Here are two sentences that caught my attention:
When word that [Cardinal Raymond Leo] Burke was on his way out [from the Apostolic Signatura] began circulating last month, it signaled that Francis would take major steps to reshape the church. It coincided with the selection of a new archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich, who Catholic progressives celebrated for positions like breaking with the American church hierarchy when it withheld its support for President Obama’s health reform law over questions of abortion and contraception.
The word you’re looking for is “schism.”
Papal infallibility relies on a pope being in full solidarity with the bishops of the church, and this week solidarity is not easy to find.
Decades of growing leftist influence within the Catholic Church, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had temporarily suppressed, but could not ultimately stop, has now elevated an Argentine leftist to the papal throne. Catholic conservatives are and will continue to be purged from positions of influence. Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.” Catholics are seeing it confirmed.
This is now the Catholic church of the Berrigan Brothers, “Nuns on the Bus” and Dignity USA. Because conservative Catholics would not excommunicate the heretics when they had the chance, now the heretics are in control. The attempt to paint a smiley face on this disaster includes, e.g., an editorial about “how gay Catholics can lead the rest of the Church to a greater understanding of God’s truth.”
Ri-iiight. Your next pedophile priest scandal in 3, 2, 1 . . .
As a conservative Protestant, I have for years resisted the “road to Rome” solicitations of my conservative Catholic friends, mainly because of ancestral prejudice — coming from a long line of stubbornly independent-minded Calvinist types — but also because I knew something like this would happen to the Catholic church sooner or later. As far as I’m concerned Rerum Novarum is ample refutation of “papal infallibility.” It’s just bad economics and Quadragesimo Anno is arguably worse. If “Catholic social teaching” is divinely inspired, why is its fundamental economic theory so laughably wrong?
Seriously, my conservative Catholic friends, why do you think you now have a socialist Pope? And don’t deny try to deny the obvious truth: Francis is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. You have a socialist Pope because, when you had a conservative Pope, nobody thought to hand him a copy of Human Action or The Mirage of Social Justice and say, “Here, learn something about how the economy really works.” Then get together a confab to produce a revision of “Catholic social teaching” that reflects actual facts.
Also, if you ever get another conservative Pope, excommunicate some heretics. Maybe burn a few of them at the stake, just to get the point across. But definitely excommunicate them. What’s the point of having a Pope, if he’s not excommunicating heretics?
ALL organizations of men, including the RCC are subject to the same forces and temptations. You clearly think you’re talking about the same thing as I am, and you ain’t. You sure aren’t talking about the same thing Christ was talking about, you’re delusions notwithstanding.
Really? We’re told to pray through the saints all the time.
And it is at the last supper that Christ institutes the Eucharist. If you don’t believe that it’s the Real Presence, then you don’t follow the bible which is your touchstone. Which again, talisman, magic, bad.
Malachi Martin was a Jesuit and wrote extensively on the order. He many times wondered why the Pope did not suppress the order. He saw it from the inside and wrote on the poisonous nature of the order.
Evangelicals listened. Roman Catholics ignored him.
Quote the passages from scripture.
Either deal with the passages, or you’re simply well propagandized dilettante. It’s clear you don’t want to deal with them because of the difficulty God’s word poses for your doctrines.
Your choice. God’s word or the broad road.
Readers Digest Condensed Church Fathers? No thanks.
You’ve shown it yourself so no need for me to do so.
The marks of the true church are a) one; b) holy; c) Catholic, d) apostolic. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church have it.
In reality, most self-excommunicate then ignore church teaching further and continue to receive communion.
He quit both the Jesuits and the priesthood so he isn’t a credible source; he also claimed that a couple of popes had been murdered and that the Church hadn’t released the Fatima information. Oh, and evangelicals have nothing to do with religious orders anyway.
Dude, we don’t pay close attention to protestants for obvious reasons; instead of doing what you’re doing and your church believing what it believes, your church believes that the Catholic Church is wrong, which is different than having a belief of its own.
Rule 4, in spades, eh, Breeze?
Oh, well…hits is hits…….until Judgement Day.
No. The real McCoy.
Now you’re doing exactly what I’ve seen priests and one Bishop do, evade the facts as you can’t deal with them.
