Comments on: The Churchian Weed [Schism and Unity].

By: Butterfly Flower

Sat, 08 Mar 2014 17:31:00 +0000

“[..]With a Pope treating all sacraments like something that does nothing else than improving your day…”

The problem with Mundabor’s[?] criticism of Pope Francis, is that sacraments were never believed to render Catholics infallible. Catholics like to think they do – but that is just wishful thinking akin to the Baptist addendum “once saved, always saved”. Comforting, but scriptural-ly inaccurate.

My issue with overly-powerful sacraments is that it leads to ignoring of scripture, and (as bizarre as this may seem) the divorce of Christ from Communion. Confession and Communion are what lead to heaven – not Christ. (I know that’s not official Catholic doctrine; but here in America, Catholic Churches like to support that myth – it appeals to the overwhelmingly progressive Catholic majority).

From an Ex-Catholic perspective, I admire Pope Francis for his willingness to tackle widespread false doctrine. However; I can see why critics accuse him of being Protestant. Using scripture to define religious practices is rather a Protestant argument.

]]>

By: chrisgale

Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:14:00 +0000

Even this reformed guy (remember, we are the ones who said that the Pope was the antichrist during the reformation) is praying for the RCC. Because they are the point of the spear right now.

]]>

By: chrisgale

Sat, 08 Mar 2014 00:13:00 +0000

Yeah, I knew of them. And having worshipped with them over the summer, they are truly reformed and truly orthodox. Moreover, they are not stupid: they know that they are not a pure group — that is the anabaptist heresy.

It is about relationships. If the group in the PCANZ go liberal in theology (I live in a university town, left wing and green politics is conventional here) then I’m gone, But until then I will try to preserve unity.

]]>

By: Novaseeker

Fri, 07 Mar 2014 22:25:00 +0000

Francis is concerning. I do think he means well, but he seems to deliberately phrase things in a way intended to be an olive branch to the disaffected precisely by blurring what he means. The latest is his bit about civil unions, which gays everywhere on the planet are latching onto as the Church moving in the direction of at least being indifferent to civil gay unions, and accepting these people as regular churchgoers and at the chalice and so on. I don’t think that’s what he intends, but I think what he does intend is to make it vague and blurry enough that he can attract the disaffected back to the church. It’s a gamble. These folks, if they do come back, are going to want their bennies. If they end up being empty-handed, they won’t be much happier with the church than they are now.

]]>

By: Wiless

Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:49:00 +0000

You’re welcome.

(For pointing you towards it.)

]]>