Though protestants like myself are not affiliated with the Catholic church, the election of a new pope is important to all Christians because he is perhaps the most recognizable representative of the Christian faith. The nightmare for evangelical Christians is a wishy-washy liberal theologian guilty of isogesis! And suffice it to say, Mario Bergoglio is anything but…
His conservative stance on homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia is a veritable nightmare for liberals. Some of his quotes.
Homosexuality
On the push for”marriage equality” in Argentina.
- Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
- The Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family… At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children.
- The bill will be discussed in the Senate after July 13. Look at San Jose, Maria, Child and ask them [to] fervently defend Argentina’s family at this time. [Be reminded] what God told his people in a time of great anguish: ‘This war is not yours but God’s.” May they succor, defend and join God in this war.
On Gay Parenting.
- At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.
- Gay adoption is discrimination against children.
Abortion
- Abortion is never a solution. We listen, support and understand from our place to save two lives: respect the human being, small and helpless, they can take steps to preserve your life, allow birth and then be creative in the search for ways to bring it to its full development.
- The most mentioned word in the Aparecida Document is ‘life’, because the Church is very conscious of the fact that the cheapest thing in Latin America, the thing with the lowest price, is life.
In 2007, he referred to abortion as a “death sentence” for the unborn. He then said:
We aren’t in agreement with the death penalty, but in Argentina we have the death penalty. A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.
Euthanasia
In Argentina there is clandestine euthanasia. Social services pay up to a certain point; if you pass it, ‘die, you are very old’. Today, elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.
Without question, the election of Pope Francis I has angered many liberals. They refer to him as a “status quo” leader that will further push Christianity “into irrelevance.” And this is precisely what they want – for Christianity to be irrelevant. It’s either that or Christians abandon the teachings of the Bible and give-in to moral relativism. It’s one way or the other…But I take solace in knowing that Pope Francis I, Christianity’s representative to the world, will fight them tooth, nail, and claw.
Great selection, Cardinals. Great selection.
Sifting Reality 
Hey Glenn,
Most regulars here on this blog understand your general views about Catholicism. What are your feelings about the pope and the ultimate fate of all Catholics?
The pope is the representative – the head – of all that is unholy and apostate. While there are Roman Catholics who have come to true saving faith in spite of the Church, most Catholics have no clue about the gospel and are eternally damned.
How’s that?
Contrary to what many may think, Glenn, I applaud your bluntness.
What interests me now is what all the other readers who consider themselves Christians think of the pope and the fate of those who follow Catholicism to find out if they share the same view.
Z,
Against my better judgement, I’ll play your silly game. I, personally, think that as far as popes go this one is pretty good. I agree with his positions on many of the “hot” topics of the present time.
I will also say that there is much about the RC church that I find problematic, and that as the head of the RC church, the pope bears some degree of responsibility for those problem areas.
As far as the eternal destination of RC’s. I’ll go so far as to say that I’m sure that there are plenty that are headed for hell, and that there are plenty headed for heaven. I would venture to say that this statement is true of most other churches/denominations as well. It really is no shock, that folks who attend church, might not actually be believers.
Thank you for your reply, Craig. I’m not sure why you consider this conversation silly. I would think that the topic of one’s eternal fate is rather significant and I’m genuinely interested in finding out what people think of various beliefs that may be slightly different from their own.
Z,
The topic of ones eternal destination is certainly not silly. Your game is what is silly. The fact that you believe that RC’s and protestants hold “slightly different views” shows some degree of lack of understanding of the two.
There is still no need to call this a silly game. I apparently have a lack of understanding. Please free to explain so I can better understand.
Z,
It appears that you are trolling for ammunition to use against believers. If that is the case, it’s a silly game. If it’s not the case, then my bad. I’m sure there are plenty of resources that will allow you to explore the theological differences between RC and protestants, so I don’t need to do that here.
No, it’s not “ammunition”.
I see there’s a lot of variation between the beliefs held by the many who participate here and I’m just trying to understand just what people believe. While all of us can agree that the bulk of these beliefs fall under the umbrella of Christianity, there are those who do not hesitate to throw others under the bus based on a different interpretation of the same texts.