Those are not “condensed” versions. Believe it or not, but quite a few of us have read these things in detail.
Ah, nice attempt at deflection. Once more, you are attempting to sidestep the issue.
Every true Christian is a descendent of the Apostles. The true Church is not headquartered on earth, but in heaven. The RCC meets none of your specifications as it is corrupt to its core. I could go into detail, but you, just like Mormons, have no intention of listening to the facts.
OTOH, the facts do not scare me and I’m quite able to deal with them. So far, you’ve been quite thin on the ground with facts.
Dance, dance, dance. He was allowed to laicize and Paul VI allowed him to do so because he would do more the RCC afterwards. Martin had vast inside knowledge. He personally knew Paul VI and JP2. He knew what the last secret of Fatima was and if you are going to accuse him, one of your own, of lying, you need to cough up the data. It is very unlikely you can.
Martin was highly respected by all that encountered him, and that includes teh RCC hierarchy. No one in the RCC hierarchy accused him lying, they knew better.
Your last sentence is truly idiotic and has nothing to do with the discussion. It has become self evident to me, over the years, that many Evangelicals have more knowledge of what is going on inside the RCC than many Roman Catholics do. You’ve revealed yourself as one of the ignorant ones.
No. The problem is that you were raised to have a chip on your shoulder as to the Catholic church so aren’t willing to actually consider anything I say as possibly being accurate.
Actually, some of us are still waiting for your answer to this question: If your “tradition” conflicts with the actual words in the Bible, which do you jettison and why? And saying, “Sola Scriptura is heresy!” is not answer.
My observation is that you, as in yourself, has paid little attention to what goes in the larger spiritual world. I hold that the RCC is wrong, not because it holds different beliefs from mine, but because you hold beliefs that do not comport with scripture.
As I have pointed out in other posts, a belief that conflicts with scripture must be rejected because God does not contradict Himself. While there are many doctrines in which the RCC has serious problems with scripture, what I have touched on here is just the tip of the iceberg.
Heresy is more than just schism. It is a belief that removes one from any possibility of saving grace
as long as that belief is held. There are many doctrines in the RCC that do exactly that.
That is your problem not mine as you have been warned.
Our traditions don’t clash with the Bible although they may clash with your interpretations thereof.
No chip. I’ve given you a chance to answer in a reasoned fashion. Instead all you have done is throw more of the same nonsense back at me, as if repeating something is proof of what you have already said.
You have also misused the word “accurate.”
You obviously have very little experience with debate. Mass of words does not constitute an argument. You are also dealing with a man that has given extensive study to the doctrines you purport to accept.
I’m tired of you and your repetitive insistence absent any evidence shown that the Catholic Church is incorrect.
Yes, chip. One of your first posts told me what not to say, showing that you’re biased against anything I say, simply because I’m Catholic.
You are tired, no doubt. Lack of evidence? You have no idea what constitutes evidence then. There has been plenty and have refused to deal with it. That has been the standard tactic of your priests as well, so you’re in good company.
Cite the passage.
I’ll leave the position of heretic to you. I’m merely a serious student.
As believer, I am called to discern who is actually a Christian and who is not, before I can take that person as a Colleague.
Most of the Orthodox I have met are lifelong members. Most of those have been Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. The Clergy I have met, with one exception were Native Russians that managed to escape the vast Prison Russia had become.
I am aware of the Orthodox position on Marriage. I do not agree with it. My point is that the EOC has the same claim to being the original Church as the RCC does, and it is just as valid. Probably more so as they have evolved the least in comparison to the early church.
As I have already said, I have offered you the chance to make a reasoned defense of your peculiar doctrines. You’ve refused.
Had I a chip on my shoulder, you would not have been given that chance. You’ve not even attempted to engage in debate, you’ve simply flung RCC propaganda at me and refused to deal with the biblical data I’ve given you on just one subject. I’m able to do far more, to the point of simply overwhelming you, but there would be no point in it.
That you have refused to deal with the info places before you is telling and says more about you than I would say about you. MY purpose is to warn of judgment to come, and you’ve been warned of just one minor thing, yet you reject the warning.
Courageous post and spot on.
