Posted on 09/29/2013 1:45:04 PM PDT by ebb tide
Laity and clergy should reject, respectfully, the liberalism of Pope Francis.
In St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, he wrote that he rebuked the first pope, St. Peter, “to his face because he clearly was wrong.” The issue was St. Peter’s capitulation to Jewish culture in his approach to the Gentiles. St. Paul moved swiftly to correct him for the sake of the early Church’s unity and doctrinal fidelity to Jesus Christ.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Early flame war?
I won't give him a pass to be an idiot just because he's the pope. Popes come and go, and there have been lousy popes in the last. This is just another one in the succession of lousy popes.
He's no Benedict, that's for sure.
My thoughts exactly
“Jesuit seminaries either look like ghost towns or gay bars...”
Quite a line!
Indeed, but I am not convinced there is such an agenda. The worst I can say about the Pope is that he is not terribly aware of the condition of American Jesuits. The spectator is being a bit parochial.
Coincidence or plan?
I agree...stop with the Pope bashing!
I’m laughing, I’m crying. Those of us who faced real liberalism in a mainline Protestant denomination and converted to Catholicism know liberalism — and Pope Francis is no liberal. He is different, and that difference can be explained in his efforts to address Pentecostalism, indifferent affluence, and liberation theology by stirring up Catholics to go beyond mere “ideologies” to walk with Christ directly, daily, personally, and with creative charity.
Instead of liberation theology, think liberation Catholicism.
Yep !
One of them is infallible, and the other one is the pope.
The Pope is a liberal? Do you mean you are believing ABCNNBCBS LOL if you can figure that one out.
“Just look at the U.S. Congress: it is overflowing with Jesuit graduates who have abandoned the faith and support abortion and gay rights.”
Anybody have a list of these so-called “Jesuit graduates” who now serve in our Congress?
“Indeed, but I am not convinced there is such an agenda.”
What do you think about the Pope forbidding the Franciscans of the Immaculate from offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Extraordinary form? Is that not agenda driven?
Indeed, the pope is no liberal. A shallow and superficial, even trivial understanding of Jesus’ teachings and life is dominant in Christianity. Francis asks us to go deeper. He judges but does not condemn. He does not exclude sinners from the Church but welcomes them to repair their broken lives and receive the blessing of God’s love.
We have become a hate filled church, making enemies of abortionists, homosexuals, environmentalists and others. We must learn to love them into grace not by accepting their sin but by seeing beyond it to their soul.
Surely none of us believe sinners are condemned by their actions. Jesus did not condemn the prostitute, did not allow her to be slain but most importantly did not accept her sin. “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin not more.” As Christians we are commanded to love the unloving. How will we convert the lost of Islam if not with love?
Welcome home.
**who have abandoned the faith and support abortion and gay rights.”**
How do you know this? Have they told you personally? I think you might be trying to make a general statement — and they are usually wrong, because generalities always have an exception.
A recent issue of “First Things” magazine had an article by a priest in a town on the Mexican border. He wrote about how his parishioners were learning at the gut level to “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,” in the context of the drug industry violence there.
Christianity is hard because this goes against all our (fallen) human instincts. It’s easy to say people have “fallen and they can’t get up,” but Jesus never said that, and this is one reason He was hated.
Paul and Peter were members of the same church, weren’t they?
Posted by on 4:09 pm in Columns, Guest Columns
Chapter 15 of the book of Acts relates the decision of the Council of Jerusalem. This is considered the first ecumenical council of the Church. Our own generation has grown up in the shadow of Second Vatican Council. In fact we are about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of this council.
Scholars have found the interpretation of the council to be a very complex task. There is considerable debate about what sources and traditions flowed into the council and precisely what influences created the synthesis we see in the final documents. Extremely careful records were kept at the Council. In fact the official collections of the Councils documents (including preparatory documents) are 63 volumes long. Although historical research is important, the council is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit. Recently Pope Benedict noted that we must understand the council not through the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” but rather with the “hermeneutic of reform” (Address to the Roman Curia, 12/22/05). The final documents of the council are the result of a near unanimous vote by the Council fathers gathered in an ecumenical council. Acts chapter 15 gives us interesting parallel insights into the first primitive council held by the early Christians.
Paul’s extensive first missionary journey resulted in the conversion of large numbers of Gentiles. As a result we see two distinct cultures emerge within the early Church, one of Gentile origin and one of Jewish origin. Initially we see some conflict over exactly which norms apply to each group. Luke tells us that “some men” came down from Judea to the Church in Antioch and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” Not only were these Jewish Christians requiring the practice of circumcision, but they even considered it necessary for salvation. Jewish sources contemporary with the New Testament indicate that prominent Rabbis debated the significance of circumcision for new converts at this time. The strong position taken by these men from Jerusalem sounds very similar to the controversy Paul confronts in his letter to the Galatians. This teaching on the necessity of circumcision caused “no small dissension and debate” among the Antioch believers so they decided to send Paul and Barnabas and some of the others to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders to inquire about this question.
Luke Timothy Johnson has made some interesting observations about the procedure by which they resolve this matter at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35). Beginning with Peter’s speech, and then followed by Paul and Barnabas they begin by recounting and discerning what God had been doing in Church through the Holy Spirit. Next they sought to understand Sacred Scripture in light of their experience of the Holy Spirit. James responds to Peter and Paul saying “the words of the prophets agree with this” (Acts 15:15). Next they engage in debate, a necessary part of the process (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19). Finally, they obtain the agreement of the whole assembly. They reply, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29). The decision of the council is sent through the messengers Paul, Barnabas, Judas and Silas.
Some aspects of these precepts, such as abstaining from blood and meat from strangled animals are not universal but are restrictions which provide the basis for table-fellowship and communion between Jews and Gentiles. They resemble the prohibitions given to ‘proselytes and sojourners’ in Leviticus 17-18 and discussed in rabbinic circles as the “Noachian precepts.” In Jewish tradition the consequence for breaking these precepts was to be cut off from the people (Leviticus 17-18).
As Paul and Barnabas prepare to visit the Churches of Asia minor again “there arose a sharp contention” between them over the inclusion of John Mark whom Paul considered a deserter.
Paul chose Silas and departed, through Syria and Cilicia. When they reached Derbe and Lystra they meet a disciple named Timothy (Acts 16:1-5). Timothy had a Jewish mother but his father was a Greek. Paul wanted to take Timothy along as a traveling companion but “on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3). Paul travelled from city to city, implementing the “decision reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). As we experience this year celebrating the anniversary of the Second Vatican Council, may we seek to implement God’s will through the prayer of Mary.
Scott McKellar is Director of the Bishop Helmsing Institute for the Diocese of Kansas City – St. Joseph.
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.
