Posted on 01/04/2018 10:53:07 PM PST by JockoManning
I know...sad isn’t it?
A few questions that could be asked on political ideological issues:
Do you oppose
Homosexual marriage?
Transgender surgery under certain conditions?
Sexual relations before marriage?
Cohabitation as a alternative to marriage?
Abortion outside (perhaps) of danger to life?
Forbidding any corporal discipline of children, if warranted and conditional?
Forbidding government to sanction any prayer or affirmation of any religion in general?
Forbidding artists the right to refuse to create works for causes that offend them?
Forbidding citizens rights to bear arms, if conditional (type and vetting)
Forbidding capital punishment (even as per criteria in Scripture, but with exclusion for religious crimes)?
Rejection of any positional/functional distinctions btwn male and female in marriage and church government?
Open borders?
Increased Muslim immigration?
Equal rights and benefits to illegal immigrants?
Increased government spending on social programs per capita?
Smaller military?
Rejection of the any just war premise?
Increased funding for the EPA
Increased funding for the UN?
Forbidding “Right to work” statutes?
Ping to above:
The distinction is that Roman Catholicism teaches that the flock are to render implicit obedience the official (at the least) teaching of the pope and prelates and not be Bible evangelicals in ascertaining the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly faithful magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth for such things as the Assumption, etc.
solemn ex cathedra teachings, but then they declare their own pope as wrong and leadership (including V2) as liberal based upon their judgment of what valid teaching is and means, including on what requires assent.
* Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to [only] concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm)
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, esteemed Catholic theologian and professor of fundamental dogmatic theology at the Catholic University of America, who served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council. Extract from the American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.
Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority ; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces. - (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm
In addition, as concerns social teaching, The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states:
80. In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And it is quite well evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).
Thus we either have Trad. RCs contradicting past papal teaching in dissenting from modern papal and magisterial teaching, and that Rome's interpretation of herself is to be trusted.
They also disagree on whether a pope can be deposed.
That is a minority, and to require implicit obedience to such is contrary the essence of the Reformation. And see above.
Although both mutually exclude each other as uniquely being the one true church. Besides other elitist competitors
I'm not really a fan of those who consider their perspectives more righteous than those of St Paul or Jesus Himself.
A few questions that could be asked on political ideological issues:
Do you oppose
Homosexual marriage?
Certainly. Don't see the issue as a good excuse to be rabidly unkind, mean or hypocritical, however.
Transgender surgery under certain conditions?
YES--OPPOSE IT. ... Hard to imagine such a case but perhaps MIGHT consider it marginally tolerable IF it was a life/death issue. Am very hostile to teaching young kids of the hideous unglories of trans evils. Not sure what to suggest about hermaphrodites.
Sexual relations before marriage?
YUP--oppose it. ... though think a lot of folks need to be more humble about throwing the first stone.
Cohabitation as a alternative to marriage?
Oppose it, firmly. Don't see myself as chief of the bedroom police, however.
Abortion outside (perhaps) of danger to life?
Fiercely oppose it--particularly later term etc. etc. Though, paradoxically, millions of aborted babies will eternally be in Heaven with God who would not have been had they grown up with their parents.
Forbidding any corporal discipline of children, if warranted and conditional?.
NOPE. Support fitting and non-abusive whacks for suitable reasons and ages. However, Even more fiercely oppose overbearing discipline without SUFFICIENT bonded, intimate RELATIONSHIP with the disciplining parent. And Just as fiercely support Provoke not your children to wrath.
Forbidding government to sanction any prayer or affirmation of any religion in general?
Certainly am a fierce supporter of the government staying well away from such unConstitutional hideousness. I could imagine Islam being kicked out for supporting the violent overthrow of the government and our way of life but that's a complicated issue.
Forbidding artists the right to refuse to create works for causes that offend them?
Of course not. Artists and shop keepers should be able to refuse to create anything or do anything violating their religious beliefs.
Forbidding citizens rights to bear arms, if conditional (type and vetting)
Am actually a fierce proponent of individuals' rights to bear a huge variety of arms as long as they are not literally violently psychotic.
Forbidding capital punishment (even as per criteria in Scripture, but with exclusion for religious crimes)?
I/we support capital punishment as Biblically permitted and as fitting the crime is reasonable and fitting. Though my preference would be for society to get beyond the need for it. That won't happen this side of Armageddon. Wasn't the standard Moses gave: 3 witnesses catching the offender in the act?
Rejection of any positional/functional distinctions btwn male and female in marriage and church government?
Biblical distinctions are to be preferred and not eroded by law or other cultural forces, in our opinion.
Open borders?
Open borders are treasonous and to be stopped firmly.
Increased Muslim immigration?
Stop it entirely as treasonous based on their founding documents. Actually, believe that those who are here and demand the USA conform to Sharia law need to be kicked out as treasonous.
Equal rights and benefits to illegal immigrants?
Do not support that at all. Though Christian kindness MIGHT take priority in some individual cases. Maybe we need to block money being sent by individuals to Mexico? Hard to say. A messy problem.