OK
zqtx,
Glenn is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I understand the Catholic faith because I used to be Catholic. My children were baptized Catholic. But now we are Lutheran. We decided to make a switch, but not because of the so called “false teachings” of the Catholic church.
Glenn,
I wouldn’t mind doing a debate post about this issue. It comes up an awful lot among Christians, so maybe John will do such a post with me. It’d be interesting.
TerranceH
While there are biblical teachings in the Romanist church, what sets Rome apart from the true Church are the distinctive apostate and heretical teachings. I addressed most of them on my blog.
The unbiblical nature of papal infallibility and the magisterium:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/papacy-infallibility-and-magisterium.html
The unbiblical nature of Rome’s teachings on baptism:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/roman-catholic-baptism-is-unbiblical.html
The unbiblical nature of Rome’s teachings on sin, purgatory and indulgences:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/unbiblical-catholic-sin-purgatory-and.html
The unbiblical and idolatrous nature of the eucharist:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-eucharist-unbiblical-and.html
The unbiblical Mariology and Mariolatry.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/mary-mother-of-church-is-not-mary-of.html
The unbiblical iconography and adoration of the saints.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/06/catholic-iconography-and-saints.html
The unbiblical beliefs about “relics” as well as evolution;
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/04/roman-catholics-relics-and-evolution.html
And even some miscellaneous stuff:
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-reasons-why-romanist-church-isnt.html
And, by the way, it isn’t just my opinion that Roman Catholicism is apostate and heretical, it is a bonafide fact! That, after all, was the reason behind the Reformation!
Terrence,
I certainly agree – everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unfortunately, these opinions are not often factual, regardless of one’s conviction. These opinions are then passed to children who often accept it without question. We are quick to point to what we may think are false teachings by others while we confidently assert what we believe to be true. People do it all over the world.
Discussing beliefs can be tricky. I’ve found is that it’s difficult to have objective discussions with folks about their belief systems without them feeling as though their own identity is being attacked.
I think there is a general disdain towards non-believers from all denominations of Christianity, but it’s interesting to see the attitudes towards other denominations as well. So what was your motivation for leaving Catholicism for Lutheranism?
Glenn,
Rather than respond to the entire list – because I’m going to review John’s post on Catholicism – let me respond to the first one for now.
This is a simple misconception. The word “infallible” has a more specific definition in this context. In fact, even dictionaries recognize this.
Dictionary.Com
This doesn’t mean the Pope is a perfect human being incapable of making mistakes. It is an affirmation of the promise made by Jesus Christ to His Church: that the Holy Spirit would “guide you to all truth.” (John 16:13). Catholics believe the Pope is being guided by the Holy Spirit when speaking of matters of faith and morality.
Agree with it or not, it’s a belief based on Scripture. (John 16:13).
Most of the objections to Catholic doctrine represent more of a misunderstanding than anything else.
Being Lutheran, I’ve read a lot about Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. My opinion is that it was absolutely needed at the time because the Catholic church was corrupt. Pope Leo X sent indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel to raise money for St. Peters Basilica, but that money was coming largely from poor people. The Church was telling these peasants that they needed to give money to the church in order to get into heaven. Martin Luther found this deplorable, so confronted Johann Tetzel with the Ninety-Five Theses. Once Pope Leo X got wind of it, he asked Luther to renounce the writing. Luther refused and was excommunicated.
Nearly all large organizations have an element of corruption. I know you tried to make a point with a list of crooked Popes, but the connection cannot be made. Catholics do not believe the Pope is perfect or infallible as a human being. This is merely a misconception. And, like I said, all large organizations have an element of corruption. This reflects the sinful nature of human beings. It doesn’t mean the Catholic doctrine is unbiblical. To reject the Church’s doctrine as unbiblical because the church has had a strong element of corruption is like rejecting the Constitution because the United States has an element of corruption in government. It makes no sense.
Terrance
I am fully aware of what the term infallible means, and they didn’t get it from the Bible at all. Did you even look at that article?
zqtx,
I generally agree with the bulk of what you said .Except I think that the disdain comes from both sides.
Our Catholic church was too caught up in ceremony. The services began to lose their meaning. And the Preist was all but a ghost. I actually never met Him. You see, we’d attended that particular Catholic church ever since we moved from our childhood town. We’d attended it for about a year, met a few people here and there, but never met the Preist. Which is weird, because most churches have at least some sort of family get together or function at which you can introduce yourself. Well, not this church.
