Skip to comments.There is something strange going on in the Vatican
Posted on 10/09/2013 8:25:55 AM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
click here to read article
Prayer and fasting helps one’s soul, and the souls for whom they pray. I haven’t avoided your question.
I don’t see many Catholic here consistently starting posts that hammer Protestants. On the other hand, I often do see it from the FR Protestants of a certain stripe.
For the record, I have never started a thread that represents any branch of Protestantism and what it professes. For the record, It would be impossible for me to track down all the competing doctrines at the “Confessional or Institutional level” from all the competing Protestant groups. I have, at times, not as frequent as I use to, corrected the constant misrepresentation of Catholic Doctrine which is a much different context than what you are hinting at with your post.
I don’t know how far back post histories go but anyone who has ever been in a thread with me, if they are honest, can confirm that I have never started a thread about a certain Protestant groups doctrine. Period.
It's also evangelizing...The bible isn't all a one side lovey dovey book...We have to teach the 'whole' counsel of God, and that includes teaching about hell...
From the Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1864:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. (Indifferentism and False Tolerance)
It’s not the toes he steps on I worry about; the man seems to be questionable regarding Catholicism IMO.
Interesting. You seem to be sitting in judgment of the RCC's selection of a "pope" and determining that the Bible tells you everything is going to turn out all right, irrespective of what they have done. Such a position would imply that you have a personal interpretation of the Bible which overrides Rome, since Rome claims to control interpretation.
While you are using the same logic most biblicists use to evaluate Rome, you are certainly in conflict with the mother ship. They claim to have control over the interpretation of that Bible and would argue that they could not possibly make a mistake in selection. But, here you are saying the Bible trumps Rome...hmmm. Welcome to reality.
This could be fun.
Boy, let’s welcome you to reality: the Bible is of the Church, the Church not springing from the Bible, difference between Catholics and Protestors
Sounds like a lot of Catholics are getting the heeby jeebys.
Yet, according to you the so-called “Church” of Rome may have made a mistake? And, you find that everything will be okay based upon the Bible...which they claim to control? So, they make a mistake you personally identify, but take comfort in an interpretation they don’t condone? I’m getting the popcorn.
Proselytism: When you try to convert me.
Of course, Catholics engage in neither. Else they all might as well move to trailer parks.
So that's what converted the Roman world, huh? Good to know none of those apostles actually went anywhere and challenged anyone.
Evangelization is seen as revealing Christ by word and deed and let them encounter him thru his Bride the Church
In other words, "evangelization" is allowing people to come to you and ask to join, like a Masonic lodge.
So that's what Paul was doing in Athens.
This form of parsing is Jesuitical.
He is a Jesuit. No? shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
This form of parsing is Jesuitical.
Oh, I get it now. The trouble with Francis is that he's universalist outside chrstianity whereas Catholicism is universalist within chrstianity . . . right?
The Catholic Church has never at any time tried to convert non-Catholic chrstians. All you have to do is be "committed." Catholics don't try to convert Fundamentalist Protestants because the little dears are genetically defective (through no fault of their own; it's not their fault their parents were siblings) and could never comprehend so profound and intellectual religion as Catholicism. So G-d in his graciousness has provided defective, stupid churches for defective, stupid people who can never aspire to "the fullness of truth" because they're too stupid and inbred to believe in evolution and Biblical criticism. Catholics don't bother these unfortunate cretins by trying to convert them, but they will defend their magnificent yet incomprehensible doctrines should the morons, through their ignorance and their mistaken belief in "absolute truth," try to "correct" them.
Catholicism is for Italians, Irish, French, Hispanics, Poles, Hungarians, Nigerians, Vietnamese, and Filipinos. Inbred rednecks need not apply and need not expect any "evangelization," because they're "sincere chrstians," which is all that is required.
Hmm. Seems to me that the Catholic Church didn't always teach this. But then, what do I know? After all, I'm just an inbred moron with no genes from the Special, Chosen Catholic Nations.
Let's see . . . I've seen Catholics refer to "fundies" (including you yourself), "snake-handlers," "Bible-thumpers," "Bible-bangers," "Bible-toters," and "brain dead bibliolators." I have never seen Protestants refer to Catholics as mackerel snappers" or "bead fumblers," though I have seen a few references to "Papists" and "Romanists."
Catholics may not engage in dialogue about doctrines, but they rule when it comes to ethno-cultural slurs.
I don’t think you understood my post. It is from the “Syllabus of ERRORS.” Pope Pius IX is listing all the errors of his time (which have continued up through our own time) and the one I posted was in the section on Indifferentism and False Tolerance. This error is pretty much what Pope Francis said the other day about everyone trying to find the “good.” or whatever. Ergo, the Pope is spouting Heresy.
He speaks as if he has never read one Encyclical in his life. Jesuits are supposed to be educated, but he gives no evidence of having studied any of the writings of previous Popes.
P.S. I had to read your post three times in order to wade through your emotional invective to try to figure out what you were trying to say. I’m still not sure I understood you. Next time, you might want to be less emotional and thus more succinct.
It seems from this post and all the replies that Francis has indeed turned something upside down, much as John XXIII did.
I’m sure his goal is to save souls. He is simply starting from a different point. It seems to me that he truly believes in natural law, and that if you appeal to it in anyone, that person will respond—even if he is an atheist.
If you start arguing, or judging, you are off on the wrong foot.
Basically, he is saying our approach to the nonbeliever should be “Namas te,” “I see the God within you.” If this resonates, the hearer then has two choices: to respond to what he feels or knows is the true God within him, or to use the words as an excuse to do whatever he wants.
