Skip to comments.Meet "Kosher Frank" (Pope says Church cannot engage in proselytism)
Posted on 10/07/2013 5:36:12 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans
click here to read article
Stand by for another clarifying article.
Or an increase in the fine art of nuanced statements (which can have their place, but lacking clarification). And thus you have divergent interpretations on what Lumen Gentium means as regards Prots and even pagans being saved.
Note quite. By treating even manifest liberals as members in life and in death then what is effectually taught is that a most basic faith in God is acceptable. Unless such liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals, as then such are seen as enemies to Rome.
Meanwhile, you have a whole body of lay RC apologists who take on the job of interpreting what Lumen Gentium said to be consistent with their interpretation of what Rome has always taught.
Actually, what I misread is the post to which you were responding.
I do not believe that Jews who reject the Messiah will be saved if they remain faithful to the old covenant. The Law never saved anyone and was not intended to. Therefore, any Jews who do not put their faith in the Messiah will be damned as anyone who does not is.
But I do not argue that all Jews are damned unless they go to some Evangelical church or tent and loudly declare that they have found Christ.
You were doing fine until that last comment.
That is NOT how one is saved, Jew or Greek.
Talk is cheap. It's a heart change, repentance from and confession of sin and accepting the Messiah. Going forward in a tent meeting loudly declaring they have found Christ does not save any more than being baptized, doing good works, or anything else any religion sets up as a means of salvation.
I was not saved in a church and I know plenty of others who were not either.
At least you seem to see that the interviews was not as discredited as you made it out to be. But if the problem with popes words are to be explained as due to his impulsiveness, then it impugns the judgment of both the pope (as a leader must be wise enough to consider his audience and not sound so liberal as his defenders say he is not) and those who elected him. However, such have done far worse. I myself see Francis as humble and more relational than doctrinally minded, even if he also hold to a decidedly false gospel and other errors of Rome.
Much like the very first Bishop of Rome, I should think. Jesus named him "rock," --- presumably meaning "solid" --but he seemed to move this way and that in small avalanches.
However, this was pre pentecost Peter, not the type of man the pope purportedly is to be a replacement of.
As for Aquinas, keep in mind that in his age (as in most ages), serious theological dissent was held to be socially and even politically seditious,...
Indeed, and in our age today sexual freedom is the norm, but we are not to be conformed to this world or its ways. Not that i am not too much conformed myself, but excusing sanctioning torture to deal with theological dissent, when this is so contrary to the words and spirit of the NT, is so much special pleading. Early Prots also had to unlearn this.
So Aquinas was supplying more edifying reason for coercing true belief:
Which is a contradiction, as true belief is not be coerced by torture, which Benedict said was intrinsically evil.
Many would have derived that from Luke 14:23 - "And the lord said unto the servant, 'Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled."
Trying to defend this with that is torturing Scripture(!), as even if this refers to physical compulsion, the physical in parables have corresponding spiritual equivalence under the New covenant, and nowhere therein do we see physical compulsion being used to convert souls or even by the church in discipline for spiritual matters, as instead they did not "war after the flesh(2Cor. 10:3) but used spiritual means for both.
And besides, Aquinas didn't die for my sins.
Irrelevant, as the issue is the church of Rome, which also did not die for our sins, but torture and killing of theological dissidents even had manifest papal sanction.
It seems clear to me that errors of judgment have already been made by Pope Francis, by those who appointed him, and those whom he has appointed. How harmful or how anodyne, short term or long term, is going to be hard to sort out, as always.
As a Catholic, I am convinced that, as you rightly say, true belief is not be coerced by torture --- which Benedict said was intrinsically evil. I think Benedict has the backing of Divine and natural Law on that one. Other popes erred on this in the past, but did not introduce their errors into the de fidedoctrine of the Church.
Here's an interesting incident: Pope Innocent III, on the very day he died in Rome, appeared in flames to the Abbess Lutgarda in Brabant (Belgium) and said he was being punished for three great crimes he has committed. One can't know what they were, but I don't think I'm far wrong when I think of the Albigensian Crusade, the Fourth Crusade (sack of Constantinople) and the suppression of the Waldensians. His errand was to beg the abbess to have her sisters pray for his soul, let he remain in Purgatory until the end of time.