The Council of Trent was indeed a reaction to the Protestant Reformation. It was part of the reaction of the RCC to the threat posed by Lutheranism. The Roman Catholic Church was in serious danger of losing temporal power, and the money that meant. The RCC has become completely corrupt by then, and was not above killing people to keep its power.
Martin Luther was right to leave the RCC given what he knew of scripture, and what the RCC had become. Luther’s critique of the RCC threw teh hierarchy into a panic because they knew anyone actually citing the scripture, which teh RCC falsely said she accepted would lead to wholesale abandonment of RCC churches.
They were right to be scared. And, when Luther was born again, he ahd to leave teh RCC because she was living a lie, and she still is. The reformation was not a mistake.
The RCC had a chance of avoiding what is coming, but she blew it and opted for this world and it’s temptations, instead of Christ. I have no doubt you are sincere, but you are sincerely wrong. Your misplaced faith is going to take you to hell.
No. I am called to warn, however, and scripture tells us what is expected. Any doctrine that clashes with the word of God must be rejected. You hold doctrines that are heresy by biblical definition, and that will take you to hell.
My job is to warn, and scripture tells us what we must accept, and what will happen if you do not.
Good evening Nan. May you discover the Real Son of God and come to know and follow him.
I care about what the Bible says. If I’m hearing or reading something that conforms with God’s word, then I give that thing due consideration. When something does not conform to God’s word, I reject it.
I do know that. The Holy Spirit lives in me, and He told me so. I am born again and saved, and I have a close, personal relationship with God. If you don’t have this kind of relationship with Him, then I’m sad for you.
It is a very strange reading to make the claim that just because Christ called the bread his body, he was meaning it in a very literal sense.
Firstly, you would have to believe that he was both present in his actual body and the bread at that same moment.
Secondly, he outlines the purpose of it in Luke:
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
Key word is remembrance. We use the supper to remember Christ’s one time shedding of blood for sins.
When Christ claims to be the vine, no-one thinks he is talking about a literal vine. Why is this figurative and the last supper not?
Finally, have a read of Hebrews 10.
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
Christ’s body was sacrificed once because it was a perfect sacrifice. Bringing Christ’s body down to be sacrificed in the Eucharist is a denial that this sacrifice was perfect and enough.
Baptism does not make us God’s children. Spiritual regeneration and rebirth does.
Sola scriptura, in addition to being Biblical, also makes sense, considering that otherwise, anybody could make any sort of claim, and who could know the truth? Better to be like the Berean Jews in Acts 17:10-11. They were commended because, after they heard the teachings of Paul and Silas, they “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” The Bereans were called “noble” for doing so.
Naturally though, you are free to believe whatever you like. Someday everybody will stand before Jesus and give an accounting of themselves.
What is the church’s concern, then? Serving and worshiping God, or pleasing men?
Whoa this thread blew up
Actually its 40,000. And they all believe something different. That’s the problem with self interpretation of the bible.
RS umm the answer is yes. From St. Peter (the first Pope) on.
Is everyone here aware that the Bible is a Catholic book? Yeah really it is. Go look up its origins.
The Church should never change for man’s whims, man should change to come to the Church, anything else is just bullcrap.
The True Church of God has always been embattled. Many times by people that claimed to be “the Church.” What you are seeing in Houston may go away, but it will come back in more virulent form.
Playacting? Since when is the celebration of the Divine Liturgy by a validly ordained Orthodox Priest playacting?
Rome considers all Orthodox ordinations illicit, thus you consider it playacting?
Rome considers my Holy Orders valid but illicit. They are willing to accept them as licit if I will perform certain acts (put aside my wife, seek an annulment and submit to the authority of the Roman church, etc.). I refuse because I, as all Orthodox believers do, refuse to acknowledge the primacy of Rome.
It appears that only Rome has approval … according to Rome at least!
The first Saint is Saint Dismas, the good thief. Jesus proclaimed he would that day be in Heaven with Him, thus, Dismas is the 1st Saint, the first living human to be washed clean in the blood of Christ’s redemptive sacrifice.
As a conservative Roman Catholic myself, and being possessed of a BA in Economics, I am striving mightily to take offense at this post, but…
I got nuthin.