Apologists Concerned About Rick Warren's Alignment With 'Holy Father'

Charisma News ^ | 12/3/14 | Mark Andrews

[marshmallow]

"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.

On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).

On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.

It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."

Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."

If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?

"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."

To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....

[JPX2011]

Dunno. Maybe. Depends on what you mean.

Does being a member of the Catholic Church make me a non-Christian? A cult member? to use your words.

[vladimir998]

“Marian doctrines...Mary centered...hence the name Marian doctrines.....”

Oh, look at that. Marian is spelled correctly. Will wonders never cease?

[vladimir998]

“vlad, I apologize for posting that you appear to be getting over your head on this thread tonight. I regret posting it because you felt insulted, which I see as a possibility...however far-fetched.”

I didn’t feel insulted. I just took the comment as par for the course. You know, typical, expected, a natural part of dealing with Protestant anti-Catholics.

[Arthur McGowan]

Whether or not all of the “relics” are genuine is beside the point. Nobody, absolutely nobody ever tried to claim that he had relics of Mary’s body. There is only one thing that could possibly have prevented somebody from falsely claiming to have relics of Mary: a consensus of all Christians that nobody COULD have relics of Mary.

I would think a "relic" being genuine would be key....wouldn't you?

It is important, but has nothing to do with my argument.

My argument is that the absence of any CLAIMED relics is a fact that requires an explanation--whether such relics ever existed or not. Whether Mary was assumed into heaven or not.

Given the KNOWN mindset of the early Christians about relics in general, the fact that no one ever even claimed FALSELY to have relics of Mary can be explained only by a universal belief among the early Christians that NO ONE COULD POSSESS relics of Mary.

My argument is NOT that the absence of a body of Mary is proof of the Assumption.

My argument is that the absence of any CLAIMED relics of Mary is proof that everyone BELIEVED that relics of Mary were IMPOSSIBLE.

[Resettozero]

You're getting it now.

And it appears you've skipped reading a great many previous posts on this thread and have jumped back into it unzipped and flopping.

[terycarl]

Tell me, did Jesus get His divine nature from Mary?

Jesus got neither His human soul nor His divine nature, nor His human nature from Mary, all were from God using Mary as the vessel. Yes Mary was the Mother of God because you cannot separate Christs natures from one another...He was fully man and Fully God, not half and half...

[Arthur McGowan]

You say that because the Catholic Church has "Mary-centered doctrines," the Catholic Faith is "Mary-centered."

ALL Christians believe in doctrines about Satan.

Thus, those are "Satan-centered" doctrines.

Would you say that, therefore, the Christian Faith is "Satan-centered"?

[terycarl]

Look around you. It ain't workin'!

do you not understand the answer "no" ??

[Mrs. Don-o]

I understand your thought, and it;s a good thought: certainly for Jesus to be a member of the human race at all, is an inconceivable humiliation. But in reference to His Blessed Mother Mary, it's not a Biblically available option to say she was a sinner, when the Archangel Gabriel said she was Full of Grace. That's a contradiction in terms.

If anyone wants to argue -- and it would seem natural to argue --- that everyone is a sinner, it would have to be admitted that an exception was made for Mary, especially considering the exact, and utterly unique way the God's messenger had to adopt an entirely new word in order to express it.

It's a one-off event, a real Singularity, expressed in this wonderfully concentrated idea from the lips of God's ambassador, this singularity of a word.

It acquires more theological depth when you think of Mary as the New Eve, and as having been prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant.

[ealgeone]

Elsei wrote: There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide; If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day; that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day. Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds) ...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second! Purty good fer someone NOT 'endowed with special powers'!

terycarl cynically wrote: OH GOODDIE......does that mean that your list of naughty popes will follow shortly?????

What Elsie's numbers show is that for Mary to handle all of these prayers, allow people to come to Christ, be the guardian of our peace, the minister of heavenly grace, she has to be on par with the Trinity.

But we know the catholic church has already put her on the throne of Heaven.

We constantly seek for help from Heaven - the sole means of effecting anything - that our labours and our care may obtain their wished for object. We deem that there could be no surer and more efficacious means to this end than by religion and piety to obtain the favour of the great Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, the guardian of our peace and the minister to us of heavenly grace, who is placed on the highest summit of power and glory in Heaven, in order that she may bestow the help of her patronage on men who through so many labours and dangers are striving to reach that eternal city......

Looks like there's been a coup in Heaven!

It has always been the habit of Catholics in danger and in troublous times to fly for refuge to Mary, and to seek for peace in her maternal goodness; showing that the Catholic Church has always, and with justice, put all her hope and trust in the Mother of God. And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favour and power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained, or ever can gain. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father//leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01091883_supremi-apostolatus-officio_en.html

Satan couldn't be happier. The eyes of the catholic church all turn to Mary in times of trouble....they flee to her....she's on the highest summit in Heaven...she has been accorded favor and power with her Son.

