Posted on 12/29/2015 11:47:48 AM PST by Jan_Sobieski
“Come on...he had made this comment many times since he has taken the helm of the church.”
No, actually I don’t think he did - and if he did why isn’t in the article if THAT is the headline?
“Including the sodomite comment.”
And that was taken out of context to say the least. No where did the pope say it was morally okay to engage in homosexual sex.
“Are you apologizing for Francis?”
I’m telling the truth. I hate it when people lie or distort things. Yet, again and again, when it comes to Pope Francis people - like the writer of that headline - make up things that just aren’t true. I’m not saying that Pope Francis’ original comment wasn’t problematic enough, but why can’t people just honestly deal with that rather than make up things? And when did FReepers become so stupid or morally bankrupt to think it was okay to post articles that are false or misrepresent things and then defend them as if they actually were telling the truth?
He apparently doesn’t see that the most obvious response to his statement is simply: “Then, what do we need you and countless other middlemen for?”
Jesus' prayer for the Roman soldiers at the foot of the cross that were killing Him is not reasonably extrapolated against the whole of Scripture where such extrapolation would only find copious contradiction.
Not all are predestined to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself. The path of destruction is broad and narrow is the gate that leads to life.
Righteousness of self that is not the likeness of Christ is by no means the same as putting on the new self, which is His likeness.
Would you indeed equate ignorance with being saved and walking in the Light? Why do you feel the need to equate grace through faith--the gift from God--with Mother Teresa's "distressing disguises", even if such a one were as an angel of Light, as Satan is known to disguise himself? God's Word should never be so supplanted!
Hebrews 11 instructs that many prior to Christ did faith-filled deeds, even in anticipation of Christ, but those did not achieve the salvation of Christ. Their works were considered righteousness, but they did not receive what was promised and only fulfilled in Christ! There was still the need of a Savior, who is Christ the Lord! Apart from that and the faith-gifted believers in the Savior even those would not be made perfect.
Francis is not reiterating divinely revealed mysteries but denying Scripture, with which he is apparently unfamiliar, which is truly in God's Hands to grant or withhold. To get where Francis is, he must surely have had a power to influence many, apparently in sinister ways.
HF
So is the Pope's own publishing house "defaming" him? And why, pray tell, has Pope Francis chosen to grant the supposedly unreliable Scalfari so many interviews?
"...Despite this, the Vatican Publishing House published a book in 2013 called Interviews and Conversations with Journalists that included what it called the "recognized interviews" with Pope Francis. The pope is listed as the author of the book. Included in the book was the September 2013 interview with Scalfari..."
"...Francis is so enamored with Scalfari as his Boswell that he had their disgraceful interview earlier in his papacy--in which the Holy Father flirted with moral and religious relativism by encouraging atheists to cleave to their "conception of the good" in order to attain a salvation they don't even want - published in book form under the direction of the Vatican's publishing house. If a future pope ever revives the Index of Forbidden Books, that book will appear on the list. Many of Francis's answers to Scalfari's self-indulgent questions aren't worthy of a priest, much less a pope..."
http://spectator.org/articles/64557/soiled-shoes-fisherman
"...Scalfari's unreliability is a matter of perspective. He is reliably atheist. He has been reliably anti-Catholic. He is reliably committed to his own way of conducting interviews and then reconstructing them from memory - as Fr. Lombardi said in the statement quoted above, those who have "followed the preceding events and work in Italy know the way Scalfari writes and knows these things well."
Then why dear reader, it is so inexcusable that Pope Francis has given to Scalfari a total of five (by our count) such interviews - particularly when the first one was so blatantly controversial and sparked such scandal and backlash among the faithful. And despite persistent denials that these interviews accurately represent the mind of Pope Francis, we would do well to remember a very important concession made by Fr. Lombardi after the very first one was published:
Pressed by reporters on the reliability of the direct quotations, Lombardi said during an Oct. 2 briefing that the text accurately captured the "sense" of what the pope had said, and that if Francis felt his thought had been "gravely misrepresented," he would have said so..."
Fool Me Twice: Francis, Scalfari, and Our Response to Papal Media
I don’t necessarily disagree with you but don’t use the “one world” on the plane in your argument. It is an airline.
Francis is antichrist. His comments cannot be viewed any other way. He preaches deliberate error to deceive many, many, many. Not the gospel, but another gospel. Treacherous.
Everyone not saved is already dead in their sins. Ignorance has nothing to do with it. We come into this world sinful. This isnt my special interpretation, it is what is written in God’s Word.
Can God save who He wants to save? Of course.
And you guys call this guy the 'vicar of Christ'; Holy Father...
This guy is a phony...He doesn't even know the scriptures...His office is all show...He's not a vicar, he's not holy and he's not a father...
Of course the headline is BS. It wasn't meant to inform, just to incite.
“I am the way, the truth and the light.”
Only through Jesus do we get through the narrow gate.
Did you not read the article? Bergoglio sent a written response to Scalfari.
You can’t get away with attacking the messenger but not the source of the message anymore. It’s really tiresome.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Does that mean one must be baptized?
What does the Bible say?
I don’t think I understand it enough to know for sure. I am sincerely asking because this has been weighing on me. I don’t go to church.
Makes you wonder what really happened to the last one.
I guess what I am trying to ask is if I wanted to be baptized, and I don’t go to church, how do I do this? How do I decide on a church and how do I ask? I don’t see anything in the bible that explains this to me. How does one know what church, do I wait until more is revealed?
Popes don’t resign in my experience. They die in office.
Mighty curious.......
Right now I would ask you to pray for the guidance of the Lord. He will lead you where you are supposed to go.
Then it’s a matter of contacting the pastor and setting up a Baptism.
Thank you.
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.