Incidents like that make me think that God allows torturers to get a good taste of their own medicine. And Purgatory is, by all accounts, precisely this: medicinal. I've never actually prayed for Innocent III, but maybe I will now. Maybe 8 centuries in flames is enough!
As for Francis, I personally think he will be good pope, because he is a good man following a good Master. And when he errs, he will do well to repent quickly and take correction graciously. Let's pray for him.
Which means you only have a limited coverage plan, and most of what RCs believe and practice has never been stated infallibly. Meanwhile, how many time Rome, and not only popes, have spoken infallibly, is subject to some interpretation, as is to varying degrees their meaning, and which are not infallible.
In any case, Scripture known not of Rome's formulaic infallibility, and such an infallible magisterium was not necessary for writings to be established as Scripture nor truth to be preserved, nor for souls to have assurance of faith, contrary to the RC argument for her mag. The church simply did not begin under the means of establishment truth that Rome operates under.
Here's an interesting incident: Pope Innocent III, on the very day he died in Rome, appeared in flames to the Abbess Lutgarda in Brabant (Belgium) and said he was being punished for three great crimes he has committed...His errand was to beg the abbess to have her sisters pray for his soul, let he remain in Purgatory until the end of time.
And legend also has it she also levitated and dripped blood from her forehead and hair when entranced, but which legends are just that, while if she has a vision of "Innocent" in flames it was him in Hell, the only place he would be outside Heaven.
And Purgatory is, by all accounts, precisely this: medicinal.
Purgatory is in invention resulting from a false premise. It is true that true faith is that which effects characteristic holiness in heart and deed, things which accompany salvation, (Heb. 6:9) and which includes repentance when one is convicted of sin, (1Jn. 1:6,9) but one either has such faith, which has great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) or he does not. And those professors who do not, but deny the faith as by drawing back in unbelief or impenitent sin, are not promised a second chance but damnation. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6,12,14; 10:25-39)
Those who are immature and do not always strive lawfully will suffer the grievous disapproval of the Lord and loss of rewards at His return (not at death), but will be saved despite the loss of works being burnt up, referring to what he built the church with, and not because of this loss. See 1Cor. 3. This is the only postmortem suffering mentioned in Scripture for believers. here .
Meanwhile, growth in grace is accomplished in this life with its trials and temptations and ability to deliver oneself. Thus the Lord Himself was "made perfect thru sufferings." (Heb. 5:8,9)
Yum! Looks good. Here is a recipe that works well for meatless dinners. VERY filling!
Curried Butternut Squash Soup (makes 1 gallon of soup)
2 large butternut squash, peeled, seeded and chopped
1 stick unsalted butter
3 large shallots, chopped
2 - 3 tsp. curry powder (to taste)
2 qts. chicken stock (okay, maybe not “vegetarian”, but veggie stock might work okay)
1 cup heavy cream
salt and pepper to taste
Over med-high heat, melt butter in a large soup pot then add shallots. Sautee shallots until translucent. Add curry powder to shallots and sautee for one minute. Mix in chopped squash then chicken stock, salt and pepper. Cover and bring to boil. Turn down heat and simmer for 20 minutes or until squash is tender and cooked through. Take off heat and puree with an immersion blender. If you don’t have one, ladle in stages and puree in your blender and return to the pot. Stir in cream and heat until hot, not boiling. Enjoy!
I would ask that those who think as Cicero does, to consider what would have happened had the Jews NOT rejected (as a nation) Jesus as their promised Messiah? Would not the "Old Covenant" have been fulfilled and they, as we, would be saved by the SAME faith in Christ as all those are today? Jesus WAS/IS the Messiah - the rejection of His own people was one of the signs of the Messiah - and whether anyone rejects Him or not doesn't change that truth. There will be NO OTHER Savior coming to them. When the "times of the Gentiles" is fulfilled, THEN God returns focus back to Israel and then ALL Israel will be saved because God will open their collective eyes and ears and then:
I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10)
Yummmmm... thank you!