Based on this she's replaced Him. Oh, I forget...catholics think Mary tells Jesus what to do all the time. They forget Jesus came to do His Father's will. Not Mary's.

The satanically inspired man-made teachings of the catholic church are blasphemous.

[daniel1212]

Your post, as usual, is flawed.

Rather, true to form, the "misrepresentation or hiding" allegation of your post was fallacious, and it is your attempt damage that is "flawed.

The Kenrick quote in isolation misrepresents his overall view of Peter as the Rock. It’s just that simple.

Which is what that the quote was prefaced as saying -while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock - but which you ignored as well as the link by which anyone could read it, but which link seemed to be hiding from you!

In any case, Kenrick still believed in papal infallibility. His view was that it was exercised in union with the world’s bishops.

But which was not supporting "the infallible Roman papacy as V1 declared it" which is what he objected to, as that the pope was infallible when exercised in union with the world’s bishops was accepted, but,

At the Vatican Council of December, 1869, he was one of the prelates who were opposed to the definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and voted "non placet" at the preliminary private sitting. He did not attend the session at which the dogma was promulgated, but publicly submitted to the voice of the majority as the authority of the Church, when he learned of the proclamation.

That still means his view rejects every contrary Protestant view.

That is irrelevant, as that was not the issue, and the quote was not provided as being from one that supported Peter not being the rock nor as one that denied Rome's claim of perpetual magisterial infallibility.

It’s always funny when Protestant anti-Catholics - not really knowing what they’re talking about - cite a Catholic as an ally to their heretical views when that same Catholic still doesn’t believe what Protestants believe

Which construance is just the fallacy i addressed, as the fact is that the preface to the quote stated that author supported Peter as the Rock (because the context of the speech had been consulted), and it is perfectly valid for an author to enlist a quote from someone for one side even though that same source still doesn’t believe what the author is arguing for.

And as said but ignored, you did so yourself, as do others RCs, such as in quoting Prots in cases when they see Mt. 16:18 as referring to Peter, even though they do not believe what the RCs extrapolate from that, among other things.

The rest of your post is simply more irrelevant damage control and ranting, which just adds to your record.

[WVKayaker]

It is the carnal and boxed-in Protestant mind that insists that anything they claim diminishes or minimizes Christ actually does so. The pathology is such that the Protestant takes John 3:30 personally. Anything that deviates from their man-made Protestant construct means they must decrease which is anathema to them since Sola Scriptura puts them in the driver's seat. Too be told to get in the back of the bus is unthinkable.

It is the carnal and boxed-in Protestant Catholic mind that insists that anything they claim diminishes or minimizes Christ actually does so. The pathology is such that the Protestant Catholic takes John 3:30 personally. Anything that deviates from their man-made Protestant Catholic construct means they must decrease which is anathema to them since Sola Scriptura the Holy Spirit puts them in the driver's seat. To be told to get in the back of the bus THE TRUTH of Scripture is unthinkable.

There, fixed it for you. It makes more sense than the dreck you posted...

[ealgeone]

The Eucharist...Christ centered. Good. At least we now have an admission that the Eucharist is centered on Christ and not the Persian sun-god Mithra, Baal, Ra, or whomever. Please be kind enough and share with the rest of the protestant contingent

Don't get your hopes up.

As in believe in Christ type centered. Have faith in Him. We are not eating the flesh or drinking the blood as catholics claim.

[ealgeone]

you really wonder why the mod zings you all the time???

[JPX2011]

And it appears you've skipped reading a great many previous posts on this thread and have jumped back into it unzipped and flopping.

Yeah, well, unlike some of the Protestant contingent I don't "church it" here on the RF. You know who I'm talking about. All those Protestants who refuse to list a denomination or ecclesial community they attend. But they sure show up here, every day, like clockwork. Engaging in "fellowship".

In the meantime I await an answer to my question.

[ealgeone]

Good grief...are you really a priest?

Did you have any apologetics training at all??

[Resettozero]

Does being a member of the Catholic Church make me a non-Christian? A cult member? to use your words.

Wait. You confused two questions in a rush.

First sentence: Possibly. Not my call. If you know his voice and He knows yours, likely you are destined to leave the RCC at some point (Come out of her) and gather with other like-minded believers in and followers of Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone, as many many former RCC members have done already.

Cult member, using my words? Of course the RCC is a man-made cult. Only the willfully blind (who say they can see) and those snared by the RCC (or born into it) who haven't heard and believed the Gospel of Jesus Christ remain in her.

RCC loads down it's members with burdens the heirarchy itself cannot bear.

No one in their right mind and eyes wide open would refuse the kind of freedom to live a new life now and forever; freedom that God has provided through only His Son and no other Way.

[JPX2011]

There, fixed it for you. It makes more sense than the dreck you posted...

So glad to see the contracepting expatriate protestant community is represented.

[af_vet_1981]

Can't be. The Catholic Church says Jesus has two natures and Mary didn't contribute to the divine God nature.

It is. I'm content to see you take a step towards believing the teaching of the Catholic Church, which if if you continue, you will do well.