Posted on 03/13/2013 12:18:30 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
How so? What little I've read so far sound like he has batted heads with the Argentine Peronist PM who nationalized all the 401K and IRA type pensions.
And said head batting was mostly over social issues like gay marriage.
“Pride goes before the fall” is a shortened paraphrase of Proverbs 16:18. Let’s not be OCD about Scripture. That’s basically how the world knows that Scripture and I was only jotting it down as part of a quick post. How laughable if Dr. Thorne sticks by his assertion that the charismatic false prophet aiding the Anti-Christ will be this shy, humble, 76-year-old Pope. Dr.Thorne’s predictions of the moral stances this Pope would take when compared with the ones he has actually taken is ridiculous.
I think this might answer your question...
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6893?eng=y
Yet he´s not the type to compromise himself for the public. Every time he speaks, instead, he tries to shake people up and surprise them. In the middle of November, he did not give a learned homily on social justice to the people of Argentina reduced by hunger - he told them to return to the humble teachings of the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. “This,” he explained, “is the way of Jesus.” And as soon as one follows this way seriously, he understands that “to trample upon the dignity of a woman, a man, a child, an elderly person, is a grave sin that cries out to heaven,” and he decides not to do it any more.
The other bishops follow in his footsteps. During the Holy Year of 2000 he asked the entire Church in Argentina to put on garments of public penance for the sins committed during the years of the dictatorship. As a result of this act of purification, the Church had the credibility to be able to ask the nation to acknowledge how its own sins had contributed to its current disaster. At the celebration of the Te Deum at the most recent national feast, last May 25th, there was a record audience for Cardinal Bergoglio´s homily. The cardinal asked the people of Argentina to do as Zacchaeus had done in the Gospel. Here was a sinister loan shark. But, taking account of his moral lowliness, he climbed up into a sycamore tree, to see Jesus and let himself be seen and converted by him..
Oh I see.
Let’s not be OCD about Scripture.
Oh, being accurate about scripture is OCD? I don't think so, but I am not Catholic.
That’s basically how the world knows that Scripture
So that is where you base your knowledge of scripture as "how the worlds knows" it?
Oh OK.
And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.--Romans 12:2How laughable if Dr. Thorne sticks by his assertion that the charismatic false prophet aiding the Anti-Christ will be this shy, humble, 76-year-old Pope.“They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.17“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.18“As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.19“For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. --John 17:16-19
You are probably right, but it could be. Who is the great deceiver?
I predicted that this Pope selection would be much younger, robust and charismatic and popular even outside Catholicism
I missed it on the age.
Perhaps we have a while to go until the One World Religion, Maybe the next Pope will pull it off.
The Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the Catholic church.
That may happen, but many Christians will opt out.
And you might like to read here as well,
http://www.aica.org/aica/documentos_files/Obispos_Argentinos/Bergoglio/2002/2002_04_10.htm
This one you will need to run through google translator, but is well worth the effort to read it.
It makes me feel much, much better about his view on things like ‘social justice.’ It is not the progressive ‘social justice’ we tend to think of...
That was the situation for the first millennia of Christianity, from 33 A.D. to 1054 A.D. or so.
Actually, that's true of all of el doctore's posts which is why they are utterly lacking in any information at all
“Its a misrepresentation of the scriptures that Jesus always spoke of giving up wealth. Jesus spoke overwhelmingly of eternal life not poverty but social justice proponents lie about this all the time. Go through the new testament and highlight references to money, the poor etc. The theme is not there as often as progressives would have you think.”
Jesus instructed the rich man to sell everything he owned and follow Him
He had specific advice for different people. That man needed to hear that. But it would be foolish to think that Jesus wants everyone all over the world to sell everything they have, despite the communists often using scriptures like these to promote their philosophy. It would lead to starvation, riots, disease, war.
The number of Scriptures talking about eternal life vs. those talking about money is overwhelmingly weighted on the side of eternal life.
“Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the church.”
Of course they do. Because the Lord set up one church.
“my church” -Matthew 16:18
“that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” -John 17:21
Jesus wants us to be unified so the world will convert and “believe” in Him. He doesn’t want Christians to endlessly divide themselves because it weakens their witness to the world. It’s not a coincidence that he immediately links unity in one sentence to belief and conversion in the next sentence. The world says: If they can’t agree on the truth, is their a truth that can be agreed upon?
Where in the Scriptures does it say it’s okay that we endlessly divide ourselves into denominations? Early in the Acts of the Apostles when the Holy Spirit comes at Pentecost, it says the early disciples were all together as one.
>>> The Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the Catholic church. That may happen <<Not true at all.That was the situation for the first millennia of Christianity, from 33 A.D. to 1054 A.D. or so
There were no Catholics or Catholic church back then, except through history being re written some time after the Catholic church began around 325AD
Christians back then, and now also, are under the "banner" of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The church is made up of all born again saved Christians who have that personal relationship with Jesus as he promised in the NT. There are Catholics in His church, the ones that are born again and fit the other criteria noted above.
Christians have no need or desire to be squished under the banner and authority of the Catholic church.
The only rewritten history is on your part, if you can produce any evidence that the Catholic Church was "created" around 325 A.D., you are welcome to present it. Christianity wasn't legalized until 313 A.D., so I doubt they advertised themselves publicly, but certainly the Catholic Church was well established and referenced by prominent Christians before that time. Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter around 107 A.D "addressed to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place", the idea that the Catholic Church didn't exist yet would have certainly been a shock to him.