Increased government spending on social programs per capita?
Sheesh, you obviously don't know me or us at all. Sigh. We are fiercely hostile to big government and outrageous social programs hell bent on bringing in Communism and globalism.
Smaller military?
Were it sensible and safe--sure--who wouldn't. It's NOT remotely safe. So am glad Trump is building up our military again. Hope he gets it done before WW3.
Rejection of the any just war premise?
Support just war in principle. However, as The Babylon Code documents, ALL the wars since and including the French Revolution were set up, staged and lit off by the globalists for their money making and geo-political goals of one world government and one world religion. SECDEF McNamara whined that Viet Nam ONLY managed to kill 50,000 of our priceless servicemen--but that they knew how to do better next time. Treasonous bustard should have been executed.
Increased funding for the EPA
No. Though we ought to be good stewards of the environment as good Christians.
Increased funding for the UN?
Of course not. Kick it out of the USA entirely and stop all our donations to it--maybe except less than the average of the other countries per capita.
Forbidding “Right to work” statutes?
Right to work laws are wonderful and should be enshrined in the Constitution. Grafting Union thugs are treasonous.
Qx is pondering whether to bother with a list of questions for you. LOL.
So there, Fred. Sigh.
Two issues.
1 - Your intentions were never clear.
2 - Your personal brickbats dominate your comments.
I am ordained by one who is ordained who was ordained by one ordained and so forth to Christ ordaining Peter. My ordination was as Methodist to which I no longer adhere. My ordination, however, remains sacrosanct to me.
If I see and ask an Evangelical Televangelist to pray for me he does, even though he has not met me face to face. Now suppose that TV program is a re-run and the Televangelist has gone to heaven. Is it not possible that the Christians in heaven are praying for us on earth?
Mary is in heaven and is praying for us. But there is a special relationship of Mary to Jesus. Jesus, being a good Jew, obeys the 10 commandments including Honor your Father and Mother. So Jesus will honor and listen to Mary, his mother. Thus asking Mary to pray for you is more special than asking Billy Graham or DL Moody to pray for you. But it is legit to ask DL Moody to pray for you, even now.
Now, consider the impact of a special place for implementing Honor thy Father and Mother. It builds strong families who honor their father and mother, both Father God in heaven and parents here on earth.
I am not sure if ALL the wars since and including the French Revolution were set up, staged and lit off by the globalists who profited by them, versus having a significant hand in them, but belief in that, or in the Babylon Code, is not necessary to be either Christian or a conservative
The movie Gone With The Wind's star male character--Rhett Butler--played both sides of the Civil war--profiting off of each. That depicted the routine strategy of the oligarchy quite well.
Of course, such issues are not criteria for believing in Christ etc. We just believe it's wiser to realize the facts of these END TIMES than to remain ignorant of them. We tend to see more knowledge as more of a survival habit than less knowledge or ignorance.
Yep, I guess most just see what they want.
I began the thread with my more or less best gracious tone and attitude. I responded to those responding to me that way, in the same vein.
Mileage May Vary as such things tend to be in the eye of the beholder.
Considering that Roman Catholics aren't assured Heaven you cannot make this claim...as a Roman Catholic.
But there is a special relationship of Mary to Jesus. Jesus, being a good Jew, obeys the 10 commandments including Honor your Father and Mother. So Jesus will honor and listen to Mary, his mother. Thus asking Mary to pray for you is more special than asking Billy Graham or DL Moody to pray for you. But it is legit to ask DL Moody to pray for you, even now.
Think about what you've said here. If you pray to Mary for something and she tells Jesus so and so has asked for such and such....you're saying Jesus has to say yes....He has no say in the matter??
But also consider what has to be for this to happen.
There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world today.
Let's assume all 1.2 billion say the Hail Mary just once a day....that's 13,889 prayers per second that Mary, a created being, is listening to in multiple languages and understanding.
Now let's add to that any special requests of the Roman Catholic to Mary. To make it easier on her let's assume 500 million make a plea for something in just one day.
500,000,000...or 5,787 per second
For Mary to be able to handle all of the prayer requests of the Roman Catholics she has to possess almost goddess abilities.
Outside of the Father and Jesus, Who are eternal, there is only one other in Heaven capable of handling this kind of prayer load....and you didn't mention Him. That's ok...most Roman Catholics do not.
The Holy Spirit.
Paul records this about the Holy Spirit.
26In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Romans 8:26-27 NASB
For Mary to be able to handle the prayer requests as claimed by Roman Catholics....she has to be equal in ability of the Holy Spirit...Jesus....the Father.
Are you sure you want to stick with your position?
Uhhh . . . by word count? By sentence count? By emotionally weighted words? By what criteria? Please enlighten me. I'm not the best proof reader of myself.
Your aim was appreciated, believe me. Fantastic, perhaps, with some in this lot, but yet optimistic, gracious, and very much appreciated.
I am putting you in my mental rolodex of those who are worth having honest and searching conversations with about such things.
May the love of Christ continue to abide in you.
Your post is exactly why oil and water won’t mix.
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.