Posted on 01/02/2012 3:13:39 PM PST by RnMomof7
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — For the second time in a week, Pope Benedict XVI has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, reasserting the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church and saying other Christian communities were either defective or not true churches.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
wwjd
Yeah but it was a fight fought in unity!
Please remove me from your pinglist.
Not exactly. Infallibility is attached to the office of the pope, not the person. Stray comments by the current papal office holder are not necessarily infallible. The pope must solemnly invoke his office, and remain consistent with infallible definitions of previous popes, to speak with guaranteed infallibly.
When the pope’s personal motto is “Totus Tuus Sum Maria” (I am all your, Mary), as was John Paul II’s, perhaps you can understand the confusion. (Or maybe you the one who is confused and they didn’t let you in on the secret handshake yet.)
Not siding with the Catholic church but the translation of the word “father” as in “call no man father” actually means “call no man creator (father of creation).
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James (2,26)
Grace by Faith, first, yes. Then comes conversion and works must follow --not for one's own sense of self-worth, but for love of the Holy Trinity.
Okay, but revealed Church Tradition and Apostolic Succession historically grounds the Catholic Church in Christ Himself.
Yet the requirement of Apostolic succession isn’t found in the Bible. And if it IS correct - then the Roman Catholic church isn’t a real church, as it split from the Eastern Orthodox and thus no longer has Apostolic succession.
Unless you want to claim there can be multiple succession paths out there? In which case - how is it different than Lutherans?
***
Ummmm. Can I believe what my wife who was born and raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools and still attends mass weekly, says?
Me: “Do Catholics worship Mary?”
Wife: “Is this some kind of trick question?
Me: “No, some Catholics on FreeRepublic are saying Catholics don’t venerate Mary.”
Wife: “Then they aren’t really Catholics.”
Hank
***
So you changed the question. Did you notice? From worship to venerate. Two different things.
Ask your wife if she worships Mary.
ROFL Claiming the infallibility of some guy in a tall hat and red expensive shoes is nonsense.
This is how the Catholic Church operates. Vatican II was the latest update to the church's structure and message, and it was the works of THOUSANDS of delegates from around the world from different congregations and positions in Catholicism. They debated and worked on the documents for months before coming up with the finished version. The Pope didn't sit alone in a room and unilaterally write up the Vatican II documents himself. In fact, I don't believe he wrote any of it. He just presided over the council, which is the way Christianity has always worked since the 1st century A.D.
>> SBC church's are autonomous. <<
Hence, you have nuts like the Westboro Baptist Church getting away with calling themselves a "Baptist" group even though their "church" is a lunatic hate filled cult that not only is nothing like what Baptists believe, but doesn't even represent anything remotely Christian. The risk of "fully autonomous" congregations is anyone can claim to be Baptist and the message gets deluded. What if you had a Baptist congregation that professed that Muhammad was their savior?
>> We don't answer to a church “head” <<
No, you appoint a powerless "head" and give him a title of "President of the SBC", while bashing such things as "unbiblical" when other Christan's do it. We both know there is no biblical basis for the office of SBC President. The fact he has a ceremonial job and has little power to "run" Baptists as the Queen does in "running" England is irrelevant. The office ITSELF goes against the claim that all Baptists are equal. Clearly this guy enjoys more prestige and clout when he says something, even if on paper he can't do anything.
Peter appointed an official successor to the traitor Judas in Acts 1. The Eastern Orthodox do not question the Western Apostolic succession (to my knowledge), but they are in schism with the See of Peter (on whom Christ founded His Church).
You mean the popecorn?
LOL Actually I think mine is still popcorn because it sure isn’t infallible. At least not all of it does what it’s supposed to do. I get some old maids in there. Wait…….could those just be nuns?
Actually, the word in the Greek is pater - father.
http://biblos.com/matthew/23-9.htm
pater
http://concordances.org/greek/3962.htm
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: patér
Short Definition: father, Father, ancestor
Definition: father, (Heavenly) Father, ancestor, elder, senior.
3962 patḗr – father; one who imparts life and is committed to it; a progenitor, bringing into being to pass on the potential for likeness.
Considering the claims made of Catholic priests, I submit that the instruction from Jesus is still valid.
Another reason is that in context, He was talking about titles given to religious leaders. He specifically prohibits calling religious leaders by the title *father* and He gives the reason.
Matthew 23:1-12 1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
It would make no sense for Jesus to prohibit calling other men *creator* as that would be self-evident that they are not.
He appointed no one. They cast lots, ie gambled, to determine who would get it and it wasn't even a matter of seeking God about who they should appoint. They picked two men and drew lots. By default there would be one chosen and one rejected. There's no way around THAT. But it certainly doesn't mean that it had God's endorsement or approval.
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.