re: Commie Pope Francis Tells 60 Minutes that Conservativism Is “A Suicidal Attitude”

quote:

---

Homosexual couples, not marriages.

---

Also wrong

He said that the church cannot bless homosexual marriage and he never said they’d bless homosexual couples.

He said they can and do bless Homosexual people, not couples and not marriages

quote:

---

During his homily, Red Francis preached that “sharing ownership is not communism but is pure Christianity.”

Of course, that was complete nonsense Sharing ownership is exactly the definition of communism.

---

The difference being that Christ NEVER instructed Rome, or the Sanhedrin, or any governing body to forcefully implement shared wealth, but it was directed at those who followed after Him to do so, and NOT out of obligation, but as it was on their heart to do so, cheerful givers, not out of obligation.

I don’t think he has a clue what is scriptural. It’s as if this Christianity thing is brand new to him.

Communism is in direct opposition to Christianity because if for no other reason than Communism becomes your god, and Christianity is a threat to worshiping the state, so why it’s squashed by commies, not embraced. The two mindsets are opposing as any mindsets could possibly be.

I did not know that men of faith worried about political view points. Except for the Church that ruled most of the world at one time.

quote:

---

During his homily, Red Francis preached that “sharing ownership is not communism but is pure Christianity.”

Of course, that was complete nonsense Sharing ownership is exactly the definition of communism.


The difference being that Christ NEVER instructed Rome, or the Sanhedrin, or any governing body to forcefully implement shared wealth, but it was directed at those who followed after Him to do so, and NOT out of obligation, but as it was on their heart to do so, cheerful givers, not out of obligation.

I don’t think he has a clue what is scriptural. It’s as if this Christianity thing is brand new to him.

---

This board refuses to acknowledge that there is a long history within Catholicism of emphasizing co-ops and decentralized ownership. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE RCC SUPPORTS OR CONDONES SOCIALISM. Again, read Rerum Novarum. When the Church criticizes oligarchs, large multi-national corporations (hi alphabet, Pfizer, etc), and the lords of commerce who shove june pride propaganda down your throat they get zero kudos. The Church and the Pope have never said anything about how righteous it would be to use a government as the means to redistribute property, and Francis has never advocated for the forcable seizure and redistribution of property.

Instead of being skeptical of soulless entities that want to poison your kids minds (hi disney), destroy commerce in your local areas (hello jeff bezos), or create false incentives for losing economic policies (what's up ethanol subsidy-dependent farmers), this board goes all in on false assertions about the Pope.

Again, anyone, please produce the quotes where Francis has advocated for Communism and State theft. Then, please demonstrate where he has changed any Church policy or Teaching.

Can a pope be recalled?

quote:

---

Now ask yourself "when" the Church separated herself from God?

---

Could be several historical points but it could be said that the church became corrupted during the period when 4 popes were chosen because of their relationship to the wealthiest family in Italy- the Medici’s? That relationship gave the Medici’s considerable political power in addition to their pre existing financial power. Pope Leo X, a Medici, was particularly controversial for his lavish lifestyle and extravagant spending. It should be noted that the Protestant reformation coincided with the period that the church was run by the Medici’s.


Another instance of distance from God could easily be the undetermined point in time when the church encountered the pedophilia rash wherein some high ranking officials covered it up as an attempt to not be discovered?

quote:

---

I am condemning with absolute certainty the man made practice of being your own magisterium.

I fully reject any idea that God's plan for his Church was to have each individual solely determining what the text means for them. When each individual has the license and Calvin/Luther/Henry VIII granted authority to determine "truth", moral relativism follows.

---

You misunderstand what liberty of interpretation actually means. It doesn't mean that each person has the liberty to misinterpret the Bible. It simply means that each person has the liberty (and obligation) to search the Scriptures and understand for themselves what God has taught, holding all authorities to the standard of the Truth of God's word.

quote:

---

I know that God would not have allowed the early Church (think when Paul was still Saul) to operate in a Sola Scriptura system when there was not an inkling of binding the letters.

---

Sola Scriptura is a doctrine about authority, not simply transmission.

What it teaches is that God's word (in whatever form it comes to us--written or spoken) is our only infallible authority for binding the consciences of the faithful. God's direct revelation to Abraham was authoritative. God's oral revelation to Moses was authoritative. Subsequently, God's revelation written down by Moses was authoritative. The verbal words of the prophets that came from God were authoritative because they were God's words. The written words of the prophets in the Scriptures were authoritative because they were God's words. After the minor prophets passed away, there was a pause in new revelation until John the Baptist and the ministry of Christ. The oral teachings of Christ were authoritative since He is the Son of God, and so were the oral teachings of the Apostles after Christ as they were the instruments of God's revelation as the prophets were. The Apostles' writings were authoritative because they were the written word of God.