Anyway, we moved again.And I expressed my desire to send my children to a private school. Well, there was this Lutheran school right down the road from our house. It had some of the best performance scores around, so I met with the school principle and church pastor, and decided to send my kids there. We started attending services at the church, liked it, took their classes, and became Lutheran.
Glenn,
I looked at the article, but I think most of it merely reflects the sinful nature of human beings. It doesn’t support the conclusion that Catholic doctrine is unbiblical.
You’re obviously a smart guy, so I have no doubt you know what the term infallible means. But it has a specific meaning in the Catholic doctrine that non-Catholics may not be aware of. The Dictionary.Com definition:
The most important words being in expounding matters of faith and morals… That’s all the term means with respect to the Pope: that through Jesus’ promise, the Pope will be guided to the truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). It doesn’t mean the Pope is a perfect human being incapable of making mistakes. Your post shows beautifully that Popes can be just crooked as anyone else.
I will respond to your other concerns in an actual post. Don’t think I’m ignoring them. I’ll address them.
Terrance,
Um, that is the definition I was using, and if you read the entire article you would have seen this: So, just what does this doctrine teach? Whenever the pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, from his chair of authority, he cannot and does not teach false doctrine. Vatican II goes so far as to say that even when he does not speak ex cathedra, Catholics are still expected to obey him without question. Bearing in mind this teaching, look again at some of the teachings and decrees made by popes in the past and then ask yourself if the pope is really infallible, whether or not he is speaking ex cathedra? Do the examples of actions of the papacy in the past (and numerous more examples could be cited) demonstrate that the papal office has any special connection with God, or that it represents Christ on Earth? The answer must be, “no.”
So in reality it doesn’t matter whether he speaks from the chair or not!
Firstly, I demonstrated just exactly the character of these so-called representatives of Christ and how ungodly they were before I even got into the doctrine. How it was the Papacy who chose themselves to be head honchos of the entire church. There was no such office for the first few hundred years. The doctrine of infallibility itself somehow didn’t become official until 1870 – such a long time for God to not reveal this dogma.
The other point made, using THEIR definition, is how many proclamations were made from the chair which were heretical even by today’s Romanist doctrine. And that there was at one time three popes at once – so which one was the infallible one?
Your John passage, by the way, was specifically to the apostles, who were indeed given supernatural understanding and powers of healing, etc for their ministry after Jesus’ ascension.
I also pointed out that the doctrine of infallibility includes that which all the bishops agree on. And this doctrine leads to the magisterium, which claims that the church’s teaching on the Bible is superior to the Bible itself, because no one can individually understand the true meaning of Scripture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have the same doctrine, by the way.
You misunderstood my argument, Glenn. I’m saying THAT is in Catholic doctrine because of a promise made by Jesus. I didn’t say that every single thing said by the Pope is decreed by God.
You wanted to know why Catholics believe in Papal infallibility, and I answered the question. I never argued that Popes were, in fact, infallible with respect to anything, including in matters of faith and morality. Clearly they are just as crooked and sinful as the rest of us. But I’m not justifying their actions; I’m justifying the Catholic doctrine, and I provided a Biblical reference. Now, you can argue, as you have, that Jesus made that promise to the apostles, but it was an apostle that founded the Catholic church. Catholics believe, perhaps incorrectly, that the promise is carried on from Pope to Pope. You can argue that’s wrong or silly, but you can’t argue, as you have, that the idea is unbiblical.
It also seems likely that, in order to be guided by God, you must first believe in Him. So many Popes were in it for power, not faith.
Terrance,
John 16:13 has nothing to do with the Papacy, and cannot be used to support infallibility, without totally twisting it beyond all comprehension. Catholics believe in papal infallibility because they have been brainwashed to believe it and not because it is found in Scripture. There were disputes over the issue for centuries until in 1870 when all disputes were silenced by the declaration of a dogma.
Glenn…
by the way, it isn’t just my opinion that Roman Catholicism is apostate and heretical, it is a bonafide fact!
