Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Thinkingstuff]

This post is not logic. It is conflating two separate issues to deflect. My use of patience had nothing to do with the info in this post.

How is it not logical. BobRyan said

It is plausible that upwards of 50 million or more saints were killed by the RCC during the dark ages - in addition to people of other faiths like Muslims killed during the crusades to the middle east

to which Westministerman said

Arrogance on top of ignorance is nothing to be proud of Rev. Using such a fallacious ill-logical tactic would be laughed at by the most basic of Logic 101 students not to mention anyone trained in the science. You shame yourself here and it seems to happen to you on a regular basis. From exactly where did you receive your education?

to which you responded

What are you talking about?

and so I explained it using data from the period mentioned.
As far as mentioning your patience I refer you to your post where you said.

You have more patience than I do to explain such minute detail that should automatically be known already by any thinking person.

I think its pretty logical.

 

[Yeshua1]

The current Pope is doing some interesting things.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20130512/DA67NCHO2.html

Starnge, the bible states God is the one who gives new saints, as ALL who are saved by Him are called his saints!

 

[BobRyan]

I know you don't have a lot of patience speaking with people trying to use logic but when considering that in the tables of population in mideval europe the population in the time period we are talking about totalled 123 million from 1340-1450.

Correction. We are talking about the 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints spoken of in Dan 7 as "times time and half a time". In Rev 11 as 1260 days and also as 42 months - in Rev 12 and 13 as well. It is the same number of prophetic days - or as Dan 9 dictates - day-for-year then it is 1260 literal solar years of dark ages persecution.

How nice - had it only been 110 years.

in Christ,

Bob[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Starnge, the bible states God is the one who gives new saints, as ALL who are saved by Him are called his saints!

This is key. The language in the article is "[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Pope Francis on Sunday gave the Catholic church new saints"

This is very different from "[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Pope Francis on Sunday asked fellow Catholics to remember to be thankful for the witness of 800 saints who gave their life for Christ".

Or how about "[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Pope Francis on Sunday asked fellow Catholics not to forget about the witness of 800 saints who gave their life for Christ".

To "give the Church saints" means that now something is officially sanctioned, officially approved by the RCC - that was not approved before.

Those familiar with the "communion of the Saints" might know what that is.

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Ok so the President of the Southern Baptist Convention says to someone in the next office "hey Bill - I now think D.L.Moody was a godly saint" - and then CNN or CBS picks up on that and announces to the world that the SBC president finally thinks D.L. Moody was godly - a saintly individual.

Really - the news is going to pick that up?

OR is the designation of "Catholic saint" MORE than that? Is it "official permission to pray to the dead" - what is it that is being done?

Something like that.

Worded that way? Absolutely, then they can speculate that prior to the SBC confession of it the SBC may not have thought Moody was saintly. They may get a few witness who claim they always thought Moody was a heretic.

The reason the News picks up this particular story is that unbeknownst to you the Pope declared that there was no other way to Heaven but through Jesus Christ. As you know John Paul II had been in dialogue with Muslims. So they see this as a way to create an antagonism that wasn't previously there.

I will grant you that sinking the talks between Catholics and Muslims may be part of the news media agenda.

But the wording is strange "the Pope GAVE" does the Pope "HAVE" non-saints that he can then "give as saints"? Is the News completely misreading what is going on?

I notice no Catholic has complained here about that wording - rather it is being defended in the form "yeah! Right! That is what the Pope should be doing. What is not to like?".

Or are the Catholics here on this board also not understanding what is happening in that action reported by the news?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[saturneptune]

You do understand how very infantile this makes you appear, do you not? But, that's OK... If I were to ever regret leaving my old denomination, I can always invision you as the face of the Baptist church and feel vindicated.

WM

It is an exact response to about the most ignorant premise for a thread in the history of BB. Jesus Christ makes saints, not the head of a cult that wears funny clothes. What on earth ever made you even start such a thread?

You know, everyone is really sick of hearing about your old denomination. Everyone is really sick of hearing your arguments about a Gospel based on works. If you were serious about a theological debate, stupid threads like this would not appear.

 

[preacher4truth]

Bottom line is there is biblically no such positon as a 'pope' thus all that follows is based upon a false premise. Why continue to argue upon a false premise?

:wavey:

 

[saturneptune]

But for non-Catholics it does not mean anything at all.

However given the thread about Catholics growing in numbers in the South maybe we should take note of the fact that each time the Pope ties his shoes or does anything at all - it makes national news.

And I was reminded recently that the President of the United States (G. W. Bush) insisted on referring to the Pope as "THE Holy Father".

By every measure that is good marketing for anyone thinking about joining the Catholic Church.

in Christ,

Bob

What is not understandable is why you would criticize the RCC, Walter, Thinkingstuff, or WM. All three of you advocate the same Gospel, a Gospel of works. It might have different routines, but the Gospel you stand up for is totally devoid of grace and faith.

 

[saturneptune]

Bottom line is there is biblically no such positon as a 'pope' thus all that follows is based upon a false premise. Why continue to argue upon a false premise?

:wavey:

Especially a Pope who has a 99% chance of splitting hell wide open.

 

[preacher4truth]

Especially a Pope who has a 99% chance of splitting hell wide open.

Emotional responses aside, there is no such thing biblically as a pope so all is moot from that point on.

 

[BobRyan]

What is not understandable is why you would criticize the RCC, Walter, Thinkingstuff, or WM. All three of you advocate the same Gospel, a Gospel of works.

Details - you have to follow the details or it all gets confusing.

For instance the details in the Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 that affirm the point that the TEN Commandments are given to mankind in Eden and are applicable still to the saints today under the New Covenant - written on the mind and the heart. Or -- are you saying that you view the Baptist Confession of Faith to be a Catholic document?