Those who make the first choice have been reached in a way that all the arguing in the world cannot accomplish.
We all have God within us. The job is to get through all the weeds and distractions to find it, in ourselves and possibly, with the grace of God, in others.
Interesting perspective on things.
I am in the middle of reading quite a few encyclicals. So far, I have read “Quo Primum,” “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio,” “In Eminenti Apostolatus Specula,” 38 of the 58 sections of “Pascendi Dominici Gregis,” “Apostolicae Curae,” “Mirari Vos,” “Quanta Cura,” and “Mediator Dei.” I have 13 to go, at least for now. When one actually reads - and studies - the Encylicals, one realizes that everything since Vatican II has been/is heresy. It is difficult to comprehend, but one must not resort to intellectual dishonesty in order to make excuses. I trust that Jesus will keep at least a remnant of the Church pure as He promised St. Peter when He gave Him the Keys.
IMO it's imprecise to speak of "a remnant of the church". The remnant IMO is the church. The larger portion are unredeemed pretenders who dwelt within the church, according to the apostle John (1 John 2:19).
My thoughts exactly.
I'll keep that in mind next time some Catholic tells me I'm headed there.
HE taught that WHEN we fast, as if He expected it to be the typical practice of His followers.
FWIW, fasting works.
Jesus taught about hell. HE warned people to believe or perish.
But it wasn't a threat, it was a warning.
It would be unconscionable to not warn people of hell for rejecting Jesus.
Proselytism: When you try to convert me.
It just depends on how offended the person being evangelized is feeling.
No we don't. That's the lie of the enemy. *You shall be as gods....*.
Only those who are believers and have Christ dwelling in their hearts through faith, who are the temple of the Holy Spirit, have God in them.
The bolded is modernism. And yes, I agree that this is what Francis is saying....heresy. From Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Pope Pius X, 1907):
14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.
I still find myself making similar mistakes when reading errors. I have to remind myself that the writer (ie.Pope) is not agreeing with the statement, but pointing it out and calling it heresy.
LOL @ Paul VI abolishing the Oath Against Modernism.
Maybe the Pope longs for the good old days when the Catholic church could evangelize with sword and convert those evil proselyting heretics.
eh? you are not making sense
What exactly were you laughing at?
Have you ever read the “Oath Against Modernism?” Dear Pope St. Pius X was trying to root it out of seminaries, schools, from the pulpit, out of dioceses, and out of the Vatican. It covered everyone who had any influence. The fact that Pope Paul VI did away with people having to take the Oath is evidence that a) he didn’t care if Modernism infected the Church and b) probably crossed his fingers when he signed the Oath himself.
There’s a huge difference between me choosing to fast as part of prayer, and someone being starved to death.
Those millions who died from being starved to death, did not choose to fast.
If you cannot distinguish between the two, you have bigger issues than you realize.
Nanette, I have been agreeing with you. Why would you take the LOL in a negative fashion? I’m laughing at the absurdity of Paul VI abolishing this oath...and then proceeding to allow modernism into the Church.....directly and indirectly.
I thought so, but it’s just too tragic to laugh about. (I thought you were laughing because I said, “surprise, surprise” in my best Gomer Pyle voice.)
Those were my thoughts when I read that also. Fasting and being starved are rather different.
Sometimes I need to laugh otherwise I’d cry.
Some crazy times we’re in and it’s even sadder that so many are blind to it.
Re-read the posts...it will come to you.
I'm assuming you don't really understand 'God within us'...
Those of us who have God in us have no need nor no desire to go chasing after your Eucharist...Plus it would be completely pointless...
And having God in you is a one time deal...We don't have to go any where for another dose...
I have used the term Fundie you are correct and Bible Thumpers as well. I will fully disclose that I have used those terms, but!, and that is the point, only in the context of a thread started by said Protestant fundies that set out to distort and misrepresent what Catholicism teaches, which is clearly laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic CHurch. It is not like the Catholic CHurch hides its Doctrine at the Institutional level. So the substance of my post remains, I have, as I said in the previous post never started a thread that attempts to explain any of the various competing Protestant groups teachings at the “Confessional or Institutional level”, i.e. I don’t try to represent what Reformed-Protestantism teaches, the Southern Baptist Convetion teaches, the United Methodist, the Pentecostals, in all their various stripes, etc, etc, etc.
So again, when I have used the term Fundie or bible-thumper, is has only been in the context of a thread started by said protestants refered to above and not, as I have stated in my previous post, and in this post, a thread started out by me that attempts to represent said Protestant groups and then after individual protestants come in and reply in a thread, I respond with fundie/bible thumper.
And for the record, Fundie does have any ethnic connotations nor does bible-thumper. Romanist, on the other hand, clearly has ethnic implications given that Rome is a city in Italy. Papist, I would concede, has no ethnic implications given that the last 3 popes are all of different ethnic background, Polish, Bavarian-German, and and Argentinian from Italian ancesty.
edit to previous post, “Fundie does not have...
Well, here is a clue. You agreed with the good doctor's remark (above) that it may be possible your organization has selected the wrong guy as "pope". Apparently, they have done so in the past. (Anti-popes?)
But, you claimed that God was still in control and everything would be hunky-dory.
I asked how you knew this, when the very organization which claimed to be infallable appointed the guy who speaks infallably ex-cathedra could not possibly make a mistake.
You said, the Bible.
I said, that must be YOPIOS because that is the same criteria believing Christians use to evaluate Rome...and we too find it wanting. You are dangerously close to being a "protestor".
Now I say, "Time to swim the Tiber the other direction...if you can."