Once again, confusing opinion with fact. It is an opinion that the Catholic Church is apostate and heretical. You have nothing objective by which to measure that claim to make it a fact.
Now, you might be able to say something like, “Given the accepted tenets of the Southern Baptist (or name your group) church, to Southern Baptists, the Catholic teaching about (name your topic) is, TO SOUTHERN BAPTISTS, heretical…” That is, you might be able to objectively say that some specific Catholic tenet is contrary to some specific Other Denomination tenet, to the point of being “heretical,” but it really remains in the field of Opinion, until such point as you can objectively measure it.
And you can’t, and you don’t.
Is that a pig I see flying? Is that cool breeze coming from hell? Dan and I actually agree on something…
Oh, and Terrance, If yo agree with Dan, you are in error.
Rome is apostate and heretical. Remember, that was the reason for the Reformation.
Troll Trabue,
Get a new schtick – your stupid cliche is getting really old and is always the same lie as it was when you first wrote it!
It is a 100% fact that the Romanist church is apostate and heretical when measured against the Bible itself! But since you have no understanding of what the Bible says yourself, you would have no way of knowing that!
The proof is in the links I provided to my articles on Rome.
Glenn…
It is a 100% fact that the Romanist church is apostate and heretical when measured against the Bible itself!
Whose interpretation of the Bible?
You see, as SOON AS you start using YOUR imagination/intellect to start INTERPRETING a document whose words/intent can’t be proven objectively, you move into SUBJECTIVE opinion. That’s no insult, Glenn. MY interpretations are subjective opinion, too, as are Terrance’s as are John’s. It’s just a fact that if you offer your opinion about what a text means and you have no way of verifying your opinion is THE ONE right answer, factually speaking, you have an opinion.
As is nearly always the case, you conflate your opinions with facts and your opinions with God’s Word and that is where you run astray.
Actually, I’d think you’d approve of some of the Catholic teachings. After all, you appear to agree with the idea of people sometimes being infallible on some matters. You have stated yourself that “I can NOT be mistaken on this point…” meaning you agree with the obviously nutty opinion of human infallibility. As far as that point being heretical, well, if it’s heretical for the pope, then it’s heretical for you, too.
Where specifically am I mistaken? (Please offer something other than opinion, or admit that you’re only speaking of YOUR OWN opinion.)
Peace.
Trabue,
It is interesting how every single Protestant apologist out there says the same thing about Roman Catholicism that I have said, but we are all in error because Trabue has spoken. We just have opinions but you have facts.
By the way, knowing facts is not a claim to infallibility. I know 2+2=4, and that I am 100% correct in that, yet you would call that claiming to be perfect and to be infallible. Your claims in this regard are nothing more than typical Trabue foolishness.
In Trabue’s book, NO ONE has the right understanding of Scripture. Which is why he can claim the Bible approves of homosexuality.
Prove me wrong about RCC from Scripture or keep your foolish comments to yourself.
Glenn…
It is interesting how every single Protestant apologist out there says the same thing about Roman Catholicism that I have said
This is, of course, a false statement. Almost any time you say “EVERY…” protestant, baptist, reformed church, whatever… anytime you say “Every” anything, you are almost certainly mistaken. Of course not every protestant apologist would agree with you. After all, this post is written by a protestant apologist who disagrees with you.
The point remains obvious: It is a fact that any time someone offers an OPINION about an INTERPRETATION of a text that is not provable, that opinion is, by definition, an opinion and subjective and not demonstrably a fact. That you think the Bible (as YOU interpret it) supports your hunch does not make your hunch less a hunch.
It’s all by definition a mistake on your part. Simple English mistakes.
Trabue,
Let’s put it this way. I have read materials from hundreds of ORTHODOX Christian protestant apologists (this immediately leaves you out since you are unorthodox and a fake Christian – as has been proven multitudes of times
http://wolfsheep2.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/false-teacher-profile-updated/ ) and every single one of them agrees with me about Roman Catholicism. The Reformation was started because they agreed that Rome was apostate.
It is no one’s opinion – it is a fact. All one has to do is compare their teachings with what the Bible ACTUALLY says vs what people like Trabue WISHED it would say. It is not a hunch, it is a fact that Romanism is apostate.
Take your lying false teachings elsewhere.