The Pope Denies John 14:6.

[chevyontheriver]

There were more than one. I got in a bit of hot water for posting them as they offended the sensibilities of those who are sensitive and humorless.

But they are so 'right on'. Sadly.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

But they are so 'right on'. Sadly.

It is impossible to know where you stand when you have weak leadership.

 

[chevyontheriver]

It is impossible to know where you stand when you have weak leadership.

Ideally we have Scripture and Tradition AND Authority all pulling in the same direction so we know where we stand. It's still two out of three, but we like three out of three. We like the third to agree with the first two. Maybe again some day.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ideally we have Scripture and Tradition AND Authority all pulling in the same direction so we know where we stand. It's still two out of three, but we like three out of three. We like the third to agree with the first two. Maybe again some day.

Membership should not have to explain/run interference with their leader. Benedict acted like a Pope; a Bishop and a solid leader. Looking from the outside in, it is hard to see any of these traits in Francis.

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

Really?

Best check the passage that uses it and see who it is about.

I did check in the KJV there is only one mention of Lucifer;

Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

 

[chevyontheriver]

Membership should not have to explain/run interference with their leader. Benedict acted like a Pope; a Bishop and a solid leader. Looking from the outside in, it is hard to see any of these traits in Francis.

I did see that the Vatican Press Office 'corrected' the pope's words on salvation to be more Orthodox. No mention on whether anybody has 'corrected' the pope to help him to be more orthodox in his understanding of salvation.

 

[lismore]

I did see that the Vatican Press Office 'corrected' the pope's words on salvation to be more Orthodox. No mention on whether anybody has 'corrected' the pope to help him to be more orthodox in his understanding of salvation.

Hello! I observed a similar phenomenon with some denominations in Scotland, an Episcopal Bishop or Presbyterian Moderator would say something clearly very off, then some other official would come along to 'explain' the remarks, or obfuscate, depending on your viewpoint. With the Presbyterians the explanation was to muddy the waters enough to keep the Evangelical wing and their tithes onboard, while the church continued steadily to drift from sound doctrine into fluff. Eventually it drifted too far and a crunch came.

When asked about the signs of the End Times the first thing the Lord said was 'Take care that no man deceives you' (Matthew 24:4), specifically regarding false-Christs but I think it also applies more generally. I think that's the best advice for us today, to take care that no-one deceives us. Wolves in sheep's clothing are abroad in the flock.

The bible clearly says: Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

God Bless

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Hello! I observed a similar phenomenon with some denominations in Scotland, an Episcopal Bishop or Presbyterian Moderator would say something clearly very off, then some other official would come along to 'explain' the remarks, or obfuscate, depending on your viewpoint. With the Presbyterians the explanation was to muddy the waters enough to keep the Evangelical wing and their tithes onboard, while the church continued steadily to drift from sound doctrine into fluff. Eventually it drifted too far and a crunch came.

When asked about the signs of the End Times the first thing the Lord said was 'Take care that no man deceives you' (Matthew 24:4), specifically regarding false-Christs but I think it also applies more generally. I think that's the best advice for us today, to take care that no-one deceives us. Wolves in sheep's clothing are abroad in the flock.

The bible clearly says: Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

God Bless

It is not so good for Christians to engage in worldly gotcha journalism. What the pope said was not said in English and it's the translation into English that's got people worked up so when the curia offers a correction of what is likely a translation error or a translation emphasis that was not present in the non-English remarks, they, the curia, are doing us all a service.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is not so good for Christians to engage in worldly gotcha journalism. What the pope said was not said in English and it's the translation into English that's got people worked up so when the curia offers a correction of what is likely a translation error or a translation emphasis that was not present in the non-English remarks, they, the curia, are doing us all a service.

The unfortunate problem that Roman Catholics must contend with is that the initial translation into English is accurate.

Here is a video where the Sicilian Christian YouTuber Metatron addressed this issue im a very fair and objective manner:

 

[The Liturgist]

Hello! I observed a similar phenomenon with some denominations in Scotland, an Episcopal Bishop or Presbyterian Moderator would say something clearly very off, then some other official would come along to 'explain' the remarks, or obfuscate, depending on your viewpoint. With the Presbyterians the explanation was to muddy the waters enough to keep the Evangelical wing and their tithes onboard, while the church continued steadily to drift from sound doctrine into fluff. Eventually it drifted too far and a crunch came.

And there has been a huge concurrent decline in church attendance with this liberalism in the liberal mainline Presbyterian and Anglican / Episcopalian churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pope Francis to children: "All religions are paths to reach God ... some are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God."

Pope Francis was just at an event in Singapore where he told a group of kids that all roads lead to God.

notthebee.com

If Jesus said he is the ONLY WAY to the Father, but the Pope says all religions lead to God, then the Pope is denying the Bible and centuries at least of Christian theology.

Indeed, the statement was extremely problematic.