Even if we go by your revisionist date, you still acknowledge that Christianity was wholly under the banner of the Catholic Church from 325 A.D. to 1054 A.D. If you name any other Christian denominations around back then besides Catholics, please let me know. Jesus told Peter that HE would be the rock upon which the church was built. That was the case for hundreds of years, until other Christians broke away from that communion.
Nice to know there are Catholics in "His church", but I've never met any "born again" Catholics since that's a wholly protestant doctrine and is only mentioned once in the Bible (John 3:3-5). Catholics are Baptized at birth unless they convert from another denomination or religion. Having a "personal relationship with Jesus" is certainly a good thing, but it is not a requirement for baptism in the Catholic Church. Your definition of "the church" and "Christians" seems to be limited to fundamentalist evangelical protestants who "have a personal relationship with Jesus", unfortunately. They actually represent a VERY small segment of Christianity worldwide (maybe 10% of Christians at best, considering there are 1.2 billion Catholics, about 300 million Orthdox, and millions of other protestants worldwide who accept Jesus as their savior and have not been "Born Again" but were baptized at birth)
Apparently it became a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff when Pope Siricius (d. 398) used it. (Ep. vi in P.L., XIII, 1164)
Ignatius of course was talking about the universal (catholic) church, not The Catholic Church of today.
It's also believed by some that St. Boniface III ( 607 - 608 ), accepted the title pontiff, making himself the supreme ruler, of the church. He is considered as the first official pope of the Catholic church. All preceding bishops, except for Gregory the Great ( 590 - 604 ), refused the title.
Check Catholic history.
So Peter didn't consider himself the pope of the Catholic Church.
...you still acknowledge that Christianity was wholly under the banner of the Catholic Church from 325 A.D. to 1054 A.D. If you name any other Christian denominations around back then besides Catholics, please let me know.There weren't any denominations back then, not even Catholic.
There were many groups of Christians which could be called branches of the church that Jesus started back then.
You can see what Jesus had to say to the churches of the time in Rev 2.
Perhaps Sardis was the Catholic church?
Jesus told Peter that HE would be the rock upon which the church was built. That was the case for hundreds of years, until other Christians broke away from that communion.Nonsense. Jesus it the ROCK and head of his church, made up of all born again saved Christians that have that personal relationship with Jesus.
Peter apparently is the head of the Catholic church, although I'm sure he would protest (it "certainly (would be) a shock to him") if he were around today. He knew that Jesus was the Rock that His church is built upon.
Actually it was the Catholic denomination that broke away from all the other Christians back in 1054 A.D
>> The church is made up of all born again saved Christians who have that personal relationship with Jesus as he promised in the NT. There are Catholics in His church, the ones that are born again and fit the other criteria noted above. <<Actually it is mentioned TWICE in John 3Nice to know there are Catholics in "His church", but I've never met any "born again" Catholics since that's a wholly protestant doctrine and is only mentioned once in the Bible (John 3:3-5)
In both cases, it is said by JESUS CHRIST Himself!1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Catholic tradition may disagree and Catholic Bibles may leave the second one out.
I've never met any "born again" Catholics since that's a wholly protestant doctrine
So you are saying that Jesus is a Protestant?
And here it is a third time, from Peter no less:
1 Peter 1Christians believe that the scriptures are God breathed/inspired and accept them as Gospel truth.22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Having a "personal relationship with Jesus" is certainly a good thing, but it is not a requirement for baptism in the Catholic Church.
Well, that's none of my concern, you may do as your denomination dictates.
For born again Christians, it's one of the perks.
That personal relationship is pretty important to Christians and we are thankful to God that we may experience it.20“In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you--John 14:19-20
Your definition of "the church" and "Christians" seems to be limited to fundamentalist evangelical protestants who "have a personal relationship with Jesus"I have not much knowledge of "fundamentalist evangelical protestants" but if they have a personal relationship with Jesus they are alright in my book.
My definition of the church is that it is comprised of all born again saved Christians who have a personal relationship with Jesus. You may see my definition of "Christian" in that last sentence if you look carefully. (Anyone that agrees with that agrees with the Bible and God bless them for that! Even if they are some of those dreaded Protestants!)
Because that is what being saved for all eternity by Jesus through God and the Holy Spirit is all about.
They actually represent a VERY small segment of Christianity worldwide (maybe 10% of Christians at best, considering there are 1.2 billion Catholics, about 300 million Orthdox (sic), and millions of other protestants worldwide who accept Jesus as their savior and have not been "Born Again" but were baptized at birth)How one can be a Christian without being born from above (born again) is a strange concept to me and other Christians.
So Protestants are now baptizing at birth like Catholics do? That is not Biblical, I am surprised that they do that.
It seems like you are saying you believe that if someone is baptized at birth, that they are saved? Do you have a Biblical reference to that?
Yes and because He did, he wants all Christian believers to be members.“Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the church.”
Of course they do. Because the Lord set up one church.
“my church” -Matthew 16:18
Christian believers being, as described in the Bible, born again individuals who are saved and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
But you subtly changed my quote to something that is NOT true: "Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the church."
They want everyone under the banner and authority of the Catholic Church, as my actual quote contends. Here it is with out the disingenuous subtle changes: "The Catholics seem to want all other denominations under the banner and authority of the Catholic church."
Jesus wants them in His church made up of all born again individuals who are saved and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
The endlessly divide stuff? Pretty much a straw man argument, no thanks.
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.