy', compared to that Big Meanie, Pope Benedict. They will be disappointed, then they'll start beating up on Pope Francis, too.
Would you have given this same advice to a Roman Catholic under Pope Alexander VI? Would you have commanded Cardinal della Rovere to do the same?
Is he peddling “The One World Religion”
The Catechism doesn’t say anything about ordaining homosexuals, but it does say something along the lines that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics and that we should esteem them.
That right there is Vatican II speaking to you.
I’m totally with you ebb. But part of what this Pope (which is not much different than JPII and Benedict) says and does is *directly* related to Vatican II. Vatican II brought false ecumenism.
This is why I sit here scratching my head trying to reconcile Vatican II with pre-Vatican II teachings. The Muslim faith was NEVER esteemed. It was considered false and diabolical. How any Catholic can sit here and say Church teaching has not changed on this is beyond me.
Sure you would, because NOTHING the Church teaches is against God's Word.
To all of you up in arms, I understand. I finally left the Catholic Church over similiar issues. Not because I “rejected” Catholicism, and not because I “hate” Catholicism, and not because I “don’t understand” Catholicism. But because I do, indeed, understand Catholicism, at least as well as you all do (and judging from some of your responses, a whole lot more).
But here’s the deal: it doesn’t matter what I think, and it doesn’t matter what you think.
What matters is what the Church teaches. And the Church teaches that it holds the authority to decide the nature of your questions, the extent of your dissent, and the answers to your questions and dissent you may have. That’s not me talking - that’s the Church.
And as I’ve pointed out before, the Pope is not limited to certain times and offices for your obedience to him. You like to argue about the limitations of his infallibility - you’re missing my point. My point is that it doesn’t matter if he’s infallible - he’s the Pope, and you’re not. What he says, goes. You question him to the extent the Church allows you to question him, and that’s it. And you accept the answers the Church - and the Pope directly - gives you about what he said, and what he meant.
According to the Church, being a Catholic is being in a state of obedience and learning - not teaching and opinionating. And serious restrictions apply to the latter, and serious requirements to the former. That’s why I’m not a Catholic - I simply realized that I do not accept those limitations being placed upon my own search for God. Sure, it was a lot of the answers the Church gave that I disagreed with, but that’s not why I left. I left because I couldn’t stay, because staying meant violating the obedience requirements of the Church.
But everywhere I see Catholics violating those obedience requirements - remember, obedience in thought, as well as belief - and claiming to be Catholics, and claiming to “defend” the Church to me as they violate its core tenants right in front of me.
This last message from the Pope is a perfect example - he directly taught for Catholics to “integrate” homosexuals into society. At the very least, that means not loathing them. But you know, the Pope might actually mean accepting them as equals and even loving them, and dropping any bias against them in your mind, heart and soul. I don’t think such an interpretation is wildly off the mark, here.
Yet instantly, the Pope that Catholics honor as the vicar of Christ himself, the difference between Protestants and Catholics, is just some guy with an opinion they don’t have to give two cents about. Or that can be compared to murderous Popes fo the past (and by the way, the Church - not me - teaches that yes, indeed, if you lived during the time of those murderous Popes, your duty was to honor and obey them).
You think your hypocrisy goes unnoticed, but I’m telling you, it doesn’t. And I’m not the only one who finds this issue extraordinarily serious - it’s a huge Catholic issue that even Benedict commented on. Yet those who dismiss their own hypocrisy - or is it heresy? - are the first to question my motives or learning, or even call me a heretic. Whatever. Kicking over the table is a common tactic of scoundrels.
But the Church hasn’t changed its teachings. So what is a Catholic who doesn’t follow Catholicism? I mean, if there are enough of them, and they all agree that what they are doing is acceptable - is it?
That’s the kind of religio-democratic communitarian nonsense that was being offered to me as the alternative to obeying the clear obedience teachings of the Church itself. And that’s why I left, and never looked back. I disagree with the Church, but I respect it. It is what it is, and it does enormous good and sustains millions of deeply good and spiritual people despite all its propblems.
But I have no stomach for CINO waffle weasels with hidden agendas, especially concerning my relationship with God.
I am trying to absorb your points attentively and accurately, so if I in some way fall short, or some other way exceed the mark, please correct me and I will do better in the next volley. But I do think I have something to add here which may be, if not balanced, then perhaps balancing to your own valuable remarks.
The fact that Pope Francis is the 266th pope, means that he has 265 predecessors whose authoritative teachings on matters of faith and morals he cannot repudiate. In other words,the longer the line of spiritual pedigree, the less leeway a pope would have to come up with some theological novelty. He has less "freedom," in that sense, than any monarch on earth.
And that's the way it should be. We don't need a pope to be a brilliant innovator, or, still less, a "religious genius". We have a pope to conserve and transmit the Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ that comes to us from the Apostles.
You are quite right that the Pope's authority doesn't just consists of special Gothic-letting-and-gold-leaf Ex Cathedra StatementsTM. His Petrine ministry of, as Our Lord said, "strengthening the brethren", means confirming and upholding the whole Ordinary Magisterium: the Scriptures above all, the Creeds, the Councils, the Liturgy, the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors and mystics, and what he learned at his mother's knee: whole patrimony.
This is the "Hermeneutic of Continuity". It's huge. Vast. Historically intricate. Internally coherent. It goes way beyond just papal monarchy.
In this sense, you are hitting the nail just a tad off-center when you say that "the Pope teaches; we obey." The true axiom would be: Christ teaches us through the Church; and we, from the Pope to the little church-mouse, obey.
The Pope's duty of obedience is no less than that of the Christifideles laici.
I hope my remarks here will not be taken as an excursion over to the Cafeteria Side Dish Buffet. God knows I respect the Pope and obey his authority --- and if I ever fail to do so, may somebody pull me aside, get their elbows in my ribs and set me straight.
But the Pope is NOT a limitless autocrat and NOT an all-purpose oracle. Pope Francis would be the first to tell you that.
He and Benedict would tell you stereo-style, in both ears.
nothing of the sort. The doctrine is the same, it’s just that the face is friendlier...
Do actually read what the Pope said — he never said anything about permitting those who indulge in homosexual activities as priests and he did not say to respect the teachings and values of Islam — stop paraphrasing.
What does Jesus say saves us?
| 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. |
Jesus said it is not faith ALONE. We are saved by God's GRACE. Full-stop.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. -- it's never faith ALONE. Note that
no one is denying that one MUST have faith to be saved by the freely given grace of salvation, however, it is not faith ALONE. As shown above, Jesus Himself said that
He who believes and is baptized will be saved. (Mk 16:16)
[U]nless you repent you will all likewise perish. (Lk 13:3
[H]e who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Jn 6:54)
So, do listen to the words of Jesus who said it is faith+ repentance+baptism+the Eucharist+endurance, not any of these in isolation. Of course, these don't "save us" per se, since it is Christ's sacrifice on the Cross that grants us our salvation that we can accept or reject
The problem happens when one takes one section of the word in isolation.
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.