Is The pope Guiding the RCC to adopting gay Marriages?

[Yeshua1]

In our church we always have unity in doctrine.
Let me tell you the difference between Charismatics and Baptists, and why our church could never tolerate fellowship with the former.
Baptists have the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. The Bible is the foundation of every thing. You know this very well. It is called sola scriptura.

The Chrismatics (at least some of them) may pay lip service to this but they really don't believe it. They believe in an open canon. They don't build their faith upon the Bible.
A baptist allows experience to arise from the Bible, and it is therefore Biblical.
A Charismatic builds upon experience and allows doctrine to arise from his experiences. Therefore you have many strange doctrines in the Charismatic movement--like the nine person trinity of Benny Hinn. Where do you get that? "God told me." It comes from his experience which comes before the Bible.

The Pope is becoming like the Charismatic. Former popes were not like that. He is allowing his experiences (love, etc.) to be the basis for his doctrine. He is putting doctrine aside. The doctrine of homosexuality really doesn't matter anymore. Push it aside. Let's just love one another. He has put experience before doctrine. That was not the stand of the previous popes. It is dangerous ground to stand upon.

that is why it is almost impossible to dialoge here with catholic apologists, as what they say regarding what Rome and the pope actually teaches is NOT what gives put out forpublic discussion!

its like talkin to Mormons/JW, as they can sound biblical to uninformed, but that is to get them into their church, in order to get the "real doctrine!"

 

[DHK]

and how many Baptists use Tradition as authority at times.....

I don't know. Do you use tradition as your authority? I sure don't.

 

[Melanie]

Never! Tolerance for the sinner is NOT tolerance for the sin.

And yes, I have many reservations on what the pope is saying. However, it is the office that commands respect rather than the man. I pray daily for him.

 

[steaver]

Never! Tolerance for the sinner is NOT tolerance for the sin.

And yes, I have many reservations on what the pope is saying. However, it is the office that commands respect rather than the man. I pray daily for him.

Well, I guess it commands respect by it's subjects, however, as a Christian who follows the bible, I find no such office as the RCC's Pope. So as for me, I'm not bowing down and kissing his ring.

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, I guess it commands respect by it's subjects, however, as a Christian who follows the bible, I find no such office as the RCC's Pope. So as for me, I'm not bowing down and kissing his ring.

the problem is that there is NO scriptural evience for the 'Vicar of Christ", and NO evidence that the Apostolic church regarded peter as such!

 

[Salty]

I don't know. Do you use tradition as your authority? I sure don't.

AKA - We've always done it that way

as in - what do you mean to try something different.

 

[DHK]

AKA - We've always done it that way

as in - what do you mean to try something different.

But that is not the case in our church. Really, is your church that stale?
Is there no variety? No, we don't hang our hats on tradition. I don't agree with you.
Just one example. We don't always give an invitation. Sometimes, sometimes not. As the Holy Spirit guides, so we do.

 

[sir chad]

who cares how the pope thinks on this issue? what does God think?

 

[Melanie]

Well, I guess it commands respect by it's subjects, however, as a Christian who follows the bible, I find no such office as the RCC's Pope. So as for me, I'm not bowing down and kissing his ring.

But then you would have to acknowledge that Peter was made the head of the church on earth, and then he was pontifex Maximus, etc. etc.

 

[DHK]

But then you would have to acknowledge that Peter was made the head of the church on earth, and then he was pontifex Maximus, etc. etc.

Peter went to Rome to die. Paul was in Rome longer than Peter was. There is no historical record of Peter ever being in Rome except that he was taken there as a prisoner and hung out to die as a martyr. That is about the extent of it.

 

[BobRyan]

two points 1) show me one time that this Pope has gone against the magisterium. In fact he hasn't.

Your argument is that the Pope's statement is correct on homosexuality and that he has not gone against the RCC magisterium.

Do you hold that same to be true in the case of Pope Clement - when he said that by the highest authority invested in him as an apostle and successor of Peter - he forever abolished the Jesuit order?

If so - then how is this current Pope legit - given that he is of the non-existent (extinguished) order according to Pope Clement? And if the infallibility of the Pope holds true in the case of Clement - then we should not expect the current Jesuit Pope to necessarily be infallible, because he belongs to a condemned order - by the standards of the RCC itself.

The alternative is that Clement speaking in the highest sense that a Pope can speak -was not infallible - in which case this current Pope would have no higher claim to infallibility - and could indeed make a mistake at that level even if claiming to make a statement or pronouncement in the highest sense - but all the authority invested in him as successor of Peter.

Is he simply hedging by answering a direct question - with a misdirecting question?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

But then you would have to acknowledge that Peter was made the head of the church on earth, and then he was pontifex Maximus, etc. etc.

Scripture please! Also add the scripture where we are to bow down to him and praise him and call him holy father.

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture please! Also add the scripture where we are to bow down to him and praise him and call him holy father.

James was the "pope" in the Jerusalem Church, peter "pope" to the Jews. while paul was "pope" tot he gentiles, so which one was the real pope?

NONE, as jesus neverc ommissioned such a role!

 

[DHK]

In the eyes of the common person the Pope has changed his stance on abortion and homosexuality, and therefore has gone against the dictates of the Magesterium. In the eyes of the common person he is a "different" pope in that respect. That is evidenced in the remarks of President Obama himself:

Barack Obama 'hugely impressed' by Pope Francis

US president Barack Obama has welcomed Pope Francis' recent remarks that the Catholic Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuals, saying the pontiff was showing incredible humility.

"I tell you, I have been hugely impressed with the pope's pronouncements," Mr Obama said in a CNBC interview.

Mr Obama has worked to expand gay rights as president and last year backed same-sex marriage. He also supports the use of contraception and a woman's right to an abortion.

Pope Francis told the Italian Jesuit Journal last month that the Church had "locked itself up in small things" by its obsession with abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

http://www.worthynews.com/top/teleg...-Obama-hugely-impressed-by-Pope-Francis-html/


I am sure that Obama is happy now that the Pope sees things as he does.

 

[Yeshua1]

In the eyes of the common person the Pope has changed his stance on abortion and homosexuality, and therefore has gone against the dictates of the Magesterium. In the eyes of the common person he is a "different" pope in that respect. That is evidenced in the remarks of President Obama himself:



http://www.worthynews.com/top/teleg...-Obama-hugely-impressed-by-Pope-Francis-html/


I am sure that Obama is happy now that the Pope sees things as he does.

yes, as BOTH of them practice the new christianity , which is really an old one, that teaches another jesus and another Gospel!