Is it all just "so much Catholicism" in your view?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I will grant you that sinking the talks between Catholics and Muslims may be part of the news media agenda.

But the wording is strange "the Pope GAVE" does the Pope "HAVE" non-saints that he can then "give as saints"? Is the News completely misreading what is going on?

I notice no Catholic has complained here about that wording - rather it is being defended in the form "yeah! Right! That is what the Pope should be doing. What is not to like?".

Or are the Catholics here on this board also not understanding what is happening in that action reported by the news?

in Christ,

Bob

There is a problem with the wording. The Pope made a declaration which only happens after an investigation into the "sainthood" of any particular person. On the other hand whether or not the Pope makes a declaration doesn't "affect" the saintliness of a person as all who go to heaven are saints declaration or no. But this particular incident is to encourage Catholics to contend for the faith in the midst of world wide Islamic Persecution of the Catholic Church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Correction. We are talking about the 1260 years of dark ages persecution of the saints spoken of in Dan 7 as "times time and half a time". In Rev 11 as 1260 days and also as 42 months - in Rev 12 and 13 as well. It is the same number of prophetic days - or as Dan 9 dictates - day-for-year then it is 1260 literal solar years of dark ages persecution.

How nice - had it only been 110 years.

in Christ,

Bob[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif][/FONT]

I don't believe like the Millerites that the Book of Daniel predicts the current events of Church history. I believe Daniel's Eschaton ended at the destruction of the Temple and the beginning of the Church age.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a problem with the wording. The Pope made a declaration which only happens after an investigation into the "sainthood" of any particular person. On the other hand whether or not the Pope makes a declaration doesn't "affect" the saintliness of a person as all who go to heaven are saints declaration or no. But this particular incident is to encourage Catholics to contend for the faith in the midst of world wide Islamic Persecution of the Catholic Church.

If this is merely "contend for the faith" material - then instead of "giving the church saints" - the Pope is "reminding the church about, saints, martyrs that already existed and can be read about in history".

Not much stir if this is just "reminding the saints of today about the Christian witness of martyrs in the past".

But that is not the wording. The wording makes it appear that something is now given to the Church - that it did not have before. Namely - saints.

It is very odd wording if all is meant is "hey - now let's not forget this bit of history and the wonderful example of these folks in the past" - which is the thing that "contend for the faith" reminders is made of when looking at the lives of those who came before us.

But the language instead is that the "Pope gave the church" something.

Certainly the Pope did not "discover this history" just now.

Was it hidden in Catholic secret archives and just now made public?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If this is merely "contend for the faith" material - then instead of "giving the church saints" - the Pope is "reminding the church about, saints, martyrs that already existed and can be read about in history".

Not much stir if this is just "reminding the saints of today about the Christian witness of martyrs in the past".

But that is not the wording. The wording makes it appear that something is now given to the Church - that it did not have before. Namely - saints.

It is very odd wording if all is meant is "hey - now let's not forget this bit of history and the wonderful example of these folks in the past"

Catholic Church has always had saints. Its not like they haven't had them before. So I don't know what you are talking about. However, these people are singled out per their testimony to Christ. These people that are named saints have always been "saintly" its just that in this declaration they are pointed out for specific purpose.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Church has always had saints. Its not like they haven't had them before. So I don't know what you are talking about.

I didn't say the church had no saints before. I said that the language in this article says that these 800+ saints were just now "given" to the Church by the Pope

I said that no Catholic here has mentioned that this is odd wording for a group of saints they thought they already had.

I said that if the church was already admitting to their testimony/witness then why not announce "Pope asks us not to forget these wonderful saints"??

When the SBC president mentions some saint in the past - does the press announce "SBC president has given Southern Baptist some new saints"?? Wouldn't a few million Southern Baptists be shocked by such wording - along with yourself?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I didn't say the church had no saints before. I said that the language in this article says that these 800+ saints were just now "given" to the Church by the Pope

I said that no Catholic here has mentioned that this is odd wording for a group of saints they thought they already had.

I said that if the church was already admitting to their testimony/witness then why not announce "Pope asks us not to forget these wonderful saints"??

in Christ,

Bob

Ok, I see what you are getting at. In fact they could have said it the way you mentioned it and it would have been fine. But I think the article wanted to focus on the canonization of these saints. Canonization is a declarative pronouncement. Or an Honorary title like having "Phd". However, it is also all people who are faithful to the gospel. What the Pope did was give and honorary title to these people.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You really need to go back and reread all of that. So as not to continue to embarrass yourself.

And you really need to learn to defend what you say and stop acting like a child everytime someone challenges his highness.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Starnge, the bible states God is the one who gives new saints, as ALL who are saved by Him are called his saints!

Strange? Hmmm... Have you ever called St. Patrick a saint? How about St. Augustine - ever call him a saint? If you have then you do so because the RCC has declared them thusly. If you've never done it, well... the readers can draw their own conclusions.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

And you really need to learn to defend what you say and stop acting like a child everytime someone challenges his highness.

WM

Nothing childish about it. For example, taking credit for the canonization of the Bible by the RCC is about as unholy of an idea as one can conceive. The books of Bible were Inspired by the Holy Spirit though the writings of several men. They all existed when a rouge orgnization that calls itself a church took it upon themselves to organize in 110 AD or 400 AD depending on how one looks at it. For the RCC to say they canonized the Bible, a Bible they do not even follow, is ridiculous. When your committee of "scholars" met to decide which books to put into the Bible, they did not even get that one right.

All of the posts that refer to Catholic archives, documents, decrees and other such terms might as well be a copy of a Superman comic book.