So if the oral teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (as well as the prophets before them) were authoritative, why do Protestants insist on sola scriptura? Because Christ is in heaven and the prophets and the Apostles are dead. They are unable to provide us with new revelation, so whatever was recorded (in what we call the Scriptures) is what is binding to the Christian since the death of the Apostles. The oral traditions were not recorded and Rome cannot give a full accounting of what was originally passed down.

Moses and the prophets of the OT said and taught more things than what were recorded in the Scriptures, and yet Jesus rejected the traditional teachings of Moses as being equally authoritative as the written word of God to which He held the leaders of Israel. John in his gospel said that while Jesus did many more things than what he recorded, he recorded what he did so that those who read it may have eternal life (20:30-31). In other words, he wrote down what was necessary for the Christian to believe about Christ even though they didn't see all of Christ's miracles and works nor hear all of His words, just like the Old Testament wasn't exhaustive but provided what revelation God intended to be preserved for future generations.

Since there are no prophets or Apostles and therefore since there is no continuing revelation from God, His word is closed, and what He chose to pass down to us was recorded for us to have as His people. He didn't leave secret knowledge that only a few people in the early church had that we have to hope that gets fully revealed to us or future generations over time. He didn't provide the Church to continue His revelation through, but He gave His revelation to us through the Scriptures after the death of the last Apostle.

The RCC teaches that there were authoritative doctrines that were handed down by the Apostles to the early church outside of the Scriptures that are binding on all Christians, and yet many of the doctrines of Mary and the Pope were wholly unheard of in writing or practice by the first generations of the Church and even longer. There is no historical evidence that the early church viewed the Pope (Bishop of Rome) in the same way that modern Catholics do, or that all of Christendom believed things about Mary that are taught de fide to Catholics today, and yet I have been told many times that the RCC simply passes down what was taught by the Apostles, either in their writings or their oral traditions.

Sola scriptura argues against this thought, because it teaches that God's word alone is the sole infallible rule for faith of the Christian, and therefore if the Church teaches a doctrine that is not found in the Scriptures, it is not binding to a Christian's conscience as something he/she must believe. It prevents fallible men--like the rulers of Israel during Christ's ministry who taught that the oral traditions of Moses were equal in authority to the Scriptures--from making their traditions even more authoritative than the word of God itself.

quote:

---

I pray fervently that Protestants, who know some Truth (that Jesus is Lord and the Author of our Salvation) would return to the Mother Church and stop making themselves the definer of Truth.

---

Going back to "the Mother Church" would not solve the problem of Truth. Rome doesn't have the truth (that resides with God's word, alone), but Rome has the ability to squash competing beliefs within its ranks. While you complain about disunity, if all Protestant denominations joined together to form one mega-denomination with a government that was able to define a single interpretative grid for doctrine, I don't think RCC would see that as a good thing because having unity on false teachings isn't better than having disunity. You would just say that this mega-denomination is a false church that teaches false doctrine rather than saying there are many false churches that teach false doctrine. From my perspective, Rome allows a concentration of false doctrine to exist where Christians are not allowed to question its teachings when they seem to contradict God's revealed word in the Scriptures. Again, sola scriptura is about authority.

quote:

---

We've seen contraception, divorce, IVF, usury, and abortion relegated to matters of "concsience" while society burns and souls are lost. What will the next 100 years of Protestantism look like?

---

Rejecting the Scriptures is precisely what leads to the destruction of the moral framework of society, but that isn't a problem exclusive to Protestantism. Catholicism has had its share of immorality running rampant, even within the leadership. What is worse is that there have been teachings about works that could be done to wipe away those immoral acts to make sinners feel good about themselves and even be able to plan sin in advance so that they could make up for it later. In fact, Catholicism could institutionalize immorality and the faithful Catholic couldn't do anything about it or condemn it, because what the Church says must be true even if it seems to contradict the Bible.

quote:

---

Good luck defending the Trinity to the next crop of nondenoms who further distance themselves from any sort of confession or synod. Enjoy trying to fend off the ideas of plural marriage when the rejection of the Sacraments has become so complete.

---

Those of us who still hold to the authority and necessity of Scripture will still use Scripture to defend biblical teachings and attack sinful falsehoods, just like those who originally defended the Trinity early in the Church argued from the Scriptures.

quote:

---

There is a 5 alarm fire going on in the ruins of Christendom. The fruits of Sola Scriptura are showing up to the fire armed with buckets carrying fuel, not water.

---

I see what is going on in Christendom as being the fruits of abandoning God's word.

Why does he have to be my Pope to be recalled?

Sounds like the Catholics need an insurrection.