 

[lismore]

And there has been a huge concurrent decline in church attendance with this liberalism in the liberal mainline Presbyterian and Anglican / Episcopalian churches.

Yes. In my observation a denomination that moves away from sound Christian doctrine, dies. That may be the plan of the wolves. Infiltrate and undermine. God Bless You

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The unfortunate problem that Roman Catholics must contend with is that the initial translation into English is accurate.

Here is a video where the Sicilian Christian YouTuber Metatron addressed this issue im a very fair and objective manner:

The Pope did not declare "all religions lead to God"; such a statement would be an interpretive gloss added to his words. He proposed a hypothetical "what if..." scenario, suggesting that all religions (as represented by the youth he addresses) are paths to God, akin to different languages conveying the same message in distinct vocabularies. The Pope's focus is not on the assertion that "all religions are the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Instead, his focus is on the vocabulary—the ways and means of expressing trust in and the desire to follow the virtuous commands of God, which are paths to God in their own right. He is not referring to Jesus as the Way; he is discussing human efforts that contribute to the journey towards God. Those who perceive a contradiction between the Pope's comments and John 14:6 are introducing a theological debate not inherent in the Pope's remarks. If the discussion were about interpreting John 14:6, it would be reasonable to argue that the Pope was introducing new theology. However, within the context of ecumenical dialogue, the Pope is seeking common ground, as Christians have since the beginning, like Saint Paul's discourse in Athens. He is asking what if the differences among various religions boil down to linguistic rather than theological distinctions, and what if God is at the end of each religion's path? By considering differences as linguistic, progress can be made, potentially even in theological understanding, by acknowledging that language shapes thought.

 

[All Becomes New]

The Pope did not declare "all religions lead to God"; such a statement would be an interpretive gloss added to his words. He proposed a hypothetical "what if..." scenario, suggesting that all religions (as represented by the youth he addresses) are paths to God, akin to different languages conveying the same message in distinct vocabularies. The Pope's focus is not on the assertion that "all religions are the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Instead, his focus is on the vocabulary—the ways and means of expressing trust in and the desire to follow the virtuous commands of God, which are paths to God in their own right. He is not referring to Jesus as the Way; he is discussing human efforts that contribute to the journey towards God. Those who perceive a contradiction between the Pope's comments and John 14:6 are introducing a theological debate not inherent in the Pope's remarks. If the discussion were about interpreting John 14:6, it would be reasonable to argue that the Pope was introducing new theology. However, within the context of ecumenical dialogue, the Pope is seeking common ground, as Christians have since the beginning, like Saint Paul's discourse in Athens. He is asking what if the differences among various religions boil down to linguistic rather than theological distinctions, and what if God is at the end of each religion's path? By considering differences as linguistic, progress can be made, potentially even in theological understanding, by acknowledging that language shapes thought.

 

[jas3]

The Pope did not declare "all religions lead to God"; such a statement would be an interpretive gloss added to his words. He proposed a hypothetical "what if..." scenario, suggesting that all religions (as represented by the youth he addresses) are paths to God, akin to different languages conveying the same message in distinct vocabularies.

Is this Michael Lofton's CF account?
In all seriousness, where in the transcript do you see him proposing a hypothetical scenario that includes either of his problematic statements?

He is asking what if the differences among various religions boil down to linguistic rather than theological distinctions, and what if God is at the end of each religion's path?

They don't, and it's utterly naive to posit that they could.

 

[The Liturgist]

He is asking what if the differences among various religions boil down to linguistic rather than theological distinctions, and what if God is at the end of each religion's path? By considering differences as linguistic, progress can be made, potentially even in theological understanding, by acknowledging that language shapes thought.

Even if correct, that would still be a problem since it would suggest that Buddhism, et cetera, represent valid linguistic paths to God, and render the Great Commission superfluous.

Considering that Origen was anathematized largely for advocating Apokatastasis, which is not even the same as Universalism per se, the words of the Pope, even given your interpretation, are deeply problematic.

And this is not the first time we have seen the current Pope engage in conduct that would be inconceivable in the case of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, memory eternal. This is the latest in a long list or confusing, problematic, divisive and controversial acts in his Papacy. We also have fiducia supplicans, traditiones custodes, the Pachamama incident, the Amazonian synod, indeed even Amoris Laetitia and the “who am I to judge?” statement concerning homosexual clergy, which frankly is where I think he should have resigned.

I’ve said this before, but had Benedict XVI, memory eternal, remained Pope, I would probably be Roman Catholic right now. I don’t understand why he resigned, I don’t understand how someone whose doctrine contradicts that of both his predecessors could come to power, and why so many Roman Catholics defend his actions rather than taking the very reasonable objections raised by Raymond Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, HG Athanasius Schneider, and other traditional bishops in the RCC, and theologians such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewsky.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes. In my observation a denomination that moves away from sound Christian doctrine, dies. That may be the plan of the wolves. Infiltrate and undermine. God Bless You

Certainly divide and concor has been the devils mode of operation going back to Adam and Eve.